ACCESSION OF TURKEY IN THE

EUROPEAN UNION.

Bahria Institute of Management and Computer

Sciences

Turkey's application to accede to the European Union was made on 14 April

1987. Turkey has been an associate member of the European (EU) and its

predecessors since 1963. After the ten founding members, Turkey was one of

the first countries to become a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and

was also a founding member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development ECD) in 1961 and the Organization for Security and Co-operation

in Europe (OSCE) in 1973. The country has also been an associate member of

the Western European Union since 1992, and is a part of the "Western Europe"

branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United

Nations. Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and

was officially recognized as a candidate for full membership on 12 December

1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council. This is despite the fact

that only 3% of the country actually is geographically in Europe. Negotiations

were started on 3 October 2005, and the process, should it be in Turkey's favor,

is likely to take at least a decade to complete. The membership bid has become

a major controversy of the ongoing enlargement of the European Union.

History of Turkey

Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye), known officially as the Republic of Turkey ,is

a Eurasian country that stretches across the Anatolian peninsula in Western

Asia and Thrace in the Balkan region of southeastern Europe. Turkey is bordered

by eight countries: Bulgaria to the northwest; Greece to the west; Georgia to the

northeast; Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iranto the east; and Iraq and Syria to the

southeast. The Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus are to the south; the Aegean

Sea to the west; and the Black Sea is to the north.

Turkey is a country of significant geostrategic importance. Ethnic Turks form the

majority of the population, followed by the Kurds. The predominant religion in

Turkey is Islam and its official language is Turkish.  Turkey has also fostered

close cultural, political, economic and industrial relations with the Eastern world,

particularly with the Middle East and the Turkic states of Central Asia, through

membership in organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic

Conference and Economic Cooperation Organization. Turkey is classified as a

developed country by the CIA and as a regional power by political scientists and

economists worldwide.

After the Ottoman Empire's collapse following World War I, Turkish

revolutionaries led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk emerged victorious in the Turkish

War of Independence, establishing the modern Turkish Republic as it exists

today. Atatürk, then Prime Minister and later President of Turkey, implemented a

series of reforms, including secularization and industrialization, intended to

modernize the country. During World War II, Turkey remained neutral until

February 1945, when it joined the Allies. The country took part in the Marshall

Plan of 1947, became a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and a

member of NATO in 1952.  During the Cold War, Turkey allied itself with

the United States and Western Europe.

The European Union

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member

countries, located primarily in Europe. Committed to regional integration, the EU

was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993 upon the

foundations of the European Communities. With over 500 million citizens, the EU

combined generates an estimated 28% share (US$ 16.45 trillion in 2009) of

the nominal gross world product and about 21.3% (US$14.8 trillion in 2009) of

the PPP gross world product.

The EU has developed a single market through a standardized system of laws

which apply in all member states, ensuring the free movement of people, goods,

services, and capitalists maintains common policies on trade,

agriculture, fisheries and regional development. Sixteen member states have

adopted a common currency, the euro, constituting the Eurozone. The EU has

developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the World

Trade Organization, G8, G-20 major economies and at the United Nations. It

enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, including the abolition of passport

controls by the Schengen Agreement between 22 EU and 3 non-EU states.

Membership in the EU in 1960s–1990s

The country first applied for associate membership in the European Economic

Community in 1959, and on 12 September 1963 signed the "Agreement Creating

An Association Between The Republic of Turkey and the European Economic

Community", also known as the Ankara Agreement. This agreement came into

effect the following year on 12 December 1964. The Ankara Agreement sought to

integrate Turkey into a customs union with the EEC whilst acknowledging the

final goal of membership. In November 1970, a further protocol called the

"Additional Protocol" established a timetable for the abolition of tariffs and quotas

on goods traded between Turkey and the EEC.

On 14 April 1987, Turkey submitted its application for formal membership into the

European Community. The European Commission responded in December 1989

by confirming Ankara’s eventual membership but also by deferring the matter to

more favorable times, citing Turkey’s economic and political situation, as well its

poor relations with Greece and the conflict with Cyprus as creating an

unfavorable environment with which to begin negotiations. This position was

confirmed again in the Luxembourg European Council of 1997 in which

accession talks were started with central and eastern European states and

Cyprus, but not Turkey. During the 1990s, Turkey proceeded with a closer

integration with the European Union by agreeing to a customs union in 1995.

Moreover, the Helsinki European Council of 1999 proved a milestone as the EU

recognized Turkey as a candidate on equal footing with other potential

candidates.

Move towards the EU in the 2000s

The next significant step in Turkey–EU relations came with the December 2002

Copenhagen European Council. According to it, "the EU would open negotiations

with Turkey 'without delay' if the European Council in December 2004, on the

basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides that

Turkey fulfills the Copenhagen political criteria."

The European Commission recommended that the negotiations should begin in

2005, but also added various precautionary measures. The EU leaders agreed

on 16 December 2004 to start accession negotiations with Turkey from 3 October

2005, despite an offer from the Austrian People's Party and the German Christian

Democratic Union of a privileged partnership status, a less than full membership,

and EU accession negotiations were officially launched.

Turkey's accession talks have since been stalled by a number of domestic and

external problems. Both Austria and France have said they would hold a

referendum on Turkey's accession. In the case of France, a change in its

Constitution was made to impose such a referendum. The issue of Cyprus

continues to be a major obstacle to negotiations. European officials have

commented on the slowdown in Turkish reforms which, combined with the

Cyprus problem, led the EU’s Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn in March

2007 to warn of an impeding ‘train crash’ in the negotiations. Due to these

setbacks, negotiations again came to a halt in December 2006, with the EU

freezing talks in 8 of the 35 key areas under negotiation.

To accede to the EU, Turkey must first successfully complete negotiations with

the European Commission on each of the 35 chapters of the acquis

communautaire, the total body of EU law. Afterwards, the member states must

unanimously agree on granting Turkey membership to the European Union.

( Appendix 1).

Turkish Membership Issues

Proponents of Turkey's membership argue that it is a key regional power with a

large economy and the second largest military force of NATO that will enhance

the EU's position as a global geostrategic player; given Turkey's geographic

location and economic, political, cultural and historic ties in regions with large

natural resources that are at the immediate vicinity of the EU's geopolitical

sphere of influence; such as the East Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts, the

Middle East, the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia.

Some trade benefits and disadvantages have been listed below:

The Turkish high-speed railway network and the Marmaray tunnel can

play an important role in improving trade and commerce between the EU

and Turkey.

According to the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, "the accession of

Turkey would give the EU a decisive role for stability in the eastern part of

the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, which is clearly in the strategic

interest of Europe." One of Turkey's key supporters for its bid to join the

EU is the United Kingdom.

Upon joining the EU, Turkey's 71 million inhabitants would bestow the

second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament.

Demographic projections indicate that Turkey would surpass Germany in

the number of seats by 2020.[16]

Turkey's membership would also affect future enlargement plans,

especially the number of nations seeking EU membership, grounds on

which Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has opposed Turkey's admission. Giscard

has suggested that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco.

Morocco's application is already rejected on geographic grounds; while

Turkey, unlike Morocco, has a small amount of territory in Europe. French

President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in January 2007 that "enlarging Europe

with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not

accept...I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all

countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with

Turkey which has no place inside the European Union." EU member

states must unanimously agree on Turkey's membership for the Turkish

accession to be successful. A number of nations may oppose it; notably

Austria, which historically served as a bulwark for Christian Europe

against the Ottoman Empire whose armies twice laid siege to Vienna in

1529 and 1683; and France, where some are anxious at the prospect of a

new wave of Muslim immigrants, given the country's already large Muslim

community.

France and its requirements:

Negotiations to remove the French constitutional requirement for a compulsory

referendum on all EU accessions after Croatia resulted in a new proposal to

require a compulsory referendum on the accession of any country with a

population of more than 5% of the EU's total population; this clause would mainly

apply to Turkey and Ukraine. The French Senate, however, blocked the change

in the French constitution, in order to maintain good relations with Turkey.

Foreign relations with EU member states

Cyprus

The island of Cyprus was divided as a result of the Turkish invasion on 20 July

1974. Since then, Turkey has refused to acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus (an

EU member since 2004) as the sole authority on the island, and recognizes the

self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus since its establishment in

1983. The Turkish invasion in 1974 and the resulting movement of refugees

along both sides of the Green Line; and the establishment of the self-declared

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983 form the core issues which

surround the ongoing Cyprus dispute.

Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots backed the 2004 Annan Plan for Cyprus aimed

at the reunification of the island, but the plan was subsequently rejected by

Greek Cypriots on the grounds that it did not meet their needs. According to

Greek Cypriots, the latest proposal included maintained residence rights for the

many Anatolian Turks who moved to Cyprus after the invasion (and their

descendants who were born on the island after 1974), while the Greek Cypriots

who lost their property after the Turkish invasion would be granted only a

restricted right of return to the north following the island's proposed reunification.

[citation needed] Although the outcome received much criticism in the EU as

well, the Republic of Cyprus was admitted into the EU a week after the

referendum.

The Turkish government has refused to officially recognize the Republic of

Cyprus until the removal of the political and economic blockade on the Turkish

Republic of Northern Cyprus. Turkey's non-recognition of the Republic of Cyprus

has led to complications within the Customs Union. Under the customs

agreements which Turkey had already signed as a precondition to start EU

membership negotiations in 2005, it is obliged to open its ports to Cypriot planes

and vessels, but Turkey refuses to do this.

Turkey’s refusal to implement a trade pact between Turkey and the EU that

requires the Turkish Government allow Greek Cypriot vessels to use its air and

sea ports has prompted the EU to freeze eight chapters in Turkey’s accession

talks.

In November 2009, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said "Either

Cyprus or the EU, Turkey’s choice will forever be to stand next to the Turkish

Cypriots. Everybody should understand this."

Greece

Greece has been supportive overall of Turkish membership, with Greek Prime

Minister Kostas Karamanlis declaring, "Full compliance, full accession" in

December 2006. In 2005 the European Commission referred to relations

between Turkey and Greece as "continuing to develop positively" while also

citing the lack of progress made by Turkey in dropping their claim of casus belli

over a dispute about territorial waters boundaries.

Public reactions

Public opinion In the EU

Public opinion in EU countries generally opposes Turkish membership, though

with varying degrees of intensity. The Euro barometer September-October 2006

survey shows that 59% of EU-27 citizens are against Turkey joining the EU,

while only about 28% are in favor. Nearly all citizens (about 9 in 10) expressed

concerns about human rights as the leading cause. In the earlier March-May

2006 Euro barometer, citizens from the new member states were more in favor of

Turkey joining (44% in favor) than the old EU-15 (38% in favor). At the time of the

survey, the country whose population most strongly opposed Turkish

membership was Austria (con: 81%), while Romania was most in favour of the

accession (pro: 66%). On a wider political scope, the highest support comes from

the Turkish Cypriot Community (pro: 67%) (Which is not recognized as sovereign

state and is de facto not EU territory and out of the European institutions). These

communities are even more in favor of the accession than the Turkish populace

itself (pro: 54%).Opposition in Denmark to Turkish membership was polled at

60% in October 2007, despite the Danish government's support for Turkey's EU

bid.

EU sets date for membership talks with Turkey

The opening of membership talks with the EU in December 2004 was celebrated

by Turkey with much fanfare, but the Turkish populace has become increasingly

skeptical as negotiations are delayed based on what it views as lukewarm

support for its accession to the EU and alleged double standards in its

negotiations particularly with regard to the French and Austrian referendums. A

mid-2006 Euro barometer survey revealed that 43% of Turkish citizens view the

EU positively; just 35% trust the EU, 45% support enlargement and just 29%

support an EU constitution.

The Security Issues involved in Turkey’s accession to the EU.

Some of the critical security issues and tensions involved in Turkey’s accession

to the EU and the related question of Turkey’s relationships with its allies can be

illuminated by:

1) a better understanding of the potential threats that regional powers pose to

Turkey’s existence, and

2) a comparison of US and EU perceptions of the threats to Turkey and their

differing assessments of Turkey’s potential role in furthering their own security

interests.

1. Turkey’s Vulnerability to External Threats as Factors Regarding EU

Accession

Since the Gulf War, and in the context of what it has seen as an increasingly

hostile post-Cold War regional environment, Turkey’s more activist foreign

policies towards its neighbors contrast markedly with its prior, more conservative

foreign policies. Explanations for these policies are not mutually exclusive. As

Deputy Chief of staff General Cevik Bir observed in 1997, some of Turkey’s

neighboring states continue to claim Turkish territory (one could cite Armenia,

Syria, and Greece); some try to export regimes contrary to Turkey’s constitutional

order (one could cite Iran); and some have supported terrorism against Turkey

(one could cite Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and, relatively recently, Greece)

2. US and European views on the importance of Turkey in the geopolitical

arena.

Just as there are vulnerabilities associated with living in a tough neighborhood,

so there are strengths associated with this situation for Turkey’s allies. In that

context, Turkey's strategic importance as seen by both the United States and the

EU is a comparison that underscores their very different perspectives. The

United States, with its global responsibilities, has long supported Turkey because

of its location and strategic importance in the Caucasus, the Middle East, and the

Balkans. The EU, constrained by institutional impediments in addressing

collective responsibilities and establishing its collective identity, is divided over

the best means to secure its defense interests.

Diagnosis, Alternatives and their evaluation

What we have diagnosed in this report is that from the 1960’s up till now no

significant steps have been taken by both parties to properly address the issue of

accession. The problem lies where there are too many stakeholders within one

party. Whenever steps are made for accession of Turkey, these stakeholders

come into action. Problems are addressed and the issue is put on hold. The two

major blockers we have identified are France and Germany. Currently right of

center parties in both France and Germany, the EU’s most powerful members,

are strongly opposed to Turkish accession into the EU believing that the country

should be given the status of a privileged partner.

The accession of Turkey is a conflict in which many countries are involved and

have a direct interest. Some countries are opposing the idea of admitting Turkey

into the EU as they believe that it would have a great strategic impact.

The following are some of the alternatives we have identified and their pros and

cons:

Option1: Avoid Turkey’s admission in the EU adopt a LOOK EAST POLICY If

this does not work out the next alternative Turkey has is to withdraw from

accession. Currently Turkey alone is doing well by itself and many people in

Turkey believe that an accession into the EU is no longer a requirement.

Recently Turkey has tried to reassert its influence in former Ottoman Empire

countries like the Middle East and Gulf. This has been evidenced by the leading

role Turkey is mediating in Palestinian Israeli talks. Turkey has also moved to

expand its fair of influence in Africa. In a recent tour to the continent by the

Turkish president along with a large business delegation shows that the country

is looking elsewhere to expand trade and economic ties.

If Turkey is facing opposition it must withdraw its decision from entering the EU.

This decision would reduce the concerns many countries have over Turkey’s

accession. On the other hand turkey would not have to replace its currency (lira)

with the euro if it accepts entrance in the euro zone. The disadvantage of using

the euro would be that Turkey’s economy would be dependent upon the

exchange rate of the euro. If there is any fluctuation in the euro the imports and

exports of Turkey would be affected directly and they would have little control

over determining the rate. Before Turkey takes any decision in relation to other

countries or even purchases any equipment, they must follow EU standards.

Option 2: Accommodate Turkey in the EU. Turkey should be considered as a

member of the EU. If Turkey is accepted as a member by other EU states it

would have many advantages. Turkey would be the first Muslim country to join

the EU. It would boost trade between Turkeys, other EU countries as well the

rest of the world as being an EU member has a good impact on a country’s

image. Turkey would have a strong currency the Euro. New business

opportunities would open for Turkish businesses who could reach out further to

more consumers.

Disadvantages include:

Turkey would become dependent upon EU decisions.

It could lose autonomy over its foreign affairs.

EU could face challenges such as threats from Turkey’s neighbors as

mentioned above.

If Turkey ever faces financial problems it would be the responsibility of

other EU members to bail the country out. More conflicts could emerge; an

example of such an incident is the recent bail out of Greece by EU

countries.

Option3: Compromise on Turkey’s accession. Certain conditions of Turkey

should be considered and accepted by the EU and vice versa. This would lead to

a win-win situation for both the parties. Basically the EU is a governing body

which governs different countries. Hence the EU is a direct party as well as itself

a 3rd party which has the job of accommodating countries that are its members.

To resolve this conflict the United Nations could be brought into the issue as a

third party decision maker. This would lead to better understanding of the issue

and more parties (countries) would be involved in making the right decision. A

disadvantage of this option would be that some countries might favor European

countries as they might have stronger ties e.g. Australia and America.

What we have concluded and our recommendations

We believe that Turkey is not being considered as a member of the EU because

of its strategic location and it being a Muslim country. EU countries believe that

Turkey has strong relations with countries which have been involved in terrorist

activities. We recommend that this case be contested by Turkey in the United

Nations. Kemal Attaturk’s vision of Turkey as a modern secular state integrating

with Europe led the country to ignore its eastern borders. Even if Turkey does not

gain full membership it could gain economic advantages without compromising

on EU policies.

Turkey has the advantage of a strong strategic position on the globe. It can be

considered as the border between the eastern and the western world. Turkey has

the advantage of trading with both sides of the globe and not becoming the

member of the European Union we believe won’t have such a drastic effect ion

the country. Recent visits by the Turkish Prime minister and delegates to

Pakistan and other states, shows Turkeys growing interest in their look east

policy. Also the people of Turkey have expressed their growing frustration

towards the delays in the country’s accession.

Annexure

Acquis chapter

EC Assessment

At Start

Screening Started

Screening Completed

Chapter Opened

Chapter Closed

Chapter Frozen

Chapter Unfrozen

1. Free Movement of Goods

Further efforts needed

16.1.2006 24.2.2006 – – 11.12.2006

2. Freedom of Movement For Workers

Very hard to adopt

19.7.2006 11.9.2006 – –8/12/2009 (by CY)

3. Right of Establishment For Companies & Freedom To Provide Services

Very hard to adopt

21.11.2005 20.12.2005 3.10.2005 – 11.12.2006

4. Free Movement of Capital

Further efforts needed

25.11.2005 22.12.2005 – – –

5. Public Procurement

Totally incompatible with acquis

7.11.2005 28.11.2005 – – –

6. Company Law

Considerable efforts needed

21.6.2006 20.7.2006 17.6.2008 – –

7. Intellectual Property Law

Further efforts needed

6.2.2006 3.3.2006 17.6.2008 – –

8. Competition Policy

Very hard to adopt

8.11.2005 2.12.2005 – – –

9. Financial Services

Considerable efforts needed

29.3.2006 3.5.2006 3.10.2005 – 11.12.2006

10. Information Society & Media

Further efforts needed

12.6.2006 14.7.2006 19.12.2008 – –

11. Agriculture & Rural

Very hard to adopt

5.12.2005 26.1.2006 – – 11.12.2006

Development

12. Food Safety, Veterinary & Phytosanitary Policy

Very hard to adopt

9.3.2006 28.4.2006 – – –

13. FisheriesVery hard to adopt

24.2.2006 31.3.2006 – – 11.12.2006

14. Transport Policy

Considerable efforts needed

26.6.2006 28.9.2006 – – 11.12.2006

15. EnergyConsiderable efforts needed

15.5.2006 16.6.2006 – –8/12/2009 (by CY)

16. TaxationConsiderable efforts needed

6.6.2006 12.7.2006 30.6.2009 – –

17. Economic & Monetary Policy

Considerable efforts needed

16.2.2006 23.3.2006 19.12.2008 – –

18. StatisticsConsiderable efforts needed

19.6.2006 18.7.2006 25.6.2007 – –

19. Social Policy & Employment

Considerable efforts needed

8.2.2006 22.3.2006 – – –

20. Enterprise & Industrial Policy

No major difficulties expected

27.3.2006 5.5.2006 29.3.2007 – –

21. Trans-European Networks

Considerable efforts needed

30.6.2006 29.9.2006 19.12.2007 – –

22. Regional Policy & Coordination of Structural Instruments

Considerable efforts needed

11.9.2006 10.10.2006 – – –

23. Judiciary & Fundamental Rights

Considerable efforts needed

7.9.2006 13.10.2006 – –8/12/2009 (by CY)

24. Justice, Freedom & Security

Considerable efforts needed

23.1.2006 15.2.2006 – –8/12/2009 (by CY)

25. Science & Research

No major difficulties expected

20.10.2005 14.11.2005 12.6.2006 12.6.2006 –

26. Education & Culture

Further efforts needed

26.10.2005 16.11.2005 – –8/12/2009 (by CY)

27. Environment

Totally incompatible with acquis

3.4.2006 2.6.2006 21.12.2009[28] – –

28. Consumer & Health Protection

Further efforts needed

8.6.2006 11.7.2006 19.12.2007 – -

29. Customs Union

No major difficulties expected

31.1.2006 14.03.2006 – – 11.12.2006

30. External Relations

No major difficulties

10.7.2006 13.9.2006 – – 11.12.2006

expected

31. Foreign, Security & Defence Policy

Further efforts needed

14.9.2006 6.10.2006 – –8/12/2009 (by CY)

32. Financial Control

Further efforts needed

18.5.2006 30.6.2006 3.10.2005 – –

33. Financial & Budgetary Provisions

No major difficulties expected

6.9.2006 4.10.2006 – – –

34. InstitutionsNothing to adopt

– – – – –

35. Other Issues

Nothing to adopt

– – – – –

Progress 14 out of 331 out of 33

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/

Turkey_s_Accession_Negotiations_to_EU.pdf

www.gtmun.org/documents/2009/CEU/CEU-T3-CSituation.pdf -

Case Study on

Microsoft $ Apple

Submitted To: Sir Manzoor Awan

Submitted By: Anum Lodhi (Group Leader) Aeman khwaja Farwah Mehdi Sundus hamid Hira Fatima khan Maryam Rehman Mahum Bajwa Fatima Imran

BBA VI(D)

Microsoft

History:

Microsoft Corporation is a multinational computer technology corporation that develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of software products for computing devices. Headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA, its most profitable products are the Microsoft Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office suite of productivity software. As of the third quarter of 2009, Microsoft was ranked as the third largest company in the world, following Petro China and ExxonMobil. It is also one of the largest technological corporations in the world. Led by Bill Gates, the world's wealthiest individual and most famous businessman, Microsoft has succeeded in placing at least one of its products on virtually every personal computer in the world, setting industry standards and defining markets in the process. The company was founded on April 4, 1975, to develop and sell BASIC interpreters for the Altair 8800. Microsoft rose to dominate the home computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s, followed by the Windows line of operating systems. Many of its products have achieved near-ubiquity in the desktop computer market.With annual revenues of more than $32 billion, Microsoft Corporation is more than the largest software company in the world: it is a cultural phenomenon. The company's core business is based on developing, manufacturing, and licensing software products, including operating systems, server applications, business and consumer applications, and software development tools, as well as Internet software, technologies, and services .Throughout its history the company has been the target of criticism, including monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying. The U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission, among others, have ruled against Microsoft for antitrust violations.

APPLE

History: Apple is an American multinational corporation founded in 1976 in a garage in Santa Clara, California, Apple is the brainchild of Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, two college dropouts who sought to provide a user-friendly computer to a new and distinct market of small computer users. Between 1978 and 1980, sales increased from $7.8 million to $117 million, and in 1980 the company underwent its initial public stock offering. In 1983, Steve Wozinak left Apple. That same year Steve Jobs hired away John Sculley from Pepsi to be the company's president. After experiencing several product failures, Apple unveiled the Macintosh computer in 1984 to overwhelming success, setting the stage for Apple's rise and its recognition as a household name. By 1985, relations between Sculley and Jobs became contentious the company he helped found. CEO of Apple, John Sculley ignored Microsoft founder Bill Gates's appeal for Apple to license the Macintosh operating system to Microsoft. Gates had hoped to make the Macintosh platform an industry standard. However, with Sculley refusing to license the operating system, Gates

purchased and developed the DOS operating system, which has become the international operating standard for more than 90 percent of all personal computers in the world. By the late 1980s, competition from Microsoft's Windows operating system and the abject failure of Apple's Newton handheld computer caused the earnings of Apple to plunge, forcing a reduction in the Apple workforce and the resignation of John Sculley.

The Early 1980s:

Microsoft association with IBM and Apple:

Microsoft worked closely with Apple during the development of Apple's Macintosh computer, which was introduced in 1984. Revolutionary in its design, the Mac featured a graphical user interface based on icons rather than the typed commands used by the IBM PC, making its programs simple to use and easy to learn, even by computer novices. Microsoft introduced Mac versions of BASIC, Word, and the spreadsheet program Multiplan, and quickly became the leading supplier of applications for the Mac. Revenues jumped from $50 million in 1983 to nearly $100 million in 1984. In 1985 Microsoft also introduced Excel 1.0, a Mac spreadsheet product. Based on the earlier and less successful Multiplan, Excel gradually took hold against its principal competitor, Lotus 1-2-3, and eventually came to account for more than $1 billion of Microsoft's annual revenues. That same year Microsoft began collaborating with IBM on a next-generation operating system, called OS/2.

Apple organization structure:

Steve Jobs is the CEO and have direct control of the company. The nine senior vice presidents and their portfolio responsibilities are specified. Apple manages its business primarily on a geographic basis, with offices in the Americas, Europe, Japan, and Asia-Pacific. In addition, Apple operates and separate tracks sales in 86 retail stores with the majority located in the United States. Apple', products are primarily assembled in Sacramento, California; Cork, Ireland; and external vendors in Fullerton, California; Taiwan, Korea; the People's Republic of China; and the Czech R

Ronald B. Johnson Senior Vice President Retail

Timothy D. Cook Executive Vice President World wide Sales

Steven P. Jobs CEO

Nancy Heinen Senior Vice President General Counsel and Secretary

Ronald B. Johnson Senior Vice President Retail

Timothy D. Cook Executive Vice President World wide Sales

Peter Oppenheimer Senior Vice President

Chief CFO

Jonathan Rubinstein Senior Vice President Ipod Division

Philip W. SchiUer Senior Vice President Worldwide Product Marketing

Sina Tamaddon Senior Vice President Applications

Bertrand Serlet, Ph.D. Senior Vice President Software Engineering

Avadis Tevanian, Jr. Ph.D.Senior Vice President Chief Technology Officer

Steven P. Jobs CEO

Microsoft Organization Chart

Craig MundleCTO

David ColeVP, personal service design

Mich MatheasVP Mktg group

Eric Rudder VP Tools

David VaskevitchCTO

Bruce JaffeCFO

Hank vigilstrategies and partnership

Eric Rudder VP Tools

Jon DevvaanVP engineering strategy

Debra ChrapatyMSN operations Kia Fulee

Rick RashidVP Microsoft research

Juddy GibbonsVP Global sales and mktg

Will PouleVP Windows chart business

Bill GatesChairman and Chief Executive software

Steve BallmerCEO

Jeff RaikesGroup VP productivity

Jim All chinGroup VP platform Group

Windows 1.0

The first independent version of Microsoft Windows, version 1.0, released on 20 November 1985, achieved little popularity. It was originally going to be called "Interface Manager" but Rowland Hanson, the head of marketing at Microsoft, convinced the company that the name Windows would be more appealing to consumers. Windows 1.0 was not a complete operating system, but rather an "operating environment" that extended MS-DOS, and shared the latter's inherent flaws and problems. The first version of Microsoft Windows included a simple graphics painting program called Windows Paint, Windows Write, a simple word processor, an appointment "calendar", a "cardfiler", a "notepad", a "clock", a "control panel", a "computer terminal", "Clipboard", and RAMdriver. It also included the MS-DOS Executive and a game called Reversi.

Microsoft had worked with Apple Computer to develop several Desk Accessories and other minor pieces of software that were included with early Macintosh system software[citation needed]. As part of the related business negotiations, Microsoft had licensed certain aspects of the Macintosh user interface from Apple; in later litigation, a district court summarized these aspects as "screen displays". In the development of Windows 1.0, Microsoft intentionally limited its borrowing of certain GUI elements from the Macintosh user interface, in order to comply with its license.

Screenshot of Windows 1.0

For example, windows were only displayed "tiled" on the screen; that is, they could not overlap or overlie one another. There was no trash can icon with which to delete files, since Apple claimed ownership of the rights to that paradigm.

The Conflict:

Apple had previously agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0. When Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0.

Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the

existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.

Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple (ie, Apple had given Xerox Board members stock in exchange for access to the research performed at PARC) and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had passed

The Court Case

The district court ruled that it would require a standard of "virtual identity" between Windows and the Macintosh at trial in order for Apple to prove copyright infringement. Apple believed this to be too narrow of a standard and that a more broad "look and feel" was all that should be necessary at trial. As a result, both parties agreed that a jury trial was unnecessary given the rulings, and Apple filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to have the district court's characterization overruled.

After the district court ruled in favor of Microsoft, Apple appealed the decision arguing that the district court only considered infringements on the individual elements of Apple's GUI, rather than the interface as a whole. The appeals court almost entirely affirmed the ruling of the district court, establishing that, "almost all the similarities spring either from the license or from basic ideas and their obvious expression... illicit copying could occur only if the works as a whole are virtually identical." However, the circuit court did reverse the district court's decision not to award attorney's fees to Microsoft, clarifying and sending the case back to the district court to resolve the issue.

The circuit court dissected the GUI, following the lead of the district court, in order to separate expression from ideas (as expressions, but not ideas, are covered by copyright law). The court outlined five ideas that it identified as basic to a GUI desktop: windows, icon images of office items, manipulations of icons, menus, and the opening and closing

of objects. The court established that Apple could not make copyright claims based on these ideas and could only make claims on the precise expression of them.

The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly borrowed many of its representations from Xerox and IBM and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original.

The Impact:

Because much of the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, it made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple. This also meant that the court avoided a more far-reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. However, the case did establish that the analytic dissection (rather than the general "look and feel") of a user interface is vital to any copyright decision on such matters.

In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple’s “QuickTime against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.

In recent years, Apple has resumed threats of litigation in this area. Before the release of the Aqua GUI for Mac OS X, Apple threatened litigation against a Windows skin named WinAqua which was meant to emulate Apple's GUI based on a Mac OS X beta release. Similarly, Stardock released a desktop enhancement program for Windows, named DesktopX, which was similar to Aqua. Apple, however, demanded the company remove "anything that even remotely looks like Aqua.

The Cause and Effect Relation:

Back in 1975 and 1976, Microsoft was producing BASIC interpreters for nearly every microprocessor that was produced, in hopes of licensing or selling their BASIC to those who built a computer around that chip. In mid-1976, Microsoft's first employee, Marc McDonald, was given the job of creating a version of BASIC that would run on the then-

new 6502 microprocessor, even though there not yet any computers that used that processor. They became aware of Steve Wozniak's efforts in designing his 6502 computer (the Apple-1), and one of Microsoft's programmers called Steve Jobs to see if he would be interested in a BASIC language for this computer. Jobs told him that they already had a BASIC (remember that Wozniak had been writing BASIC interpreters before he even had a computer on which to run them), and if they needed a better one, they could "do it themselves over the weekend".

Even without a potential customer for this product, McDonald worked on this BASIC; using a modified 6800 microprocessor simulator (the 6800 had an instruction set that was similar to the 6502). For several months Microsoft had their 6502 BASIC sitting on a shelf, unwanted and unused. But by October 1976 they finally had a contract to put this interpreter into the new Commodore PET computer that was being designed. This would ultimately become the first time that BASIC was included with a computer built into the ROM, rather than being loaded from a paper tape, disk, or cassette. However, the contract Microsoft had with Commodore was no good to them at that time, as far as income was concerned; it stipulated that they would not be paid until some time in 1977, when the computer was to be finished and ready to ship. With income and cash reserves running dangerously low, Microsoft was given a reprieve by none other than Apple Computer .In August 1977, Apple made a $10,500 payment to Microsoft for the first half of a flat-fee license that they were able to negiotate. Typically, Microsoft would license its BASIC on a royalty basis; they would be paid a set fee for every copy of BASIC that went out the door -- in this case, with every computer that was sold.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates the founder of both these companies had many business dealings dating back to the 1977 release of the AppleSoft BASIC programming language. The name came from Joining Apple and MicroSoft. Gates went on to program for the early Mac computers which led to disputes about how much of the Mac's features were "borrowed" for Windows. The similarity among certain features created uproar as Microsoft was increasing on its market share and the rival company sought their claim in the success.

As an aftermath apple sought patents, a set of exclusive rights granted to them for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of this paradigm by filling a law suit against Microsoft. Thus Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation,( 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law] Because Mac's GUI was heavily based on unlicensed GUI

developed before by Xerox, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired. Apple lost all claims in the suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and file folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994 [1], and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

Possible options to resolve this Conflict:

Negotiation The authorities make a decision to resolve conflict Mediation Team counseling Arbitration Accomodation

1. Negotiation The best way to deal with conflict is negotiation.. Negotiation is the most effective response to conflict when parties stand to gain something, each has some power, and there is interdependency. Negotiation offers flexibility and viability those other responses, such as Avoidance, Confrontation, and Diffusion lack. The process of negotiation involves listening to both sides, seeking out common areas of interest and agreement, and building on them so that individuals can understand each other's points of view.

Merits1-increased understanding: Negotiation leads to mutual discussion needed to resolve conflict. It will expand the people’s awareness of the situation in both companies giving them an insight into how they can achieve their own goals without undermining those of other people as well as understanding the interests of the other party and learning their point of view while looking at the situation form various perspectives2-Increased group cohesion: When conflict will be resolved effectively, they will be able to develop stronger mutual respect, and a renewed faith in each other’s ability to work together and they will even try to keep the environment friendly as they have been working in collaboration with each other for decades on this project and will also be required in the future.3-Improved self-knowledge: Negotiation pushes individuals to examine their motives, gains and goals in close detail, helping them understand the things that are most important to them, sharpening their focus, and enhancing their effectiveness. Thus the

Microsoft and Apple companies will identify where they had been wrong and what they were gaining out of all this except for creating problems for each other and slowing the research process.4-Another advantage of negotiation is that it limits the number of players to those involved in the dispute. This allows for a focused approach to problem solving

Demerits 1-The biggest problem in the negotiation process would be willingness to negotiate the two companies will have to keep their difference aside and try to listen to what the other has to say2- If the viewpoints of the parties are too distant then progress is difficult to achieve. 

2. Authorities coming to decision The authorities can also come to a suitable decision after going through the entire situation and listening to both the Microsoft and the Apple companies for the betterment . Merits:1- The decision made would be of benefit to the entire company and would be exemplary Demerits:1- The final verdict may not be considering the interests of the two companies and may even worsen the situation2-The decision would have to be imposed and may be resisted having less value3- If the decision might suppress the conflict temporarily but it will not be a permanent solution

3. Mediation Mediation is another technique through which the conflict can be resolved. The mediator will propose solutions, trying out scenarios, trying to get commitment to a settlement by both companies. The mediator will go back and forth between the companies during this time, clearing up misunderstandings, and carrying information, proposals, and points of agreement.The mediator will work to find points of agreement between the two departments, in an effort to reach an agreement. At some point, the mediator may pose a final agreement for them and urge them to accept however it depends on the Microsoft or the Apple company to agree or not if not the mediator will come up with other possible terms of agreement.

Merits:1- Mediation has the advantage of allowing a neutral third party assist in helping find a resolution to conflicts

2- A mediator cannot force parties to accept a resolution but he or she can guide the parties to work from points of mutual agreement

Demerits:1- The mediator cannot enforce any decision and may lose credibility if no resolution is found to the problem2- It is very difficult to select a mediator and his credibility will always be argued by the compromising party. A mediator may suffer from the same bias problem3-If the mediator is from the organization his trust and personal gain is an issue and if form outside the expenses will be an issue.

4. Team counseling Another solution is to handle the conflict at a counseling meeting, put the problem on the next agenda and invite the necessary individuals. For this all the facts, relate the issue are brought in the open and are discussed in a private setting, documented, and signed. The Microsoft and the Apple companies can put their issue and problem on the agenda. Working with a professional team counselor will likely involve several different steps and determine what the needs are and how they are going to be met to satisfaction. The counselor will recommend what is suitable based on what he observes and figures out where the fault lays. The counselor will basically after observing advise the two companies to avoid a few things he feels unjust or not suitable at the same time adopting a few traits to deal with each other and if not completely agree then compromise a little.

Merits: 1- The counselor makes the parties realize the right and wrong and reminds the merit and plus points of the collaboration.

Demerits:1-The counseling process is time consuming2- The participants do not agree to the session and fell humiliated or embarrassed in the process 3-the expenses of the counselor are also an issue

5. Arbitration Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution of  disputes  outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons whose decision they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides. The Arbitrator will bring the departments

to a settlement based on the scenario that is put forward and then after consideration he will give his verdict which will have to be followedMerits:1- The advantage of this system is that it allows a neutral party to decide on a resolution to the matter presented which is binding upon all partiesDemerits:1-Arbitration allows a third party to resolve disputes between and confidentiality is at risk2- There are often differences with regard to who the arbitrator will be and as a result it introduces a new set of conflicts3-The credibility of the Arbitrator will always raise questions4-The personal bias of the arbitrator may lead to a ruling which is not fair but none the less binding upon all parties.5-Bearing the expenses of the Arbitrator is an issue

6.Accommodators:The Apple company should have sought a common point of understanding with Microsoft over the GUI issue because the law suit only brought a bad image to the company with heavy financial losses .

Merits:The decision made would be of benefit to the entire company and would be

Demerits:The apple company will appear to get along but will repress hostility.

Suggested option:

The conflict between Apple and Microsoft rose due to the fact that Apple had previously agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0.Then Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple resented it and filed suit. Moreover Apple's claims failed on an originality basis. Apple borrowed many of its representations from Xerox and IBM and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original.

Thus negotiation seems the best solution because in this way they can achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome. Both sides will be willing to cooperate in order to gain some of his/her goals but also to let the other to achieve some of theirs. Both Apple and Microsoft if negotiate with a spirit of cooperation, they may create a value added solution that will benefit both parties more than was considered before the negotiation began. There is no risk of biasness on unfair treatment as no third party is involved. Similarly this also improves the relationship and makes the environment friendlier.

Negotiation will also enable apple and Microsoft to examine the problem from all sides. Taking time to listen and to ask questions makes it easier to learn more about someone's perspectives. Considering different perspectives will increase the range and variety of possible solutions. Genuine interest in other people and in their contribution to finding solutions builds trust. Trust provides a foundation for continuing a relationship between the two companies.

Lessons learnt:

Resolving a conflict through different approaches has provided with following lessons

1- To work on the concept of fairness in conflicts and finding resolutions

2-How to strong, or to give in based on the situation

3- Identify how others might be feeling in order to encourage sensitivity.

4- To think of different ways to solve problems, how to brainstorm and to come to a

consensus.

5- How to explore the nature of the conflict and distinguish between conflict and

violence.

6- To identify what is positive about conflict and what is negative by analyzing a conflict

and giving a diagnosis

7-Learnt different kinds of hurtful behavior and how to avoid them

8- Identify the potential positive and negative consequences of using violence to resolve

conflicts.

9-This has also helped in learning how to avoid a conflict and getting the best of it an

organizational setting by the following measures:

To stop before you lose control of your temper and make the conflict worse

To say what you feel is the problem and what is causing the disagreement

Listen to the other person's ideas and feelings and try to understand the others

point of view.

To think of solutions that will satisfy both the parties involved

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

http://apple2history.org/history/ah16.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation

Presented to:

Mr. Manzoor Awan

Presented by:

Muhammad Omer Khan

Sheryar kiani

Ali Javed

Fawad jan

M. Yasir Umer Mian

Ali Rahim

Aqeel asrar

M. Waleed Azhar

A Conflict may be defined as a struggle or contest between people with opposing needs,

ideas, beliefs, values, or goals. Conflict is inevitable; however, the results of conflict are

not predetermined. Conflict might escalate and lead to nonproductive results.

Conflicts in Pakistan date back to its birth:

After the death of QuaideAzam, Liaquat Ali Khan had to deal with a number of

difficulties that Pakistan faced in its early days. He helped Quaid-i-Azam in solving the

riots and refugee problem and in setting up an effective administrative system for the

country. He established the groundwork for Pakistan's foreign policy. He also took steps

towards the formulation of the constitution. He presented The Objectives Resolution, a

prelude to future. Liaquat Ali Khan was unfortunately assassinated on October 16, 1951.

Security forces immediately shot the assassin, who was later identified as Saad Akbar.

The question of who was behind his murder is yet to be answered.

After the death of Liaquat Ali Khan various conflicts arose within the country the most

important being the leadership

When Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated on October 16, 1951, Khawaja Nazimuddin,

who was the Governor General at that time, took over as the second Prime Minister of

Pakistan. He remained in power till April 1953 when Ghulam Muhammad removed him

from the office. Khawaja Nazimuddin's downfall was not only due to his meekness of

character, but also due to the power struggle amongst the various leaders. The movement

for Tahaffuz-i-Khatam-i-Nabuwat and the worsening food condition in Punjab caused a

lot of trouble for Khawaja Nazimuddin. The anti-Ahmadiya movement was started in

Punjab by the Ahrar and had the support of Mian Mumtaz Daultana, the Chief Minister of

Punjab. This movement soon spread to other parts of the country. There were widespread

disturbances and the situation in the country soon worsened to the brink of anarchy and

civil war. Imposition of Martial Law became imminent. Khawaja Nazimuddin was

summoned by the Governor General along with his Cabinet and ordered to resign. Most

historians agree that the removal of Khawaja Nazimuddin was improper, undemocratic

and objectionable because the Prime Minister still enjoyed the confidence of the

Parliament. This act set an unhealthy tradition and precedent for the future Presidents

who were fond of removing elected governments, thus creating continued instability in

the country.

CONFLICT BETWEEN EAST AND WEST PAKISTAN:

Although the Eastern wing of Pakistan was more populous than than the Western one,

political power since independence rested with the Western elite. This caused

considerable resentment in East Pakistan and a charismatic Bengali leader called, Sheikh

Mujibur Rehman, most forcefully articulated that resentment by forming an opposition

political party called the Awami League and demanding more autonomy for East

Pakistan within the Pakistani Federation. In the Pakistani general elections held in 1970,

the Sheikh's party won the majority of seats, securing a complete majority in East

Pakistan. In all fairness, the Sheikh should have been Prime Minister of Pakistan, or at

least the ruler of his province. But West Pakistan's ruling elite were so dismayed by the

turn of events and by the Sheikh's demands for autonomy that instead of allowing him to

rule East Pakistan, they put him in jail.

The dawn of 1971 saw a great human tragedy unfolding in erstwhile East Pakistan. Entire

East Pakistan was in revolt. In the West, General Yahya Khan, who had appointed

himself President in 1969, had given the job of pacifying East Pakistan to his junior,

General Tikka Khan. The crackdown of 25 March 1971 ordered by Tikka Khan, left

thousands of Bengalis dead and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was arrested the next day. The

same day, the Pakistani Army began airlifting two of its divisions plus a brigade strength

formation to its Eastern Wing. Attempts to dis-arm Bengali troops were not entirely

successful and within weeks of the 25 March massacres, many former Bengali officers

and troops of the Pakistani Army had joined Bengali resistance fighters in different parts

of East Pakistan.

A liberation army was made by the east Pakistanis by the name of Mukti Bahni, which

was later supported by Indian government against Wast Pakistan.

SECTARIAN VOILENCE:

Sectarian violence is amongst the most lethal in Pakistan since the mid-eighties. It

opposes mostly Sunnis and Shias. Actually, it would be more accurate to describe this

conflict as a Deobandi-Shia conflict since the former somehow appropriated the term

Sunni for themselves and is supported in its anti-Shia struggle by Ahle Hadit

organizations. Between 1985 and 1989, over 300 Shias were killed in sectarian incidents

in Jhang district, Southern Punjab, the birthplace of organized sectarian militancy, the

two sub-sects now living in separate parts of the city.

Then, between 1989 and 2003 1,468 persons were killed and 3,370 injured in some 1,813

sectarian incidents. Till the mid-nineties, most of the killings remained concentrated in

Punjab. 700 people were killed in this province alone between 1989 and 2001. But then,

sectarian violence spread to the whole of Pakistan, first in the Northern Areas and the

North West Frontier Province (NWFP), then in Sindh, causing 1850 dead in total. In

Karachi alone, 293 people died between 1994 and June 2002, of whom approximately

200 were Shias. The sectarian violence peaked in Karachi in 1994-95 as 103 Shias and 28

Sunnis died during this period.

The present state of organized sectarian conflict can be traced to the murder of TNJF

leader Arif Hussain Al-Hussaini in 1988. Others date it to 1987 when Ahl-e-Hadith

leaders, Allama Ehsan Elahi Zaheer and Maulana Habib ur Rehman Yazdani, were killed,

along with six others, at a meeting in Lahore.

From 1985 to 1995, the dominant pattern of sectarian violence was targeted killings of

leaders and militants of each other’s sects. The spiral of violence registered a sharp rise in

February 1990 with the murder of Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, founder of the SSP. This

led to violent clashes resulting in dozens of casualties and burning down of many houses

and shops in Jhang. Then, by the mid-nineties, the pattern of sectarian violence shifted to

targeted attacks on religious gatherings and mosques, even with hand grenades and time

bombs. At that time, office bearers and government officials also became targeted. Since

1997, a new feature of sectarian violence appeared with indiscriminate gunfire on

ordinary citizens not involved in sectarian activity, and tit-for-tat killings targeting

doctors, lawyers and traders. Finally, in the post September 11, 2001 context, suicide

bombing tends to become the dominant pattern of sectarian violence.

1988; May 17, The Gilgit Massacre: In Gilgit, the main city of the Northern Areas of

Pakistan, a predominantly Shia and Ismaeli area, Sunnis, who were still fasting, attacked

Shias while celebrating Eid ul-Fitr, in the wake of a theological quarrel between Shias

and Sunnis over the starting date of Ramadan. Official sources said 200 people were

killed but it was closer to 800 according to unofficial estimates.

1992; July: A three-day riot occurred in the NWFP, particularly in Peshawar,between

Shias and Sunnis. It caused the death of seven Sunnis and three Shias

1996; September: A sectarian clash turned in a nine-day communal “war”, following an

incident of wall chalking by sectarian students, involving mortars, rocket launchers and

anti-aircraft missiles, between Sunni Orakzai and Shia Bangash tribe in Parachinar, the

capital of Kurram Agency of the Federally-Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA). It caused

the death of more than 200 people.

1997; August 1-10: More than 100 people, mostly Shias, died in sectarian riots during

ten days throughout Punjab in an unprecedented wave of sectarian strife, a few days

before the anniversary of 50th year of Independence.

1998; March: Twenty-one Shias were killed in Hangu, NWFP, during an attack by

Sunni militant organizations.

2003; July 4, The Jama Masjid-o-Imambargah Massacre: Some 53 people were killed

and 57 injured when two men opened fire and one blew himself up in a Shia mosque, the

Jama Masjid-o-Imambargah Kalaan Isna Ashri in Quetta, capital of Baluchistan, during

the Friday prayers.

2004; March 2: On the day of Ashura, SSP activists in connivance with police officers

attacked a procession of Shias, killing 47 of them (especially from the anti-Taliban Shia

Hazara community) and injuring 150 others, at Liaquat Bazaar in Quetta.

2004; May 7 and 31: Two suicide bombings, both executed by members of LeJ,

respectively on the Shia Hyderi Masjid on May 7 in Karachi and at Imambargah Ali Raza

also in Karachi on May 31, killed 47 people

2004; October 1 and 7: Two bomb blasts killed at least 71 people and injured 200 others

in Punjab at a Shia mosque at Sialkot during the Friday prayers and at a large gathering

assembled to mark the first anniversary of the killing of Sunni leader and SSP chief

Maulana Azim Tariq in Multan.

2005; May 27: Bari Imam Shrine Blast: Around 25 people died in a suicide bomb

attack and over 100 others were injured during a crowed Majlis, where Barelvi Sunnis

were also present at the Bari Imam shrine of the Shia sect located in the vicinity of the

diplomatic enclave in Islamabad.

2007; April 6-11: Around 55 people were killed during sectarian clashes in the Kurram

Agency of FATA as Shia and Sunni militants attacked each other’s village with heavy

weapons. The violence broke out when Shias were attacked in an Imambargah in the

morning while they were staging a demonstration outside their mosque against local

Sunnis who allegedly chanted anti-Shias slogans during a religious rally the week before.

Intra-Sunni Conflicts:

Not only is there violence between Sunnis and Shias but there is also numerous intra-

Sunni conflicts, especially between the Barelvis and the Deobandis. Sunnis in Pakistan

can be broadly divided into four categories: Deobandis, Barelvis, Ahle Hadit, and

revivalist, modernist movements. The first two Sunni sub-sects are products of 19th

century Indo-Muslim reform movements that emerged from religious seminaries, one

located at Deoband in 1867, and the other at Bareilly in 1897, both now in India.

Although they both follow the Hanafi school of Sunni Jurisprudence, their interpretations

of it radically differ. The main controversy between them deals with the Barelvis’

promotion of the Sufi Islamic tradition of hereditary saints and shrine culture which is

rejected by Deobandis who dismiss these practices as idolatry and favor a strict

adherence to the classical texts of Islam. The third category is a small, ultra-orthodox and

puritanical sect inspired by the purist Wahabi tradition originating from Saudi Arabia.

The latter group is composed of modernist movements, which emerged during the 1940s

such as the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI).

The main intra-Sunni conflict is the one opposing Deobandis and Barelvis, the two main

Sunni sub-sects.The situation deteriorated into large scale violence when the major

Barelvi sectarian outfit, the Sunni Tehreek (ST), an off-shot of the Jamaat—Ulema

Pakistan (JUP), was created by Mohammad Saleem Qadri in 1990, with its stronghold

and headquarters in Karachi, to counter the increasing hegemony of Ahle Hadees and

Deobandi organizations over the Pakistani government. The pattern of intra-Sunni

violence follows more or the less the same evolution as described in the case of sectarian

violence. Beginning by aggressive occupation of mosques, it then moved to targeted

killings of the organizations’ respective leaders (Saleem Qadri was hence assassinated in

2001) to finally suicide bombing as in the case of the Nishtar Park bombing in Karachi in

2006.

Initially, the ST essentially targeted the Sipah-i-Sahaba and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. From

1990 to 2002, it especially resorted to aggressive occupation of mosques in Sindh and

Punjab that were thought to have been taken over from their control by Ahle Hadit and

Deobandi organizations. It would have lost approximately 30 militants in these operations

since 1990.

Since 2002, a few months after the targeted assassination of its leader and founder

Saleem Qadri on May 18, 2001, the Sunni Tehreek entered politics. This politization of

the Sunni Tehreek propelled a conflict with the MQM, the major political party in

Karachi, though it is said that an agreement was reached between the two in 1995 when

the federal State cracked down MQM’s militants according to which these latter were

offered protection in the ranks of the Sunni Tehreek. Between 2004 and 2006, the Sunni

Tehreek said it lost 75 militants and accused the MQM for most of them. Sunni Tehreek’s

militants mostly suffered from targeted killings but violence climaxed during the Nishtar

Park Bombing on April 11, 2006, when the entire leadership of the organization died.

2006; April 11, The Nishtar Park Bombing: At least 57 people, including prominent

clerics, among whom the top leadership of the Sunni Tehreek and the Jamaat Ahl-e

Sunnat, were killed and more than 200 people sustained injuries in a suicide bomb attack

at Nishtar Park in Karachi. It is believed members of the Sunni Tehreek were outwardly

targeted. However, it remains unclear whether the bombing should be attributed to

Deobandi organizations or the MQM.

CULTURAL CONFLICT:

Pakistan today is undergoing an identity crisis a crisis which the author feels arises from

culture conflict. One of the causes of this conflict is that the Pakistani society possesses

imported cultures along with its own; varying with the diverse regions. The numerous

cultures tend to conflict with one another. This crisis is clearly manifest in the actions of

the Pakistani youth --rebellions, and indecisiveness.

ETHNIC CONFLICTS:

Mohajir dominance in Pakistan’s politics was gradually eroded by the Punjabi

bureaucratic-military clique, and Federal power gradually shifted to Punjab. This was

followed by instances of Sindhi assertiveness, particularly provincial government

initiatives, such as imposition of the Sindhi language in education and the adoption of the

Sindh (Teaching, Promotion and Use of Sindhi Language) Act in 1972. These actions led

to the first violent clashes involving mohajir groups. In 1985, when a mohajir girl was

crushed to death under a bus, a fresh round of violence involving the mohajirs and

Pathans began, since the latter were perceived to control the urban transport business.

Subsequent police intervention led, for the first time, to clashes between the state and

mohajir groups, a common occurrence since then.

Until this time, ethnic clashes in Sindh were marked by animosity between Mohajirs on

the one side and other ethnic minorities (Sindhis, Pathans) on the other. In 1986, Mohajir

Quami Movement (MQM) leader Altaf Hussain provided a new direction to the ethnic

strife. The agenda of MQM has been to get a better deal for the Mohajirs from the

Punjabi centre and from the Sindhi provincial government, which it sees as oppressive.

One of its important demands has been the change in quota policy which it feels is

inimical to Mohajir interests. It has not been able to wrest substantive concessions despite

using coercion, violence and terror tactics. But some of its demands that Mohajirs be

declared as the fifth nationality have not been well received. It has managed to cut across

red tape and solve some of the housing problems in the city of Karachi. Its support base is

the lower middle class and it has been financed by middle class Mohajirs.

Several bouts of violence have occurred after 1986, when Altaf Hussain first gave the call

for a movement against the Punjabi dominated state. These include the reported spate of

reprisal killings by drug barons in Karachi, where over one hundred persons lost their

lives and several hundred were injured. Several connected instances of attacks on Sindhis

and Mohajirs sparked riots in 1988, with Hyderabad bearing the brunt. According to a

report, the "streets of Hyderabad were littered with bodies right from Hirabad to

Latifabad". The riots claimed over 60 dead in just one day, and more than 250 deaths in

this phase of rioting. In a backlash, more than 60 Sindhi speaking people were gunned

down in Karachi.

In Pakistan one can easily say that religious and ethnic organisations representing their

respective communities are increasingly using violent methods including terrorism and

even democratic and legal tools to achieve the ends that they have set for themselves

thereby resulting in increasing incidents of violence and terrorism the last decade.

RECENT TARGET KILLINGS IN KARACHI:

The demand for a decisive action has come from the MQM at a time when Awami

National Party (ANP), mainly representing the Pakhtuns, and some other groups have

started blaming the MQM for the violence in the city.

Dr Sattar is of the view that “land and encroachment mafias” are responsible for 80 per

cent incidents of target killings in the city. He admitted that there was a possibility that

some elements belonging to these mafias had taken refuge in political parties.

HAZARA CONFLICT:

Part of the reason the Sooba Hazara issue is not going to go away very soon is that it has

in fact been around for a long time. Beyond the Hazarewals' resentment of slights (both

real and perceived) and the fear of becoming dominated by another ethnic group,

however are deeper issues. A regional Hazarewal identity wasn't galvanized simply on

the back of the 18th Amendment. It is rooted in several other processes and events.

One of its roots is how Hazarewals perceive the history of Pakhtun nationalism, and its

relationship with, at first the idea of Pakistan, and later, the Pakistani state. Hazarewals

see themselves as being among the most instrumental groups in the formation of

Pakistan, because they defeated the referendum held in 1947 to decide on the fate of the

NWFP.

Political Upheaval in 2007:

Pakistan in 2007 suffered from considerable political uncertainty as the

tenuousgovernance structure put in place by President Musharraf came under strain.

Amongordinary Pakistanis, criticism of the military — typically among the most

respected institutions in the country — and its role in governance has become much more

common, especially as the army has proven unable to ensure security and stability in both

major cities and in the western provinces of Baluchistan and the North West Frontier.

Many among the Pakistani public appear increasingly put off by a seemingly arbitrary

electoral process that preserves the power of a corrupt elite that demonstrates little

meaningful concern with the problems of ordinary citizens.

Moreover, there has been an accompanying and widespread dismay among Pakistanis at

the appearance of unabashed U.S. interference in their political system, interference that

from their perspective serves only to perpetuate the corruption.

Judicial Crisis:

A judicial crisis began with President Musharraf’s summary March 2007 dismissal of the

country’s Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, on charges of nepotism and misconduct.

Analysts widely believe the action was an attempt by Musharraf to remove a potential

impediment to his continued roles as president and army chief, given Chaudhry’s rulings

that exhibited independence and went contrary to government expectations. The move

triggered immediate outrage among Pakistani lawyers; ensuing street protests by

opposition activists grew in scale. By providing a platform upon which anti-Musharraf

sentiments could coalesce, the imbroglio morphed into a full-fledged political crisis.

The deposed Chief Justice became an overnight political celebrity. In May, tens of

thousands of supporters lined the streets as Chaudhry drove from Islamabad to Lahore to

address the High Court there. Chaudhry later flew to Karachi but was blocked from

leaving the city’s airport, reportedly by activists of the regional, government-allied

Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) party. Ensuing street battles between MQM cadres

and opposition activists left at least 40 people dead on May 12, most of them PPP

members. Reports had local police and security forces standing by without intervening

while the MQM attacked anti-Musharraf protesters, leading many observers to charge the

government with complicity in the bloody rioting.10 In July, in what was widely seen as

a major political defeat for Musharraf, the Supreme Court unanimously cleared Chaudhry

of any wrongdoing and reinstated him to office. When, in August, Musharraf reportedly

came close to declaring a state of emergency, Secretary of State Rice placed a late-night

telephone call to Islamabad, by some accounts in a successful effort to dissuade him.

August brought further indications that the Supreme Court would not be subservient to

military rule and could derail President Musharraf’s political plans.

Most significantly, the court ruled that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif could return

to Pakistan after seven years in exile. When Sharif attempted to return on September 10,

the government immediately arrested him on corruption charges and deported him. (On

October 24, Pakistan’s Chief Justice stated that Sharif still has an “inalienable right” to

return to Pakistan, and he accused then-Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of violating a

Supreme Court order by arranging for Sharif’s most recent deportation.) In September,

the Islamabad government arrested hundreds of opposition political leaders and activists,

many of them deputies of Nawaz Sharif, including some sitting members of Parliament.

A statement from the U.S. Embassy called the development “extremely disturbing and

confusing,” and Secretary Rice called the arrests “troubling.”At year’s end, Pakistan’s

judicial crisis was far from fully resolved.

Changes made by Musharraf under the emergency remain controversial, perhaps most

especially the questionable dismissal of many Supreme Court justices, some of whom

remain under house arrest in 2008. Aitzaz Ahsan, the lawyer who lead the successful

effort to have former Chief Justice Chaudhry reseated earlier in 2007, has been at the

forefront of the current effort to have the Supreme Court reconstituted by Musharraf

restored to its pre-November status. In early December, he proposed requiring all

parliamentary candidates to sign an oath pledging to restore the judiciary, but this tack

was rejected by Bhutto and other opposition leaders as unrealistic. Ahsan himself accused

the U.S. government of not seeming to care about Musharraf’s crackdown on the

Supreme Court and making no mention of the issue in various agency briefings.

Suggestions:

We recommend the following solutions for these scenarios:

Provincial Autonomy:

This may seem to be a problem as of now but if done in the right context and correct

way; this can be a very viable solution to many problems. By this, we mean that the

current existing provinces should be allowed certain powers to exercise. These include

health, education, development etc.

Small Provinces:

This has been an issue of debate over the past few months now. But this can be

a handy solution too. If people and authorities are facing conflict situations within, than

they can be allowed to establish a small state or province of their own and they could be

provided with the facilities to do so by the federal government. This can be a good way of

avoiding the circumstances developing. For example Hazara and Bahawalpur situation

can be handled this way. Either they could be given their equal rights or given a separate

province to run on their own rules and regulations.

Centre of authority to be Federal Government:

After giving autonomy to the provinces, not all but few important

authorities should be only given to and exercised by the Federal Government alone. They

may include the Interior Ministry, Defense Ministry, Finance Ministry and Currency. All

the rest should be equally divided to the rest of the provinces so that burden is lifted off

from the federal government and this will make them able to pay more attention on the

bigger issues.

Recommendations:

Islam is our Deen (Religion):

The first pillar rejects the terrorism, extremism, and sectarianism in our

society. Islam preaches moderation, tolerance, non-violence, and co-existence, hence,

establishment of an enlightened, moderate, and egalitarian society.

Democracy is our politics:

It puts an end to militarism and dictatorship in our society. Preaches

freedom of expression, independence of media, protection of human rights, rule of law

and independence of justice system. The modern Muslim thinkers support democracy.

Quaid-e-Azam achieved his target through democratic process. We need to democratise

our society in essence.

Socialism is our economy:

It is a great challenge to the exploiters and marauders. The capitalist and

the feudal lords have looted the resources of Pakistan. There is no economic parity.

Socialism will put an end to capitalism and feudalism in our society. There is a dire need

of economic and social justice. This will help to eradicate terrorism, criminals,

prostitution, and other social evils.

People are the source of power:

In Islam, sovereignty belongs to Allah. The Islamic government is

formed through elections for the well being of the people. People have every right to

decide their fate. The fact of the matter is that the privileged class has always undermined

the rights of unprivileged. The touts of imperialism are anti-public. It is very tragic that in

the third world, people have no voice. The continuation of a democratic process will

establish that the people are the source of power

Asif Ali Zardari needs a team of educated, honest, devoted politicians and intellectuals.

Pakistan India Water Dispute

RAJA ALI,

KHURRAM

FAIEQ

USMAN BUTT

M.ALI BAIG

FAHAD JAVED

BAHRAM KHAN

MUSA ADNAN

UMAIR RASOOL

Executive Summary

India is controlling the water flow of rivers that flow from India into Pakistan,

especially the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers that pass through India’s Jammu

& Kashmir state. Pakistan has raised objections to Indian water projects, but a

World Bank-appointed neutral expert rejected most of the Pakistani objections,

especially with regard to the Baglihar Dam on Chenab River, while also advising

India to make some changes to the dam’s height. Pakistani commentators,

pressure groups and religious leaders think that India is controlling the river

waters to strangulate Pakistani agriculture, which could affect Pakistani exports

and increase its dependency on food imports. Pakistani commentators fear future

war with India may break out over water disputes.

Public debate on the issue in Pakistan is often framed in terms of an international

conspiracy involving the Jews, the Israel and the United States, though the issue

itself is of bilateral nature with India. The water issue is seen as a defense

security concern. Senior Pakistani editor Majeed Nizami, considered close to the

military establishment, has threatened nuclear war against India. There is a

realization in Pakistan that the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that establishes legal

framework for use of river waters has been to the advantage of India. However,

Pakistani authorities are raising the issue of water sharing between the two

nuclear neighbors. Bilateral talks on India’s water projects are continuing. Recent

stresses and strains in the observance of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) have had

many analysts believe that water sharing will take a politically charged dynamic

and may even replace Kashmir as the primary source of conflict between India

and Pakistan. Therefore it is important to have comprehensive understanding of

the overall issues of the Indus system of rivers and the IWT as this article

attempts to provide. It is formatted introduce the Indus river system, a brief

overview of the principles of water sharing, the historical background leading up

to the water crisis between India and Pakistan and the mediation by the World

Bank, various provisions of the IWT, current disputes in water projects on the

Indus River System bilaterally between India and Pakistan, and a look into the

state of affairs of the Indus River System within Pakistan today.

Introduction

Prior to independence the British started to establish a linked canal system in

various parts of subcontinent. For this purpose number of head works and canals

were built, dams were envisioned.

On April 1st, 1948, India stopped supply of water to Pakistan from every canal

flowing from India to Pakistan. Pakistan protested and India finally agreed on an

interim agreement on May 4, 1948 (Inter-Dominion Accord). This accord required

India to release sufficient waters to Pakistani regions of the basin in return for

annual payments from the government of Pakistan so this agreement was not a

permanent solution.

By 1951, dispute had taken a very dangerous turn as both countries were not

talking to each other on this matter anymore and a war was very much at hands

therefore, Pakistan approached the World Bank in 1952 to help breaking the

deadlock and settle the problem permanently. Negotiations were carried out

between the two countries through the offices of the World Bank for six years

(1954-60). It was finally in Ayub Khan's regime that an agreement was signed

between India and Pakistan in September 1960. This agreement is known as the

Indus Water Treaty.

Indus Water Treaty 1960 (IWT)

This treaty divided the use of rivers and canals between the two countries.

Pakistan obtained exclusive rights for three western rivers, namely Indus, Jehlum

and Chenab. And India retained rights to three eastern rivers, namely Ravi, Beas

and Sutluj. The treaty also guaranteed ten years of uninterrupted water supply.

During this period Pakistan was to build huge dams, financed partly by long-term

World Bank loans and compensation money from India but India denied money

to Pakistan for this purpose.

After Indian denial of money The Bank responded with a plan for external

financing supplied mainly by the United States and the United Kingdom Three

multipurpose dams, Warsak, Mangla and Tarbela were built. A system of eight

link canals was also built and the remodeling of existing canals was carried out.

Five barrages and a gated siphon were also constructed under this treaty.

Important points of IWT (Indus water Treaty)

1. India will have exclusive right over Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej)

until they crossed into Pakistan.

2. Pakistan will have exclusive rights over Western Rivers (Chenab, Jehlum

and Indus)

3. India will be allowed to use Western River waters for non-consumption

use only (excluding irrigation and storage).

4. India will pay one time to Pakistan for loss of its water of Eastern Rivers.

5. A transitions period till 31 March 1970 will be maintained by both sides so

that Pakistan can build its link canal system to divert water from its

Western Rivers to Eastern Rivers through these link canals.

6. Both sides will avoid building any man made structure which can change

natural course of water.

7. Both sides will be responsible for maintaining Indus basin by adopting best

practices available.

8. India will be bound to inform Pakistan about design of any work on

Western river well before start of any work on Western rivers.

9. If India construct any work on Western Rivers it will supply water

downstream that was received by a dam or barrage within 24 hours.

The Situation

During past decade nuclear arch rivals Pakistan and India came to brink of war

many times but shown restrain every time. Better sense prevailed on both sides.

In 2004 by announcing unilateral ceasefire at LOC (line of control) Pakistan

paved the way forward for durable peace in subcontinent. It was envisaged after

initializing peace process that now as both the countries are N-capable so they

are bound to solve their bilateral issues on table but courtesy to Indian

aggressive water policy these hopes are fading away with each passing day.

Population growth in subcontinent is major impediment in progress. Pakistan is

facing stiff challenges on many fronts. Water and energy security are most

important of these.

Pakistan is on the brink of water disaster and its availability has decreased to

1,200 cubic meters per person from 5,000 cubic meters in 1947 and is predicted

to plunge to 800 cubic meters by 2020. This is alarming situation and making the

things even worse India has started many hydro power projects, dams, reservoirs

and barrages on Pakistani rivers in Kashmir.

Water dispute between Pakistan and India started when a boundary commission

for demarcating the international boundaries, in the states of Punjab and Bengal

under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Radcliffe was constituted. He awarded most

of the canals and the canal irrigated land to Pakistan, but the sources of all the

five tributaries of the Indus- Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej- remained in

India. Thus, India continued to be the "upstream riparian" of the Indus and its

tributaries. To fully comprehend the complication that the Indus River bears, it is

essential to understand Indus River system.

Situation is going to get worse in future if India completed all its projects on

Pakistani rivers flowing from Kashmir into Pakistan. Many international authors

and thinkers have already rung the alarm bell while analyzing Pakistan’s water,

food and energy security in future in context of Indian plans on Pakistani rivers

and clumsy response from many Pakistani governments in Islamabad.

Indus River Basin

Dispute between Pakistan and India on water can only be understood after

getting an insight about Indus river basin system.

Soon after independence, the problem drew the attention of the governments of

India and Pakistan as both countries wanted to extend irrigation on their side of

border. Bilateral negotiations were initially held but settlement was ultimately

arrived under the

patronage of the World Bank. In Sep. 1960, The Indus Water Treaty was signed.

Under this treaty, Pakistan received exclusive rights to the water from the three

Western rivers – Indus,  Jelum and Chenab – with an assured flow of about

166.46 x 109 m3 or 135 million acre-feet (MAF). Water from three eastern rivers-

Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, with an annual flow of 33 MAF were allocated to India.

The treaty established a transition period up to 31st March 1970 for Pakistan to

construct its systems of works, called Indus st Basin Replacement Plan.

Meanwhile, India was to continue supply of water to Pakistan to irrigate about 1.2

Mha areas before replacement works (two storage dams, five barrages, one

siphon and eight link canal system) were completed. As a result, there is an

impressive list of post independence irrigation works in the Pakistan.

Indian Plans for Pakistani Rivers

IWT was a treaty heavily in favor of India. India got unrestricted allocation of

Eastern Rivers and some limited allocation on Western Rivers along with

permission to complete under-construction dams and reservoir these included

Mahora, Ganderbal, Kupwara, Bhadarwah, Kishtwar, Rajouri, Chinani Nichalani

Banihal etc. Pakistan did accept accord as there were still guarantees and

criteria to ensure water availability to Pakistan and this was perhaps the last

chance for settling the dispute peacefully.

India till this day has continued to pursue its dream of making Pakistan docile to

fulfill Indian desires. To achieve this dream India decided to manipulate

provisions of IWT1960 cleverly and now is in process of building multiple dams

and barrages clearly breaching the provisions described in the treaty. The aim is

to damage link canal system of Pakistan by blocking water in one season and to

destroy ready crops in the other season by releasing excessive waters through

these dams and barrages. Diversion of water is also a disturbing practice opted

by India during recent years.

Below are the details of some of the current and proposed Indian projects on

Western rivers. These details clearly showcase intentions of India about water

flow towards Pakistan.

Chenab

India has already built 14 hydroelectric plants on Chenab River and is building

more plants which will enable it to block entire water of Chenab for 20-25 days.

These dams have also enabled India to release huge quantity of water

downstream not only to cause damage to standing crops but also to our canal

systems. Chenab River provides water to 21 canals and irrigates about 7 million

acres of agriculture land in Punjab province of Pakistan.

Baglihar Dam

Baglihar Dam is located near Doda (on river Chenab which according to Indus

Water Treaty belongs to Pakistan. Baglihar dam is 143 meters (470 feet) high,

equal to world’s largest rockfilled dam at Tarbela, Pakistan. The dam also houses

gated spillways to control the flow of water of river Chenab.

India initiated this project in 1999 and spent more money than what was

estimated. The increase in initial estimated cost of the dam in 2002 resulted in

Rs5 per unit (highest in India) increase cost of electricity to be produced from the

dam. Baglihar dam was the first project by Indian which was referred to neutral

expert in the World Bank.

Above:An ariel view of massive

Baglihar  Above:Massive tunnel

built to divert

dam after completion. Dam caused

damage River water to under

ground power

of Rs.23 billion to Pakistani agriculture

    station at Baglihar Dam.

2008 alone.

Pakistan time and again reminded India about its reservations and concerns

regarding this project but instead of taking Pakistani concerns into consideration

India continued construction of Baglihar dam even after the matter was taken to

World Bank for arbitration. Pakistan rose following concerns regarding design of

the dam;

Height of Dam: Height of freeboard (The vertical distance between the

top of the dam and the full supply level on the reservoir) of dam must be

reduced as it is in excess of designed parameter of the dam.

Gated spillways: India must abandon gated spillways design as it will

enable India to manipulate water flow by blocking. There must be only a

run of river project.

Poundage /Storage: Storage

capacity of reservoir of the dam

must be reduced so that flow of

the river is not interrupted. The

World Bank expert Raymond

Lafitte approved the project in

February 2007 but asked India

to reduce height of the freebed

by one and a half meters and

reduction in poundage of

storage from Indian claimed 38 million cubic meters (MCM) to 32 million

cubic meter whereas Pakistan asked to reduce it. Other objections were

rejected.

Right: A view of Massive gated spillways at Baglihar dam. Height of dam

also suggested that this dam is built basically as a reservoir and not for just hydel

power generation as India is trying to project. One opened gate of spillways as

shown in the above picture tells how much water can be blocked behind all gates

of spillways.

During 2008 Rabi sowing season (Jan-Mar) Pakistan suffered a loss of more

than 20 billion rupees. Not only that but production of Wheat crop along with

petty crop like Rice, Cotton also got affected due to low water in canals

originated from Chenab.

Financial Viability of the project shows India is determined to cut flow of Pakistani

rivers from Kashmir. Per MW cost of electricity from Baglihar is Rs8.89 Corer

which is much higher than other parts of India and the only reason for that is the

increased cost of the project which was initially estimated at Rs27 Billion but

increased to more than Rs40 billion. Despite this surge in cost India never

showed any hesitation to undertake this enterprise. Cost will further increase

after India modified its design in order to implement verdict of neutral expert

which includes reducing height of freeboard of dam.

Hydrologic viability is another gauge of Indian intention behind this project. After

commissioning second phase of Baglihar total electricity out put will be 900 MW.

In its May 2005 issue, ‘Dams, Rivers & People’ reported, “It will require 860

cumecs of water (to generate 900 MW), but Chenab flow reduces to lower than

that in winter. In fact flow in Chenab reduced to upto 50 cumecs. The Indian

authorities have not made public the hydrologic data or the projected power

generation from the project. The experience of the existing 690 MW Salal project

on Chenab 480 MW Uri HEP on the adjoining basin Jhelum shows that these

projects in fact generate much less power in winter when the need for power is

maximum in J&K.”

So it is evident that purposes of the dam, electrical station, reservoir and gated

spillways are much more than what the Indians have projected about this dam.

Salal Dam

This dam was built on River Chenab in 1987 and was commissioned in 1993; it is

built downstream of Baglihar. It is medium size dam with height of 113 meters

and it has a reservoir level of 494 meters. Means it can block water of Chenab.

Water discharging from downstream of Baglihar reaches Salal.

India has always claimed that hydro projects in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) are for

the population of Jammu and Kashmir but according to official sources of

National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), the main contractor and

builder of many dams in India and Kashmir including Salal dam, electricity

generated by Salsal project will be provided to Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal

Pradesh, Rajhisthan, and Uttar Pradesh, and the union territory of Chandigarh.

Like always India told the world and Pakistan that this project is built adopting

run-of- river method (without any reservoir) but below image taken from Google

Maps clearly exposes a reservoir and blocked water flow of Chenab.

Dul Hasti

Located in Kishtwar district Hydro-electric power project comprises a “diversion

dam ” at ‘Dul’ across the river Chenab and a power house at ‘Hasti’. Test runs

begun in 2007. The dam was initiated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi way back

in 1983. Thedam infrastructure was demolished once by Kashmiri freedom

fighters in early 1990s and work on dam was abandoned afterwards. The

construction started later on the project. Once again built in Kashmir, the dam

benefits only parts of India including Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh,

Uttaranchal, Rajasthan and Chandigarh whereas Jammu and Kashmir will

merely get 12% of royalty of the project.

Concrete gravity dam of 185 m length and 65 m height has an ungated spillway

of 40 m  and a gated spillway of 64 m with 4 radial gates. Again gated spillways

are there just to stop flow of water to Pakistan.

This dam also tells the same story how committed India is to carry the plan to

barren Pakistan completely by blocking flow of water of Pakistani rivers. Initial

cost of the dam was estimated at Rs183 corer (in 1983) but due to delays the

project cost climbed to Rs5228 Corer. This is 28 times increase in cost but still

India completed this project and commissioned it on April 26, 2008. War is the

only thing where any government can put so much resources and time on a

single project.

Tawi-Ravi Link

River Tawi is a major left bank tributary of Chenab. It also flows into Pakistan

along with Chenab and finally joins latter.  To steal river Tawi’s water India built a

lift irrigation scheme on the left bank of Tawi River. Main elements of this scheme

are an uplift pump near Bahu fort in Jammu city and a canal system which joins

another canal, Ravi-Link canal, near Vijaypur. Ravi Link Canal is drawn out from

right bank of river Ravi.

To send water into Tawi canal system, uplift water pumps lift water 31 meter

higher from river level and put it into canal from where it is send to Ravi-Link

Canal so that India can use this water in Ravi River which was given to India in

IWT 1960.

Future Plans of India on Chenab

Indian determination to make Pakistan barren in near future has pushed her

nefarious designs up to next level. All the above mentioned dams were not

adequate to fulfill Indian designs against Pakistan therefore more dams and

reservoirs are planned on river Chenab according to next five-year

development plan of India. Below is the detail of these projects.

Pakal Dul & other Chenab Basin Projects

Pakal Dul and two other projects aggregating to about 2100 MW in Chenab

Basin are proposed to be implemented through a Joint Venture Company in

pursuance to MoU signed on 10.10.2008.

According to Indian ministry of water Pakal Dul (Drangdhuran) Hydroelectric

Project is envisioned as a reservoir based scheme proposed on river Marusudar,

the main right bank tributary of river Chenab in Kishtwar Tehsil of Doda District in

Jammu & Kashmir. This is again a violation of IWT. The Project envisages

construction of a concrete face rockfill dam across river Marusudar at village

Drangdhuran and an underground Powerhouse at a location 2 km upstream of

Dul dam, near village Trimuli.  At Full Reservoir Level (EL 1700 M), the gross

storage of the reservoir is 125.4 MCM. The project will cost more than

Rs5500 Corer.

After Baglihar, It will be interesting to see how an even higher dam affects the

flow of Chenab and this is the first time Indians are going to build a dam with

reservoir and they have announced this plan vocally. Capacity of the reservoir is

another indication of how big this will be after completion. Baglihar with its

32 MCM can reduce flow of 7000 cusecs to Pakistan it must be much easier to

understand that what impact a reservoir with a capacity of 124.4 MCM will have

on downstream flow of the river.

Environmentally, this project can prove to be an ecological disaster as most of its

submerged area will consist of forests and agriculture lands. Submergence of

forest land leads to loss of biodiversity and habitat destruction of wildlife on the

other hand submergence of agriculture land as well as dwelling require

rehabilitation of ousted people.

The Bursar Hydroelectric Project

To complete the agenda of blocking water of Chenab India has stepped up its

plans mainly encouraged by clumsy and delayed response and quietness of

Pakistani government on other above mentioned dams.

India wants a reservoir based dam upstream to all other dams i.e. Pakal Dul, Dul

Hasti, Rattle, Baglihar, Sawalkot and Salal Hydroelectric Projects, thereby

enhancing the potential of all downstream schemes in winter season as Chenab

flow reduces to a large extent in winter. India needs enough water which she can

feed to its downstream dams then those dams will also store water and hence

blocking entire water of Chenab in winter season when Pakistani farmer sow

wheat.  This purpose will be served by The Bursar Hydroelectric Project. It is

declared Indian project and it is going to be a reservoir based dam.

According to Indian claims this will mitigate the shortage of water availability in

the river during the winter months. But this dam just like Pakal Dul will be built on

Marusudar River a major right bank tributary of Chenab. Pakal Dul dam itself will

have a storage capacity of 125 MCM besides this Bursar another dam will be a

252m high rock fill dam these two dams will give India total control of this major

tributary of Chenab.

Once again a project built on Pakistani river flowing in a disputed territory will

serve Indian states Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh,

Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Union territories of Chandigarh & Delhi.

Jehlum

Jehlum is second in list of Western Rivers which were given to Pakistani

according to IWT in 1960. Indian plans to block water of Pakistani Rivers ajre not

limited to Chenab. Jehlum is the next target of India. Indian schemes on this river

are more impudent and will violate IWT much more meanly.

On Chenab Indian are busy building dams with excessive poundage capacities

while on Jhelum plans are more  inline with diversion of water from Jehlum and

its tributaries so that flow of river can be reduced when it cross into Pakistan.

Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project

This barrage is going to be built on river Jelhum near mouth of Wullar Lake near

Sopore town in Kashmir. Wullar is largest fresh water lake in Jammu and

Kashmir. Pakistan gave it the name according to design of project i.e. Wullar

Barrage while India once

Again to deceive everybody around calls it Tulbul Navigation Project.

Barrages are built mainly to divert water from rivers into canals for irrigation or

link purposes. India has no such provision on Jehlum under IWT. This barrage

was proposed in 1984 when tension between Pakistan and India was high. 

Mostly projects built on Western rivers were conceived in 1980s. India claims that

this barrage will make Jehlum navigable in summer while Pakistan knows that

India will use it as a geo-strategic weapon to manipulate flow of water specifically

in winter.

This project is a clear violation of IWT as according to IWT India is not allowed to

built any man- made structure on Western river which can interrupt flow of any of

these rivers. This proposed barrage will eventually have a potential to destroy

whole triple canal system which Pakistan built after IWT was signed. This system

includes major canals which irrigate millions of acres in Punjab and consists of

Upper Jhelum Canal, Upper Chenab Canal and the Lower Bari Doab Canal.

According to the original Indian plan, the barrage was expected to be of 439-feet

long and 40-feet wide, and would have a maximum storage capacity of 0.30

million acres feet of water.

Right: Map showing location

of various hydro projects on

Jehlum River

What India has done to

Pakistan in case of Baglihar

dam there is no reason to

believe what India is telling

the world about this project.

World Bank once again

favored India on this project

as well and could not force

her to abandon the project

when the matter was referred to it in 1986 eventually Pakistan was forced to

knock the door of International Arbitral Court in 1987 when India was forced to

stop further construction work.

Wullar Barrage is one of the agenda item in composite dialogue between

Pakistan and India and after more than 10 rounds there is no progress as usual

due to Indian persistence that this project is rightful under IWT.

KishanGanga

Once again India named this project as such so that real intension can be

concealed. Kishanganga project is going to be a dam on river Neelam, known as

Kishanganga in Indian Held Kashmir. Geologically it is an extremely complex

project as it will have a 27 km long tunnel to divert water of Neelam from its

natural course which is a clear violation of IWT. This tunnel will be connected to

Jehlum in South through North Kashmir mountain range.

The tunnel will initiate and take water from a 103 meter high reservoir on river

Neelam. This reservoir is also part of the project and will submerge almost the

entire Gurez valley along the AJK's Neelum valley but for India any ecological

disaster is miner thing to take into consideration when it comes to blocking or

diverting Pakistani water so these concerns were never taken up by higher

echelons in New Delhi.

The plan is to change the course of river Neelam about 100 km from its natural

course and link it to Jehlum at Wullar Lake near Bandipur through a channel and

above mentioned tunnel.

Presently, the Neelam and

Jhelum rivers join each other at

Muzaffarabad at a point called

Domail. Through the proposed

Wullar barrag project, India

claims to maintain constant

yearly flow in Jhelum but in

reality this 100- kilometre

diversion of the Neelum River,

Pakistan's Neelum Valley could

dry up and become a desert.

The most important issue here is the diversion of the Neelum River waters to the

Wuller Lake. According to some estimates, the diversion will also reduce the flow

of water into Pakistan by a factor in between 25 percent to 33 percent. Further it

will ruin Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum project as water of Neelam will be diverted by

India already from its 14 natural course and power generation capacity of the

project will reduce to an extent that sole purpose of the project would die.

Blueprints and technical stipulations for this project were finalized in 1997 and

WAPDA selected this project in 2001 for execution under its Vision 2025.

India is going to complete its project after a gap of 18 years and the cost have

gone up by 68% than what it was estimated at the time of its inception.

India wants to gain control over Neelam and that’s why she has decided to

initiate work on the project in 2008 and complete it by January 2016. Although

the matter is disputed between two countries but Indian intentions are to exploit

condition in IWT which allow control over Neelam’s water to whoever completes

their project first.  In 2008, Indian minister for water affairs, Jairam Ramesh,

said,” This project is of strategic importance to India. We will shortly take the

revised cost estimates of Rs3,700 crore ($928 million) for the project for the

cabinet’s approval. We have to move heaven and earth to ensure the earliest

commissioning of the project,” This statement must be an eye opener for anyone

who still has any doubt about Indian plans about making Pakistan barren in near

future.

This project would pose a serious threat to wildlife in and around Wullar Lake and

also affect people who live on the banks of Neelam and utilise its water for daily

usage. Even environmentalists in India have objected to the project.

Once again the beneficiary states include Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana,

Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Union Territory of Chandigarh & Delhi for

a project which is going to be executed in Jammu and Kashmir and was claimed

to be a project for local population of Jammu and Kashmir.

URI Power Project

Uri hydro power project is next dam on a Pakistani river where a dam is

constructed. Uri is a town on the river Jhelum in the Baramula district, in Jammu

and Kashmir. The town is very near to LoC. This project consists of a 52 m high

and 152 meter long dam with 4 spillways.

Indian claims that purpose of the project was to generate cheap electricity from

run of river project. In reality this project is already causing many problems to

locals and to ecosystem as well.

According to Jan 2006 issue of ‘Dams, River and people’ it was expected to

generate full output almost continuously for five months of the year (April-Aug)

with production falling to lower levels in the winter.

Further it was stated that project has cost 98% more than initial estimates

meaning doubling the cost of power generated and yet  it performed 27% less

than what was envisaged since its commissioning in 1996-97.  NHPC, company

which has built the dam admitted in 2004-05 that URI is a non-peaking station

and the result is low performance and huge cost of the electricity produced by

this project which is too high to buy for state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Uri project was executed without a proper plan for the people affected by the

project and their compensation is due compensation issues remain unresolved

over eight years after completion of the project.

Instead of learning some lesson from its mistakes made in Uri-I, India has

announced to undertake Uri-II hydro power project which will be built

downstream to Uri-I.

Accordingly to NHPC this Project is planned immediately downstream of Uri-I

and will pick up its tail water to make use of the gross head of about 130m

available in the course of the river between Uri-I tailrace outlet and a place

located about 1.25 km downstream of the confluence of Goalta Nallah and

Jhelum River, close to the Line of Control (LoC).

It is strange to go for such a project which is located at line of fire despite the

failure of Uri-I which already has destroyed another old 1962 built Mohra HEP of

9 MWas URI diverts all the water from upstream of this project. Now this must be

no surprise why 16 after so many failures in one single project India has given a

go-ahead to its second extension at the same location.

From all above mentioned projects it has become clear that Indian intentions

about Pakistani waters are very malicious. India is very carefully choosing spots

on Western Rivers so that it can block flow of water despite small size of dams

and reservoirs. These spots are located in areas where rivers flow very low in

winter season. Even small and medium size dams on these spot on rivers and

their tributaries will enable India to manipulate water flow if it is desired.

Indus

Indus is largest river in Pakistan and largest of all three Western rivers which

were allocated to Pakistan under IWT in 1960. the river initiates from China and

reaches Jammu and Kashmir region and flow there for a kilometer and then

cross into Northern areas of Pakistan and take its natural turn towards south in

NWFP and continues for almost 1700 kilometer towards south passing through

Punjab and Sindh before it finally falls into Arabian Sea.

Indus is fed from nine Himalayan glaciers and number of tributaries also initiated

from Himalayan ranges.  Although Indus and its tributaries belong to Pakistan as

per IWT but India has started building dams ( work on minimum three is

underway) on Indus main and its tributaries to interrupt flow of Indus before it

cross into Pakistan.

According to media reports Indian Parliament has approved construction of 500

km long train track from Hamachel Pradesh to Ladakh which would be utilised for

transportation of construction material for Kargil dam and three other reservoirs

being built on the Indus River.

Nimoo Bazgo

Nimoo Bazgo is 57 m (187 feet) high Concrete Gravity dam which is under

construction on main Indus River. The main site is located 70 km from Leh and

work is already underway.

Once again Indian claims that this is a run-on-river scheme but looking at

average availability of water in the river in winter it is hard to believe that this is a

hydro power project. India initiated this dam in November 2006 and completion is

planned to be happen in October 2010.

The dam is being built on a location where seven sub watersheds join Indus and

the dam is going to face a problem of muck due to geology of the site.  The area

is highly non forest so nothing will stop water from brining mud along with water

which would have a possibility to stop water flow completely.

India is spending Rs6.11 billion just to produce 45 MW electricity and that would

only possible when power station works on full capacity which is not possible in

winter when glaciers stop melting.

The more interesting thing to note here is Indian contractor (NHPC) never

released any data on its website regarding capacity of the reservoir and type of

spillways which is really disturbing as any gated spillways on Indus would enable

India to block every drop of water flowing into Pakistan.

The Dumkhar

Following the pattern of building multiple dams on western rivers in single area,

which was adopted on Chenab, India is perusing its plan daringly for Indus river

as well and there has been a urgency in this drive since last year or so.  After

Nimoo-Bagzo, India’s next dam would be some 48 km downstream i.e. Dumkhar

hydro power porject. The project is located 128 Km from Leh near Dumkhar

village.

The Dumkhar project envisages construction of a 42 m high concrete gravity dam

across river Indus. This dam would also house two diversion tunnels although the

project is a run on river but still diversion tunnels will affect the flow of water

particularly in winter season.

Again no data is given about reservoir and discharge spillways (gated or

ungated) are provided by Indian authorities.

Chutak Hydroelectric Project

Just like tributaries of Chenab Indian belligerence is once again evident by

Chutak dam which India is building on river Suru. River Suru is one of major

Indus river tributary.

The barrage of the project is located near Sarzhe Village and the power house

will be located on the right bank of river Suru near Chutak Village. The project is

located near Kargil airfield of Inain Air Force.

Other Issues

River training works like spurs and groynes

IWT prevents both countries from building any structure that can change natural

flow of

water from its natural course. India has built river training works on Ravi River

opposite to Narowal (Pakistan). Narowal has suffered a dreadful flood in 1992-93

in monsoon when India released excessive water into Ravi River.

River Training Works usually carried out to divert the flow of a river for some

other construction work like bridge, dams, barrages etc.

International Water warfare against Pakistan

After blocking its water in Kashmir by building multiple dams on Pakistani rivers

now India has taken this water war beyond bilateral level. Currently due to

changed geo political environment India has excellent relation with puppet

Afghan government.

By harnessing these relations now India is pursuing an agenda of persuading

Afghan government to build a big dam on Kabul River so that its flow into Indus

River in Pakistan can be blocked.

Afghanistan at present utilises just a fraction of Kabul waters to irrigate about

12,000 acres of land. According to new proposed plans a dam will be constructed

on the Kabul River and will set up Kama Hydroelectric Project to utilise 0.5 MAF

water to irrigate additional 14,000 acres.

Any dam on Kabul River will affect its flow into Indus especially in winter as Indus

emits from glaciers which melt less in winter and some of these glaciers don’t

melt in winter season at all.

Indian plans don’t end here. This is just beginning of a very troublesome water

policy by India towards Pakistan. Below is list of Indian planned dams on

Pakistani rivers all these dams along with completed projects will enable India to

block Pakistani water for a considerably long period of the time.

Planned dams / Barrages on Pakistani Rivers

According to Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Ltd

following projects would also built on Pakistani rivers.

Jhelum River Basin

Lower Jhelum

Upper Sindh-I

Ganderbal

Upper Sindh-II

Pahalgam

Karnah

Chenab Basin

Chenani-I

Chennai-II

Chenani-III

Bhaderwah

Baglihar-II

Indus Basin

Iqbal

Hunder

Sumoor

Igo-Mercellong

Haftal

Marpachoo

Bazgo Stakna (with J&KPDD)

Impact of Indian dams in Kashmir over Pakistan

Apart from huge storage capacities of abovementioned dams time of their

filling is also a high concern for Pakistan for example Baglihar Dam can

block 7000 cusecs of water per day whenever India wishes to. Storage of

water in Baglihar Dam reduced the flow of water in Chenab River during

the sowing period of August to October 2008 and badly affected the

agriculture sector of Pakistan. Pakistan lost 23000 cusecs of water;

farmers could not irrigate their fields due to shortage of water and

resultantly 3.5 million agriculture tracts got barren. The standing cotton,

paddy crops of basmati rice of Kharif season in Punjab which were ripe

got badly affected.

The sowing of next crop of wheat in September-October also got affected and so

was the case with Rabi crop in January-February this year due to reduced flow of

water.

The Baglihar Dam together with Dul Hasti and other dams can plainly diminish

the flow of Chenab during the vital Rabi crop-sowing season (January and

February).

Both countries have allocated resources and have shown will to fight with

time togain control over Neelam. For Pakistan it is a matter of survival,

once control over Neelam lost life of Mangla dam would be at risk and the

entire investment made on Neelam-Jehlum project will also be wasted.

In worst case scenario, agriculture and electricity aside, Indian blockade of

Pakistani water will tear apart Pakistani social fabric as there will be a

severe reduction in productivity and millions of people will be deprived of

food and water. Riots in large cities and towns may erupt and this would

jolt the law and order situation in the country. Such incidents with less

intensity have already taken place in Pakistan against constant load-

shedding of electricity. Trains and infrastructure was set on fire in some

cities, roads were blocked in other and thousands of employees lost their

jobs.

The impact will be multifold in case of water scarcity. Millions of people in Punjab,

NWFP and Sindh are directly or indirectly related to agriculture sector. These

people will be worst sufferers and as a result of no agriculture productivity those

who are not related to agriculture would also get affected as there would be no

food item like wheat, sugar, rice, cotton etc. in market. As a result of mass

hunger, provinces can also turn into hostile neighbors to which eventually would

weaken Pakistani state. The country would descend into battles, riots and

quarrels over food and water like many African countries.

India in the past have  released excessive water into rivers crossing into

Pakistan and as a result severe floods in NWFP, Punjab and some parts

of Sindh as well played havoc. The 1992 flood is one such example when

India released excessive water into Ravi River which badly affected lands

of Punjab and Norowal district in particular.

Other than flood there are multiple concerns over Indian plans vis-à-vis Pakistani

interests like

In May 2009, Chairman Indus Water Council Pakistan and Coordinator

World Water Assembly Zahoorul wrote that ‘Indian water terrorism’ posed

more serious threat to Pakistan than Taliban. He said the pace with which

India was diverting Pakistani rivers, the day is not far off when the country

would face situation like Somalia, Ethiopia and Chad.

Indian water aggression will destroy local industry and agriculture. Trailer

of this horror movie has already been played during Rabi season last year

when India started to fill Baglihar dam despite knowing it was sowing

season in Pakistan. With even larger dams India will be able to stop

Pakistani water for entire season which will destroy linked canal system of

Pakistan.

Chutak is under construction on River Suru. In case any of these dams

collapse or large quantity of water is deliberately released, it will not only

endanger our proposed Bhasha dam but also submerge Skardu city and

airport. KKH between Besham and Jaglot would wash away.

Uri Power Project is located very near to LoC and the world knows that LoC is a

constant flashpoint where exchange of artillery fire always remains probable. Any

such fire exchange put this project at risk as well but still Indians are pushing it

hence it is evident that India wants Pakistan to take a provoking step in this

sector and India can use this opportunity to attack Azad Jummu Kashmir.

Dams Despite problems, why?

Most notable aspect of Indian water aggression is that India has a poor record of

dam safety. Many projects after or during execution have ran into serious

technical hazards;

Two persons died and a dozen were injured when a tunnel of the

prestigious Dul Hasti hydro project collapsed on January 29th 2007. The

incident took place a day before the National Hydro Power Corporation

(NHPC) was scheduled to carry out trial run. This happened due to use of

substandard material.

The hydel project on river Chenab near Kishtwar (Doda) had been in controversy

ever since the French consortium Domez Sogia Boresea stopped work midway

after the abduction of one of its engineer in 1992. Four years later, NHPC

engaged Jai Parkash Industries to execute the civil works and at that time, the

project was estimated to be commissioned by October 2003 at a cost of Rs4,000

corer. Now, the project cost has increased to Rs5, 000 corers, with NHPC

authorities expecting to complete it by March.

ANALYSIS:

As India is stopping the water of Pakistan and wants to kill the agriculture of

Pakistan and in other words it’s a try to weaken the economic situation of the

country, but it’s a fact that both countries are well equipped with the atomic

power and both are neighboring countries this fact can not be changed so to live

with peace both countries have to solve the conflict very seriously so when we

apply these styles, these mite be the consequences.

Collaborative Style:

Pros:

o Both parties will be benefited by using the collaborative style of resolving

conflict, as both parties will be getting their needs.

o There would be good relationship and the issue will be resolved in

pleasant manner.

Cons:

o It is very difficult to achieve means that both countries representative sit

together and find a solution acceptable to both countries because the

problem is more like a political problem.

Competitive Style:

Pros:

o One country will be winner in the conflict and the victory will be clear.

o The real inside will come out, means that what both countries want from

each other because most of time in anger and emotions people say out

the real truth, which they had been hiding inside their heart.

Cons:

o As the looser will be clear, so as a result the looser will hold grudges in

their heart regarding the other country. As a result relationship will go bad

and there is a chance a new conflict arises.

o This may cause a war between countries in future.

Accommodative Style:

Pros:

o The relationship between both the countries will go better.

Cons:

o Countries will not be bound to work about the solution found.

Compromising Style:

Pros:

o Both countries will have a good relationship and a friendly relationship if

they purely work on the compromising style which may decrease the

conflicts between the countries and increase the trade between them.

Cons:

o No one gets what it wants there is no actual end to the conflict. It is like a

dead end.

Alternative Solution

Competition Collaboration

Compromising

Assertiveness

Avoiding Accommodating

Cooperativeness

As Considering the 5 styles of Resolving Conflict:

Collaborative Style:

An aggressive and principled position must be taken at global level on

water issue with India.  It must be aired at every international forum that

consequences of Indian water belligerence towards Pakistan would be

worst and would put lives of 1.5 billion people of the region at risk.

An aggressive policy is needed to be adopted on funding problems for

Diamir- Basha dam as it is the only big reservoir on Indus which can

ensure water security of the country.  Government must also approach

friendly countries like China, UAE for the project if World Bank and Asian

Development bank fail to provide finances for the project.

Competitive Style:

Water security must be an integral part of Pakistan’s defense policy. To

make sure that Pakistani rivers (Indus, Chenab, Jehlum, Nelam) keep

flowing normally Pakistan must utilize every possible mean from legal to

military.

Pakistan must declare its response in case India tries to divert or block

Pakistani water in Kashmir. Parliament and military brass must form a

uniform and cohesive policy to counter this existential threat.

Power generation by hydro power plants must be encouraged at all levels

and government must set a clear target of building specific number of

dams to fulfill the needs of energy and irrigation and also to reduce oil

export bill which currently is being used in thermal power plants.

Parliament must define a maximum threshold time period, based on

estimates of population growth and increase in local demand, after it must

become necessary for ruling government to initiate at least one large

reservoir in the country.

To overcome the loss of water for the last three decades Pakistan needs

more than one big dam and Kalabagh dam is one such project which can

fulfill the needs of the country. Political parties must constitute a team and

must review objections of Sindh and NWFP provinces on this project and

must come up with a workable solution instead of criminally putting the

most important project in cold storage as the current government in

Islamabad has done.

After Baglihar experience, Pakistan must have no doubt about Indian

intentions about Pakistani rivers flowing from Kashmir. Pakistan needs

real time imagery satellite to monitor its rivers in Indian Held Kashmir

(IHK) and Indian activities on these rivers. So more funds for scientific

research and development are recommended here. For interim bases

friendly countries like China can be approached to get satellite imagery of

Western Rivers. There are reports that India has stolen water from Indus

via a tunnel. These kinds of activities can only be monitored in real time

using satellite technology.

All Indian dams in Jammu and Kashmir are in disputed area since the

entire region is disputed as per UNO between Pakistan and India.

Pakistan foreign office must take up this matter with international donors.

An awareness campaign must be launched in local and international

media to highlight this duality by international donors.

If India delivers information about its future plans on Pakistani rivers in

Kashmir, the matter could be taken up in parliament by political forces.

While a group of experts in WAPDA and Water and Power ministry must

come up with a report about potential side effects of any such project

being executed on Pakistani rivers so that solid objections can be raised

on proposed Indian projects on Western Rivers.

Accommodative Style:

Kashmir is sensitive for both India and Pakistan and without any local

support India will try to avoid war in this sector but will use every possibility

to damage Pakistani agriculture sector by blocking waters and would try to

maintain her peaceful posture in international community by propaganda.

To counter this Pakistan must rush to approach International Court of

Justice for its share of water which India did block in 2008 through

Baglihar dam and which is very probable in near future as well. A strong

case in International courts would put international construction

companies and donors not to provide assistance in any water project on

Western Rivers in Jammu and Kashmir.

Compromising Style:

Pakistan must ask India to provide complete record of its activities on

Western rivers. This is important because under IWT either party must

notify the other of plans to construct any engineering work which could

affect the other party and to provide data about such works.

Recommendation

The style and recommended for the conflict is the collaboration style because we

need some positive anger to force the Indians to come to the conflict listen it

and sit to solve it. In other case they will not be willing to solve it the other benefit

we are going to have using this style would be that as they are our neighbor

which can not be changed so either they are good or bad we have to live with

them so this style will help us making good relations.

The most feasible option for Pakistan in this case is to build more dams like

kalabagh dam, to overcome the shortage of water in Pakistan, and to full fill the

country needs of water. The positive impact of a mega project like Kalabagh dam

would evidently be multifarious and wide spread. The positive effects are

generally quantified in terms of economic benefits accruing from the project. This

is a constructive development resulting from the growing environmental

preservation, under which general criteria are being prescribed for environmental

assessment of development of projects. This approach helps in defining the likely

adverse effects at the project formulation stage when a realistic idea can be

made and provision for corrective or mitigating steps can be incorporated in the

project scheme.

In addition to the main economical benefit in irrigation and power sector the most

significant benefit of kalabagh dam would be its effective role in mitigating the

flood damages which occur in lower sindh and lower Punjab almost every year.

These floods of abnormal intensity damage the agricultural crops, infrastructure

and even loss of live take place.

Lesson Learnt

Everything we do in life it must be according to some planning don’t just use

rough ideas to do work. Find solutions for the problem as soon as possible

because many things changes with time and also if the problem prolonged it

become more complex to resolve. While solving the problem must see both

parties’ advantages so no one get the feeling that he or they are doing things just

for themselves. Must see opponent strength how much powerful he is don’t

underestimate others while making decisions.

Reference:

http://brasstacks.pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207:paper-

on-water-issue&catid=45:articles&Itemid=95&lang=en

Presented By: M. Usman Khan Sherwani Aminah Fawzy Rameez Rana Usman Shahid Maria Amir Fatima Mustafa

Current Wave of Fundamentalism

Presented To: Sir Manzoor Awan

Hasan Jahanzeb Bushra Tashfeen

CURRENT WAVE OF FUNDAMENTALISM

All religious organizations see themselves as following the most important, essential, basic and crucial aspects of their religion. If we define "fundamentalists" as people who accept their sacred texts literally, then we should be calling them "literalists". The term "fundamentalist" has no objective meaning; it is simply a description that is used to refer to a religious person who, in the view of the writer, is taking a passage of scripture literally when they should not. This is why all definitions of the term have so far been inaccurate.

Pakistan is situated in a region where fundamentalism has been posed, of late, as one of the most threatening questions. The process initiated by the Islamic revolution in Iran has even been internationalized by the Taliban's victory in Afghanistan. At the same time, the rise of Hindu radicalism in India has further complicated the situation in Pakistan.

Recently Islamic fundamentalism has risen as an alternative political phenomenon not only in Pakistan but also in the entire Muslim world. Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan is partly a link of this international phenomenon and partly caused by specific local reasons. When analyzing Islamic fundamentalism, one must understand that the religion of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism are not one and the same thing. Islamic fundamentalism is a reactionary, non-scientific movement aimed at returning society to a centuries-old social set-up, defying all material and historical factors. It is an attempt to roll back the wheel of history.

The current wave of fundamentalism is just eating up the country from with in, in my opinion fundamentalism is the name of the conflict which

is created when the meaning is not perceived as it should have, and instead the literal meaning is paid more heed.

HISTORY:

Fundamentalism has always been religiously motivated as people are susceptible and easy to mould when religion is used as a catalyst. The word fundamentalism was firstly used by the Protestants of United States. Fundamentalism exists in all religion in one form or the other. Weather it be Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity ,Islam or even Atheism fundamentalist thinking is present.

ISLAMIC VIEW ON FUNDAMENTALISM:

It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith. This may describe the private religious attitudes of individuals and have no relationship with larger social groups.

It describes a variety of religious movements and political parties in Muslim communities.

As opposed to the above two usages, in the West "Islamic fundamentalism" is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law.

PAKISTAN AS A BREEDING GROUND:Pakistan is officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Religion is part and parcel of the state. The constitution and judiciary are full of Islamic demagogy. Most of the education syllabus is also coloured with Islamic ideology; even scientific explanations somehow manage to drag in religion.

Religion has become a way of life. Every donation to charity ends up in the coffers of the religious institutions. Pakistan was intended to be a secular Muslim state. When the state was formed in 1947, the population was not fundamentalist. But as time went on, Pakistan adopted an Islamic ideology more favorable to the fanatics. When Russia invaded Afghanistan at the end of the 1970s, Washington decided to develop an indigenous counter force. To fight “communism” in Afghanistan, Washington worked closely with Pakistan’s military dictator, General Zia ulHaq, and the Pakistani intelligence, the Inter-Services intelligence (ISI).

THE US EFFECT :

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton told a US Congressional sub-committee in April about the US role in promoting the fundamentalists: “It was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said, you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea ... let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

“Here is a very strong argument ... it wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union but let’s be careful with what we sow, because we will harvest.”

Numerous Pakistani governments were ready to do whatever the US wanted out of sheer financial greed. Since 1978 the different governments have all been close US allies. This includes 20 years of military dictatorship under Zia (1977-1988) and General Pervez Musharaf (1999-2008). Various Pakistani governments helped the religious fanatics establish religious educational institutions (madrasas) that have changed the country’s religious culture. These schools mushroomed under the Zia dictatorship. There are now religious schools throughout Pakistan. The madrasas were marketed as offering a free education with religious teachings. The failure of the government to provide free public education paved the way for their progress.

Pakistan has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world. Only about half of Pakistanis can read and write, far below other countries with a similar per-capita income, such as Vietnam. The enrollment of girls is among the lowest in the world, lagging behind Ethiopia and

Yemen. The influence of the madrasas is increased by the lack of public education. These schools are breeding grounds for religious fundamentalism.

After 9/11, the religious fanatics who left Afghanistan came to Pakistan and were able to establish more madrasas. At this time, Musharaf was a partner in the “alliance against terrorism”. He was manipulating both the fanatics and the imperialists. The partnership of the religious fanatics with US and Pakistani intelligence agencies went unchecked until 9/11. Then the whole scenario shifted. Themujahideen were labeled terrorists and the US sought a military solution to their growth.

This growth was not only the result of the US and Pakistani support, but also the complete failure of Pakistan’s civilian and military governments to solve the basic problems of the working class and other sectors. Successive regimes have failed to end the grip of feudalism, the exploitation by Pakistani capitalists and their humiliating treatment of workers and farmers, the repression of smaller nationalities and the theft of their natural resources.

FUNDAMENTALISM IN PAKISTAN HAS A NUMBER OF CAUSES:

Pakistan is not a nation-state. It is an unnatural country with its borders drawn in the name of religion. Besides Israel, it is the only country founded in the name of religion. Religion was and still is exploited to provide a basis for the country.After its creation, the ruling class, in order to keep the country intact and run the state in a multi-national country, has constantly used religion as a tool to deny the rights of small nationalities and to justify unelected regimes. This has combined state and religion.

The ruling class has always exploited religion to justify its regimes or to win popularity. The unelected governments used religion to argue that Islam and Western democracy do not match, while so-called elected governments used religion to gain popularity whenever it was threatened. After decades of exploitation of religion by rulers, there is a developing view that if Islam is the only solution to all problems, then

one might as well give the government to those who practice Islam most consistently, i.e. the fundamentalists.

There are 8000 religious schools, with an estimated 2.5 million to 3.5 million students. These schools are run with money from the Saudi or Kuwaiti governments, various departments of the Pakistani government and local wealthy people, who give big donations from their corruptly obtained money, are to please Allah as well as to purify their corrupted money. Poor parents are compelled by their circumstances to send their children to these schools. Their only options are to send their children to child labour or to these schools, where they will get religious education, food, shelter and a job at some mosque on completing their education. There is an additional factor: it is believed that by learning the Quran by heart at these schools, a boy will secure heaven for himself and his family.

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan really began in the 1980s. On the one hand, the military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, was imposing laws under the umbrella of Socio Islamic Society. On the other hand, Pakistan had become a base camp for the forces opposing the Afghan revolution. Not only were thousands of Pakistani guerrillas operating from Pakistani soil but also 25,000 guerrillas from other Muslim countries reached Afghanistan through Pakistan.After the end of the Afghan war, the Pakistan Army started using these guerrilla forces to fight a proxy war in Kashmir. It is still going on. The Pakistan Army is interested in using them only in Kashmir, but the way these guerrillas are brainwashed, it is not possible to restrict them to Kashmir. They are taught to fight against all infidels; hence they reach from the Moro (Philippines) to Chechnya to help their Muslim brethren. When their foreign engagements end and they return home, they may pose a big challenge to the state. Already they are flexing their muscles. The attack on the US embassy in Islamabad in 1999 and the hijacking of an Indian plane from Nepal demanding the release of Maulana Massod, a militant leader, show their strength.

Pakistan’s strategic position also provides a fertile ground for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. Two Muslim countries with fundamentalist governments, Iran and Afghanistan, lie on its western border. The governments in both these countries have strong connections with the fundamentalist parties belonging to their respective sects. Pakistan borders India in the east. India is experiencing the rise and rise of Hindu

fundamentalists, who have been in power now for about three years. These Hindu reactionaries use sloganeering and war mania against Pakistan to seek popularity. As a reaction to Hindu fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism gains popularity in Pakistan.

All these aspects added to lead to the point where we are now where people are afraid to pray in mosques, where children are stricken of the their schools, fundamentalists have no goals other than to damage people along the reputation of Islam as a peace loving Religion. Fundamentalists are in conflict with there own religion, the thought process is directed towards the literal meaning of the teachings of Islam.

DEMOCRATIC FAILUREDemocracy has been as much part of the problem as any of the other factors. The Pakistani ruling class has failed miserably to bring about democratic norms. The present civil government of the Pakistan People's Party has been contradictory in dealing with religious fanatics. In the Swat area, it went from peace talks to agreements with the fanatics to establish Islamic courts.

The religious forces were decisively defeated during the 2008 general elections. In the 2002 general elections, they received 15% of the vote, but in 2008 got less than 3%. Instead of mass mobilizations to confront religious fundamentalism, the PPP regime opted for negotiations. This gave the fanatics an incentive to go further: they demanded sharia laws in the Malakand division.

This was accepted and an agreement signed. This encouraged the fundamentalists to go even further in their attempt to control more areas, appearing close to Islamabad. Panicked, the regime, with full US support, carried out a full military operation in the Malakand division in June. The result was more than 3.5 million internally displaced people and more than 5000 deaths. The government claimed victory, but it was only a temporary retreat of the fanatics, who were able to save their infrastructure. The "victory" celebrations had not lasted even one month before the fanatics attacked the military's general headquarters, the famous GHQ, along with several police training centres in different parts of the country in October. Many Pakistani liberals have supported the military actions against the fanatics, arguing there is no alternative. But no military solution can eliminate the religious fundamentalists. This

is clear in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. The religious fundamentalists are using the tactics of urban terrorism. This cannot be eliminated by invading areas considered to be under fundamentalists' control Military actions in Malakand division and Waziristan have just pushed the fanatics to other areas. This is not the solution to bring about sustainable peace, which is necessary in this region.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:

Force (military action) Education and Awarness Collaboration (with the tribal’s to root out fundamentalism)

FORCE:

A military solution has been presented as an immediate step to an ultimate, lasting solution to fight against fundamentalism.This has been presented as short-term and long-term strategies. For many liberals, a military solution is a short-term strategy, while the long-term strategy requires reforms and more development. But the military strategy will achieve nothing beyond pleasing US imperialistic thought who on one hand encourage dialogue with the Afghan Taliban but are against any kind of dialogue on the other side of the border.For the fight against religious fanatics to advance, it has to start with the political will to separate religion from the state. Military action will only give them an excuse to bomb our cities like the have. There is no justification for what they have done.

Military action can never be regarded as a solution but rather a tool to weaken the opposition for a small time it cannot bring about a viable solution, when u kill the enemy other will find reasons and ways to avenge that death and the conflict will go on. Force not only closes many doors but also creates problems, and in Pakistan’s case killing a lot of those Pakistani people whose minds have been corrupted by the fundamentalists.

The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the imperialist forces is providing the religious fanatics with a political justification for their terrorist activities. These occupations must end.We must oppose occupations and religious fundamentalism. There should be no support for one against the other. The fight between the religious fundamentalists and the imperialists is a fight between bulls.There is not much to gain by siding with one against the other. Rather, we need to end the fight and open the space to create an alternative system. US occupation is not helping rather is one of the basis of problems in our country. Our army has done a very good job and many soldiers have given their lives for their country.

EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

A nation wide offensive through education. Education is a self defense, religion and terrorism itself. Terrorists who try to pass themselves off as jihaadis have an advantage of exploiting young unnurtured minds who are not acquainted with the concept of jihad an thus instead of challenging the terrorists version of glorifying terrorism by labeling it as jihad, most ignorant people accept it blindly. People need to be educated, given jobs; bank loans for starting small business to divert their energy to positive activities, not let terrorists exploit people through the lure of a means of income. A jihad ON terrorism needs to be waged. An self defense plus a coordinated link wd local police station to report suspicious people A thoroughly negative image portrayed thru media to project terrorists as invaders fighting a nonreligious cause so no one gives them sanctuary/support. Al monetary transactions from outside countries monitored. Immigrant registration done plus tight control on border to prevent infiltration by potential terrorists.

Fundamentalism is always conflictual. Its mentality considers those who advocate moderation, understanding, or dialogue to be even more detrimental to the cause than the ‘real’ enemy. Understanding that dialogue is only a tool a means, a step towards a solution. As long as such people determine the terrain, the final confrontation will always be postponed. All the burning issues must be solved through dialogue. But

making people aware of what is going around them and how terrorists are manipulating children and grown men to use them for their own purposes. Killing the cancer before it spreads is the way to go. Interreligious dialogue will never fulfill its unique mission until it recognizes fundamentalisms as conversation partners.

COLLABORATION:

It is the menace which has affected the very fabric of our society, and also gave a reason to the west to malign our great religion, as the one propagating violence and extremism. Fundamentalism is the term coined by the west to suggest that all practicing Muslims are extremists, fundamentalists, leading to terrorism and violence.

If we see in the hindsight one would find that due to our poor economic condition, social injustice, unequal distribution of wealth, and host of other factors which compelled a very large segment of our society to look towards the madrassas to educate and feed their children, which are being managed by hardliner mullahs, of course not all madrassa fall in this category.

Many non-state actors, and other stake holders which want to put our country in turmoil started exploiting these students of madrassas and brain washed them to turn violent against the state using the religion as a motivating theme. These elements have linkages world over, hence this phenomenon is taken as global issue for which the entire world is joining hands.

To eradicate this menace, and save the world from this fundamentalism, which leads to extremism and ultimately to violence and terrorism. In order to contribute towards arresting this trend, following measures are suggested:

Revamping our educational system:The immediate need is to provide equal opportunities to all the children free or affordable, with the arrangements to absorb them in the job market.

Easy and affordable justice:Everyone has a right to get justice if he/she is a victim to injustice. Absence of justice leads to violence and makes the victim an easy prey for such people who work for their own agenda.

Registration of madrassas:Unchecked mushrooming of madrassas needs to be brought into effective legislation. Proper monitoring regarding induction, syllabi is must to curb this trend.

Involvement of civil society:Well to do people must be motivated at government level, at social level to step forward to join hands with the government to boost the efforts generated in that direction.

Interaction with Mullahs:The term Mullah is always suggested negatively, which may not be true in entirety. We need to take this class on board, and initiate measured to compel them to change their outlook and also to make rehabilitation programs for them, so that in turn they propagate the same to the madrassa students.

Role of Media:It is the most powerful medium to sell any ideas, and to bring awareness amongst the societies. The media must not be let free, rather they should be used to help the affected segment of the society, which have already fallen prey, or those who were likely to be trapped into this web.

CONCLUSION:

The issue of fundamentalism can’t be resolved with any of one measures, rather a combination of all the measures will help in this regard. The negative fallout may be pronounced because of the ineffective implementation or piecemeal application but if with earnest, a wholesome and all encompassing strategy is evolved, it is for sure that we will be successful in combating the menace of fundamentalism.