Abstract
In June 2018 Pakistan as well as India will participate for the first time in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China to be held at Qingdao city on June 9-10 as a full scale member of this powerful organization. Obviously this provides a brilliant opportunity to show willingness and readiness to contribute to the effectiveness of the SCO. Pakistan’s inclusion into the organization has opened a timely opportunity to bid for regional peace and economic prosperity for its nation. There are multiple arrangements which help Pakistan to come in the streamline as well as allow the Muslim state to support ongoing priority interests of the organizations. Due to our membership many changes are expected in the domestic legislation and international commitments generating out of organizational common interest. Moreover, it will have great impact (but positive) on our traditional behavior towards regional and international politics particularly on the fronts of foreign policy. Among lots of opportunities that Pakistan’s inclusion into SCO brings, there are few challenges for the country as well. For example, inclusion of Pakistan in the SCO is not an isolated decision; India was also given the full membership to join the organization as permanent member. Traditionally, both Pakistan and India have zero tolerance for each other when it comes to their national security dynamics. Other than United Nations, and SAARC, this will be the third organization where both countries will be sitting together, though UN is quite a different one. Like SAARC, if both the countries maintain the same status-quo of bashing each other, the very purpose of SCO will be lost. Pakistan should not allow to label itself as a negative factor in the SCO. Believing on the great potential of Pakistan and SCO, this paper contests the argument of ‘economics defines politics’. Therefore, this research paper has shed light on Pakistan’s previous inability to benefit from regional organizations while suggesting a way forward for her engagement with the SCO.
Introduction
The very spirit of the international politics is to create opportunities for global community to better serve humanity and establish the foundations for long lasting peace and prosperity between nations. This is true when we look around and highlight developments in the field of trade, business, economics, politics, human development, education, science and technology. Global consensus on international institutions and commitment to uphold the manifestos of such organizations is again a fruitful learning that satisfies the conduct of international politics. Conflicts are obvious so is their impact on politics. Therefore, the emergence of the European Union which had rooted out the variability of conflict and brought positive peace among regional states should be considered as a remedy to confrontations. Moreover, organizations like ASEAN and many others brought the successful interaction among nations to discuss and merge their vision towards collective politics, progress, peace and prosperity. Hence, it is pertinent to accept the role of regional organizations in bringing positive changes in the relationship of states which are now more convenient for greater cooperation and less prone to conflict.
Understanding Pakistan’s Dynamics
Pakistan has not gained good experience out of its regional or international memberships. The country has been a victim of regional-cum-international frameworks rather a beneficiary. For example, Pakistan’s membership into SEATO and CENTO in September 1954 and September 1955 respectively served to isolate Pakistan rather than exposing its image as an economic paradise. Though Pakistan joined the so-called organizations due to Indian aggressive designs against its territorial integrity but the very idea of the two organizations was containment of the former Soviet Communism. Pakistan was never interested to contain Soviet Union rather its national security complexities inevitably pushed the leadership to indulge into Western alliance. The end result caused isolation from the Muslim World; distance from the neutral countries particularly Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and above all an animosity of the Soviet Union. In 1962 when India and China got into border conflict and war erupted, the US and western states, particularly UK and France sold weapons to India. As compared to Pakistan, India did not have to pay any price while receiving massive military support from the US and its allies in Europe. Pakistan did protest such a tilt of newly elected US leadership but of no use.1
This installed a new behavior in Pakistan’s foreign policy which saw a transition in its approach to international relations. The country got bitter learning and initiated a new chapter of foreign relations with Soviet Union and China. During 1960s, when the Soviet and Chinese were going through political divergences, Pakistan stayed neutral and did not want to become party to any side. Unfortunately, in 1969 the Soviet Union leadership introduced a treaty called Asian Collective Security Treaty and wanted Pakistan to join it. The treaty was in fact an arrangement to isolate and contain rising Chinese influence in the region. Pakistan categorically denied being partner to such a Soviet move against China, which annoyed Moscow. Pakistan was the only Asian country that had cordial and politically impressive relations with Beijing. India due to the 1962 border war did not cherish cordial relations rather was willing to take any step to isolate and negate Chinese influence in the region.2
Negation of the treaty by Pakistan indirectly foiled Soviet ambitions to isolate China. Once again this came at a cost. In August 1971, India and Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. In October 1971, New Delhi invoked article 9 of the treaty to seek Soviet support in the backdrop of her actions in East Pakistan, where it was sponsoring terrorists of ‘Mukti Bahni’. The Pakistan army had done a marvelous job defeating the insurgents but due to Indian actions of ‘no fly zone’ and diplomatic hustles, failed Pakistan to ensure political, economic, military, and diplomatic backup to forces fighting in East Pakistan. Knowing the professional success of Pakistan army against ‘Mukti Bahni’, Indian government decided to send its army to backup the insurgents. Due to ‘no fly zone’ Pakistan remained unable to reinforce its support. In the meanwhile, Pakistan was using all diplomatic channels to invoke international law against Indian military intervention. In this regard on December 05, 1971, Pakistan submitted a ceasefire resolution which was ‘vetoed’ by the Soviet Union. On December 06, 1971, Pakistan submitted another resolution for ceasefire, it was again ‘vetoed’ by Soviet Union. Once again on December 13, 1971, Pakistan submitted a resolution for ceasefire but unfortunately it was again ‘vetoed’ by the Soviet Union. This gave quite an ideal timeframe for Indian military to fully mobilize its forces in East Pakistan and while shoulder to shoulder getting into the cover of insurgents, New Delhi successfully controlled the choke points.3
Pakistan at many occasions ended as a failure when it became part of an alliance or regretted to become. The same happed when again Pakistan entered in an alliance of the United States during 1980s against the Soviet Union, when Moscow intervened in Afghanistan. Pakistan has done so much to ensure its territorial integrity.4 It used Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) to solve Kashmir issue but ended as a failure. In context to Islamic ideology, the country even did not recognize Israel in the backdrop of the Palestinian issue but again the Muslim world stayed unmoved on Kashmir. The primary responsible organization to help resolve the Kashmir issue is the United Nations, which again is a terrible failure to fulfill its commitment with people of Kashmir. South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is another failure when it comes to convince India that regional prosperity and progress lies in solving bilateral issues.
Moreover, the so-called stakeholders of peace like the European Union and the United States of America are more interested in bilateralism rather internationalism of politics. They see Pakistan as a product which could satisfy their lust of political interests, due to which we have always faced crisis even contributing the most in any arrangement. It is Pakistan’s ultimate success that the country is now independently dealing with both internal and external challenges posing direct or indirect threats to its national security. Our readiness to deal with conventional and sub-conventional warfare makes us unique bidder of peace and prosperity in the region particularly and at the international level generally. We got the capability to engage with the doomsday while upholding the slogan of peace for today. This is what our forefathers wished and wanted to achieve but paid a huge cost for all this.
History passes but experiences and bitter learning stays intact. It is the nation that through its resolve heals the wounds. Have we learned from our history? Time will testify but as a stakeholder I can only point out the diplomatic misery that brought even more challenges than opportunities for national security of Pakistan. This dilemma should not become the fate of our future. That is why it is important to learn from our history, the same very way our traditional competitor, the former Soviet Union being today’s Russian Federation has learned and modified its foreign policy towards us. China, Russia, and Pakistan all have had bitter experiences from their history.5 We lost East Pakistan as did the Soviet lose Central Asia. China along with its troubled waters of South China Sea, instable political regimes like North Korea, border dispute with India, issues of containment arising due to US Asia Pivot policy, and lingering Taiwan issue has developed marvelous resilience against these called challenges to its national security. Why can this split resilience be merged into collective resilience?
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a one of its kind when the above question comes into discussion. The organization was initially developed to mark security as a common feature of founding member states but with the passage of time acknowledged the prospects of economics and mutual cooperation on multiple domains, made it a body of collectiveness. In 2017, Pakistan was given permanent membership of the organization which was earlier given as an observer.6
In June 2018 Pakistan as well as India will participate for the first time in SCO meeting in China as a full scale member of this powerful organization.7 Obviously this provides a brilliant opportunity to show willingness and readiness to contribute to the effectiveness of SCO. There are several ways to produce a good image of a responsible member. It is time not to repeat the same very old mistakes that our policy makers traditionally have been doing. For example, we joined and separated from many alliances based on our national security priorities, which in my view was never a good move. Pakistan’s international or regional alliances should be orchestrated around economic benefits, whereas the national security needs should be managed indigenously. Beggars are not choosers neither are they given respect in a community of developed nations. Pakistan’s respect is purely dependent on its ability to ensure territorial integrity through its own resources and technology necessary to induce the immunity of defense against internal and external threats. Moreover, Pakistan’s prosperity is solely dependent on its extension towards the world to seek economic alliances based on convergences particularly with Russia.8
As mentioned earlier, Pakistan has addressed its foreign reliance on military procurement by developing its domestic heavy industries that today have addressed more than 80% of its security needs.9 Pakistan‘s armed forces have successfully managed the menace of non-kinetic warfare which includes sub-conventional war, guerilla war, insurgency, cyber war, information war, and espionage. The many domains of internal and external pressures including sub-conventional, conventional and strategic postures are in control of Pakistan.10 Manipulation at any of these domains is quite a challenge for the opponents. But the problem is our economic situation that further aggravates diplomatic posturing of Pakistan. Our reliance on foreign aid and export fixation to the western countries has dented the independent posture of Pakistan‘s foreign policy.
Our membership in SCO allows us to weaken such clutches while opening up new avenues of economic cooperation with member states including India. The optimum benefits of the organization can only be extracted if we do not repeat the same mistakes that we made with earlier with different organizations. Irrespective of blaming India as harbor of terrorism in Pakistan, we should engage productively in the SCO anti-terror network and help establish such a system that could denounce the negative ambitions of New Delhi. We know that blaming has never helped us but through international and regional instruments a great deal of comfort can been achieved. Therefore, we should be positive about SCO setup in terms of economic integration while forgetting about India as a bullying neighbor would help us receive greater respect and acknowledgement of our serious approach towards the mission of the organization.11
Engaging India is the best medicine for New Delhi rather than denouncing its presence. That does not mean forgetting the Kashmir issue or putting it aside in our relations with India. Our case on Kashmir is getting stronger day by day as its foundations are based on United Nations resolutions. International law and norms are at stake if this burning issue goes in vain. Let us try not to make SCO a body of incorrect political scoring but there will be a time when this platform could conveniently help us project Kashmir.
Indian Gambling on SCO
India is taking a unique route towards economic development which only holds itself as a player, benefiter and leader of the whole. Hypothetically, if there are hundreds striving to achieve something, one would find India standing alone at a side while announcing that ‘I got a problem and reservations’. Such confusion is born out of its domestic political order that has prematurely overstretched its mantra of regional hegemon and bidder of a global order. Considering the joint communiqué issued at the end of the April 24, 2018 meeting that listed other SCO members, including Russia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, who “reaffirmed support” for the Belt and Road plan but it was only India that had ‘problems and reservations’.12
Pakistan needs to learn from its confused and calculating neighbor. The region is heading towards progress and development while riding on the back of SCO but New Delhi with its cunning and its politics of anti-regionalism sees only problems. It also stayed away from an earlier forum on ‘the Belt and Road Forum’ organized in Beijing which was attended by 29 heads of state and government, and representatives of 101 other countries. The US$57 billion worth CPEC project and its extension as ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative is the future of Asia in particular and world at large. Staying away and not benefitting from it will be an utter nonsense.
On the other hand, India’s involvement in the Chahbahar Port development, India-Myanmar-Thailand highway, Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal initiative and the International North-South Transport Corridor has not been labeled as a ‘problem nor an issue of reservations’ by any of the SCO member states along with OBOR partners. China has even been enthusiastic to extend its economic-cum-infrastructural network towards South Asia as is prevalent from Chinese agreements with Nepal and Sri Lanka to build connectivity infrastructure. It is only the Indian stalwarts who even see ‘problems and reservations’ into such Chinese efforts to rope in other South Asian countries. Pakistan is no exception to such Indian problems and reservations. It only feels ‘no problem and no reservation’ when Pakistan is mired in terror, instability, chaos, anarchy, economic strangulation, insurgency, and revolts that being neighbor New Delhi supports. If any chance of coming out from all the above problems is visible then the Indian mantra against Pakistan comes to the surface even if it has to denounce CPEC and OBOR.
India’s sole intent in the two days bilateral meeting between Indian Prime Minister and Chinese President was to isolate Pakistan. Beijing’s commitment is positive any negative exploitations. That is why Pakistan had been openly cherishing CPEC and OBOR while using all resources to help achieve the economic bid of its Chinese partners. It is believed that Beijing is not going to change its position on India’s bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group nor would it buy any Indian proposal to isolate Pakistan while accommodating Indian narrative of terrorism. Moreover, Chinese concerns over Indian participation in anti-China schemes such as the Quad and the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy will be out of negotiation from New Delhi. The so-called confidence building efforts as an ‘honest dialogue’ could only bring fruitful results for India if it lowers her reliance on the United States and comes out for the greater acceptance of CPEC and OBOR. Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has much to do and Indian fixation with the status quo of its politics is not going to help her nor its old-strategic partners like Russia would be able to help New Delhi. China has got a strong portfolio. It’s the Indian politics that has to come out of its ‘black hole’ or the dominance of United States over its foreign policy.
During the April 2018 SCO Foreign Ministerial meeting the Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said that “terrorism is an enemy of the basic human rights and the fight against it should also identify States that encourage, support and finance the menace and provide sanctuary to terror groups”.13 If Pakistan has to bring terrorism into the SCO forum just like the way India does then we must support Indian bid to expose terrorism networks based on Sushma Swaraj official wish.14 May be Pakistan’s foreign minister was quite busy in his business or personal affairs but as a dummy foreign minister let me share Pakistan’s support to Sushma Swaraj‘s desire. The Indian External Affairs minister highlighted the following points in her statement:
| Jan 1989 to Mar 31, 2018 | |
| Total Killings | 94,952 |
| Custodial Killings | 7,104 |
| Civilians Arrested | 143,481 |
| Structures Arsoned/Destroyed | 108,709 |
| Women Widowed | 22,867 |
| Children Orphaned | 107,701 |
| Women gang-raped/ Molested | 11,058 |
| Source: Kashmir Media Service |
i. She said that, “Terrorism is an enemy of basic human rights”.
Without any doubt, it is. The use of state force such as deployment of more than 1 million Indian troops in Kashmir to suppress people’s voice is violation of the basic rights.15 Use of pellet guns and making thousands of youth permanently blind with irreparable eyes is again violation of basic rights.16 Raping young girls like Asifa Bano, an innocent soul, only reminds the Muslims of Kashmir that ‘Hindutva Ideology’ is the only future of India, this is again a violation of basic rights.17 Starting from 1989 till 2018, the brutality of the Indian military and insanity of the New Delhi’s politics has killed 94,952 innocent Kashmiris were demanding their fundamental ‘right of self-determination’.
It was the then Indian Prime Minister and founding father of the Hindu nation, Jawaharlal Nehru, who accepted the resolution and promised in the United Nations to ensure ‘right of self-determination’ to Kashmiri nation. Denying that very promise by India is again violation of human rights. Denying the fundamental rights of Kashmiri along with Tamils, Sikhs, and many other minorities is an exposure of the incompetence within India. Not fulfilling the rights guaranteed by the international law and India‘s own father of the nation, is sorry commentary to Indian claims.
ii. She also said that, “the fight against terrorism should also indentify
states that encourage, finance, and provide sanctuary to terror groups”.
Let me help the SCO foreign ministers in particular but heads of states in general to solve this puzzle. It was 1971 when India trained a ‘Mukti Bahni’ terrorist group and installed them in the then ‘East Pakistan’ (now Bangladesh) to fight an insurgency war against Pakistan. It was India that after witnessing the failure of its ‘Mukti Bahni’ terrorists, deployed her standing army in the sovereign territory of Pakistan (the then East Pakistan) at a time when Pakistan followed peaceful co-existence with its all neighbors. India not only trained terrorists but fueled terrorism in the region. The Capture of Kulbhushan Yadav, a serving Indian Naval Commodore is very recent example of India’s dual face. Being an Indian intelligence spy, Yadav trained and financed many insurgent and terrorist groups in Pakistan to sabotage internal peace and ongoing economic projects like CPEC. It was again an Indian serving army officer Col. Purohit who back in 2007 carried out the Samjhauta Express terror attack that killed many Pakistanis. It is India who in Karachi to Quetta is fueling insurgency and internal disorder through its agents. It is again India which is using Afghanistan’s sovereign territory against Pakistan to support insurgency in FATA, Balochistan and Karachi. India is not all that innocent. The confession of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Ihsanullah Ahsan who categorically told the Pakistani authorities that India is providing them shelter, training, finance, and targets to fuel terrorism, insurgency, and instability in Pakistan. The former US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel officially made a statement about Indian clandestine operations in Pakistan while using Afghanistan’s soil. I have not yet touched on the Indian National Security Advisor’s ‘Doval Doctrine’ of ‘Offensive Defense’ that is only meant to wound Pakistan through non-kinetic warfare particularly sub-conventional war. So, India is a state that sponsors, encourages, finance and provides sanctuary to terror groups as its official state policy.19
Dealing with Bilateral Conflicts
The above narration is only to highlight the dual face of India which on the one hand cashes it’s big geography, demography, economic market and democracy but on the other hand sells false narratives against Pakistan. The most important thing perhaps is not to bring Indian antagonism and controversy into SCO platform. It is essential is to understand that other members will definitely be disappointed if Indo-Pak bilateral issues are raised at the forum, which is definitely not meant to play conciliatory role. For example, Indian posture of labeling Pakistan as hub of terrorism is not sellable at this platform neither Pakistan’s charge-sheet against India while announcing its non-kinetic warfare particularly state-sponsored terrorism such as Kulbhushan Yadav would altogether not serve the purpose. Kashmir, Kulbhushan Yadav, along with Indian sponsorship to anti-Pakistan insurgencies could be raised in future but this is not the proper time and place. Right now, SCO is meant for different purposes and as long as remains flourishing it would automatically expose the negative postures among members. For instance we can remind about the similar controversial situation when last year just before the BRICS summit China and India chose the only correct way not to put “Doklam military conflict” on the table of the meeting.
Essence of the SCO
SCO membership gives Pakistan lots of opportunities to benefit from cooperation on variety of issues with regional stakeholders as well as integration in useful initiatives, programs and economical projects with strategic partners including China and Russia.
History is the best teachers, so we should carefully take lessons. If we analyze SAARC problems it can be assumed that besides other obstacles politicization of the organization was to blame for lack of its effectiveness. We all remember Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi only due to political reasons refrained from participation in SAARC summit in Islamabad in 2016. Following his decision representatives from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan also followed suit.
An international multilateral mechanism always works well until it is not politicized (until it remains apolitical). The same is true about UN, OPCW and many others, therefore politics should be left aside in SCO since it has no space for it in the agenda as this organization remains a forum for true and fair mutual cooperation.
Regional Cooperation on Terrorism
Pakistan’s joining SCO is extremely important in the view of counterterrorism. Members are looking forward to practical cooperation with Pakistan in the framework of RATS (Regional Anti Terrorist Structure). RATS in fact has become a strong force which managed to arrest more than 400 terrorists in 2017 and prevented more than 600 bloodbaths. These achievements clearly indicate huge potential of RATS and the figures mentioned are just the beginning, because Pakistan’s experience and intelligence sharing would be definitely useful for SCO. In 2018 a joint SCO counterterrorism training mission is planned “Peaceful Mission 2018”. According to the rules participation in such activities is obligatory for all members contributing to security improvements and reducing tensions in the region.
Conclusion
Possessed with great potential, Pakistan could easily achieve an active and productive role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Therefore, it should understand the scope and prosperity associated with this organisation which it must avail for its own benefit and for the larger community. Any time invested in exposing Indian dual face shall be considered ‘wastage’, in SCO, rather identifying common avenues of bilateral cooperation with responsible SCO member states shall be the opportunity. Pakistan must lead into this domain and be the first South Asian state fully benefiting from it. Islamabad must use SCO to come closer to Russia in all organizational priorities as well as on bilateral fronts.
End Notes
1 Mussarat Jabeen and Muhammad Saleem Mazhar, “Security game: SEATO and CENTO as instrument of economic and military assistance to encircle Pakistan,“ Pakistan Economic and Social Review (2011): 122.
2 Nicholas Khoo, Collateral damage: Sino-Soviet rivalry and the termination of the Sino-Vietnamese alliance (Columbia University Press, 2011), p. 45-50.
3 A. Z. Hilali, US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Taylor & Francis, 2017), p. 67-68.
4 Ibid.
5 Ayaz Ahmed, “Pak-Russia Relations and Future Prospects,“ Defence Journal 20, no. 7 (2017): 14.
6 “It is a historic day’: Pakistan becomes full member of SCO at Astana summit,” Dawn (June 9, 2017), available online at: https://www.dawn.com/news/1338471 (accessed on April 28, 2018).
7 Pakistan, India remain ‘point within circle’ at SCO Summit,” Pakistan Today (April 26, 2018), available online at: https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/04/26/pakistan-india-remain-point-within-circle-at-sco-summit/ (accessed on April 28, 2018).
8 “SCO Summit 2017: Pakistan an important partner in South Asia, says Vladimir Putin,” First Post (June 10, 2017), available online at: https://www.firstpost.com/world/sco-summit-2017-pakistan-an-important-partner-in-south-asia-says-vladimir-putin-3538955.html (accessed on April 28, 2018).
9 “In a strategic shift, Pakistan ending its Arms reliance on US weapons system: Financial Times report,” Times of Islamabad (April 19, 2018), available online at: https://timesofislamabad.com/19-Apr-2018/in-a-strategic-shift-pakistan-ending-its-arms-reliance-on-us-weapons-system-financial-times-report (accessed on April 28, 2018).
10 Samson Simon Sharaf, “Threats to National Security,” The Nation (May 6, 2017), available online at: https://nation.com.pk/06-May-2017/threats-to-national-security (accessed on April 28, 2018).
11 Saud Bin Ahsen, “Benefits to Pakistan in joining Shanghai Cooperation Organization,” Global Village Space (April 25, 2017), available online at: https://www.globalvillagespace.com/benefits-pakistan-joining-shanghai-cooperation-organization/ (accessed on April 28, 2018).
12 Ben Blanchard, “China fails to get Indian support for Belt and Road ahead of summit,” Reuters (April 24, 2018), available online at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-summit-sco/china-fails-to-get-indian-support-for-belt-and-road-ahead-of-summit-idUSKBN1HV0U4 (accessed on April 28, 2018).
13 “Terrorism an enemy of basic human rights: Swaraj at SCO Foreign Ministers’ meet in China,” The Economic Times (April 24, 2018), available online at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/terrorism-an-enemy-of-basic-human-rights-swaraj-at-sco-foreign-ministers-meet-in-china/articleshow/63891393.cms (accessed on April 28, 2018).
14 “Terrorism an enemy of basic human rights, says Sushma Swaraj at SCO FMs’ meeting,” The Hindu (April 24, 2018), available online at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/terrorism-an-enemy-of-basic-human-rights-says-sushma-swaraj-at-sco-fms-meet/article23654618.ece (accessed on April 28, 2018).
15 “India has deployed more than 1 million troops in held Kashmir: Foreign Office,” DAWN (November 30, 2016), available online at: https://www.dawn.com/news/1299621 (accessed on April 28, 2018).
16 “Irreparable damage to 1,314 pellet eye victims: Study,” Kashmir Media Service (April 08, 2018), available online at: https://kmsnews.org/news/2018/04/08/irreparable-damage-to-1314-pellet-eye-victims-study/ (accessed on April 28, 2018).
17 “Asifa Bano: The child rape and murder that has Kashmir on edge,” BBC (April 12, 2018), available online at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43722714 (accessed on April 28, 2018).
18 Please follow ‘Home Page’ of the Kashmir Media Service, available online at: http://kmsnews.org/news/? (accessed on April 28, 2018).
19 Polina Tikhonova “India Said To Be Sponsoring Terrorism In Pakistan: Fact Check,” Value Walk (September 27, 2017), available online at: https://www.valuewalk.com/2017/09/india-terrorism-pakistan/ (accessed on April 28, 2018).
