this one is quite convincing,but as you know i have to figure out mistakes, roshan try to write more on peace process,water issue,how to deal with kashmir issue now and now conentrate on trade realtion too.

one more thing 5 relations are very important
pak-us
pak-india
pak-afghanistan(future relation)
pak-china
pak-iran.(recent advancments)

roshan try to divide your conclusion into paragraphs.it looks nice.

regards sabahat

more emphasis on current events...
coz its current affairs..not IR..
i think the question which you have written deem fit to IR....
In current affairs paper try to emphasize on your personal opinions...write more and more suggestions...include quotations preferably chopped down from Daily DAwn....Overall.very nice attempt...keep it up...

Thnx Dear Syeda, nice to see ur repl after quite few dayshow r u now?

Dear these notes contain the happenings till feb 2011, because i prepared them for 2011 and now posting them here to update them..after posting all the topics that i had prepared i'll surely start posting updated material to the topics...requesting u and others to post related but updated material here so as to notes can be furnished and can help all the aspirants...Regards

Thnx again dear for ur suggestions, i'll add more detail related to indo-pak relations pointed out by u....ya i'll surely post notes on above topics..keep guiding and helping me

salam roshan sir i need ur notes how can i get it plz if it is possible send it to me because in jhang there is no acadmy

__________________
"be on the low profile"

shukar ha ALLAH PAK ka now i am fine. roshan i was looking for the links for your notes and luckily i found some of them,these are very useful just have a look at them you will have an idea how to make good c.affair notes.



what is happining b/w US and Pakistan?


CSS Forums - View Single Post - What is happening between the US and Pakistan?


Why we need America?


CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes



Why its important to talk to talibans?


CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes




Pakistan -India Trade relation



CSS Forums - View Single Post - Pak-india relations



CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes


Water diplomacy in southasia



CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes


i hope these links would solve your questions and i will try to find out some more and yeah uptodate.

regards sabahat

__________________
GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi.

Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

AOA!
dear i hav notes in hard copy and iam converting them and posting them here, so keep following this link for further notes. here u'll get ample guidance for making good notes and u'll be able to make your own notes keeping the sketch taken from here......thanx for following notes...Keep it up dear...Regards

Kashmir Issue:

Outline:

• Background:
• India’s Reluctance To Abide By UN Resolutions:
a) Plebiscite Administrator
b) Sir Owen Dixon’s Report
c) Frank Graham’s Report
d) Geneva Talks
e) Bogra-Nehru Talks
f) Nehru’s Statement In Lok Sabha
g) Gunner Jarring Proposals
• 1965 War Of India-Pakistan Over Kashmir
• Nuclear Test-Kargil Clashes And Kashmir Issue
• Agra Summit 2001
• Kashmir Issue After 9/11
• Effects Of Mumbai Attacks on Kashmir
• Kashmir-Possible Solution
• Critical Analysis
• Conclusion

Background:

The valley of Jammu and Kashmir which covers an area of 84,471 square miles has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Geographically, politically and economically Kashmir is closer to Pakistan than India.

The Kashmir dispute originated on 26th October, 1947, when Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, against all his commitments and wishes of the majority of people signed Instrument of Accession in favour of India.

Consequently, Indian troops entered the valley and full scale war started. The Pakistani troops and the frontier tribesmen aided by Kashmir people fought bravely and succeeded in liberating a sizeable portion (Azad Kashmir) from India. Sensing defeat, India approached United Nations for a ceasefire. As a result, the security Council passed a resolution on 17 January, 1948 and asked both the countries to observe cease-fire. However, the fighting continued and the UN appointed United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and propose solution to the problem. The Commission passed a resolution on 13th August 1948, I which it asked both countries to observe ceasefire and directed Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the valley. The commission adopted another resolution on 5th January 1948, in which it spelled in clear language that the future of the valley would be decided through plebiscite. In the meantime, India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire which came into effect on January 1st, 1949.

India’s Reluctance To Abide By UN Resolutions:

Ever since the partition of the sub-continent on 14th August, 1947, India has been flouting the provisions of the instrument of Accession and resolutions of the UNO regarding the Kashmir issue.

a) Plebiscite Administrator:

The UN Secretary-General appointed Admiral Fleet Chester Nimitz (USA) as the plebiscite Administrator in the Kashmir on March, 1949. Pakistan accepted the arbitration of C.W Nimitz but India failed to do so. Thus, this move failed to bring any result.

b) Sir Owen Dixon’s Report:

In March, 1950, the UN Security Council disbanded UNCIP and designated Sir Owen Dixon, an Australian judge, to arrange the demilitarization in the valley. Sir Owen visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report in September, 1950, but India’s negative attitude proved a hindrance in the way of a solution.

c) Frank Graham’s Report:

In March, 1951, the UN Security Council appointed Frank Graham (USA) as the UN representative of Kashmir. He visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report on 19th October, 1951, in which he recommended the demilitarization of Kashmir. Again, in May 1952, he visited India and Pakistan but as before Indian intransigence o accept any mediation prevented the peaceful solution.

d) Geneva Talks:

In February 1953, India and Pakistan held discussion in Geneva to resolve Kashmir issue. However, India refused to accept all proposals aimed at holding plebiscite in the valley.

e) Bogra-Nehru Talks:

In 1953, Pakistan Premier Mohammad Ail Bogra and Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru discussed the Kashmir issue in their meetings held in London, Karachi and Delhi. They could not achieve any result due to Nehru’s delaying tactics in order to buy time.

f) Nehru’s Statement In Lok Sabha:

In 1956, Nehru in an address in Lok Sabha sounded a changed Indian policy on Kashmir by declaring that the question of plebiscite on Kashmir was out of date because of American military assistance of Pakistan, economic development of Kashmir, creation of the Constituent Assembly in the valley and Pakistan’s membership of CENTO and SEATO.

g) Gunner Jarring Proposals:

In February, 1957, UN Security Council appointed Gunner Jarring President of the Council to submit a report on Kashmir. He visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report on 29th April, 1957. Pakistan accepted his proposals but India rejected them with its traditional obduracy.

1965 War Of India-Pakistan Over Kashmir:

India flouting all canons of International Law attacked Pakistan on 6th September 1965. Thus full scale war started between India and Pakistan. Within days war spread from Kashmir front in the North to Rann of Kutch in the South and East Pakistan in the East. The valiant forces of Pakistan fought bravely and frustrated enemy designs at Sialkot, Lahore, Fazilka and Rajasthan. The war continued for 17 days till a UN sponsored ceasefire took effect on 23rd September, 1965. Later on, in January 1966 India and Pakistan signed the Tashkent Declaration in which the two countries declared to withdraw their troops from the valley in pre 15 August, 1965 position and resumed their normal diplomatic relations.

Nuclear Test-Kargil Clashes And Kashmir Issue:

In 1998, the two arch-rivals in South Asia conducted their own nuclear tests, since then, the international community especially the great powers are really concerned about the security of the region. The resolution of the Kashmir issue is earnestly felt, as it can trigger nuclear debacle in the region. The Kargil clashes further intensified the apprehension and need to resolve the issue. The military stand-off between India and Pakistan in the wake of terrorist attacks on Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001, further increased the fear of nuclear war in the region. Since then, the role of international community in resolving the Kashmir issue has come to the face.

Agra Summit 2001:

In July, 2001, Agra Summit between PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf started with great hopes and expectations. Pervez Musharraf visited India on the call of Vajpayee with confidence to resolve all the impeding issues to improve relations between the two arch-rivals of South Asia. Unfortunately, the summit ended abruptly without bringing any fruitful development for the peace I the region.

Kashmir Issue After 9/11:

The events of 9/11 brought overwhelming consequences for both the global and the regional politics. Its impacts on Kashmir are not ignorable. The whole international community agreed on a one-point agenda to combat terrorism in its all forms and manifestations, everywhere in the world. The world is no more ready to tolerate any type of insurgency in the name of self-determination and freedom. Terrorists and freedom fighters are no more distinguishable to the world. In such circumstances Kashmir freedom fighters cannot maintain the status of their domestic insurgency against India as a legitimate freedom struggle. Most the Kashmir Jihadi groups are outlawed and declared as terrorists groups creating restlessness in Kashmir.

Effects Of Mumbai Attacks on Kashmir:

The attacks which took place in Mumbai on November 26, 2008 carry severe implications for the Kashmir issue. After the attacks, the peace process between India and Pakistan suffered a setback. Although no direct link is established between the terrorists operating in Kashmir with those who carried out Mumbai attack, a case has been made by India that eventually all jihadi groups are bound by a commo Islamist Philosophy.

Kashmir-Possible Solution:

Following steps are suggested to evolve an effective policy on Kashmir to achieve the desired solutions.

i) Efforts to bring about a united Islamic stand.
ii) Holding international conference on Kashmir in the major capitals of the world where pro-Kashmiri international personalities be invited to address.
iii) Supporting overseas Pakistanis and students in foreign universities of stage demonstrations and influence the elected members of houses of government.
iv) Evolve a “think tank” for formulating coherent guidelines on Kashmir.
v) Start a national Fund on Kashmir.
vi) Most important of all, we should take advantage of the revival of Kashmir issue at the United Nations through a united move by the Muslim Ummah and Organisation of Islamic Conference.
vii) Approaching International Court of Justice by Pakistan, for the issue of a “cease and desist” order to the Indian forces in Kashmir who are ruthlessly persecuting, the Kashmir Muslims and are violating the human rights.

Critical Analysis:

For resolving Kashmir issue it is the time that international community must differentiate between the terrorism and freedom movement. The process of peace for normalisation of relations between the two neighbouring countries through negotiations and talks for resolving all outstanding issues, irritants and problems and lingering issues have gained boost recently. Musharraf repeatedly asserted that Pakistan is against war. “we are for peace; we are for deescalating; we are for reduction of tension.” However, the reduction of tensions between the two neighbouring countries could have been achieved only if the confidence building measures agreed upon earlier would have been followed. In this regard, there is a positive response from Pakistan but unfortunately a negligible one from India.

If even now Kashmir conflict is left unresolved through the international efforts, then to borrow Iqbal’s symbolism, “the time has come when the desperate sparrow will pounce upon the mighty falcon and overpower it”.

Conclusion:

Solution of the problem requires a change in the position adopted by all the three parties involving-India, Pakistan and Kashmiris themselves.

Certain developments at regional and global levels augur well for the peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. Pakistan must exploit the situation with a pragmatic policy on Kashmir. Plebiscite as the basic solution is not possible as evidenced in the past years. Pakistan must pressurise India and bring United States to a mechanism to solve the Kashmir issue.

It is therefore essential that first step is to keep alive sustained dialogue between the leaders of the two countries. Step two is acceptance of Kashmir as issue that must be resolved.

Step three would be to look at all possible solutions and agreed on which ones could be mutually discarded as unworkable. The fourth step would be to go on to further discussion in involving the people of Kashmir from both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) with a view to arriving at some reasonable solution acceptance to all parties concerned.

try to seperate the qoutes from main lines,and high light it. overall good attempt.

__________________
GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi.

Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

US-India Relations And Pakistan:

Outline:

• Introduction
• Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan
• President Obama’s Visit To India
• Pakistan’s Concerns
• Indo-Pak Tensions
• Kashmir Issue
• Conclusion

Introduction:

The US and India have always considered themselves a major strategic and political powers. Both feel that the world must acknowledge this status. They have defined and described the international peace and priorities within their own norms and terms and have developed their relations with the other states within these parameters.

Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan:

The US is sing different means, methods, techniques, ways, tools and linkages to advance its policy goals in South Asia and its strategic agreement with India signed in June 2005 and July 2005 (Unclear deals) are the most recent and the best examples of Indo-US strategic partnership after 9/11 events.

The indo-US nuclear deal has much implication for the deterrence stability between the nuclear belligerents in South Asia as the nuclear facilities provided through this agreement will spare many Indian nuclear faculties which it has been using for civilian purposes and India will be able to manufacture abundant nuclear warheads out of them. On the other hand, Pakistan found a straight forward negative response for civilian nuclear deal despite the havoc created by the power shortage in the already thriving industrial sector. Then US and Israel backed Indian missile defence system will be another dent to Pakistan’s stability.

President Obama’s Visit To India:

President Obama’s three-day visit to India was predicated on two major objectives-US economic recession and war in Afghanistan.

During his visit, Obama signed 20 business deals worth US 10 billion dollars with India. He also sent message to Pakistan during his visit that “terrorists’ safe places in its territory are unacceptable”. To appease India, he also asked Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While addressing the Indian Parliament, he supported Indian desire to become the permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Pakistan’s Concerns:

After Obama’s support to India on the UN seat issue, Pakistan’s Foreign Office reacted immediately and requested Obama not to back New Delhi because of its role in suppression of Kashmiri’s and its hegemonic designs in the smaller countries of the region. India has egregious track record of stranded relations with almost all its neighbouring countries, not to say about Pakistan. It has disputes with Bangladesh over water, with Srilanka for tis backing of Tamils and Nepal for its interference in Kathmandu’s internal affairs.

Obama’s support for India’s UN bid has compounded Pakistan’s concerns over its rival designs in Afghanistan. Pakistan is already anxious at its nuclear-armed rival’s growing role in Afghanistan and fears India is trying to gain a foothold along its Western borders.

Indo-Pak Tensions:

President Obama during his visit also offered to play a role in reducing Indo-Pak tensions. The efforts of the sole superpower in reducing tensions between the two nuclear states can help maintain peace in the region. But the problem is that US is willing to mediate provided both India and Pakistan request. But India is not ready to accept any third party mediation and insist all the issues including Kashmir will be resolved bilateral negotiations as per Tashkent and Simla Agreement.

Kashmir Issue:

Washington has been unsympathetic to appeals of help from the people of Kashmir. On Kashmir, Obama said, “We will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan, even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries. US could play role in resolving the dispute if both the sides asked to do so but it could not impose any solution on the both sides.” Obama kept quiet about human rights violations by the Indian occupation forces, contrary to what human rights organizations have been saying against brutal killings in the valley.

Conclusion:

There are many in Pakistan who view with alarm the growth in India-US ties that have now been reinforced by Obama visit. But, it is a mistake to regard the matter as a zero-sum game. If US ties with India grow, it does not necessarily mean loss for Pakistan, or vice versa. Pakistan-US relations are based on their own rationale. In fact, at time when the primary US security concern is the war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, US considers Pakistan as a pivotal ally without whose support the war cannot be won. Obama has already confirmed that he will be visiting Pakistan soon.

Israel-Palestine issue:

Outline:

• Background:
• Arab-Israel Peace Accords:
i) The Sinai Agreement:
ii) Camp David Accord:
iii) Oslo Accord
iv) Wye River Peace Accord
• Israel’s Intransigence:
• Apathetic Role Of Arabs:
• Current Situation:
• Limitations To Direct Negotiations:
• Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace:
• Conclusion:

Background:

It is a historical fact that the Jewish came into existence in 1948 with the blessings of the US, Great Britain and France. Later on, it succeeded in defeating the Arabs in the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 with the active military and financial support of USA and her allies. America needed a vassal state in the heart of the Middle East to keep the oil-rich Arab States under control. From the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the disintegration of USSR in 1991, the Middle East has been the hot spot in the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West. Since 1948 Israel has played at the hands of America and in turn has received billions of dollars worth military and economic assistance.

Arab-Israel Peace Accords:

After the 1973 Arab-Israel War, Israel has signed the following peace accords with the Arab States.

i) The Sinai Agreement: Egypt and Israel signed two Sinai agreements in January 1974 and September 1975.

ii) Camp David Accord: Egypt and Israel signed the famous Camp David Accord in September, 1978. According to this agreement, Israel withdrew from Gaza Strip and Sinai peninsula. This pact ended confrontation between two traditional rivals.

iii) Oslo Accord: PLO chief Yasser Arafat signed Oslo agreement in 1955 on interim autonomy of the Palestinians.

iv) Wye River Peace Accord: PLO signed the historic Wye River Peace Accord with Israel in October, 1998. Under this agreement Israel agreed to transfer 27 per cent territory of West Bank, Gaza strip and Jericho peninsula to the Palestinian Authority. It also provided safe passage to the Palestinian from Gaza to West Bank and allowed the opening of an airport at Gaza.

Israel’s Intransigence:

So far Israel has in one way or other safeguarded American interests in the region. Without US support it would not have been possible for Tel Aviv to survive in the face of bitter Arab opposition. Due to this factor Israel has been able to back out from its commitments on several occasions. For example, the 1993accord required Israel pull out from all of its West Bank settlement and the occupied West Bank areas. But Israel did not fulfil its commitments mainly due to American backing. Furthermore, Israel has surpassed all limits of brutality by using military force against the unarmed Palestinians. In addition Israel has accelerated its settlement expansion drive.

Apathetic Role Of Arabs:

After the reverses suffered in the Arab-Israel wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973, the Arab leaders were convinced that it was not possible to wipe out the Israel through war. Thus President of Egypt Anwar Sadat signed Camp David Accord with Israel in September, 1978. Under this agreement Egypt got Gaza Strip and Sanai Desert back and felt satisfied. Consequently, the withdrawal of Egypt, the strongest nation from the theatre betrayed the Palestinian cause and made the issue more complicated. Similarly, Jordan under Shah Hussain signed peace accord with Israel and pulled itself out of boiling pot of the Middle East. This accord further weakened the position Palestine Liberation Organisation. While after signing peace accords with Egypt and Jordan Israel attained a strong position. The Arab States viz Egypt, Jordan, Syria, UAE and Saudi Arabia have adopted an apathetic role towards Palestine. They have confined their role to passing resolutions only. The GCC and Arab League have no practical role to play for the establishment of a free Palestinian States.

Current Situation:

The US announced the resumption of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington on September 2, 2010. However, the talks stalled within four weeks when Israel refused to extend a self-imposed 10 month building freeze that expired on September 26, 2010. Washington has since offered Israel a package of jet fighters and diplomatic guarantees in exchange for concession on settlements.

Limitations To Direct Negotiations:

As the rounds of talks move forward there are three basic limitations to direct negotiations. First, the Palestinians are concerned that the talks without deadline would simply allow Israel more time to build more settlements, which would further undermine any agreement.

The second problem is that a bilateral peace deal is no longer attractive to either side. Israel would find it difficult to find stomach the painful concessions necessary to win peace deal with only some Palestinians-Hamas, who run Gaza, are not involved-while the Palestinians need cover from wider Arab World to sell tough choices to their own people.

Finally, and worst of all, a two-state solution will no longer work. Despite serious efforts to build a Palestinian State this option effectively disappeared as Israel settlers spread throughout the West Bank.

Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace:

Given this trio of deficiencies, the bilateral approach alone should be abandoned. Instead, a comprehensive accord between Israel and all Arab countries should be pursued. This could build on the terms laid out in Arab Peace Initiative; adopted during an Arab League in meeting in Beirut in 2002. This offered Israel both normalised relations with Arab countries and security guarantees, in exchange for agreements over borders and the refugee problem. A further strength of the plan was that it offered regional cover for both sides.

Conclusion:

The conditions for bilateral settlement do not currently exist. Renewed talks between Israel and Palestinians are unlikely to change this, no matter how much the Obama administration hope they might delaying difficult decisions in hope of better opportunities tomorrow will only make it harder to end conflict. But a regional approach is both possible and desirable as a way forward. And the time is to act now.