Unprovoked firing: Deaths mount as BSF shells Pak villages

Fresh casualties are reported from Sialkot’s Charwa sector.


Our Correspondent October 09, 2014

LAHORE:


The death toll from Indian Border Security Force (BSF)’s unprovoked firing and shelling at Pakistani villages has risen to 12 as two more civilians, including a woman, were killed on Thursday morning.


The recent casualties were reported from Sialkot’s Charwa sector’s Rar village, situated near Harpal.

In violation of the ceasefire agreement, India’s BSF has continuously been using light-to-heavy cannons to target Pakistani territories in Charwa, Harpal, Bajwat, Charpar, Shakargarh and other sectors along the working boundary mostly situated in the jurisdiction of district Sialkot of Pakistan’s Punjab.

According to Rangers officials, the number of injured rose to 50 on Thursday as the BSF resorted to unprovoked shelling and fired more than 150 mortars in Charwa Sector.



Due to India’s recent aggression, two Pakistanis, including Muhammad Azam — a resident of Rar village which falls in the jurisdiction of Charwa sector — was killed while a woman and three other Pakistani civilians sustained wounds.

On the other hand, as many as 12 Pakistanis were injured when the Indian forces started firing at villages of Sargala, situated near Narowal. More villages including Nangal Takhar Pur, Karol and Dera Kangra have also been affected by the shelling.

Sources said till date at least 70,000 Pakistanis — mostly residents of 13 villages situated on or near the working boundary — have been affected, while about 20,000 people have been forced to temporarily migrate to escape firing.

As many as 120 educational institutions situated near the border areas remained closed on Thursday due to continuous Indian shelling.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 10th, 2014.

COMMENTS (35)

Muhammad Shoaib | 9 years ago | Reply

@LogicalThinker: My point was to tell the readers that Modi is an extremist Hindu who is even against some concessions granted to Kashmiris in Article 370 of your Constitution. This man can lead the Sub-continent into a full scale war wherein both the warring parties are nuclear armed nations. My second point was that being a democracy India loses nothing if it holds a plebiscite in the occupied Kashmir rather such a move will raise the Indian head in the international community. You can't compare Durand Line with LoC because the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA have voted for joining Pakistan in a referendum held there in 1946 under the British government at Centre while the same province was being ruled by Congress through Doctor Khan Saheb during the time of referendum; meaning to say it was a free and fair referendum accepted by Jawahar Lal Nehru and other parties involved. Can India follow this example of Pakhtuns' referendum of 1946? Furthermore UN has accepted Durand Line as legitimate boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Please be apprised that Durand Line is a soft border where Pakhtuns on both sides freely cross this borders in thousand on daily basis.Please bear in mind that more Pakhtuns are living in Pakistan than Afghanistan enjoying very good positions in politics coupled with high positions holders' Pakhtuns in civil and military bureaucracy in Pakistan. By the way I am myself a true typical Pakhtun loving my country Pakistan.

LogicalThinker | 9 years ago | Reply

1. When Modi was contesting the elections recently, he raised the slogan to abrogate Article 370 (which in fact he can’t as per the Article 368 and 370 of Indian Constittion as well as Articel 147 of J & K Constitution). What has any of the stuff you have just mentioned got to do with the issues I have raised. You seem to be rambling on about Article 370 which has nothing to do with internationalizing the Kashmir dispute. Merely bringing up dates and numbers does nothing to bolster your argument. You have not countered my premise by even raising one valid argument and seem to be missing the point. Article 370 is an internal matter dealing with autonomous powers for Kashmir and has nothing to do with the UN resolution. Period.

Secondly Modi was involved in the massacre of Gujrati Muslims. This means such an extremist Hindu PM can put the life of well over one billion people at risk. So you have to see this shelling campaign in the light of these facts. Listen, Modi has been acquitted by the Supreme Court of India so unless you know something that the honorable court doesn't, I suggest you keep your baseless thoughts to yourself. Secondly, are you implying a connection between the riots in Gujarat with the situation in Kashmir ? Seriously ? Similarly, I could make wild allegations linking the independence movement of Baluchistan with Kashmir. Your arguments are not logical and seem to be random. Once again, I ask you to not conflate different issue as you seem to be doing.

1. Yes under UN Security Council Resolution # 91; the whole of the State has to be demilitarized and even a UN personality was named to hold plebiscite in Kashmir but the Indians never cooperated with him. When Pakistan Joined CEATO and SENTO in 1950s; Nehru backed out of plebiscite on the pretext that Pakistan had then become an Ally of USA. These are stories of a long serial which is the Conflict of Kashmir. It has to be solved, how this the time will decide. This resolution clearly states that Pakistan withdraw from the areas of Pakistan-administered Kashmir which it had captured in 1947 immediately and conditions be created for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide the future of the state. The Indian Army should also withdraw and maintain a skeletal force to ensure proper functioning of the civil affairs of the state after satisfactory withdrawal of Pakistani tribesmen and forces. Nothing more, nothing less. All other points you have raised is moot and meaningless. As a legal expert that is all that matters. Period. Note: The massive displacement of the Kashmiri pundit population due to systemic attacks from mujahideen organisations does not create ideal conditions for a plebiscite which is one of the conditions.

1. No boundary called LINE in this context can be accepted as International borders and such lines have to be demolished which divide the same nation in two parts with no contact even between the real relatives. So your argument thus qualifies for null and void. A boundary may not be acceptable to you but is acceptable to the Indian government and its citizens as long as it keeps out unwanted elements from across the border. You and your countrymen are more than entitled to your opinions just as the Indians are entitled to their opinions on this subject matter. Once again, it may be null and void according to you but is perfectly fine for the Indians and other legal experts. Also some introspection may be in need - case in point the Durrand Line. Try convincing the Afghans not to have a boundary and see the response you get.

PS: Once again, big thanks to the editors at ET for facilitating this debate. The more we have such interactions, the better the understanding between the various parties involved. Peace to all.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ