Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Leader Bilawal Bhutto: 'India Has Two Options: Either Accept The Indus Waters Treaty, Or If It Refuses And Proceeds To Build Dams Or Canals [On Rivers Flowing Into Pakist
India suspended the treaty following the April 22 Pakistan-backed terror attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam region in which male Hindu tourists were singled out and executed. After India's move, Pakistani leaders feared that the decision would desertify the regions situated along the Indus River.[1] Six rivers, two originating from Tibet, travel through Indian Kashmir, which is already a nuclear flashpoint between the two countries, into Pakistan.
For decades, Pakistani intellectuals and journalists have expressed concern over the possibility of India terminating the agreement, especially after India signaled its intention to build mini-dams and tributaries on the Indian side of several rivers flowing from Tibet and Kashmir into Pakistan. In 2009, a senior editor warned India of the possibility of nuclear war over the issue, stating: "If, in order to resolve our (water and other) problems, we have to wage nuclear war with India, we will."[2]
Graphics courtesy: Onevorld.com
Bhutto: "India Has Two Options: Either Accept The Sindh Taas Agreement [Indus Waters Treaty], Or... Pakistan Will Go To War"
On June 24, Urdu daily Roznama Ummat published a report titled "Pakistan Will Go To War If Indus Waters Treaty Is Not Honored: Bilawal."[3] The water-sharing issue with India is significant for Bhutto, whose PPP party draws its popular support in Sindh province, the major beneficiary of water from the Indus River.
According to the report, Bhutto stated: "India has two options: Either accept the Sindh Taas Agreement [Indus Waters Treaty], or if it refuses and proceeds to build dams or canals [on rivers flowing into Pakistan], then Pakistan will go to war – after which all six rivers' waters will be secured for Pakistan."[4]
"India wants our future generations to fight over water. India's threat to block Pakistan's water is a violation of the UN Charter." Bhutto, who could someday become the prime minister of Pakistan, made his statement to gain support from voters and draw international attention to the issue.[5]
However, he did not address India's main concern about Pakistan-backed jihadi terrorism. On May 7, India executed retaliatory strikes on nine jihadi centers in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, leading to a four-day war between the two nuclear powers in which U.S. President Donald Trump sided proactively with Pakistan to ensure a premature ceasefire.[6]
Bilawal Bhutto is the son of current Pakistani President Asif Zardari
"Three Wars Have Been Fought For Kashmir, And If Ten More Need To Be Fought, We Will Fight"
Top Pakistani leaders have also threatened nuclear war against India. In multiple speeches, Pakistan's Army Chief General Asim Munir has warned India that "three wars have been fought for Kashmir, and if ten more need to be fought, we will fight, Allah willing."[7]
General Munir, who is believed to have masterminded the April 22 terror attack in Kashmir, has stated: "Our stance, government's stance on Kashmir is absolutely clear; it was our jugular vein, it is our jugular vein. We will not forget it. And we will not leave our Kashmiri brethren in their heroic struggle that they are waging against the Indian occupation. We have fought three wars for Kashmir."[8]
Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has been more blunt in his warnings against India, warning, well before the May 7 Indian airstrikes: "A military action by India is possible at any time because the tension is deepening between the two nuclear powers. Pakistan is on high alert and in such a situation we can use nuclear weapons when there is a direct danger to our existence."[9]
In the days following the ceasefire, Khawaja Asif asserted: "At this time, even the closest allies of India have not stood by it. It is only Israel. Israel's standing by [India] is a natural act. Both are enemies, Islam-enemy countries. In their enmity of Islam, of Muslims, of Muslim states, they are together. And my view is that their alliance, their true face, their goals bring them before us."[10]
With respect to India's decision to suspend the water-sharing treaty, the Urdu daily Roznama Ummat wrote an editorial a day before Bhutto threatened war against India. Below are excerpts from the piece, titled "The Recurrence Of India's Water Aggression!"[11]
"Pakistan Will Never Again Receive The Water That Was Unnecessarily Being Provided To It In The Past. The New Delhi Government Has Permanently Decided That It Will Not Restore The Indus Waters Treaty With Pakistan"
"India has once again revealed its malicious intentions by hinting at violating the Indus Waters Treaty. Speaking of [the possibility of India] blocking the flow of water into Pakistani rivers, Indian Interior Minister Amit Shah has said that India has no intention of restoring the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan. He stated that India would now use the water that was previously given to Pakistan within its internal regions, particularly for [the desert state of] Rajasthan.
"In an interview with a foreign news agency, he said that Pakistan will never again receive the water that was unnecessarily being provided to it in the past. The New Delhi government has permanently decided that it will not restore the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan.
"India's obstinate statement regarding the blocking of Pakistan's water has come at a time when relations between the two countries are already strained. In this context, it would not be wrong to say that, following a major defeat at the hands of Pakistan in a brief war [May 7-10, 2025], Indian leaders – still unable to digest their humiliation – frequently issue such statements to vent their frustration in front of local and international media representatives.
"They are desperate to find some way to fulfill their 'duty' of harming Pakistan just to satisfy their own egos. Whether it is Amit Shah or any other Indian strongman, they should at least reread the pages of the Indus Waters Treaty before making such statements. Pakistan has clarified multiple times that the Indus Waters Treaty is an international agreement from which India cannot unilaterally withdraw, nor does India have the right to tamper with the waters flowing into Pakistani rivers."
"If India Attempts Anything Of The Sort... It Will Be Considered Another Act Of Aggression Against Pakistan"
"If India attempts anything of the sort which, according to water experts, is 'beyond its capability,' it will be considered another act of aggression against Pakistan. According to water experts and international agencies, in river water treaties, the downstream regions not only have a moral but a legal right to the flowing waters.
A screenshot of the Roznama Ummat editorial
"The Indus Waters Treaty is also governed by this very principle. The Modi government must know that Pakistan holds a legal claim to the waters of these rivers. If India becomes part of any new adventurism in this regard, Pakistan reserves both the moral and legal right to approach international forums in its defense.
"The timing of Amit Shah's recent statement cannot be overlooked. It is highly likely that his remarks are part of an attempt to exploit the ongoing tensions in the region. The Modi government should remember that any such step taken by it would not only fail to yield any benefit but would also risk further escalating the already volatile situation in the region."
"This Kind Of Behavior Sets An Extremely Dangerous And Irresponsible Precedent"
"If the preacher of 'secular India,' driven by a mindset of water aggression, attempts to use water as a weapon against Pakistan, then without doubt, raising questions at the international level against such actions will not be out of the question.
"The Pakistani Foreign Office has once again rejected the statement by Indian Interior Minister Amit Shah regarding water aggression against Pakistan, stating that Pakistan fully respects the Indus Waters Treaty and will take all necessary measures to protect its legitimate rights and interests.
"Rejecting Amit Shah's recent statement, the Foreign Office termed it a blatant violation of the sanctity of international agreements and a reflection of grave insensitivity, stating that the Indus Waters Treaty is not a political arrangement, but an international treaty under which there is no room for any unilateral action.
"If India proceeds with any such step, it will be considered a clear violation of international law, the provisions of binding treaties, and the fundamental principles of inter-state relations. This kind of behavior sets an extremely dangerous and irresponsible precedent, which would undermine the credibility of international agreements and raise serious questions about the commitment and seriousness of the Indian state openly reneging on its legal commitments.
"The Foreign Office is right in stating that India's use of water as a political weapon will be an irresponsible act and go against globally recognized principles of state conduct. Therefore, it is essential that India immediately withdraw its unilateral and illegal stance and refrain from making statements that suggest tampering with the Indus Waters Treaty."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rudaw Net
5 hours ago
- Rudaw Net
Washington should help SDF reach deal with Damascus: Former US diplomat
Also in Interview Dialogue with Damascus advancing, not yet 'formal negotiations': Rojava official EU MP urges Turkey to embrace peace talks with PKK Germany is shifting gears with stricter migration, stronger defense: German MP DEM Party plans overhaul as PKK disarms A+ A- ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Washington should use its 'leverage' to help the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) strike a compromise with Damascus that is in the interest of both sides, a former US diplomat said on Friday, with talks appearing to have hit an impasse. 'So it is important that the SDF, while the US is there, it's important that the SDF find the right balance, the right compromise to make with the national government in Damascus that respects the SDF's interests while also respecting the needs of the national government,' William Roebuck, former advisor to the US special envoy for Syria engagement and a one-time assistant to the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS), told Rudaw. He stressed that the presence of US forces in northeast Syria (Rojava) provides Washington 'leverage' to help the SDF reach a deal with Damascus, saying that the US should utilize that influence for a deal that 'respects the interests' of both sides. A March 10 deal between the SDF and Damascus outlined the future of the Kurdish-led force and the region it controls in Rojava. While parts of the agreement have been implemented, key provisions - such as integrating the US-backed force into Syrian state forces - remain contested. According to Roebuck, US Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack has made it clear that Washington will eventually withdraw from Syria, though no specific timeline has been announced. Roebuck highlighted that future arrangements in Syria are likely to involve a 'more centralized command and control' structure on the military side, while local governance may allow for greater decentralization. 'This is just the way a military works,' he noted, adding that the specifics of integrating the SDF's leadership and command structure will need to be negotiated between the Syrian government and the SDF. The SDF is the de facto army of Rojava and fought the lion's share of the battle that resulted in the territorial defeat of ISIS in Syria in 2019. Syria's interim government is working to establish a unified army, bringing under state control and centralized command the multiple armed groups that had fought against the former regime. On Wednesday, SDF media head Farhad Shami told Syria's Alyaum TV that the SDF wants to join the army as 'a bloc,' adding that 'handing over weapons is a red line. It is not possible to hand over weapons.' There have been at least two meetings between SDF chief Mazloum Abdi and Syria's interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa since Bashar al-Assad's regime was ousted in December. Recent massacres of Alawites and Druze by forces affiliated with or supported by Damascus have concerned Kurds and made them reluctant to give up their weapons. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot spoke with Abdi on Friday to confirm that Paris will host the next round of talks between the SDF and Damascus. Barrot also reiterated France's support for Syrian Kurds, according to the French foreign ministry. 'It's very difficult to have a decentralized military command and control structure. Now, what the specifics of that is and how the SDF and its leadership command structure would be integrated…I think those details will need to be worked out between the Sharaa government and the SDF,' Roebuck said. The US and France have been engaged in talks with the SDF and Damascus to accelerate the implementation of the March 10 agreement, which is endorsed by Turkey. Roebuck, who is also the executive vice president of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, said Gulf states recognize the SDF as a key force in the fight against ISIS but are currently more focused on reconstruction efforts in Damascus. Sharaa has pledged to form an 'inclusive transitional government that would reflect Syria's diversity,' but he faces criticism from both domestic and international actors who say he has marginalized minority communities. Kurdish leaders have repeatedly expressed concern over the centralization of power and the prominence of Islamic law in the transitional constitution adopted by the interim government. They have denied accusations of desiring to separate and instead call for federalism. The following is the transcript of the interview with William Roebuck. Rudaw: Dear William Roebuck, thank you very much for being a guest on Rudaw. The events in Sweden have once again brought forth the ethnic and sectarian complexities of Syria. Does the model of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava) strengthen the common life of the communities? William Roebuck: It's a good question. Obviously, there are significant tensions in Syria, not only in the northeast, but in other parts of the country. I think a certain degree of decentralization makes sense. And obviously with decentralization, you need local government, something similar to what you have with the autonomous administration. However, ultimately these issues will have to be resolved with the national government in Damascus. This is what the United States is insisting on. And so this has to be done through negotiation. And I don't know exactly what the national government, the Ahmed al-Sharaa government, will accept in terms of an autonomous administration remaining behind. It'll have to be a part of the discussion of integrating the SDF into the national government. The violence against Alawites during Ahmed al-Sharaa's rule has reached the level of genocide. Is this not a major source of concern for Syria's future? It's a good question. Obviously, the violence that occurred in April with the attacks on Alawites and the more recent attacks, the violence in Suwayda province between the Druze and the Sunni Bedouins and some involvement from government forces to try to control this, these are very serious incidents. They have to be investigated. Clearly the national government and the national military in Damascus has a lot of work ahead of it to become a more effective security force. I think the United States, I think other friends of Syria in the region will work with the Sharaa government to try to improve its performance in providing security and in avoiding these incidents of violence and in investigating these incidents of violence after they have occurred. But yes, I agree, these are serious incidents and they are worrisome. And the friends of Syria outside the United States and others will need to work with the Sharaa government to ensure that this type of violence does not happen again, and if it does, that it's minimized, controlled, and investigated. Is it true that the US supports the centralization of Syria and opposes the demands of Kurds, Alawites, and Druze for a decentralized system? I think what Special Envoy for Syria, Ambassador Thomas Barrack has indicated in his public remarks is that the United States wants to see an agreement, and they're now putting some time limit on the negotiations to ensure that this happens. They understand that, for example, in the northeast, the Syrian Democratic Forces and their civilian counterparts, they have their demands. And the national government, the Sharaa government, they have their requirements, their demands. So it's a negotiation. But I do think the US government is making it clear that the integration of forces in the northeast should occur… I think they've clearly made it clear that they want this to happen. It's a priority. So I don't think they necessarily are against some level of decentralization, but what they are saying is that it has to be something that the national government will also agree to. So there has to be a meeting of the two sides in a negotiation and in a compromise. You have visited northeast Syria (Rojava). The political parties of northeast Syria met in Qamishli, and federalism became the common demand of the Kurds, but Damascus is not ready to negotiate on this issue. Is America's support for this policy of Damascus true? I think the political leadership in northeastern Syria is going to have to make some compromises, to be honest. I don't think it's realistic to continue to maintain the same positions that were held, for example, two years ago or three years ago. And some of these new decisions, they're going to be difficult and they're going to involve some changes in position, I think, if the SDF is going to succeed in integrating their forces and making a kind of joint effort with the national government. I think it will be difficult and it's going to involve some hard choices and I think some of these positions that you have mentioned about the political parties in northeastern Syria, frankly I think some of these positions that insist on absolute decentralization and absolute local autonomy will be difficult to maintain in the face of a necessary compromise between the two sides. If autonomy is difficult according to the current situation in Syria, what basic rights can the Damascus government give to northeast Syria? That's an interesting question. Obviously, northeastern Syria, the forces, the leadership, they have their position, they have their priorities. And in a negotiation, of course, they will want to insist on their priorities. And I think they can certainly negotiate for as much autonomy, as much decentralization as possible. I think this is what they should try to do. All I'm saying is that it will be a compromise. And the other side, the national government, has their position. Hopefully, the United States and France, I think, who's also involved a little bit in this, but certainly the United States is a key player, that they will help the two sides reach a compromise that is fair and that strengthens stability in Syria for all of its people, its majority population, but also its minority populations. Is Tom Barrack's support for the centralization of Syria the official view of the US government? I think that US Special Envoy for Syria, Ambassador Barrack speaks with great authority for the views of the United States government right now. He's a very close associate of President Trump who has a lot of confidence in him. So I think if you hear him say what the position of the United States is on these issues, you should accept that what he says represents a very authoritative expression of those views. So we understand from your statements and Barrack's remarks that Syria is heading towards centralization? I think it's going to vary a little bit. I think on the military side, I think it will look more like a central type system on the governance set. At the local level, local governments, like in various cities and towns, there might be more decentralized authority. That remains to be seen. I think the focus of the negotiations so far have been heavily on the military side. And I suspect on that aspect, there is likely to be more centralized command and control. This is just the way a military works. It's very difficult to have a decentralized military command and control structure. Now, what the specifics of that is and how the SDF and its leadership command structure would be integrated, I don't know the details of that. I think those details will need to be worked out between the Sharaa government and the SDF. Dear William, I want to get your opinion. You were the US special representative in the international coalition against ISIS. You were also the deputy US representative for Syrian affairs. At this stage, when ISIS is still a threat, how necessary is the existence of the SDF? Obviously, the fight against ISIS is very important. It's one of the reasons for the existence of the Syrian Democratic Forces. And I should say that as someone who was on the ground in northeast Syria for several years, I know how effective the SDF was as a partner with the US in the fight against ISIS. Very, very effective. No question about that. For the future, you know, it's difficult. I think ultimately there's going to need to be a significant level of integration of the SDF into a Syrian national military. And I think that is going to be a challenge for the SDF, but it's a challenge that they will need to find ways to cope with. And circumstances in Syria and in northeast Syria are changing. And this is what a good leadership does. It meets those challenges head on and finds a way forward that retains something of the previous, the traditional ways that things were organized, and also accepts the new terrain, the new territory, the new way of doing things. And this is what the SDF is going to have to do. The question is also this: do the pressures for the SDF's integration into the Syrian army increase the risk of ISIS's return? Yes, I think it's very possible that there will be a further resurgence of ISIS. This is a big risk and a big danger, and this is why the SDF and its presence in the northeast is so important, its cooperation with the United States. And I hope that this cooperation will continue. It's been a very valuable partnership. Overall, the capabilities of ISIS are increasing, I think. They're still somewhat limited compared to the height of their power and influence back in 2016 and '17. But I do think that they are trying to strengthen their activities and trying to strengthen their leadership cadres. And it's very important that the SDF and the US together stay focused on this threat that ISIS poses. What should the US government do to protect the structure of the SDF? We'll have to see how this plays out. I mean, right now, US forces remain in northeastern Syria. So they have some, in English we call it leverage, some ability to shape the situation and I think the US should use that leverage to help the SDF negotiate an agreement that is, that respects their interests to the degree that the United States is able to do that. Ultimately, Ambassador Barrack has made clear in his public remarks that the US will eventually leave. It will withdraw from Syria. It just, it hasn't made clear the timeline for that withdrawal. I think it's not in the short term, but beyond that, in the intermediate, the longer term, eventually the US is going to withdraw. So it is important that the SDF, while the US is there, it's important that the SDF find the right balance, the right compromise to make with the national government in Damascus that respects the SDF's interests while also respecting the needs of the national government. Dear William Roebuck, you are now the deputy president of the Arab Gulf States Institute. How do the Gulf countries view the role of the SDF and the future of northeast Syria? I think they understand that the Syrian Democratic Forces have been a very important force in the fight against ISIS. They understand the SDF was absolutely instrumental in the defeat of ISIS in the SDF and in the northeast and in the region around the northeast. So the Gulf countries do understand this and I think they appreciate this. I think right now, to be honest, the Gulf countries are more focused on what is going on in Damascus and what needs to be done for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Syria. Where are the right investments to make? How can they assist with humanitarian or broader assistance, those types of things in helping the Syrian government exert authority and stability over the country? These are the types of things. I noticed today, for example, the Saudis have a very large trade delegation in Damascus. This is their focus that they've signed a $6 billion memorandum of understanding for investment. And this is the second visit like that in the last six weeks for the Saudis. Obviously other countries are involved, the Emiratis have been involved in signing an $800 million port deal to help renovate the port of Tartus. So there's a lot of Gulf interest in investing and helping the Syrian government in reconstruction. Dear William, if you were now the US representative for Syrian affairs, what advice would you give to the US government? I would advise them on understanding the SDF position, to appreciate the many sacrifices and achievements that the SDF accomplished with the United States and with the special forces, American special forces that worked very closely with them in the northeast over the last number of years, since they started this partnership back in 2015-16 timeframe. It's been almost a decade. It's amazing. And I think so far, what Ambassador Barrack has indicated in his remarks, that he does understand this, he does understand. But I think it's very important, if I were advising them, as you ask, this is what I would emphasize. Help them make a good deal. Work fairly with both sides, but also appreciate the sacrifices that the SDF made over the last decade to pursue US interests in Syria against ISIS.
Rudaw Net
11 hours ago
- Rudaw Net
Iraqi authorities arrest PMF members linked to attack on state institution
Also in Iraq Iraq to hit 52 degrees Celsius amid scorching summer Iraq sees drop in wheat production amid summer drought MP says Iraq can withdraw from maritime agreement with Kuwait MPs slam Baghdad for banning Kurdish in disputed areas A+ A- ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - At least one Iraqi officer and several other personnel were injured in an 'armed assault' at an Iraqi agriculture ministry office in western Baghdad on Sunday, Iraqi authorities confirmed, adding that more than a dozen suspects linked to the Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) have been arrested in connection with the attack. In a statement, the Security Media Cell of the Joint Operations Command said that 'a reprehensible incident' occurred at the ministry's Karkh district office on Sunday morning, resulting in injuries among security forces. 'Security forces were able to arrest 14 suspects' who were identified as members of the PMF's 'brigades 45 and 46,' the Cell added, noting that the suspects 'have been referred to the judiciary, with legal proceedings underway.' Brigades 45 and 46 are affiliated with the Kata'ib Hezbollah - a powerful Iranian-backed Iraqi armed group designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Washington holds Kata'ib Hezbollah, a key player in the Iran-led 'Axis of Resistance,' responsible for numerous attacks on US assets in the region since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023. In response to Sunday's incident, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' al-Sudani - who also serves as commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces, including the PMF - 'has ordered the formation of a high-level investigative committee' to probe 'how an armed force acted without official orders or approvals, attempted to seize a government building, and opened fire on security units,' the Security Media Cell added. In a previous statement on Sunday, the Iraqi interior ministry noted that 'the incident coincided with a newly appointed director beginning his duties,' adding that Iraqi federal police units and Karkh emergency patrols 'quickly intervened and came under direct gunfire, resulting in several officers and personnel sustaining various injuries.' The ministry noted that 'search and pursuit operations are ongoing' to apprehend remaining suspects, affirming its strong condemnation and stressing that Iraqi forces 'will not tolerate any party attempting to impose a de facto situation by force or threaten state institutions. 'Upholding the authority of the state and the rule of law remains a top and non-negotiable priority,' the ministry emphasized. This is not the first time Kata'ib Hezbollah has been linked to clashes with Iraqi state forces. Previous incidents include a firefight with federal police in Baghdad in May 2023 and a confrontation with the Iraqi Counter Terrorism Service at Camp Speicher in March 2023. The group has also been accused of participating in the violent crackdown on the October 2019 - Tishreen Movement - pro-reform demonstrations across Iraq and of involvement in the November 2021 assassination attempt on then-prime minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi via a drone attack on his Green Zone residence. The incident notably occurred shortly after clashes between security forces and supporters of Iran-backed armed groups protesting election results. While Kata'ib Hezbollah has strongly denied involvement, the use of explosive-laden drones, a hallmark of Iran-backed Iraqi armed groups, and Kadhimi's then-perceived alignment with the US fueled widespread belief in their responsibility.
Shafaq News
a day ago
- Shafaq News
Syria arrests key liaison between Iraqi PMF and Al-Assad's Division in Deir ez-Zor
Shafaq News – Damascus Syrian security forces have arrested the main liaison between Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and the 4th Division of the Syrian army in the eastern city of al-Bukamal, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Saturday. According to the UK-based war monitor, the individual—identified as Mohammad Hammoud al-Amin—was detained in a special operation carried out by Syria's Internal Security Forces. Al-Amin is described as the key "architect" of security and military coordination between the PMF and the 4th Division, which is commanded by Maher al-Assad, the brother of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The monitor said that he previously served as head of the "Alawite Security Office" in al-Bukamal and was reportedly one of the most influential intelligence figures in the area. 'His role had gained importance amid the increasing influence of Iranian-backed groups in Syria's eastern region over the past several years.' The PMF did not comment on the incident. Earlier this month, the security forces arrested another figure linked to the 4th Division, Shadi al-Samadi. He was a commander in the 'al-Ghaith' group, an elite unit led by Brigadier General Ghiath Dallah, a close ally of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Al-Samadi, originally from Daraa al-Mahatta in southern Syria, is accused of participating in documented military operations and atrocities, including the 2014 offensive on Eastern Ghouta and the 2018 military campaign in Daraa. Despite the Russian-brokered reconciliation deal that followed, he reportedly continued his activities under the 4th Division's banner.
