APNA RAWALKOT

آزاد جموں و کشمیر حکومت ریاستی ٹکڑی میں محکمہ خوراک کی طرف سے فراہم کئیے جانے والے ناقص گندم کے ناقص آٹے کی فراہمی کو روکے۔

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 19:45:00 +0000

"محکمہ خوراک"

جیسا کے نام سے ظاہر ہے آزاد سمجھے جانے والے جموں اور کشمیر کا باقاعدہ محکمہ ہے جس کا کام ریاست کی اس ٹکڑی میں بسنے والے پینتالیس لاکھ انسانوں کو ہر طرح کی صاف ستھری اور حفظان صحت کے اصولوں کے مطابق تیار خوراک فراہم کرنا ہونا چاہئیے مگر عجیب مذاق ہے کے وہ درجنوں اشیاء خوردونوش میں سے صرف ایک جنس گندم سے بنا آٹا جو انسان کی بنیادی ترین خوراک ہے فراہم کرتا آ رہا ہے" خوراک کی فقط ایک جنس مگر نااہلی کی انتہا ہے کے وہ بھی مضر صحت ناخوشگوار بو والا انتہائی غیر معیاری زائدالمیعاد گندم کا آٹا" نہلے ہے دھلا سرے سے اس محکمہ کا احتساب کرنے والا یا اس سے پوچھنے والا ہی کوئی نہیں،

جبکہ دوسری طرف ہر ضلع میں بازاروں کے اندر اشیاء خورد و نوش کی کوالٹی چیک کرنے کے لیے فوڈ اتھارٹیاں بھی کام کر رہی ہیں ان اتھارٹیوں سے سوال بنتا ہے کے کبھی انہوں نے اپنے برادر محکمے کے سپلائی ڈپو یا آٹا مل میں جاکر جس گندم سے یہ آٹا تیار ہوتا ہے اس کے سمپل لیے ہوں نیز اس گندم سے بننے والے آٹے کی کوالٹی چیک کی ہے؟ جواب یقیناً نفی میں ملے گا۔

محکمہ خوراک کے خلاف اس مضر صحت اور انتہائی ناقص بدبو والے آٹے کی فراہمی کے حوالے سے گاہے بگاہے مختلف سوشل میڈیا یوزرز کی طرف سے آوازیں بھی اٹھتی آئی ہیں مگر آج تک کسی صاحب اقتدار یا احتساب نے ان آوازوں کو خاطر میں ہی نہیں لایا، تاجران پے مشتمل عوامی ایکشن کمیٹی نے بھی آج تک متعلقہ اتھارٹی یا حکومت کی توجہ اس ناقص آٹے کی طرف نہیں دلائی اس کی وجہ یہ ہے کے صاحب استطاعت اور مقتدر حلقے جانتے ہیں کے یہ آٹا زرا سستا ضرور ہے لیکن بدبو دار اور مضر صحت ہے اس لیے سرے سے وہ یہ آٹا استعمال ہی نہیں کرتے وہ کھلی مارکیٹ سے مہنگا فائن آٹا خرید کر استعمال کرتے ہیں، جبکہ ریاستی ٹکڑی کا معاشی طور پے کمزور طبقہ یہ جانتے ہوئے بھی کے محکمہ خوراک کا سستا آٹا بدبو سے بھرا اور جان لیوا تو ہے مگر پیٹ کا جہنم بھی تو بھرنا ہے سو وہ باعث مجبوری اور کراہت کے ساتھ اسے استعمال کرنے پے مجبور ہے۔ سوشل میڈیا پر کبھی کبھار اس غیر معیاری آٹے کی فراہمی کے خلاف اگر کوئی آواز اٹھتی بھی ہے تو بے اثر ہے ہوتی ہے اس کی وجہ اشرافیہ، مقتدرہ، انتظامیہ اور معاشرے کے معاشی طور پے مستحکم طبقے کا اس آٹے کا سرے سے استعمال ہی نا کرنا ہے، عام آدمی کیطرح اگر اس نام نہاد نمائشی ریاستی طرز کے عیاشی کے اڈے کا صدر، وزیراعظم ، سکریٹری، کمشنر ،ڈپٹی کمشنر بھی یہ آٹا کھا رہے ہوتے تو یقینناً اس محکمہ کی جرات نا ہوتی کے یہ پڑوس سے جاکر ناقص گندم سستے میں خرید کر اسے پیس کر آٹے کی شکل دے کر انسانوں میں زہر بانٹ رہا ہوتا۔ افسوس۔۔ !! کیونکہ یہ آٹا صرف غریب کھاتا ہے اور غریب کی کوئی آواز تو ہوتی ہی نہیں اس لیے حرام خور محکمہ اور اس کے کرتے دھرتے اپنے غیر انسانی اور انسان دشمن مقاصد میں کامیاب ہے۔ اور انسانی زندگیوں کے ساتھ یہ کھلواڑ سرعام دھندے کی صورت میں جاری و ساری ہے۔

حادثات اور سانحات کی جدید سائنسی بنیادوں پے تحقیقات اور حاصل نتائیج ہے عمل کرکے مذید نقصانات سے بچا جا سکتا ہے۔

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 29 May 2025 08:11:00 +0000

ہم بحیثیت مجموعی محض انتہائی غیر ذمے دار اور لاپرواہ ہجوم ہیں۔

ترقی یافتہ باشعور ملکوں میں معمولی سے معمولی حادثے سے لے کر بڑے سانحات کے بعد مستقبل میں اس طرح کے واقعات اور سانحات سے بچاؤ اور روک تھام کے لیے سائنسی بنیادوں پے مکمل اور شفاف تحقیقات کی جاتیں ہیں، جن کی روشنی میں آئیندہ ان ناخوشگوار اور جان لیوا حادثات سے بچاؤ کی تدابیر اختیار کی جاتی ہیں، مگر ہمارے ہاں اس کے بالکل برعکس ہوتا ہے، عام آدمی سے ذمہ داران تک حادثات اور واقعات کے بعد حسب معمول بے مقصد مخصوص رٹے رٹائے الفاظ میں تعزیتی بیانات، جنت کی دعائیں، دلی دکھ افسوس و ہمدردیوں کا اظہار، صدمے میں برابر کے شریک ہیں، امین امین، شدید الفاظ میں مذمت جیسے لاحاصل بیانات وغیرہ کے بعد مطمئن ہو کر لمبی تان کے سو جانا اپنی زمہ داریوں سے فرار اور اس طرح کے مزید حادثات اور نقصانات کے لیے راہیں کھولنے کے سواہ اور کچھ نہیں۔

اگر ذمہ داری کا مظاہرہ کیا جائے، عام و خاص ماضی سے نکلیں عوام اپنے اداروں کو زور دے اور ادارے سانحات اور واقعات کی دیانتدارانہ اور فرض شناسانہ تحقیقات کرکے مزید سانحات اور واقعات کو روک لگا سکیں تو ان گنت اور ناقابل تلافی نقصانات سے بچا جا سکتا ہے،

It is imperative to ensure the direct representation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in upcoming negotiations.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 12 May 2025 14:27:00 +0000

"No issue—whether local, regional, or international—can be resolved fairly, sustainably, or permanently without the involvement of the affected party.

Following recent Pak-India tensions, the United States' offer to mediate on the Jammu and Kashmir issue is a significant development. However, it is imperative to ensure the direct representation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in these negotiations.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir is a recognized international issue, with multiple United Nations resolutions affirming the right to self-determination for its people, allowing them to decide their own future. Regrettably, the leadership of Pakistan and India has attempted to undermine the international status of this issue through bilateral agreements.

The matter of freedom, survival, and dignity for the 15 million people of Jammu and Kashmir—a state spanning over 85,000 square miles—is not only tied to South Asia but also to global peace."

It is important to resolve the core issue of jammu and kashmir

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 11 May 2025 13:26:00 +0000

It is imperative to acknowledge that temporary ceasefires—often employed as tactical measures to buy time or to extend short-term relief to preferred factions—do not constitute enduring solutions, nor do they lay the groundwork for genuine peace. Such measures serve only as interim tactics that may postpone challenges, but they fall short of fostering sustainable stability in the region.

The pressing need of the hour is to pursue a permanent, equitable, and lasting resolution to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, taking into account its historical, legal, and humanitarian dimensions. Until this core issue is comprehensively addressed, the aspiration for lasting peace in South Asia will remain unfulfilled.

KIMS راولاکوٹ شیخ خلیفہ ہسپتال میں قاٸم غیرقانونی ادارہ

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 24 Nov 2019 17:13:00 +0000

( راولاکوٹ(تحقیقی رپورٹ۔سردارذوالفقارخان
ضلعی انتظامیہ کی نااہلی یا مافیا راج؟ گیارہ ماہ گزرنے کو آئے پرائیویٹ سیکٹر میں قاٸم کے آٸی ایم ایس کشمیر انسٹیٹیوٹ آف میڈیکل سائنس نامی میڈیکل ٹیکنالوجی تعلیمی ادارہ کا ایشو حل نہ ہو پایا، اس ادارے میں زیر تعلیم130کے قریب طلبہ و طالبات کے مستقبل پر سوالیہ نشان، ادارہ کی انتظامیہ پر لگائے گئے سنگین الزامات کے باوجود ارباب اختیارات کا مناسب کاروائی سے گریز سمجھ سے بالاتر،عوامی حلقوں میں شدید اضطراب پایا جاتا ہے، صدر ریاست وزیر اعظم آزاد کشمیر اور چیف سیکرٹری سے نوٹس لینے اور معاملہ کی غیر جانبدارانہ تحقیقات کا مطالبہ۔
ماضی قریب میں آزاد کشمیر بالخصوص پونچھ ڈویژن میں"کو ایجو کیشن"نے فروغ پایا جس کا سہرا پرائیویٹ تعلیمی اداروں کے سر جاتا ہے، پرائیویٹ سیکٹر میں کسی تعلیمی ادارے کے قیام کے لئے حکومتی پالیسی پر عملدرآمد نہ ہونے،چیک اینڈ بیلنس کے نظام کی غیر موجودگی،مدر پدر آزادی اور سوشل میڈیا کے عام استعمال سے تعلیمی اداروں میں جنسی طور پر ہراسگی اور منشیات کے استعمال میں دن بدن اضافہ ہو رہا ہے اور آئے روز کچھ ایسے واقعات منظر عام پر آرہے ہیں جن کی ہمارا مذہب اجازت دیتا ہے اور نہ ہی معاشرہ ایسے واقعات کا متحمل ہو سکتا ہے،یہ ایک مسلمہ حقیقت ہےکہ ایسے واقعات رپورٹ نہیں ہوتے اور جو ایک آدھ رپورٹ ہوتا بھی ہے تو اسے دبانے کے لئےایک مخصوص گروہ سر گرم ہو جاتا ہے جس سے بلیک میلنگ کو فروغ مل رہا ہے،معاشرے کی ریڑھ کی ہڈی شعبہ تعلیم کاروبار کا روپ دہار چکا ہے رسمی تعلیم کے ساتھ ٹیکنیکل تعلیم بھی اس لپیٹ میں ہے یہاں تک کہ میڈیکل ٹیکنالوجی جیسا حساس شعبہ بھی اس سے مبرا نہیں رہا۔پونچھ ڈویژن کے واحد ہسپتال شیخ خلیفہ بن ذید النیہان راولاکوٹ کے دامن میں کشمیر انسٹیٹیوٹ آف میڈیکل ساٸنسز راولاکوٹ نامی میڈیکل ٹیکنالوجی کالج گزشتہ 2سالوں سےپرائیویٹ سیکٹر میں قائم ہے جو ضلع بھر میں اپنی نوعیت کا واحد ادارہ ہے،یہ پرائیویٹ ادارہ آزاد کشمیر کے محکمہ صحت عامہ کے ملازم واسد سرفراز حال جونئیر ٹیکنیشن پیتھالوجی شیخ خلیفہ ہسپتال راولاکوٹ نے اپنے ساتھی محمد اشتیاق کے ساتھ مل کر بغیر رجسٹریشن اور بدوں محکمانہ اجازت غیر قانونی طور پر قائم کر رکھا ہے جبکہ اے جے کے گورنمنٹ سرونٹ(کنڈکٹ )1981 کی دفعہ 17 کے مطابق کوئی سرکاری ملازم دوران ملازمت کاروبار یا دوسری جگہ کام نہیں کر سکتا۔جنوری 2019 میں مذکورہ تعلیمی ادارہ کی ایک خاتون ٹیچر (ف خ ) نے مالکان پر ہراسگی و بلیک میلنگ کے الزام کے ساتھ استعفی دیتے ہوئے پولیس میں کارروائی کے لئے درخواست دی تاہم مالکان کی طرف سے تحریری معافی نامہ اور کچھ رقم ادائیگی کے بعد کارروائی سے دستبردار ہو گئی بعد ازاں کچھ طلبہ و طالبات نے مالکان پر ہراسگی و منشیات جیسے سنگین الزامات لگاتے ہوئےتحریری درخواست ہا ڈپٹی کمشنر پونچھ کو دیں جس پر ایڈیشنل ڈپٹی کمشنر نے زیر مکتوب نمبری
19/82- 86
مورخہ14مارچ 2019
میڈکل سپرٹینڈنٹ شیخ خلیفہ ہسپتال راولاکوٹ کو کے آٸی ایم ایس کی نسبت تحقیقات و محکمانہ کارروائی کے لئے استدعا کی اور ساتھ ہی اس ادارے کو بند کرنے کے احکامات بھی صادر فرمائے تاہم زیر تعلیم طلبہ وطالبات کو کوئی متبادل مہیا نہ کیا گیا،اسی دوران ہائر ایجوکیشن کمیشن کو بھی مناسب کارروائی و تحقیقات کے لئے تحریک کی گئی اور سیکرٹریٹ آف ہائر ایجو کیشن کمیشن نے زیر مکتوب نمبری 19/4090-9 مورخہ4 اپریل2019 ناظم کالجزمظفرآباد ڈویژن کو کے آٸی ایم ایس پونچھ کی تحقیقات وکارروائی کے احکامات جاری کئے ناظم کالجز نے زیر نمبری 3059 مورخہ 5 اپریل 2019 کو پرنسپل گورنمنٹ سائنس ماڈل کالج راولاکوٹ کو تحقیقات کے بعد رپورٹ ارسال کرنے کے احکامات جاری کئے تاہم رپورٹ کو مشتہر نہ کیا گیااور زیر تعلیم طلبہ و طالبات کو اسی افرا تفری میں ٹرم امتحان کے لئے ایبٹ آباد و پشاور بھیج دیا گیا جہاں سے واپسی پر چند طلبہ و طالبات نے اس وقت ایکٹیو پرنسپل کو تحریری طور پر اطلاع دی کہ وہاں امتحانات کے لئے واجبات کے علاوہ تین ہزارروپےفی کس کے حساب سے بطور رشوت لئے گئے اور کہا گیا کہ واٸیوا پاس کروایا جائے گا یہ رقم لاکھوں میں بنتی ہے جو کہ واسد سرفراز،اشتیاق، عمار خان اور مظفرآباد کیمپس کے پرنسپل امجد نے وصول کی، ساتھ ہی یہ انکشاف بھی ہوا کہ ایبٹ آباد و پشاور میں قیام کے دوران چند طالبات کو ہراساں بھی کیا گیا یہاں تک کہ ایک طالبعلم اور ایک طالبہ کو ایک ہی کمرا میں رہائش رکھنے کی اجازت بھی دی گئی۔انہی دنوں عوامی فورم پر یہ انکشاف بھی ہواکہ راولاکوٹ کیمپس میں ایک ہاسٹل بھی کے آٸی ایم ایس طلباء کے لئے قائم کیا گیا ہے جس میں باہر کے لوگ بھی رہائش پذیر ہیں جو طلباء کی ہراسگی میں ملوث پائے گئے ہیں اور منشیات کا استعمال بھی سر عام کیا جاتا ہے ان انکشافات کے بعد 18 اکتوبر2019 کو عوام علاقہ کی طرف سے ایک درخواست برائے کاروائی بذریعہ عاطف صادق ساکن کھائیگلہ راولاکوٹ ڈپٹی کمشنر کو دی گئی ہے جس میں موقف اختیار کیا گیا ہے کہ محکمہ صحت کے ملازمین واسد سرفراز اور محمد اشتیاق دوران سروسز ایک پرائیویٹ ادارہ چلا رہے ہیں جو کہ برائی کا اڈہ ہے جہاں فحاشی و منشیات کو فروغ دیا جا رہا ہے،ادارہ کسی اتھارٹی کے پاس رجسٹر نہیں ہے اور نہ ہی کسی بورڈ آف میڈیکل ٹیکنالوجی ایجوکیشن کے ساتھ الحاق شدہ ہے زیر تعلیم طلبہ و طالبات کو امتحانات کے لئے ایبٹ آباد و پشاور جانا پڑتا ہے جہاں مختلف مسائل کا سامنا رہتا ہے اور لاکھوں روپے بطور رشوت امتحانات میں شمولیت کے لئے ادائیگی کرنا پڑتی ہے،کالج میں فحاشی کا یہ عالم ہے کہ چند طلبہ و طالبات کے آپسی نا جائز تعلقات ہیں یہاں تک کہ کچھ طالبات کے اپنے میل اساتذہ کے ساتھ بھی تعلقات ہیں جنہیں مخفی رکھنا ضروری نہیں سمجھا جاتا،کالج میں لائبریری و لیبارٹری کی سہولت موجود نہ ہے جو کہ میڈیکل ٹیکنیکل ادارے کی بنیادی ضرورت ہیں،متعلقہ شعبے کا ٹیچنگ سٹاف بھی موجود نہ ہے،جن طلبہ و طالبات نے کارروائی کے لئے درخواست دے رکھی ہے انہیں بلیک میلنگ کے ذریعے دستبردار ہونے پر مجبور کیا جا رہا ہے،ضلعی انتظامیہ سے اجازت لئے بغیر ایک ہاسٹل قائم کیا گیا ہے جہاں باہر سے ملازمت پیشہ لوگ رہائش پذیر ہیں اور فحاشی کو فروغ دیا جا رہا ہے لہذا تحت ضابطہ کاروائی عمل میں لائی جائے-
باوثوق ذرائع کے مطابق ضلعی انتظامیہ کےادارہ بند کئے جانے کےواضح احکامات کے باوجود ہر ماہ نیا نام دے کر یہ ادارہ چلایا جا رہا ہے۔
ہماری تحقیق کے مطابق ادارہ واسد سرفراز اور محمد اشتیاق مل کر قائم کر رکھا ہے جو ہسپتال میں مستقل رات کی ڈیوٹی دیتے ہیں اور دن میں کالج کے معاملات دیکھتے ہیں جبکہ ہسپتال رول کے مطابق ملازمین روٹیشن میں تین شفٹوں میں ڈیوٹی دیتے ہیں ،ادارہ مجاز اتھارٹی کے پاس رجسٹر نہ ہے زیر تعلیم طلبہ و طالبات کو فرنٹئیر انسٹیٹیوٹ آف میڈیکل سائنسز ایبٹ آباد ایمرسن انسٹیٹیوٹ آف میڈیکل سائنسز پشاور ہری پور انسٹیٹیوٹ آف میڈیکل سائنسز ہری پور کے ذریعے کے پی کے بورڈ آف میڈیکل ٹیکنالوجی اور الجنت انسٹیٹیوٹ آف میڈیکل سائنسز سیالکوٹ کے ذریعے پنجاب بورڈ آف میڈیکل ٹیکنالوجی میں رجسٹر کروا کر امتحانات میں شامل کروایا جاتا ہے۔میڈیکل ٹیکنالوجی کی تعلیم دینے کے لئےادارہ قائم کرنا ہو تو اس کے لئے ایک ضابطہ متعین ہےجس کے مطابق ایک مکمل ہسپتال،شعبے سے متعلق لائبریری و مکمل لیبارٹری کا ہونا ضروری امر ہے جبکہ پاکستان میڈیکل کونسل سے این او سی حاصل کرنا بھی ضروری ہوتا ہےاور یہ لوازمات مذکورہ ادارہ پورے نہیں کر رہا ہے۔اب ضرورت اس امر کی ہے کہ ارباب اختیارات اپنی روایتی بے حسی و چشم پوشی والے رویے کو پس پشت ڈالتے ہوئےمعاملہ کی غیر جانبدار تحقیقات کروائیں اور ملوث افراد کو قرار واقعی سزائیں دیں تاکہ طلبہ و طالبات کے مستقبل سے کھلواڑ کا سد باب ہو اور اس ادارے میں زیر تعلیم 130 کے قریب طلبہ و طالبات کو کوئی متبادل بھی مہیا کیا جائے تا کہ ان کا مستقبل تاریک ہونے سے بچ سکے۔

writter is a free lance journalist and resercher can b contact 0092 345 5477274)

Kashmir's never-ending conflict, a timeline of 70 years.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 15:16:00 +0000

The seven-decade dispute over Kashmir has become a humanitarian nightmare, the cause of three wars between nuclear rivals Pakistan and India, and the reason for an ongoing armed rebellion against New Delhi's rule.

Since 1989, thousands of people, mostly civilians, have been killed or disappeared in India-administered Kashmir. ( AP )

The Kashmir dispute remains the oldest unresolved disagreement on the UN agenda.

It's been the cause of three wars between nuclear rivals Pakistan and India, and there has been an armed rebellion since 1989 against New Delhi's rule in India-administered Kashmir.

Former US president Bill Clinton called it "the most dangerous place in the world." Much of the world pays Kashmir little attention today, despite its continuing volatility.

But how did we arrive here?

Kashmiris are said to have not ruled their region since their king Yusuf Shah Chak was defeated in the 16th century by the Mughals.

In November 1586, when Chak launched a guerrilla attack against the armies of Mughal King Akbar, he was certain that "Independence is just a day away."

That was over 400 years ago.

From Mughals, Kashmir passed into the hands of Afghans and then to the Sikhs.

Then it was the British and their empire building at the expense of indigenous interests.

Today, those guerrilla attacks continue. This time, against Indian soldiers.

Kashmir's Balfour deal

Like the Sykes-Picot and Balfour agreements which tore apart the Middle East, the British were cavalier in their treatment of the region. With the 1846 Treaty of Amritsar, the Raj sold Muslim-majority Kashmir and its citizens to a Dogra king of the Jammu region – Ghulab Singh.

The Hindu Dogras switched sides from the Sikh empire, joined the British, and helped them defeat the Sikhs in the 1845-46 Anglo-Sikh wars.

In exchange for Kashmir, the British received 7.5 million nanakshahi rupees (the currency under the Sikh empire), one horse, 12 goats, and six cashmere shawls. This sale remains etched in the collective awareness of many Kashmiris.

From 1847 to 1947, the Dogras expanded their control to Buddhist Ladakh and the independent states of Gilgit and Baltistan. Many Kashmiris chafed at Dogra rule.

In 1931, the Quit Kashmir movement against Dogra rule began to gain momentum.

When the British decided to leave the subcontinent in 1947, all 565 princely kingdoms were told to join either Pakistan or India, i.e. to essentially pick between a Muslim-majority or a Hindu-majority state.

Ghulab Singh's great-grandson, Hari Singh, who ruled Kashmir, opted for independence.

Pakistan was sure that Kashmir, as a Muslim-majority region, would join it.

It signed a standstill agreement with Hari Singh that assured Pakistan would not hinder travel, trade and communications. India refrained from a similar deal.

Jammu massacre

In the Poonch area, whose people had served in the British army, an uprising against Dogra rule erupted in August 1947, which soon extended beyond the district.

Dogra forces aided by sympathetic Hindus and Sikhs attempted to quell the uprising in Jammu. What some labelled as "the systematic extermination of Muslims" resulted in the deaths of thousands; estimates range between 70,000 to over 200,000 massacred in Jammu region.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims fled to Pakistan and those who stayed back went from being a majority to a minority group in the Jammu region.

In Poonch, the tables turned when the rebels sought support from Pakistani Pashtun tribes.

They took over part of Poonch from Dogra forces in what is now known as Pakistan-administered Kashmir, near the line of control. The joint forces of Poonchis and Pashtuns also reached the Kashmir valley in October 1947.

Hari Singh immediately sought India's help by temporarily acceding the territory to India.

Then Governor-General and last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten backed his decision with an understanding that this would only be temporary accession prior to "a referendum or a plebiscite."

Under the accession terms, India's jurisdiction was to extend to Kashmir's external affairs, defence and communications.

Indian army enters Kashmir

On October 27, India entered Kashmir, eventually suppressing the rebellion. Many Kashmiris on both sides of the divide observe this day as Black Day. India celebrates it as Infantry Day.

Hari Singh went into a self-imposed exile to India but by then a provisional Azad(or free) government was formed in areas liberated by the Poonch uprising.

This region soon popularly became known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan disputed Hari Singh's accession, saying he had no right to sign an agreement with India when a standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force.

Pakistanis and Kashmiris argue that Hari Singh was unpopular in Kashmir and therefore not entitled to take a decision on behalf of his people.

On November 2, 1947, Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru promised a plebiscite in Kashmir saying:

"The fate of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. The pledge we have given not only to people of Kashmir but also to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it."

Twenty-three days later, Nehru again promised plebiscite in Kashmir:

"We have suggested that when people of Kashmir are given a chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as United Nations Organization."

But India didn't pull back its troops.

Pakistan and India went to war in May 1948, with each side unable to move beyond the de facto border, Line of Control (LoC) that divides the hamlets and hearts of Kashmir into Pakistani and Indian-administered Kashmir.

UN's call for a plebiscite

But before that, India took the case to the United Nations, which called for a plebiscite in the region, agreed by both India and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, India formed an emergency government in October 1948, with pro-India Kashmiri Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah as the prime minister of Kashmir.

Pakistan and India agreed to a ceasefire in 1949 but there was no truce despite the UN calling for a plebiscite in the region in multiple resolutions.

In 1957, India formally incorporated the disputed region into the Indian union.

It granted Kashmir semi-autonomous status under Article 370. But that status was gradually eroded.

In 1962, India lost a sliver of Kashmir called Aksai Chin in a war to China which merged the new territory into its Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

In 1963, Pakistan and China exchanged border territories. The deal passed another stretch of Kashmir called Shakasgam valley into Chinese hands, completing the trifurcation of Kashmir.

The 1965 war between India and Pakistan, initiated by the latter, ended in a stalemate.

In the 1966 Tashkent agreement, both sides agreed to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

They fought another war in 1971, in which India forces helped East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, separate from West Pakistan.

In 1972, India and Pakistan signed the Shimla Agreement that reiterated the promises made in Tashkent.

Absorbing part of Kashmir into India

Between 1948-1975, India jailed and released Abdullah multiple times. He finally agreed in 1975 to become the chief minister of India-administered Kashmir.

New Delhi was accused of rigging the local assembly elections of 1987 in Kashmir in favour of Abdullah's National Conference party, triggering a colossal backlash that continues to today.

Boys and men in their crossed the Line of Control (LoC) to get arms training from Pakistan. They came back to start an armed rebellion against New Delhi’s rule.

Led by the pro-independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, the rebellion was soon joined by pro-Pakistan outfits like Hizbul Mujahideen, now designated by the administration of US President Donald Trump as a terror group. It had avoided that designation for almost three decades under previous US administrations.

The defeat of Russia in Afghanistan in 1989 was a morale booster in Kashmir and beyond to groups who wanted to defeat another superpower – India.

Soon militants from Afghanistan and Pakistan and from as far as Sudan and Chechnya were fighting in the rebellion.

India dispatched some 600,000 soldiers to crush the uprising, turning Kashmir into the world's most militarised zone.

Militants and Pakistani troops occupied the heights of Kargil inside Kashmir in 1999. That war ended with the US pressurising Pakistan to pull back from Kargil and the prime minister of Pakistan being ousted in a military coup. India claimed it as a military victory.

Kashmir after 9/11 attacks

The US "War on Terror" following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States forced Pakistan to reframe its support for those it called 'freedom fighters' in the Kashmir conflict. Islamabad was also forced to close most of its training camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Many foreign militants left Kashmir for Afghanistan to fight US troops.

Under former military dictator and president General Pervez Musharaf, Pakistan entered a ceasefire with India in 2003 that some say helped India consolidate its grip over Kashmir. It was also able to fence the de facto border with modern technology for the first time.

Kashmir went off the international radar until 2008, when the Indian government transferred a piece of land to a Hindu shrine.

This sparked non-violent but massive anti-India demonstrations dispersed with force.

In 2010, a series of killings and staged gun battles by Indian troops sparked another wave of demonstrations against New Delhi's rule.

Indian soldiers killed dozens of peopleand wounded thousands in protests that went on for months.

Not everybody, however, agreed with the shift from armed rebellion to non-violent confrontation, which, in any case, did not force a back down by India.

Young men like Burhan Muzaffar Wanijoined rebels or militants and took up arms to fight Indian soldiers and police whom they see as tools of the occupying force.

Wani's killing in 2016 provoked the third wave of pro-independence protests in eight years.

India responded with arms and controversial pellet shotguns, blinding many and maiming thousands of protesters and by standers.

Too old to be left unresolved

October 27, 2017 marks 70 years of modern dispute over Kashmir. Or as some Kashmiris say, 2017 marks 432 years of foreign rule.

Since 1989, nearly 100,000 people, mostly civilians, have disappeared or been killed, many of them buried in unmarked mass graves.

The UN, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and other countries have called for a UN-brokered referendum in the region but New Delhi rejects any third-party role in the dispute.

The ongoing confrontation over Kashmir has become one of the greatest human rights crises in history, marked by wanton killings, rape, incarceration of leaders and activists, torture and disappearances of Kashmiris.

As Kashmir expert and author Christopher Snedden says: "The Kashmir dispute is now so old that if it were a person, it would be entitled to a pension.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.trtworld.com/asia/kashmir-s-never-ending-conflict-a-timeline-of-70-years-11666/amp

Who is pioneer of ideology of an independent Kashmir?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 14:20:00 +0000

Concept of an independent Kashmir is not new, as there is thousands of years long and dignified history to support this reality. However, in the recent past some people are making conflicting claims that so and so is the pioneer of ideology of an independent Kashmir.

For example, some people claim Sardar Rashid Hasrat is Baba e Khud Mukhtari - meaning grandfather of concept of an independent Kashmir. Others claim Maqbool Butt was the father of this concept - independent Kashmir. But recently some people from Mirpur have started claiming that Khaliq Ansari is the pioneer of ideology of an independent Kashmir.

Without hurting sentiments of any individual, tribe or a group I want to assert that none of the above is pioneer of this ideology or concept, although all three of them have made a valuable contribution to the struggle for an independent Jammu and Kashmir, and suffered for their dedication; and we all admire that. As stated above, an independent Kashmir existed on the map of the world with different boundaries, so no one in 20the Century could claim to be the pioneer of this concept.

However, the State of Jammu and Kashmir which was forcibly divided in October 1947, its founder was Raja Gulab Singh; and Maharaja Hari Singh was its last ruler. Hari Singh succeeded to throne in 1925 after death of Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh; and introduced some economic, social, legal, administrative economic and political reforms. He introduced State Subject Ordinance, political reforms like a right to vote and a Legislative Assembly, Compulsory primary education, laws prohibiting child marriage; "The Land Alienation Act" forbidding transfer of agricultural land to the non-agriculturists, and certain tax immunities for agriculturalists.

In order to empower people the Maharaja Hari Singh set up Village Panchayats; and also established Department of Rural Development in 1937. To support trade and industry he abolished numerous taxes, and the Government encouraged the people to purchase local products. He too great interest in manufacturing units of matchboxes, tents, carpets, woodworks, crafts, tannery goods, silk yarn, food etc. To me he took a bold step of establishing The Jammu and Kashmir Bank in 1938 that took control over the government treasury. Branches The Jammu and Kashmir Bank were established in Srinagar, Jammu and some other towns.

He was a reformer and from every characteristic of nationalism, Hari Singh was a nationalist leader with a forward looking approach to governance. We have to view his governance in light of the prevailing political and social situation of that time and not what is available to people in 21st Century. One writer complimented him by saying: 'Maharaja Hari Singh was great reformer, a nationalist and patriotic in spirit, betrayed by both Pakistan and India in their respective commitments. Maharaja Hari Singh breathed his last at Bombay on April 26, 1961.'

He did his best to preserve integrity and independence of his State, and care for all his subjects. Towards the end of the British Raj in India, he emphatically resisted the pressure to accede to either India or Pakistan; and after lapse of the British Paramountcy on 15 August 1947, he became a sovereign ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State.

During the British Raj he provided a legal protection to his citizens that no one from outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir could purchase any land and exploit his people. The State Subject Ordinance of 20 April 1927 not only granted people of Jammu and Kashmir class 1 citizenship, it also confirmed his love and care for his people and his State. He didn't want rich people of India to purchase land in Jammu and Kashmir and do what Jews did to people of Palestine. In order to protect rights of his citizens the State Subject Ordinance affirmed that:

'In matters of grants of the State scholarships State lands for agricultural and house building purposes and recruitment to State service, State subjects of Class 1 should receive preference over other classes....'

On 15 August 1947, State of Jammu and Kashmir also gained its independence. As a sovereign ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, and in order to protect and promote interests of Kashmir, he concluded a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan; and also offered India do the same. The above examples clearly demonstrate that he was a nationalist and wanted to preserve integrity and rights of his State and his citizens; and if that is not nationalism then one may ask what nationalism is.

Some Muslims with tunnel vision and overwhelmed Muslim nationalism might put forward this view that the Maharaja was a Dogra - and a non Muslim and an autocrat so he could not be a Kashmiri nationalist. Religion and nationalism are two separate things. Religion is a personal matter of citizens, as it is for them to decide what religion to follow (or not to follow) and the State has no role in determining faiths of its citizens; and nationalism - love for a country and its welfare has nothing to do with any religion. One person could be a devoted Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or a Buddhist and still be a patriotic citizen of Jammu and Kashmir.

Apart from the Maharaja Hari Singh other notable nationalists of the time were people like Sheikh Abdullah and Prem Nath Bazaz who played a leading role in politics of Jammu and Kashmir. It was they who clearly advocated equality for all citizens. Struggled for political and social reforms and forcefully advocated Kashmiri nationalism.

It must be pointed out that when the Maharaja Hari Singh passed the State Subject Ordinance in 1927, Khaliq Ansari was only two years old; and Sardar Rashid Hasrat and Maqbool Butt were not even born. We respect all three figures for their respective struggle and suffering. What they have done for the cause of an independent Jammu and Kashmir no one can take that away from them. However, we are not enhancing their status or doing justice to them, to their struggle or to history by associate wrong things to them.

Writer is a political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Division of Jammu and Kashmir will be opposed, UKPNP

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 10 Oct 2019 04:33:00 +0000

President United Kashmir Peoples National Party, British Zone, Usman Kayni, and Dr Shabir Choudhry, President Foreign Affairs Committee had a detailed meeting to discuss current situation of forcibly divided Jammu and Kashmir State.

Both leaders agreed that Jammu and Kashmir dispute is not an issue of so called Muslim Umma, which is deeply divided and is busy fighting each other. Jammu and Kashmir dispute concerns our fundamental human rights, which include our inherent and most cherished right to live independently in accordance with our religious, cultural and traditional values.

Our motherland, Jammu and Kashmir State is multi religious, multi – cultural and multi – ethnic State, and all citizens must have equal rights to practise their religions. The government must not have any role in giving directions to citizens, as to what religion people should follow.

The UKPNP leaders said the government should not have any religion; and all organs of the government must work in accordance with the law of the land. They must not treat people differently because of their religious, cultural and ethnic affiliations.

Both leaders said, under the current situation where both India and Pakistan are conniving to emasculate our struggle for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir; and promote their proxies to take the centre stage, we people of the UKPNP have to come forward and take the leading role.

For this purpose, we must reorganise and strengthen ourselves to advance the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. For the peace, stability and better future of South Asia, all stakeholders must oppose extremism, terrorism, intolerance and religious hatred, and ensure disputes are resolved by a process of dialogue.

All those who have any interest in peace and stability of South Asia must ensure that Jammu and Kashmir is not divided, as that WILL NOT solve any problems, if anything it will promote extremism and violence, and destabilise the region.

Both leaders said, it is sad that our motherland and our people are divided, mainly because of the forced occupation and religious extremism, but we will not accept division in any form or shape. The UKPNP will oppose all those who want to divide our motherland and promote intolerance and religious hatred. In this regard, we have to be vigilant, and ensure that proxies and propagandists of occupiers must not mislead people.

Afzal Guru’s execution and questions thereof

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:27:00 +0000

By HASHIM QURESHI

On learning about hanging a offender in 21st century, one is transported to 8th or 10th century. In this century, offenders are not given punishment to put an end to their life but to improve and reform them. In more than 150 countries capital punishment has been abolished. The thinking among intellectuals is that if a government retaliates with same vengeance as the offender acts, it has no better thinking than that of the offender. Thereby the government commits no less a crime. There can be an error in meting out justice. In the process of evolution nations have done away with capital punishment.

Was Afzul Guru a culprit or not, can be a contentious issue. We shall have a look at its legal aspects. We take into account his interrogation during imprisonment. Radio Pacific Network correspondent Vinod K. Jose had interviewed him in Tihar jail on 19 January 2013. Guru had talked at length about STF Kashmir, BSF Kashmir, 22 RR and Delhi Police. He had also given details of his case to Human Rights and Civil Society organizations. He also said how Delhi police had blackmailed him from time to time. He had not seen his lawyer or his family members for six months. “I saw my family at Patiala House Court but only from afar. I gave names of four lawyers to plead my case. Court judge S.N. Dhengra said they could not plead my case. The lawyer given to me by the court filed many prosecution papers without telling me which were accepted and at the end of the day he began pleading the case of another accused and not mine. The court appointed Amicus quadric. He was not appointed to defend me but to help the court and he never met me. Initially I didn’t have a lawyer available,” is what Guru had told the correspondent.

High Court acquitted S.A.R. Geelani and two more accused but upheld death penalty to Afzal Guru.

No direct witnesses were available in this case from the early beginning. It maintained his death sentence on the basis of circumstances. It was perhaps for the first time that such a high ranking court said this in its judgment:

“The incident which resulted in heavy casualties has shaken entire nation and collective conscience of the society will be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”

We don’t intend to open any legal commentary on the court verdict but let it be said that more than two hundred intellectuals, writers and film makers wrote to the President of India as this:

“We believe that you made a grave error in rejecting the Mercy Petition of Afzal Guru”. They said that the offender is given the right for judicial review once the Mercy Petition is rejected. Afzal Guru was denied this right.

We don’t think that hanging of Afzal Guru satisfied the legal stipulations. Congress government has taken political mileage out of it. In the past, whenever BJP demanded Guru’s execution Congress spokespersons took the position that there were more cases. When his case comes up the President would take the decision. His execution, done mysteriously, was suddenly announced on the morning of 9 February 2013. Questions will be raised on Indian democracy, India’s relations with Kashmir and Indian laws. Questions have already been raised. Arundhati has asked 13 questions in regard to attack on Parliament. Question Nos 12 an 13 are as this:

Six days after the attack on Parliament, Police Commission of Maharashtra (Thane) S.M. Shangari identified one assailant and gave a statement that his name was Muhammad Yasin Fath Muhammad alias Abu Hamza who was arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and handed over to Kashmir police. If this statement of Police Commissioner is correct then how could Muhammad Yasin be involved in the attack on parliament? If it is not correct, where is Muhammad Yasin?

3. We still do not know who were the five persons reported to have attacked the Parliament

4. It was reported that before attack was launched on the parliament, BJP had started deployment of the army and the ruling party was looking for pretexts to begin war with Pakistan. This opportunity was provided by the attack. Keeping this in mind and the statement of Afzal Guru The Martyr, the statement of Maharashtra police and other related factors, it becomes imperative that Indian civil society and international commission conduct an enquiry into this event, It is pertinent to say that owing to the movement of the troops more than a thousand jawans of Indian army got killed and losses ran in billions of dollars.

5. The mercy petition of the murderers of Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh was pending with the President before Afzal Guru’s petition. Even the Mercy Petition of Tamil assailants of Rajiv Gandhi were also made much before that of Afzal Guru’s petition. There were other appeals also.

6. Afzal Guru’s Mercy Petition was rejected by the President on 21 January. However, neither Afzal nor his family members were informed about it. For judicial review, Afzal’s family was informed through speed post on 8 February which was received by them on 11 February when he had already been hanged. His family members were not called for the last meeting enabling the dying man to express his last wish. He was suddenly hanged on February 9 and buried in the compound of Tihar Jail. The announcement was made by the Home Minister of India.

Many questions will rise about how Afzal Guru’s execution was conducted so secretly and the family was denied the opportunity of meeting with him and the dead body was not handed over to the family but buried in the compound of the jail. Justice is not only to be done but has to be seen. No justice was done to Afzal Guru rather injustice has been done to him.

Many among Congress opponents and among the opposition believe that Afzal became a victim of politics. BJP was insisting on his execution and Congress obliged. This disarmed BJP in the forthcoming elections. If it was not a political decision then the murderers of Beant Singh and those of Rajiv Gandhi should have been denied their mercy petitions much ahead of Afzal Guru. Punjab and Tamil Nadu assemblies have passed resolutions that these culprits should not be hanged. This is also one of the reasons why their mercy petitions have not been rejected so far.

Omar Abdullah expressed his reaction on two counts, not allowing Guru to meet with his family members and being informed only 12 hours before the execution took place. He expressed his unhappiness with the centre on these counts. But is that all what is expected from a CM? He was informed a day earlier. Could he not ask for fulfilling human consideration? He could have told the centre to let his family meet with him and delay the hanging by three days.? Could not the dead body of Afzal Guru be brought by a helicopter to his village for giving it proper burial? On 9 February Saterday strict curfew was imposed before morning prayers and all internet facilities were cut off. Newspaper, television broadcasts were also locked. It was a march to medieval times for Kashmiris. Youth were detained in police stations, resistance leaders were put under house arrest.

In hospitals not only the patients but their helpers too were put to miserable conditions.

We can ask the collective conscience of Indian society how long they would put Kashmiris in jails in order to satisfy their collective conscience.? Peaceful demonstrators are fired at, youth are detained and put behind bars and four Kashmiris were gunned down during the course of demonstrations. More than one crore of people were virtually held as hostage. More than a hundred persons have been wounded in J&K during past few days. Guru’s hanging was as sudden as the imposition of curfew. It was the weekend and people would have done shopping. People had not the eatables left in homes.

Condition of patients was worse as if life had come to a halt. Along with Afzal Guru entire Kashmiri community was given punishment. Did India’s collective conscience find solace by imposing curfew for full one week in Kashmir?

Now Geelani Sahib has come out with his own formula. He does not consider seven days of curfew as protest demonstration and gave call for two more days of strike. This is called whipping the dead horse.

A question can be put to the resistant leadership also. It is all right to express condolence and grief on the execution of Guru. But the question is why the resistance movement and its leadership played politics from the very beginning but did not extend legal help to him.? If no fewer than four famous lawyers could be engaged for the defence of SAR Geelani, why was not a suitable legal defence made available for Afzal Guru ? In his last interview he had said it as this: ”In the length and breadth of India, Kashmiri youth are facing cases against them without the assistance of any lawyer, any follower and without any legal support. I am worried lest they have to meet with the same fate as I have met with”.

Let me reiterate my question. Can’t all resistance organization come together at least on one point that keeping clear of self-aggrandizement and personal interests, should it not be possible to constitute a defence committee for rendering legal assistance to all those Kashmiri youth against whom cases have been framed?

India rulers claim they want peaceful resolution of Kashmir issue and produce various references like Bajpai’s efforts and Manmohan Singh’s round table conferences or the missions of Panth and Jaithmalani and Vohra etc. Sometimes they put forward the interlocutors. The result of all these efforts is nothing. The chasm of trust deficit between Kashmiri nation and Indian nation is widening day after day. People say all these committees and dialogues are meant to sabotage the struggle of Kashmiris

Indian intelligentsia should try to understand that Kashmiri thinking class is obsessed with the belief that India and all of her institutions are doing injustice to Kashmiris and forcing them to bend their knees. Afzal Guru’s execution has deepened this belief. Martyrdom of Maqbul Bhat gave the Kashmiri youth the spirit of forging unity in the Kashmiri nation and making their land free and independent. Afzal Guru’s execution has shown that Kashmiris will not be able to enjoy the right to protest and freedom of expression in India. They have also begun to question whether Indian courts can do justice to their cause.? In other words Kashmiris have lost faith in non-violent struggle and democratic dispensation.

I would like to impress upon the mainstream parties of Kashmir also that unless they commit themselves to be faithful to the Kashmiri masses and consider them the real source of power, the centre will continue to expect servility and circumventing of law from them. We would advise New Delhi with all sincerity that it should apologize to the widow and orphan children of Afzal Guru for not allowing them the last meeting with him and his dead body should be handed over to his kith and kin. True by burying Maqbul Bhat in the compound of Tihar prison and not allowing Kashmiris to raise a tomb in his memory on their soil, now millions of tombs have been raised in the minds of Kashmiris in memoriam to Maqbul Bhat the martyr. The same will hold true in the case of Afzal Guru. Its consequences would be grave.

Let me reiterate that we condemn attacks as on Parliament House, Assembly House or Taj hotel of Mumbai. Attack on Parliament House which is the symbol of India’s democracy was in no way a right step. It was condemnable. But murdering a human being is the biggest of sins. Hanging of Afzal Guru, the martyr, might have solaced Indian ultra nationalism, but the way he was hanged is not to be found anywhere in the world. The entire world has taken up this execution case to ask many questions from the Hindustan of Gandhiji and the law and democracy of Hindustan.?

“Some people don’t like telling the truth, others don’t like hearing it”

Hashim Qureshi Intoduction

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:14:00 +0000

Hashim Qureshi (born 1 October 1953 in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir) is one of the founding members of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and is now the Chairman of Jammu Kashmir Democratic Liberation Party (JKDLP), one of the main separatist Kashmiri political organizations which strives to find a political solution to the Kashmir issue through peaceful and political activities.

Birth and childhood Born in the Nowhatta locality of Srinagar to Mohammad Khaleel Qureshi and Saeeda Begum, Hashim Qureshi comes from a middle class family. He studied at Islamia School, Srinagar. He started his political career at the young age of 14 by participating in demonstrations and stone pelting against Indian occupation in Kashmir. During a trip to Pakistan for his sister’s wedding, he met Maqbool Bhat in 1969 in Peshawar and joined his JKNLF.

Ganga hijacking Maqbool Bhat was the founding father of Kashmir’s independence struggle and he wanted to highlight the Kashmir issue internationally. He masterminded the idea of a hijacking. He chose Hashim Qureshi for the hijacking who along with his cousin Ashraf Qureshi hijacked an Indian Airlines plane on 30 January 1971 (Ganga) en route from Srinagar to Jammu and brought the plane to Lahore, Pakistan. Hashim Qureshi was only 17 years old. The Indian Airlines flight was carrying 30 people including crew members. After landing on Lahore Airport the hijackers demanded the release of about two dozen political prisoners of the JKNLF in Indian prisons, political asylum in Pakistan and guarantee from the Indian Government that there relatives in Srinagar, will not be hurt in anyway. The Hijackers were greeted by the Chairman of Pakistan Peoples Party, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who would later become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. On February the 1st 1971 all the passengers and crew were sent back to India via Amritsar and the ‘Ganga’ was set on fire by the Pakistani ISI [3][4].The hijackers and Maqbool Bhat were firstly praised as heroes and freedom fighters (as this was the first instance Kashmiris had brought their cause to the attention of the World) but then they and hundreds of other members of JKNLF were arrested, interrogated in Shahee Qila, Lahore and Dolayee Camp near Muzaffarabad. Later six of them were tried in a Special Court of Pakistan under the charges of collaboration with the Indian intelligence services. They were Maqbool Bhat, G.M. Lone, Mir Abdul Qayyum, Mir Abdul Manan and the two hijackers Hashim Qureshi and Ashraf Qureshi.The case started in December 1971 and after a long trial in which 1984 prosecuting and 1942 defence witnessed were called was concluded in May 1973. All but Hashim Qureshi were cleared of all charges other than dealing with arms and explosives etc. Hashim Qureshi was sentenced for nineteen years imprisonment. Maqbool Bhat submitted for this case a statement which is arguably the most detailed reflection of his political ideology, excerpt: “I can say without any hesitation that I have not designed any conspiracy nor have I been a part of any group of conspirers. My character has always been transparent and unambiguous. However, I have done one thing and that is the rebellion against ignorance, greed of wealth, exploitation oppression, slavery and hypocrisy. If the ruling class of Pakistan that is a product of imperialism and represented by the bureaucracy and military dictatorship of this country views this as conspiracy then I have no hesitation in accepting the charge”. Ganga Case was carried out under special presidential orders of the then President of Pakistan Yahya Khan according to which the accused were denied the right to appeal against the decision of this Special Court. Despite many requests and protests in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan the right to appeal for Ganga accused was not accepted. The right to appeal was restored only after the British Kashmiris warned several Pakistani ministers on their visits to Britain that the unlawful tactics of the Pakistani rulers to convict these Kashmiris will be exposed. Using this right JKNLF filed an appeal against the Special Court’s decision about Hashim Qureshi. But it took seven years before this appeal was heard at Supreme Court, which was compromised of a full bench of three judges, where Hashim Qureshi was eventually also cleared.

The Pakistani authorities released Hashim Qureshi in 1980. He married the daughter of his maternal uncle in 1982. In 1985, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) approached him in order to join hands. The ISI wanted to get young people from Kashmir, for training. They offered him money, land and other things. After long discussions of four months, he declined. He argued that Pakistan had also occupied Gilgit- Baltistan and PoK, where there is no democracy. After that the Pakistani authorities started hunting him, he managed to escape Pakistan and fled to The Netherlands. He had to leave his wife, who was then pregnant, and their two children. They joined him after four months with help from Amnesty International and other Human Rights organizations

Formation of Jammu Kashmir Democratic Liberation Party Hashim Qureshi stayed connected to the fight for Kashmiri independence and wrote articles and press releases to the leaders in Kashmir warning not to start an armed rebellion. He believed that the freedom movement of a country cannot be run by another country or foreign intelligence agencies. It has to be an indigenous movement, not one running at somebody else’s behest. He wanted to correct the wrong path the struggle had been led to and save Kashmir from unwanted elements. According to him weapons were the enemy of the Kashmiri people in this era and the Kashmiri rebellion would be called a terrorist movement instead of a freedom movement. After having read Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and others in jail, Hashim Qureshi, now was convinced that an armed struggle would only damage the Kashmiri cause and advocated a non-violent movement based on the principle of civil disobedience.

Because of JKLF’s collaboration with the ISI and differences with the then Chairman Amanullah Khan on his role in the Ravindra Mhatre case, he left the JKLF in 1993 and formed his own Jammu Kashmir Democratic Liberation Party (JKDLP) in 1994.

Return to Kashmir from exile Hashim Qureshi returned to India after an exile of almost 30 years on 29 December 2000. He was immediately arrested at New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport and was produced before metropolitan magistrate Gulshan Kumar, who remanded him to judicial custody till January 11, 2000.

Hashim Qureshi filed Habeas Corpus, challenging the magistrate’s order on the ground that his detention was illegal and that he could not be retried as per the law as he was already sentenced to life by a Pakistan court and had served a prison term for over nine years. He later on withdrew his writ petition, because according to his counsel K.T.S. Tulsi, Qureshi had conveyed his wish that he was very anxious to go back to Kashmir. “He wanted to go as a free man, but as it is taking so much time he has decided to withdraw, said Tulsi. Adding, that he came back to India to be in Kashmir, with his people. As he is not well, he thought it would be better to continue the case in J&K. Later on he withdrew his Habeaus Corpus petition in the Delhi High Court and was flown to Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir on 12 January 2000.

In Kashmir he was again charged for the 1971 hijacking with wrongful confinement, robbery, kidnapping and criminal conspiracy. He was also charged with hatching a criminal conspiracy with hanged JKNLF’s founder Maqbool Bhat under a section of the Enemy Ordinance Act 3. This accuses him of being a Pakistani agent. Ironically he was charged under the same ordinance in Pakistan during the hijacking trial, which accused him of being an Indian agent. Maqbool Bhat and Hashim Qureshi are the only two Kashmiris who have been charged under the Enemy Ordinance Act in Pakistan as well as India.

Hanging of Afzal Guru – India provided another martyr to Kashmiri

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:46:00 +0000

Dr Shabir Choudhry

09 February 2013

On the morning of Saturday 9^th February 2913, Mohammed Afzal Guru was hanged in Tihar Jail of New Delhi and buried inside the Jail. This undesirable action was carried out only two days before 29^th death anniversary of Maqbool Butt, who was also hanged in the same jail on 11 February 1984.

It was not the first time a Kashmiri leader was executed in unsatisfactory manner and buried without handing the body to the relatives. Afzal Guru, whether guilty or innocent is no more with us, and let us pray that Almighty bless his soul.

Afzal Guru was accused of masterminding the attack on the Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001, in which 14 people lost their lives. All five attackers were killed on spot.India accused the Jaish-e-Mohammed militant group for this attack which has links with some officials of the Pakistani establishment. Afzal Guru and Shaukat Hussain Guru were sentenced to death in December 2002 for planning and providing logistic support for the attack. On appeal the sentence of Shaukat Hussain Guru was reduced to 10 years; and he was released on 30^th December 2010.
In the same case, two other people, Delhi University Lecturer, SAR Geelani and Afshan Guru, wife of Shaukat Hussain Guru were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. What that suggests is that there must be some evidence against Afzal Guru and Shaukat Hussain Guru. Afzal Guru was to be executed on 20 October 2006, but after his wife’s clemency appeal to the President of India, it was put on hold. On 3 February 2013, the present President of India Pranab Mukherjee rejected the appeal, hence the execution of the accused.
It is not common in India to hang people for murder. Since 2004, only two people have been executed. Mohammed Ajmal Kasab was executed in November 2012 for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks; and Afzal Guru for his involvement on the attacks on the Indian Parliament.
One may not say that Afzal guru was completely innocent man; but he certainly did not deserve a death sentence. In one TV interview he acknowledged his role in the incident, which was limited to providing logistic support and weapons. He also acknowledged that he went to Pakistani administered Kashmir as a JKLF man for training; and he later on established links with Jaish E Mohammed. 1
Important point here is that Afzal Guru was not part of the team that attacked the Parliament. He did not kill anyone, although he had some supportive role in the incident. People who are directly involved in murders, at times, do not get death sentence, and question arises why Afzal Guru had to be hanged? Why his sentence could not have been changed to life imprisonment?
Timing of the hanging and the way it was carried out, and what they did to his body speaks volumes about callousness of the authorities. If he had to be sentenced to death, why he had to be hanged two days before the death anniversary of Maqbool Butt, when feeling are running very high; and anti India feeling are at its peak? Why his family was not allowed to meet him before executing him? Above all, why his death body was not given to his family?
Is that not clear breach of fundamental human rights, and against ethics and morality? Is this not to rub salt in wounds of the suffering people? Is this not a message to angry and frustrated people of Kashmir that their sentiments, dignity and honour were not important to the authorities?
What that indicates is that some people don’t want any kind of peace or normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir, as Kashmir dispute has become a big business and a valuable source for winning public support or diverting attention from other important issues. One Kashmiri journalist today phoned me and asked my views about this incident. I expressed my serious anger, concern and strongly opposed this action; and called it a breach of fundamental human rights.
He agreed with me, but added that Afzal Guru was not innocent, as he had some role in the incident – he provided weapons which were used to kill people; but he should not have been hanged. He also agreed that his body must have been given to his family. He said: ‘Choudhry Sahib the Kashmir dispute will never be resolved. One condition for a plebiscite is normal situation; and those who are in position of power always ensure that the normal situation does not prevail in Jammu and Kashmir State’.
Commenting on the incident General secretary of CPI(ML) Liberation, Dipankar Bhattacharya said: "Faced with growing popular opposition and resistance one very front, the Congress party and the UPA government are desperately trying to appease the BJP and the communal-fascist brigade." 2

Arun Dhati Roy writes: ‘Like most surrendered militants Afzal was easy meat in Kashmir — a victim of torture, blackmail, extortion. In the larger scheme of things he was a nobody. Anyone who was really interested in solving the mystery of the Parliament Attack would have followed the dense trail of evidence that was on offer. No one did, thereby ensuring that the real authors of conspiracy will remain unidentified and uninvestigated. But now that Afzal Guru has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?’ 3

The Supreme Court judgment says the evidence is circumstantial: “As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no direct evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy.” But then it goes on to say: “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” 4

Already demonstrations on both parts of the divided State have started. Whereas, demonstrations on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir have become violent; demonstrations on the Pakistani side were peaceful and despite government support numbers were limited to few hundred people. Fearing demonstrations as a result of Afzal Guru’s hanging the authorities in Jammu and Kashmir imposed a curfew, but hundreds of people still came out resulting in some injuries.

The big test will be on 11 February. Despite the curfew, people will come out in thousands; and that could result in serious clashes resulting in loss of valuable lives and damage to property. I hope common sense prevails and the authorities do not show heavy handedness; and let angry people protest peacefully and express their sentiments.

This incident will remain controversial, as some will claim he was innocent, others will say he was part of the terror project and was rightly executed. Some will say he had some role in it but did not deserve death sentence. Whether innocent or not, but by hanging Afzal Guru India has provided another prominent martyr to the Kashmiri Muslims. Afzal Guru is dead, but he will live as a martyr, and will boost anti India sentiments. My fear is that some groups will claim that they have no hope for justice; and that will provide new recruits for violence and terrorism.

Kashmiri Muslims offer funeral prayers in absentia for Mohammad Afzal Guru

Writer is a political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Why 22 October matters in Kashmiri history?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:19:00 +0000

We believe that our sovereignty was violated on 22 October when hordes of tribesmen from North West Frontier of Pakistan attacked and invaded some parts of the State territory. They mercilessly killed and looted people. Religion of victims was not an issue to them; and their victims included Muslims and non Muslims. In fact, first person who was killed by these so called Jihadis was a Muslim from Muzaffarbad.

When these tribesmen attacked house of a non Muslim citizen of Muzaffarabad, Master Abdul Aziz in line with Islamic duty and Kashmiri ethos, tried to protect his neighbour; and asked the tribesmen not to harm him or his family. The tribesmen did not like intervention from Master Abdul Aziz, and killed him on spot. To these jihadis crime of Master Abdul Aziz was so severe that he did not deserve a funeral (janaza) or burial. They threw his dead body in River Neelam.

This Tribal Invasion was actively supported and directed by senior Pakistani officials both civil and military. This unprovoked attack caused enormous problems to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It caused death, destruction and chaos. When the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir realised that he and his forces were unable to hold them back, he asked government of India for help to save his people and his State. He was told that in order to get military help, he should accede to India.

The Maharaja was left with no choice but to accede. This accession was provisional and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and to date people did not have an opportunity to express their opinion on this.

The purpose of this conference and this booklet is not to support or oppose any ideology, but to tell people what is the root cause of our miseries and problems; and what was the status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir after end of the British Raj in the Indian Sub Continent. I have provided many historic documents for the information of people that they can correctly ascertain legal and constitutional position of the State.

Legal documents

There are three important documents which deal with partition of India and position of Princely States. One is 3rd June Statement, second is Cabinet Mission Memorandum on Princely States and third is Indian Independence Act. Relevant parts of these documents are produced below.

Statement made by His Majesty's Government on Transfer of Power, 3 June, 1947, refers to Princely States as follows:

The States

‘His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that the decisions announced above relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of 12 May 1946 remains unchanged.’

We can see that the 3rd June Statement does not provide clear answer to the position of Princely States, so we need to look at what Cabinet Mission Memorandum says.

B/ Text of Memorandum on States' Treaties and Paramountcy Presented by the Cabinet Mission to His Highness the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes on 12 May 1946

‘When a new fully self-governing or independent Government or Governments come into being in British India, His Majesty's Government's influence with these Governments will not be such as to enable them to carry out the obligations of paramountcy. Moreover, they cannot contemplate that British troops would be retained in India for this purpose. Thus, as a logical sequence and in view of the desires expressed to them on behalf of the Indian States, His Majesty's Government will cease to exercise the powers of paramountcy. This means that the rights of the States which flow from their relationship to the Crown will no longer exist and that all the rights surrendered by the States to the paramount power will return to the States. Political arrangements between the States on the one side and the British Crown and British India on the other will thus be brought to an end. The void will have to be filled either by the States entering into a federal relationship with the successor Government or Governments in British India, or failing this, entering into particular political arrangements with it or them.’

This surely has clarified the position. In nutshell it means the Princely States will regain their rights and privileges after the lapse of paramountcy, meaning they will legally become independent. Indian Independence Act is a long document and I am producing relevant section which deals with position of the Princely States.

C/ Indian Independence Act, 1947

Section 7.1

‘(b) the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date with towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise’ lapsed.

By the above provision all the Princely States after lapse of the British paramountcy technically and legally became independent.

3/

What Lord Mountbatten said about Princely States?

Louis Mountbatten Dating

Governor General of India Lord Louis Mountbatten's Address to a Special Full Meeting of the Chamber of Princes on July 25 1947, in which he said:

There were two distinct problems that faced me. The first was how to transfer power to British India and the second, how to fit Indian States into the picture in a manner which would be fair and just to all concerned.

I dealt first with the problem of British India, because you will realise that until that problem was solved it was quite useless to try to start on a solution of the problem of the States. So I addressed my mind to the former.

There had been universal acceptance among the States of the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May and when the political parties accepted the Statement of 3 June they fully realised and accepted that withdrawal of Paramountcy would enable the States to regain complete sovereignty….

Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent. 1

4/

What Mohammed Ali Jinnah said about Kashmir?

8

Many Pakistanis especially who oppose Jammu and Kashmir’s separate status claim that the State should have been given to Pakistan on the basis of Two Nations Theory. They don’t know or don’t want to know that the Two Nations Theory only applied to the British India and the Princely States were not part of the British India, as it has been proved by the above quotations from legal documents.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a brilliant constitutional lawyer and he understood the legal and constitutional position of the Princely States. He strongly believed that the State of Jammu Kashmir and other Princely States had a right either to accede to India or Pakistan, or become independent States. In a reply to a question on 17th June 1947 about legal status of the Princely States, Qaaide Azam said:

‘That after the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly {or Pakistan Constituent Assembly} or to decide to remain independent’.

On July 11 1947, while replying to some Kashmiris, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah once again clarified the position, he said:

“The second question that is engaging the attention of the Muslims of Kashmir is whether Kashmir is going to join the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. I have already made it clear more than once that the Indian States are free to join either the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or remain independent”.

Many Pakistanis ignore this statement of their Qaaid, but keep on referring to the statement which has no legal or historic significance that Kashmir is a ‘jugular vein of Pakistan’. Apart from the above statements on Kashmir Mohammed Ali Jinnah proved with his action that the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States, when he accepted accession of state of Junagarh which had non Muslim majority with a Muslim Ruler. If rules of the Two Nations Theory applied to the Princely States then this state should have automatically joined India; and Mohammed Ali Jinnah would not have accepted its accession to Pakistan.

5/

What Pandit Nehru said about Kashmir?

Excerpts of telegram dated 26 October, 1947 from Jawaharlal Nehru to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee

"For Prime Minister United Kingdom from Prime Minister India.

We have received urgent appeal for assistance from Kashmir Government. We would be disposed to give favourable consideration to such request from any friendly State. Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. Security of Kashmir, which must depend upon control of internal tranquillity and existence of stable Government, is vital to security of India especially since part of Southern boundary of Kashmir and India are common. Helping Kashmir, therefore, is an obligation of national interest to India. We are giving urgent consideration to question as to what assistance we can give to State to defend itself.

I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in anyway to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view. It is quite clear, however, that no free expression of will of people of Kashmir is possible if external aggression succeeds in imperilling integrity of its territory.

I have thought it desirable to inform you of situation because of its threat of international complications."

Apart from that telegram Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru on many occasions made statements on Kashmir, and I am only producing a few here. He said:

1/

“We are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide.

“And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Broadcast to the Nation: “All India Radio”: 2 November 1947).

“The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in Indian Constituent Assembly; 25 November 1947).

3/ “People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Report to the All-India Congress Committee, 6 July 1951; The Statesman, New Delhi, 9 July 1951).

“Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 31 March 1955).

“We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).

6/ Standstill Agreement

As noted above after the lapse of ‘Paramountcy’ – end of British Raj - the Princely States were legally and constitutionally independent, and had absolute discretionary powers to decide about future of their states.

Lord Listowel, Secretary of State for India said in House of Lords said on 16 July 1947:

‘From the moment the appointments and functions of the Crown Representative and his officers will terminate and the States will be the masters of their own fate. They will be then entirely free to choose whether to associate with one or the other of the Dominion Governments or to stand alone, and Her Majesty’s Government will not use the slightest pressure to influence their momentous and voluntary decision’. 2

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir more than once expressed his desire not to accede to any country, as he wanted to become an independent Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. In order to pursue his plans; and to avoid administrative collapse which could have resulted after the lapse of Paramountcy he offered Standstill Agreements to both India and Pakistan on 12 August 1947.

Telegram of Prime Minister of Kashmir to the States Relations Department, Government of Pakistan states:

‘Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreements with Pakistan on all matters on which these exist at present moment with outgoing British Government. It is suggested that existing arrangements should continue pending settlement of details formal execution of formal agreements.’

A similar telegram was sent to Government of India. The Government of India did not refuse to enter in to the Standstill Agreement, but replied that ‘Government of India would be glad if some duly authorised minister could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between the Kashmir Government and Indian Dominion. Early action is desirable to maintain existing agreements and administrative arrangements.’ 3

On the other hand the Foreign Secretary, Government of Pakistan addressed Prime Minister of Kashmir in a telegram on 15 August 1947:

‘The Government of Pakistan agree to have a Standstill Agreements with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the continuance of the existing arrangements pending settlement of details and formal execution of fresh agreements.’ 4

7/

Was Jammu and Kashmir a sovereign state?

All the above proves without any doubt that the State of Jammu and Kashmir was a sovereign and an independent State. A state must have four attributes before it could be called a sovereign state.

1/ First attribute is that the state should have people. This attribute Jammu and Kashmir satisfied before the lapse of Paramountcy. The people living within the State boundaries were regarded as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir; and State Subject Definition Notification dated the 20th April, 1927 further strengthens our case in this regard.

2/ Second attribute of a statehood is that the state should have a defined territory. Size of the state does not matter; it could be a city state. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had clearly defined territory of which he was the Ruler.

3/ Third attribute of a statehood is that there should be a government. A government could mean one or more people who are responsible for making laws and keeping law and order. All these attributes were satisfied before the lapse of paramountcy.

4/ Fourth attribute of a statehood is that a state should have capacity and right to enter in to relations with other states. This attribute distinguishes states from lesser units like members of a federation.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir attained this capacity after the lapse of Paramountcy. He demonstrated this ability or right by concluding a Standstill Agreement with government of Pakistan; and by offering to have a Standstill Agreement with government of India.

Some argue that because the State of Jammu and Kashmir was not recognised, therefore it was not a sovereign state. This is not true. A State becomes sovereign when it is granted independence by a paramount power; legally it attains independence from that moment and does not depend on recognition of other states. Israel exists as a sovereign country, yet it is not recognised by so many countries.

In case of Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan could not have recognised it as a sovereign state as both wanted Kashmir to join one or the other Dominion. Other countries could not recognise the State of Jammu and Kashmir so soon because situation was not clear; and the State of Jammu and Kashmir could not maintain its independence due to the tribal invasion which forced the Maharaja to accede to India, which was provisional and had to be ratified by people of the State.

8/ Tribal Invasion

Despite pressures from both India and Pakistan the Maharaja refused to accede to any country. As late as on 12 October 1947, RB Batra, Deputy Prime Minister of Kashmir while on a visit to Delhi said:

‘We intend to keep on friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. Despite constant rumours we have no intention of joining either India or Pakistan, and the Maharaja and his government have decided that no decision of any kind will be made until there is peace in the plains. He also revealed that the Maharaja had told him that it was his ambition to make Kashmir Switzerland of the East – a completely neutral state.’ 5

The government of Pakistan and Governor General of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah hoped that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir will join Pakistan or, at least, will not join India. When they realised that all was not well, and the Maharaja government, especially after expulsion of Prime Minister Rai Bahadur Pandit Ramchandra Kak was increasing its distance with Pakistan and getting closer to India, the hawks in Pakistan decided to teach Maharaja a lesson.

They violated terms of the Standstill Agreements and blockaded all supplies to the State to cripple the government; and increase pressure on the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. They even stopped supply of essential items like food, salt, petrol and sugar etc. Also they encouraged rebellion in the State and sent in Tribesmen and other Pakistanis to capture Summer Capital, Srinagar and other parts of the State.

Mehar Chand Mahajan, Prime Minister of Kashmir wrote a letter of complaint to the British government but got no help, as the British role and responsibilities to the States ended on 15th August. He then wrote a letter of complaint to Government of Pakistan and requested to honour terms of the Standstill Agreement. The Pakistan government asked the Maharaja to come to Karachi to discuss these matters. The Maharaja refused to do that in view of the prevailing situation in the State, but agreed to set up a joint commission to look in to these matters.

While both governments exchanged telegrams as to what should be done to resolve these matters, on 22 October thousands of Tribesmen fully supported by the Pakistani administration crossed over the State territory; and violated and desecrated sovereignty of the State. This action of Pakistani government is called ‘indirect aggression’ in international law, and there is ample evidence to prove Pakistani hand in this aggression.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as a Governor General of Pakistan met Lord Mountbatten on 1 November 1947, who was at that time Governor General of India, and said, he can ‘call the whole thing off’ if Lord Mountbatten agreed to his terms. 6

Major General Akbar Khan who was assigned the task of ‘liberating’ Kashmir and who assumed the title of General Tariq – famous Muslim General who invaded Spain – reveals in his book ‘Raiders in Kashmir’ that he was called from Kashmir to take part in very important meeting. This high level meeting was held at Governor House Lahore on 27 October 1947, which was chaired by Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan. Other participants included Maj General Iskander Mirza – Defence Secretary, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, Secretary General, Brigadier Sher Khan, Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan Chief Minister of NWFP, Nawab of Mamdot – Chief Minister of Punjab. In this meeting a plan to capture Jammu put forward by Maj General Akbar Khan was discussed, but not approved, as that could have provoked India to attack Pakistan.

He further writes: ‘My suggestion about the formation of a Liberation Committee to coordinate and direct our efforts in Kashmir was accepted….In the morning I was informed that I was to be the military member of the Liberation Committee. To enable me to attend to this work, I was to be relieved of my duties in GHQ, and was to be appointed Military Advisor to the Prime Minister. I was to stay in Pindi, and my work in connection with Kashmir was to be kept secret from the British Officers and GHQ.’ 7

Apart from that a cabinet member of the Government of Pakistan Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan admitted in his book: ‘Seeing the Maharaja’s and India’s bad faith, we decided to walk into Kashmir. I was put in charge of the operation. I asked for the services of Brigadier Sher Khan and Brigadier Akbar, both of 6/13th Frontier Force and requested that we should be allowed some arms which we could retrieve from…Lahore Fort….We lost Kashmir through our own blunders. The people there were jubilant over Pakistan’s actions and wanted to join it, but the tribes fell back pell-mell.’ 8

There is abundant evidence that government of Pakistan was behind this tribal invasion which caused so many deaths and is the prime source of our troubles and miseries.

However some people argue that before the tribesmen arrived there was already armed rebellion against the Maharaja in certain parts of the State; and that some non Muslims also entered the State, especially in Jammu for the purpose of fighting and killing Muslims. In this regard some forces were sent by Maharaja of Patiala and some extremist Hindu elements from various parts of India went to Jammu.

True thousands of Muslims were killed in Jammu, but it is also true that Hindus were also killed, but this could not be equated to the Tribal Invasion, as the first one was a result of communal fighting which spilled over from the former British India; and the other one was an aggression to capture capital and punish the Maharaja who refused to accede to Pakistan despite all the pressure.

It is also true that some non Muslims entered to State to support the Maharaja in fight against the rebellion which was going on in certain parts of the State; but these people did not enter the State to topple the government, to invade the state or punish its Ruler.

No matter how much we dislike it, but fact remains that those non Muslims who entered the State did not violate any written agreement; they did not pose any threat to the sovereignty of the State, if anything they could have been there on the request of Kashmiri authorities to establish writ of the government.

Every State and every government has inherent right to defend its borders and establish writ of government? Prime task of every government is to protect life, dignity and property of every citizen. When his State faced unprovoked attack, was it not his responsibility to seek help to protect his government and state?

Tribesman demonstrated barbarism

Maharaja’s army was not in a position to fight back these tribesmen, and many small towns were ‘liberated’. They conquered Baramula without a problem, and problems started after capturing this important town which had population of nearly sixteen thousands and was the biggest town in the Valley after Srinagar.

Even at that time road to Srinagar was very good and it was only one hour bus journey. There was no army to defend the City from the Tribesmen. They could have taken to City without much effort within few hours, but their greed for looting and lust for women kept them busy there for few days. A famous Kashmiri historian Justice Yousaf Saraf notes:

‘A sizable number of tribesmen lost no time to turn against them (people of the town) and within few hours buildings were ablaze; entry was forced in almost all pucca houses (houses built with bricks) and its inmates were robbed on pain of death’. Nuns at the St Joseph’s Hospital were killed. 9

The tribesman demonstrated equality in looting and plundering, no one was spared. Justice Saraf painfully notes: ‘There was generally no distinction between Hindus and Muslims in so far as loot and arson was concerned. For instance, a tribesman snatched a blanket of Ghani, a poor weaver with four daughters. When asked whether this was the purpose for which they had come to Kashmir, the victim was shot dead on spot. The local cinema hall was converted into a sort of restricted brothel.’ 10

Most Muslim women had left the town in fear, but one unfortunate girl was caught by a tribesman and asked her to accompany her to the camp. She knew what will happen to her, so she asked if she could bring some jewellery and cash from the house. He happily agreed and the girl went inside the house. Justice Saraf wrote: ‘While the tribesman waited outside she dashed into a large room which stocked grass for a dozen of their horses. Setting it on fire, she entrusted herself to the flames’. 11

Rasul Joo Darzi, an oil mill owner invited about two hundred tribesmen for a dinner. After the dinner, ‘honourable guests’, who some people claim went for Jihad, demanded women. The host was stunned, but luckily all young women of the household had already left for safety. Justice Saraf notes, ‘there remained only a great grand mother who was shown to them as the only female inmate and it was with great difficulty that they had left the house.’ 12

When Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan heard stories of loot and pillage, he got alarmed that people of Jammu and Kashmir could turn against them, and he immediately sent Pir of Manki Sharif to Baramula that he could control unruly tribesmen in name of Islam. Pir Sahib told them that ‘plunder was not the primary purpose for which they had entered Kashmir’. Also he told them what were commands of Allah and Prophet (peace be upon him) ‘about rules of war and how important it was to protect everyone’s honour, life and property, regardless of religious belief.’ 13

For three days the tribesmen looted, raped and danced on the ‘great victory’ they had achieved, and did not proceed to Srinagar; and when they did by that time Indian army had already secured the airport. Sardar Ibrahim Khan, first President of Azad Kashmir wrote in his book, ‘The Kashmir Saga’: ‘Failure to capture Srinagar was a turning point in the history of this campaign. If we had captured Srinagar, which was deserted by the Maharaja and his troops we could have captured Srinagar very easily. But this could only be done before the landing of the Indian auxiliary troops in Srinagr.’ 14

The story of tribal invasion is a tragic one. This aggression which was done in holy name of Jihad brought misery and destruction to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and they continue to suffer to date on both sides of the divide. Some people try to justify this invasion by claiming that they went there to help, because there were stories of mass killings of the Muslims in Jammu. But that is not true. If the aim was to help Muslims, then they should have been directed to advance towards Jammu where communal fighting was going on and where Muslims were in minority; instead they were directed to the areas where Muslims were in majority and where there were no communal riots.

Apart from that riots in Jammu started in the last week of August, and leaders of Pakistan and tribesmen remained quiet because there was still hope that the Maharaja might join Pakistan. When in second week of October, rulers of Pakistan realised that the Maharaja was not going to join Pakistan they used tribesmen to capture Kashmir. The strategy did not work as planned, and Pakistan ended up only capturing areas now known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.

As noted above the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had two options: surrender to these tribesman and Pakistan or seek help from India, he chose the later. His letter to Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten is produced below.

Maharaja’s letter to Lord Mountbatten

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government. As Your Excellency is aware, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to either the Dominion of India or Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous with both of them. Besides, my State has a common boundary with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and with China. In their external relations the Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact.

I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and of my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this arrangement. The Dominion of India desired further discussion with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. In fact the Pakistan Government under the standstill agreement is operating the post and telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a standstill agreement with the Pakistan Government, the Government permitted a steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State.

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sia1kot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at several points simultaneously, so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life ad property and the looting of the Mahura power house, which supplies electric current to the whole of Srinagar and which has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State. The mass infiltration of tribesman drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier Province, coming regularly in motortrucks, using the Manwehra-Mazaffarabad road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons, cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provincial Govemment of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. In spite of repeated appeals made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or to stop them from coming into my State. In fact, both radio and the Press of Pakistan have reported these occurrences. The Pakistan radio even put out the story that a provisional government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained.

This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State is to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. V.P. Menon is fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will explain it to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Singh

October 26, 1947

10/ Lord Mountbatten’s reply to Maharaja Hari Singh

Even with close inspection one cannot see if the Maharaja offered a provisional accession. He wrote: ‘I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government’.

The Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten in his reply to the Maharaja made the accession conditional, and gave a right to the people of the State to approve it or reject it. The letter of Lord Mountbatten is produced below.

My dear Maharaja Sahib,

Your Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness' appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people. My Government and I note with satisfaction that Your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Mountbatten of Burma

October 27, 1947

11/ Instrument of Accession

Instrument of Accession executed by Maharajah Hari Singh on October 26, 1947

Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935 shall with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor General may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of India.

And whereas the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the Governor General, provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and

I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act').

2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.

3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make law for this State.

4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of the State, then any such agreement shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

6. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purpose of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense, or, if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into agreement with the Government of India under any such future constitution.

8. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my Sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.

9. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 26th day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Hari Singh

Maharajadhiraj of Jammu and Kashmir State.

12/

Indian complaint to the Security Council, dated I January 1948 (S/628)

The Government of India have instructed me to transmit to you the following telegraphic communication:

"1. Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any Member may bring any situation whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the north-west, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to the Dominion of India and is part of India. The circumstances of accession, the activities of the invaders which led the Government of India to take military action against them, and the assistance which the attackers have received and are still receiving from Pakistan are explained later in this memorandum. The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance, which is an act of aggression against India. If Pakistan does not do so, the Government of India may be compelled, in self-defence, to enter Pakistan territory, in order to take military action against the invaders. The matter is, therefore, one of extreme urgency and calls for immediate action by the Security Council for avoiding a breach of international peace.

"2. From the middle of September 1947, the Government of India had received reports of the infiltration of armed raiders into the western parts of Jammu province of Jammu and Kashmir State; Jammu adjoins West Punjab, which is a part of the Dominion of Pakistan. These raiders had done a great deal of damage in that area and taken possession of part of the territory of the State. On 24 October, the Government of India heard of a major raid from the Frontier Province of the Dominion of Pakistan into the Valley of Kashmir. Some two thousand or more fully armed and equipped men came in motor transport, crossed over to the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, sacked the town of Muzaffarabad, killing many people and proceeded along the Jhelum Valley road towards Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir State. Intermediate towns and villages were sacked and burnt, and many people killed. These raiders were stopped by Kashmir State troops near Uri, a town some fifty miles from Srinagar, for some time, but the invaders got around them and burnt the power house at Mahora, which supplied electricity to the whole of Kashmir.

"3. The position, on the morning of 26 October, was that these raiders had been held by Kashmir State troops and part of the civil population, who had been armed, at a town called Baramulla. Beyond Baramulla there was no major obstruction up to Srinagar. There was immediate danger of these raiders reaching Srinagar, destroying and massacring large numbers of people, both Hindus and Muslims. The State troops were spread out all over the State and most of them were deployed along the western border of Jammu province. They had been split up into small isolated groups and were incapable of offering effective resistance to the raiders. Most of the State officials had left the threatened areas and the civil administration had ceased to function. All that stood between Srinagar and the fate which had overtaken the places en route followed by the raiders was the determination of the inhabitants of Srinagar, of all communities, and practically without arms, to defend themselves. At this time Srinagar had also a large population of Hindu and Sikh refugees who had fled there from West Punjab owing to communal disturbances in that area. There was little doubt that these refugees would be massacred if the raiders reached Srinagar.

"4. Immediately after the raids into Jammu and Kashmir State commenced, approaches were informally made to the Government of India for the aeceptance of the accession of the State to the Indian Dominion. (It might be explained in parenthesis that Jammu and Kashmir from a State whose ruler, prior to the transfer of power by the United Kingdom to the Dominions of India and Pakistan, had been in treaty relations with the British Crown, which controlled its foreign relations ceased with the transfer of power on 15 August last, and Jammu and Kashmir lilce other States acquired the right to accede to either Dominion.)

"5. Events moved with great rapidity, and the threat to the Valley of Kashmir became grave. On 26 October, the ruler of the State, His Highness Maharaja Sir Hari Singh, appealed urgently to the Government of India for military help. He also requested that the Jammu and Kashmir State should be allowed to accede to the Indian Dominion. An appeal for help was also simultaneously received by the Government of India from the largest popular organization in Kashmir, the National Conference, headed by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. The Conference further strongly supported the request for the State's accession to the Indian Dominion. The Government of India were thus approached not only officially by the State authorities, but also on behalf of the people of Kashmir, both for military aid and for the accession of the State to India.

"6. The grave threat to the life and property of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and to the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that had developed as a result of the invasion of the Valley demanded immediate decision by the Government of India on both the requests. It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a Government capable of discharging it. But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State's immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic methods of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.

"7. The Government of Indian felt it their duty to respond to the appeal for armed assistance because:

"(1) They could not allow a neighbouring and friendly State

to be compelled by force to determine either its internal affairs

or its external relations;

"(2) The accession of Jammu and Kashmir State to the

Dominion of India made India really responsible for the

defence of the State.

"8. The intervention of the Government of India resulted in saving Srinagar. The raiders were driven back from Baramulla to Uri and are held there by Indian troops. Nearly 19,000 raiders face the Dominion forces in this area. Since operations in the Valley of Kashmir started, pressure by the raiders against the western, and south-western border of Jammu and Kashmir State had been intensified. Exact figures are not available. It is understood, however, that nearly 15,000 raiders are operating a gainst this part of the State. State troops are besieged in certain areas. Incursions by the raiders into the State territory, involving murder, arson, loot, and the abduction of women continue. The booty is collected and carried over to the tribal areas to serve as an inducement to the further recruitment of tribesmen to the ranks of the raiders. In addition to those actively participating in the raid, tribesmen and others, estimated at 100,000 have been collected in different places in the districts of West Punjab bordering Jammu and Kashmir State, and many of them are receiving military training under Pakistani nationals, including officers of the Pakistan Army. They are looked after in Pakistan territory, fed, clothed, armed and otherwise equipped, and transported to the territory of Jammu and Kashmir State with the help, direct and indirect, of Pakistani officials, both military and civil.

"9. As already stated, the raiders who entered the Kashmir Valley in October came mainly from the tribal areas to the north-west of Pakistan and, in order to reach Kashmir, passed through Pakistan territory. The raids along the south-west border of the State, which had preceded the invasion of the valley proper, had actually been conducted from Pakistan territory, and Pakistan nationals had taken part in them. This process of transmission across Pakistan territory and untilisation of that territory as a base of operations against Jammu and Kashmir State continues. Recently, military operations against the western and south-western borders of the State have been intensified, and the attackers consist of nationals of Pakistan as well as tribesmen. These invaders are armed with modern weapons, including mortars and medium machine-guns, wear the battle dress of regular soldiers and, in recent engagements, have fought in regular battle formation and are using the tactics of modern warfare. Man-pack wireless sets are in regular use and even mark V mines have been employed. For their transport the invaders have all along used motor vehicles. They are undoubtedly being trained and to some extent led by regular officers of the Pakistan Army. Their rations and other supplies are obtained from Pakistan territory.

"10. These facts point indisputably to the conclusion

"(a) that the invaders are allowed transit across Pakistan

territory;

"(b) that they are allowed to use Pakistan territory as a base

of operations;

"(c) that they include Pakistan nationals;

"(d) that they draw much of their military equipment,

transportation, and supplies (including petrol) from Pakistan;

and

"(e) that Pakistan officers are training, guiding, and

otherwise actively helping them.

"There is no source other than Pakistan from which they could obtain such quantities of modern military equipment, training or guidance. More than once, the Government of India had asked the Pakistan Government to deny to the invaders facilities which constitute an act of aggressian and hostility against India, but without any response. The last occasion on which this request was made was on 22 December, when the Prime Minister of India handed over personally to the Prime Minister of Pakistan a letter in which the various forms of aid given by Pakistan to the invaders were briefly recounted and the Government of Pakistan were asked to put an end to such aid promptly; no reply to this letter has yet been received in spite of a telegraphic reminder sent on 26 December.

"11. It should be clear from the foregoing recital that the Government of Pakistan are unwilling to stop the assistance in material and men which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan territory and from Pakistan nationals, including Pakistan Government personnel, both military and civil. This attitude is not only un-neutral, but constitutes active aggression against India, of which the State of Jammu and Kashmir forms a part.

"12. The Government of India have exerted persuasion and exercised patience to bring about a change in the attitude of Pakistan. But they have failed, and are in consequence confronted with a situation in which their defence of Jammu and Kashmir State is hampered and their measures to drive the invaders from the territory of the State are greatly impeded by the support which the raiders derive from Pakistan. The invaders are still on the soil of Jammu and Kashmir and the inhabitants of the States are exposed to all the atrocities of which a barbarous foe is capable. The presence, in large numbers, of invaders in those portions of Pakistan territory which adjoin parts of Indian territory other than Jammu and Kashmir State is a menace to the rest of India. Indefinite continuance of the present operations prolongs the agony of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, is a drain on India's resources and a constant threat to the maintenance of peace between India and Pakistan. The Government of India have no option, therefore, but to take more effective military action in order to rid Jammu and Kashmir State of the invader.

"13. In order that the objective of expelling the invader from Indian territory and preventing him from launching attacks should be quickly achieved, Indian troops would have to enter Pakistan territory; only thus could the invader be denied the use of bases and cut off from his sources of supplies and reinforcements in Pakistan. Since the aid which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan is an act of aggression against India, the Government of India are entitled, under international law, to send their armed forces across Pakistan territory for dealing effectively with the invaders. However, as such action might involve armed conflict with Pakistan, the Government of India, ever anxious to proceed according to the principles and aims of the Charter of the United Nations, desire to report the situation to the Security CDuncil under Article 35 of the Charter. They feel justified in requesting the Security Council to ask the Government of Pakistan.

"(1) to prevent Pakistan Government personnel, military

and civil from participating or assisting in the invasion of

Jammu and Kashmir State;

"(2) to call upon other Pakistani nationals to desist from

taking any part in the fighting in Jammu and Kashmir State;

"(3) to deny to the invaders: (a) access to any use of its

territory for operations against Kashmir, (b) military and other

supplies, (c) all other kinds of aid that might tend to prolong

the present struggle.

"14. The Government of India would stress the special urgency of the Security Council taking immediate action on their request. They desire to add that military operations in the invaded areas have, in the past few days, been developing so rapidly that they must, in self- defence, reserve to themselves the freedom to take, at any time when it may become necessary, such military action as they may consider the situation requires.

"15. The Government of India deeply regret that a serious crisis should have been reached in their relation with Pakistan. Not only is Pakistan a neighbour but, in spite of the recent separation, India and Pakistan have many ties and many common interests. India desires nothing more earnestly than to live with her neighbour-State on terms of close and lasting friendship. Peace is to the interest of both States; indeed to the interests of the world. The Government of India's approach to the Security Council is inspired by the sincere hope that, through the prompt action of the Council, peace may be preserved.

"16. The text of this reference to the Security Council is being telegraphed to the "Government of Pakistan."

13/

Article 257 of Constitution of Pakistan

Most Pakistanis and many Kashmiris wrongly assume that Kashmir is part of Pakistan or, at least, those areas which are under Pakistan are part of Pakistan. This is not true. The recent new package for Gilgit Baltistan has confirmed one thing that these areas are not ‘Northern Areas’ of Pakistan, as they claimed over the years. Constitution of every country defines its territory; and Pakistani constitution clearly says:

‘When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.’

14/ Article 370 of the Indian constitution

Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to,

(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws far that State; and

(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.

Explanation For the purposes of this article, the Govermnent of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March. 1948;

(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:

Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:

Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may. by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

15/

Excerpts of Sheikh Abdullah speech in the UN Security Council

A file picture of late 1970s of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J and K) and the leader of the largest political party of the state, National Conference (NC), addresses a press conference, in Srinagar.

‘…………The situation was worsening day by day and the minority in our State was feeling very nervous. As a result tremendous pressure was brought to bear upon the State administration to release me and my colleagues. The situation outside demanded the release of workers of National Conference, along with its leader, and we were accordingly set free……

Immediately we were liberated from the prison we were faced with the important question of whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan, accede to India, or remain independent... We could not decide this all important issue before achieving our own liberation, and our slogan became "Freedom before accession." Some friends from Pakistan met me in Srinagar. I have a heart-to-heart discussion with them and explained my point of view....

While I was engaged in these conversations and negotiations with friends from Pakistan, I sent one of my colleagues to Lahore, where he met the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr.Liaquat Ali Khan, and other high dignitaries of the West Punjab Government. He placed the same point of view before them and requested that they should allow us time to consider this vital question, first helping us to achieve our liberation instead of forcing us to declare our decision one way or the other. Then, one fine morning while these negotiations were proceeding, I received news that a full-fledged attack had been carried out by the raiders on Muzaffarabad, frontier town in the Kashmir Province....

While the raiders came to our land, massacred thousands of people -- mostly Hindus and Sikhs, but Muslims too -- abducted thousands of girls, Hindu, Sikhs and Muslims alike, looted our property and almost reached the gates of our summer capital, Srinagar, the result was that the civil, military and police administration failed. The Maharaja, in the dead of the night, left the capital along with his courtiers, and the result was absolute panic. There was no one to take over control. In that hour of crisis, the National Conference came forward with 10,000 volunteers and took over the administration of the country. They started guarding the banks, the offices and houses of every person in the capital. This is the manner in which the administration changed hands. We were de facto in charge of the administration. The Maharaja, later on, gave it a legal form....

I was explaining how the dispute arose -- how Pakistan wanted to force this position of slavery upon us. Pakistan had no interest in our liberation or it would not have opposed our freedom movement. Pakistan would have supported us when thousands of my countrymen were behind bars and hundreds were shot to death. The Pakistani leaders and Pakistani papers were heaping abuse upon the people of Kashmir who were suffering these tortures……’ 15

16. Conclusion

It is not possible to turn back the clock of history. It is not possible to tell what exactly would have happened if 22 October 1947 was not in our history – if there was no tribal invasion.

People of Kashmir have a long history of suffering. Rulers of Kashmir, Muslims and non Muslims have equally oppressed the people, but it is believed that during the Dogra rule, by and large, Muslims suffered more. Politics based on religion and hatred, and subsequent partition of the British India polarised the entire Sub Continent; and that also had negative impact on polity of the State.

It is true there were anti Maharaja sentiments among many Muslims, but it is also true that he was the Ruler of the State and even pro Pakistan Muslim Conference more than once expressed its loyalty to the Maharaja and expressed its desire to accept him as a Constituent Ruler of the State.

Compared to other Princely States, the State of Jammu and Kashmir evolved a democratic and constitutional set up, and people had more democratic rights compared to subjects of other Princely States. The State had Parliament and had democratic elections.

If there was no outside interference, no infiltration, no insurgency and no tribal invasion, then it was possible that the Maharaja could have given more rights to the people and in return they could have accepted him as a Constituent Ruler of the State with more power to the Parliament. If the above had happened then it was possible that the State would have been one political entity and possibly independent country.

Unfortunately we cannot change the course of history with ifs and buts, we have to face hard facts and situation as it is today. The fact is that today our State is forcibly divided and people suffer on both sides of the divide; and despite death of tens of thousands, rapes, destruction and misery of millions there is no light at the end of tunnel.

Today people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are deeply divided, oppressed and not sure what exactly they want. While ordinary people suffer on both sides of the divide Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination and unification of the State has become a lucrative business for some.

Despite the above, sincere and freedom loving people of the State will have to continue their struggle; and if not get independence for our next generation, at least, pass on the torch that they can continue the struggle for unification and independence of the State. END

by: Dr Shabir Choudhry

Amanullah Khan, Yasin Malik join hands Sign Merger Agreement

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:47:00 +0000

Islamabad, Aug 13: In a significant development the factions of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) led by Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik have agreed in principle to work together to steer the ongoing movement to its logical end, a senior JKLF leader said.

“Following an in-depth consultations the top leadership of the segregated JKLF factions has finally agreed in principle to work together to take the ongoing peaceful democratic movement of Kashmiris to its logical end,” he said.

The decision to this effect, he said, was taken during a high level meeting between the supreme head of JKLF Amanullah Khan and JKLF chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik here on Friday.

“Both the leaders signed the merger agreement after having threadbare discussions on the prevailing political situation in Kashmir vis-à-vis the changing regional and global scenario,” he added.

Malik, he said, along with his other party workers visited the Khan’s residence yesterday where he was accorded a warm welcome. “The veteran JKLF leader who is suffering from various ailments expressed his desire to see both the JKLF factions united and suggested to setup a joint committee that would work out the final modalities,” the leader said.

Reciprocating to Khan’s suggestion the JKLF chairman, Muhammad Yasin Malik nominated four members of his party, advocate Bashir Ahmed Bhat advocate, Sabir Ansari, Pervaiz Iqbal and Muhammad Rafiq Dar as the representatives of his faction, while Khan nominated S M Afzal, advocate Sardar Sageer, Hafiz Anwar Samawi and Manzoor Ahmed Khan as representatives from his side.

World least bothered about Kashmir struggle: Malik

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:00 +0000

Srinagar, Sep 9: Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik on Friday said world was “least bothered” about the peaceful struggle of Kashmiris

Addressing a gathering at Karihama Tangmarg, Malik said, Kashmiris have given new lease of life to the peaceful movement by sacrificing their lives and if international community would continue to disrespect it and then people will lose faith in this mode of struggle.

“World talks about peaceful struggle, but in practice they don’t respect it. It is necessary to resolve Afghanistan, Palestine and other outstanding issues in the world, but at the same time, world should also strive for the resolution of Kashmir dispute,” he said.

The JKLF chairman said apathetic attitude of the world community towards Kashmir can give birth to another Afghanistan. “And if it happens, then it will damage the stability and peace of the world beyond repair,” he said.

Malik added that execution of Afzal Guru would prove detrimental for peace in the subcontinent. “New Delhi should understand that they cannot end the movements by hanging people. After Maqbool Bhat was sent to gallows, lakhs of Maqbool Bhats were born and they are still fighting for a cause,” he added.

Expressing concern over detainees, Malik said there was no let up in unilateral violence in Jammu and Kashmir.

“Our senior leaders and youth, who have been booked under draconian acts, are rotting in jails,” he said, adding this “attitude is undemocratic and imperialistic.”

Malik, according to party handout’ was accorded warm reception on the occasion.

Kashmir Dispute and Role of China

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:13:00 +0000

In name of Allah I begin.

Mr Chairman, friends and colleagues Aslamo alaykam and good evening.

Acknowledgment

Big thanks to Dr Charles Graves and Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri for their help and support in arranging this seminar on such an important topic.

Also I want to thank my colleagues:

* Abbas Butt, Mohammed Asim,
* Mohammed Shoaib and Imitiaz Ul Maqsood who, as a part of the delegation visited Gilgit and Pakistani Administered Kashmir.

Strategic importance of Jammu and Kashmir

Total area of Jammu and Kashmir is more than 84,000 square miles, and it has great strategic importance. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is also endowed with ample natural resources. This is where South, Central and East Asia converge. It is at the crossroads of three great civilizations and was traditionally a gateway for both India and China to Central Asia and beyond, in to the heart of Europe. This is old trading route known as the Silk Route which contributed enormously to the wealth of so many countries and brought different civilizations closer to each other.

With time strategic importance of these areas has increased. Apart from India and Pakistan, other countries like China, Afghanistan, Central Asian states, Iran, Russia and America also have keen interest in these areas.

Kashmir’s importance is enhanced because of the areas of Gilgit Baltistan, which are legal and constitutional part of the State; but attempts are made to annex these areas from the State.

Parties to the Kashmir Dispute

We may have certain desires with regard to the status of Jammu and Kashmir, however, we have to look at the legal position when analysing the Kashmir dispute. The Ruler of the State Maharaja Hari Singh, in accordance with his rights offered India and a Standstill Agreement, while India wanted to discuss this matter further, Pakistan accepted the Standstill Agreement.

But in complete violation of this Standstill Agreement Pakistani officials managed a Tribal Invasion to occupy Kashmir in which thousands of people of Kashmir were killed, their property and personal belongings looted and their women raped and kidnapped.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir fearing threat to his throne and to his people requested India for help. India urged the Maharaja to accede with India before any help could be sent. The Maharaja had no choice but to accede to India which was provisionally accepted and had to be ratified by the people of the State.

Because of that unprovoked aggression against Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan occupied a large area of the State. The UN Commission for India and Pakistan in its resolution of 13 August 1948 categorically asked Pakistan to vacate these areas. The UN resolution reads:

1. As, the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the Territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

So one can see initially the dispute was between India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It was they who had to decide if that provisional accession was acceptable to them or not. Pakistan became a party because of that unprovoked aggression and occupation of the Kashmiri territory.

However, it is accepted that there are three parties to the Kashmir dispute, namely India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Other countries may have a position or a view on the Kashmir dispute, or what is happening there, but they are not a party to the dispute.

Role of China

China is our neighbour, but is not a party to the Kashmir dispute. However, China in a war with India in 1962 occupied Aksai Chin, a Kashmiri territory; and to have a better link with that territory they negotiated a deal with Pakistan in 1963. For the Chinese friendship and economic and other help Pakistan gave away around 2200 square miles of our territory to China from Gilgit Baltistan, known as Shaksam Valley.

China and Pakistan entered in to an agreement over this on 2 March 1963. In article 6 of this agreement Pakistan acknowledged that the sovereignty of the region did not rest with Pakistan; and that China was not a party to the Kashmir Dispute. The agreement reads and I quote:

‘The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the boundary as described in Article Two of the present agreement, so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement, provided that in the event of the sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be signed between the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan.’ Unquote

That Agreement and subsequent Chinese role with regard to the Kashmir dispute clearly prove that China was not a party to the Kashmir dispute. It is disappointing to note that over the past years government of Pakistan and some Kashmiri are working hard to make China a part of the Kashmir Dispute.

Now that Pakistani official find future of their country uncertain, and because of conflicting and competing interests, they are faced with a possible war or a military confrontation with the USA in which India could also be drawn in, they feel necessary to seek the Chinese help to face these challenges. Because of that Pakistani government has allowed a large presence of the Chinese army under the pretext of development work.

This is not to suggest that the development work is not taking place. Of course China is involved in dozens of mega projects in the region. According to reliable reports and evidence of those who have visited the region, China is constructing many roads and bridges and dozens of tunnels.

Many of the Chinese soldiers are building a railroad. Others are extending the Karakoram Highway, which connects China and Pakistan across the Karakoram mountain range, and engaged in activities for constructing dams, highways and other projects. They have also leased dozens of strategically important regions which are also full of natural resources; and this is loot and plunder of our resources.

The presence of the Chinese army helps Pakistan to keep local people under control, as presence of armed men deter any possible disturbances from the local population, who detest Pakistani rule there. Anyhow, before I analyse implications of the presence of the Chinese army, I want to tell what a Pakistani writer, Aziz Narejo, who, while analysing the situation of Pakistan said, and I quote:

‘They lost half of the country in just 24 years. They still didn’t learn. Created some more monsters in the name of religion and ethnicity. Today everything seems out of control. The rightist groups, which were supported in the name of religion to fight the nationalist and progressive elements in the country and to wage proxy wars on the borders and in India and Afghanistan, have started working on their own agenda. They now think they are in a position to claim the whole pie – ‘why settle for less’?’

He further said:

‘Country is clearly on a path to self-destruction. Many of the people would still not realize the seriousness of the situation. They are in the constant state of denial and blame every misfortune either on America or India. Well, the two may have some blame to share but considering them responsible for everything, distracts us from the malaise that may be afflicting us from within. It also keeps us from focusing on other countries, which are pouring money into the seminaries producing the suicide bombers and murderers. More we close our eyes to them, closer we get to our destruction.’ Unquote

Pakistani governments have history of providing their services to foreign powers for the sake of economic and military help. It looks that now they are ready to provide certain services to the Chinese for the sake of economic and military assistance. Pakistani and the American secret agencies are already at a war with each other.

The Americans feel, despite billions of dollars in economic help and military hardware to Pakistan, they have been let down by the Pakistani government and their agencies in the war on terrorism. They feel Pakistani army and their agencies have been playing a double game with them for too long; and time for a show down has come. So there is a strong possibility of worsening of relationship between them, possibly leading to some kind of military confrontation. Fearing that scenario the Pakistani authorities wanted to ensure that their ‘trusted friend’ China is available to help and support them, especially in Gilgit Baltistan.

However, the presence of the Chinese army in the disputed territory of Gilgit Baltistan is very serious matter; and poses the following dangers:

1. It is a serious threat to the peace and stability of the region;

2. It gives a free hand the Chinese to plunder natural resources of the region;

3. It is a serious threat to social, cultural and economic interests of the local people;

4. It is also possible that due to Pakistan’s serious problems and bleak future, China might take over this region to safeguard interest of both countries and to keep India out;

5. The USA might see this threat to their regional and strategic interests;

6. The USA might also find threat to their armed personnel in Pakistan and in Afghanistan and some impact on ‘War on Terrorism’;

7. India may also view this threat to their position in Jammu and Kashmir and threat to their regional and strategic interests.

Pakistan and China might have certain common interests, for example, economic and military cooperation and enmity with India, but what Pakistani government needs to understand is that China has its own interest to have a foot hold in this region that they can have access to warm waters and new markets via Gawadar Sea Port?

At present, it takes Chinese tankers up to 25 days to reach the Gulf, but control of Gilgit Baltistan and route to Gawadar Port will ensure that China has unfettered road and rail access to the mouth of the Persian Gulf, which is a major shipping route and will provide connections to African, Asian and European markets in matter of a few days. This will not only boost the Chinese trade but it will also significantly increase their influence in those regions.

It must be understood that the Pakistani interest is not China’s top priority. They have long term agenda and want to emerge as a global economic and military power and could use unstable country like Pakistan as a stepping stone to advance Chinese national agenda.

Apart from us - people of Jammu and Kashmir, some Indian politicians and analysts are also concerned about the Chinese assertiveness. Kiren Rijiju, a Member of Parliament representing Arunachal Pradesh (West), is very critical of Chinese advances. In an article published on 2 March 2011 with a title of: ‘It is time to wake up’, he expresses very serious concern over Chinese intrusions in Arunachal. China has a claim over this territory and when the Indian Prime Minister visited the region he did not go to Tawang giving ‘some leverage to the Chinese who can say ‘he has not gone to Tawang, because it is a disputed territory’.

Kiren Rijiju claims India gives too much importance to Pakistan and America and very little attention to China. He thinks India does not know enough about China. India does not have sufficient knowledge about their defence capabilities, their intelligence and their designs for the region. In his view ‘If ever, India and China go to war one day, it will be on this issue.’

However, some other experts feel this military clash will be over the region of Gilgit Baltistan which is part of former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir; and this clash could drag in other countries with disastrous consequences.

Few months ago Kashmir National Party sent a delegation to the region of Gilgit Baltistan. They met many people there and compiled a report on the visit which has been released today by Dr Charles Graves. During the visit we noted that people of the Gilgit Baltistan were extremely worried about presence of the Chinese army. They know Pakistan and China are plundering their natural resources and want to intimidate and harass the local people that they cannot speak against the Pakistani rule and plundering of their resources.

Apart from that the local people fear that their homeland could become a battleground for a new war, what some analysts say could be a new round of the great game which started in the 19th Century.

During our visit we conducted a small sample survey and you can see details of that in the report. However, I will briefly discuss salient points of that survey; and show you by PowerPoint slides how thinking of local people has changed and how sense of fear and intimidation prevails in that region.

Mr Chairman I thank you for your patience.

--
Dr Shabir Choudhry
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell.

New curfew brutally enforced: Death toll now 71

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:11:00 +0000

Security forces and the police imposed an indefinite curfew in the Kashmir Valley with orders of shoot-on-sight.

The security forces and police are not entertaining even the passes issued by the district magistrates to the people and the media. People were told that the curfew passes have been rejected. Police officials said the curfew may continue for four or five days without any relaxation.

Police and security forces opened fire, burst smoke shells and charged on those who defied the curfew. One person was killed and over 40 people were injured in these clashes.

From the start of the unrest on 12 June 71 people have been killed.

A further heavy deployment of security forces and police told the people not to venture out and remain indoors. Security forces and the police smashed window panes if they found any window open.

Patients were not allowed to be admitted to hospitals in Srinagar. The situation was similar at Nowhatta, Bohri Kadal, Sekidafar, Safa Kadal, Gojwara, Khanyar, Rainawari, Abi Guzar, Lal Chowk, Residency Road, Maisuma, Maharajgund, Hari Singh High, Jawahar Nagar, Solina and other places.

Following the massive protests and fierce clashes between the government forces and youth in the most of the townships of south Kashmir, authorities today clamped strict curfews in Anantnag, Pulwama and Bijbehara towns.

The media has been repressed. No local newspaper hit the news-stands today. Newspapers from other areas were prevented from being circulated.

The staff of the local cable television studios were prevented by the security forces from reaching their offices and the staff of the national television channel staff were trapped in their offices and were unable to cover the situation on the ground.

http://www.darulihsan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3519:kashmir-update-new-curfew-brutally-enforced-death-toll-now-71&catid=55:news&Itemid=155

OIC Reaffirmed its Principled Support to the People of Kashmir

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:57:00 +0000

Kashmiri American Council

New York. September 24, 2010. “The phenomenon of unstopped and unpunished barbarities is being witnessed in Kashmir. The irony is that the impunity that is thus being granted to the violator of human rights is not in the context of a new dispute. It is being allowed to arise and to persist in a territory which, under international law, is not part of any member state of the United Nations and whose status is yet to be determined through a free and impartial plebiscite under supervision and control of the United Nations” said Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council/Kashmir Center while speaking during the “Annual Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM)” of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) which was held today at the United Nations headquarters. The OIC has 57 member countries. Dr. Hamrokhon Zariff, Foreign Minister of Tajikistan, chaired the Meeting. The OIC Secretary General and the Under-Secretary General of the United Nations attended the Meeting. The Kashmiri delegation included: Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan, the Prime Minister Azad Kashmir; Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Mr. Masood-ur-Rehman, and Mr. Abdul Hameed Shaheen.

The CFM reiterated the need for a peaceful and negotiated settlement of all conflicts in the Islamic world and reaffirmed its principled support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir for the realization of their legitimate right to self-determination in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

The CFM expressed concern at the recent and ongoing indiscriminate use of force and gross violations of human rights committed in Indian Occupied Kashmir by Indian security forces which have resulted in killing of scores of innocent and unarmed civilians as well as injuries to hundreds of others including women, children and elderly. The OIC emphasized the need for full respect of human rights as well as importance of taking all requisite steps to provide relief and comfort to the Kashmiris. It further called upon India to allow international human rights groups and humanitarian organizations to visit Jammu and Kashmir.

Earlier the OIC Contact Group on Kashmir condemned the continual arrests and detentions of the Kashmiri leadership and called upon Government of India to release all political prisoners, including Kashmiri leaders without delay. It urged India to put an end to the suffering of the people of Jammu and Kashmir by repealing all laws that violate the basic freedoms and human rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Dr. Fai warned that far from seeking to rectify its atrocious human rights record, India has legalized its state-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir. It has given its occupation forces powers to shoot to kill and the license to abuse the people of Kashmir in whatever ways they like in order to suppress the popular movement for self-determination. These tactics, Fai said have no military purpose whatsoever. Their only imaginable purpose is to terrorize a people into submission.

Fai emphasized that as long as the international community allows India to hide its atrocities in Kashmir, there would be no end to the ever-increasing gross and consistent violations of human rights in that unfortunate land. As long as India is successful in isolating Kashmir from the rest of the world, they will not only continue to trample the Kashmiris’ basic rights and freedoms but will also block all peaceful processes for the restitution and restoration of these rights and freedoms.

Fai told the Council of Foreign Ministers that the solution of Kashmir is both urgent and vital. It has a far more populous and strategic area than other trouble spots in the world. The pain felt by the people of Kashmir is no less devastating than that felt by the people of Haiti. The nuclear tinderbox in South Asia is no less threatening than in Korea. The mass rapes by the Indian occupation forces are no less humiliating in Kashmir than in Bosnia. The torture and imprisonment in Indian Occupied Kashmir is no less intense as it is in Myanmar. In fact the pain, suffering and humiliation in Kashmir s intensified because the people of Kashmir have been under alien occupation for over 63 years.

Fai urged the OIC to persuade Government of India to initiate the Kashmir centric CBM’s, including: (i). Demilitarizing of Kashmir; (ii). Allowing the people of Kashmir to freely express their political views; (iii). Releasing all political prisoners, including Shabir Ahmed Shah & Mian Abdul Qayyum; (iv). Repealing draconian laws; and (iv.) Allowing Kashmiri political leaders to travel abroad.

Tragic Situation in Kashmir Demands the Urgent Attention of President Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:29:00 +0000

Dear friends,

The tragtic situation in Kashmir demands that all peace-loving people sign the petition along with their family and friends. And every body is encouraged to forward the petition to their acquaintances.

Here is the petition

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/kashmir1/petition.html

Thanks.

Kashmir Peace Rally in Washington

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:25:00 +0000

Kashmiri American Council

Invites you

To participate in a

Peace Rally

In Front of the Indian Embassy

2586 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

12.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m.

(Nearest metro: Dupont Circle, 5 minutes walk)

The real face of India is evident truly in Kashmir where the Indian Army during the past 20 years has:

Killed over 100,000 men, women and children.

Tortured and maimed tens of thousands;

WHY ALL THIS?

Because the people of Kashmir demand an end to the military occupation of their land by India;

Because they demand what they have been pledged by both India and Pakistan and guaranteed by the Security Council, with the unequivocal endorsement of the United States – demilitarization of Kashmir and a free vote organized impartially.

Should India Get Away With The Flouting of International Agreements?

Should India Be Grated a License For The Genocide of the People of Kashmir?

These are the questions for President Obama who said on September 25, 2008, “I will continue support of ongoing Indian Pakistani efforts to resolve Kashmir problem in order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and Pakistan.” He also said on October 30, 2008, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis.”

Amnesty International reported on August 2, 2010 that ”At least 14 protesters have been killed in shootings by security forces during protests in Kashmir over the last four days.”

Christian Science Monitor wrote on August 2, 2010, “In what the Indian media are calling Bloody Sunday, 10 people died yesterday in protests across Indian-controlled Kashmir. ..The protests are part of a popular uprising against Indian rule and heavy-handed police tactics in Kashmir. ..The recent uprising appears to have no links to Pakistan. Instead, it is led by Kashmiri youth ranging from six to 30 who are using a mix of nonviolent defiance of curfews and rock throwing at security forces in a bid to win independence for Kashmir.

London Review of Books wrote on July 22, 2010, “More than a hundred thousand people marched peacefully to the UN office in Srinagar. They burned effigies, chanted ‘Azadi, azadi’ (‘freedom’) and appealed to India to leave Kashmir. The movement was not crushed. It was merely ignored. Nothing changed. Now a new generation of Kashmiri youth is on the march.”

European Parliamentary Delegation said that “Kashmir is the most beautiful prison of the world.”

Please join us along with your family and friends to show your solidarity with the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

Co-sponsored by:

Jammu Kashmir Muslim Conference

Jammu Kashmir Peoples Muslim League

Jammu Kashmir Peoples Party

Peoples Party Pakistan, AJK

Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front;

Jammu Kashmir Jamaat-e-Islami

Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Front

Kashmir Mission, New York

World Kashmir Freedom Movement

For more information, please contact:

Fai, 202-607-6585

Attorney Mumtaz Wani, 703-615-8220

W. Qureishi, 909-9984

Zubair 703-244-7433

Liaqat 301-674-9291

Zulfiqar 571-277-0428Tahir Iqbal 571-278-3483

Send email to gnfai2003@yahoo. com

N.B.:

Please note that Kashmiri American Council will organize another peace rally on

Saturday, August 15, 2010
between 1.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.

in front of the Indian Mission, New York

235 East 43rd Street, New York. (5minutes walk from the United Nations).

For further information, please call Hafiz Sabir on 1-917-204-0121

Eleventh International Kashmir Peace Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:00 +0000

“India-Pakistan Relations: Breaking the Deadlock over Kashmir”

Presented by
The Kashmiri-American Council and The Association of Humanitarian Lawyers

Thursday, July 29th 2010 at the Cannon Caucus Room # 345

Friday, July 30th 2010 at the Rayburn, Gold Room # 2168

(Nearest metro is: Capitol South, Orange and Blue lines)

The conference will be held on Thursday, July 29th & Friday, 30th, 2010 on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. The primary objective of this conference is to explore various possibilities to set a stage for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. Speakers will represent both sides of the Cease-fire Line; from India, Pakistan and Kashmir.

The international community upholds the position of principle that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and the aspirations of the people. It was also upheld equally by both India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was brought before the Security Council in 1948. Although this may be regarded as history there is no reason why, when the human, political and legal realities of the dispute have only not changed but have become more accentuated with the passage of time, it should now be regarded as irrelevant.

The urgent goal of resolving the Kashmir dispute cannot be left to the two governments to achieve. Bilateral talks have proven barren for more than 61 years; they have lacked a sense of urgency. It requires the engagement of a multilateral effort with the participation of the Kashmiris themselves.

The durable peace and development of harmonious relations and friendly cooperation will serve the vital interests of the peoples of the two countries of India and Pakistan, enabling them to devote their energies for a better future. With good faith by all parties concerned common, the governments of India & Pakistan and the people of Kashmir, ground leading to a final settlement of the Kashmir tragedy can be discovered. If it can happen in East Timor, South Africa, and Serbia, then it can happen in Kashmir, which is even more urgent because of nuclear and missile proliferation in the region.

From India the organizers have invited:
Ambassador Kuldip Nayar, Justice Rajendar Sachar, Ms. Rita Manchanda, Ms. Harinder Baweja

From Pakistan the following have been are invited:
Mr. Mohammad Afzal Sindhu, Mr. Ahsan Iqbal, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi, Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed, Dr. Attia Inaytullah, Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Esq. Ambassador Munir Akram

From Kashmir, the list includes:
Prime Minister AJK, Mr. Raja Farooq Haider, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Mr. Mohammad Yasin Malik, Mr. Ved Bhasin, Pandit Jatinder Bakhshi, Professor Hameeda Bano, Mr. Basharat peer, Ambassador Yusuf Buch, Dr. Farhan Chak, Mr. Zahid G. Mohammad, and Mr. M. Attiqyrer Rehman.

From expatriate activists:
Professor Nazir A. Shawl, Barrister Majid Tramboo, Mr. Sareer Fazili, Esq, Mr. Ali S. Khan, Dr. Mohammad A. Dar; Prof. Maqsood Jafri, Mr. Altaf Qadri, Mr. Ejaz Sabir, Mr. Muzzammil Thakur, Dr. Imtiaz Khan and Mr. Mumtaz Wani, Esq, Prof. Faizaul Haq, Mr. Shaheen Khalid Bhat, Mr. Javaid Rathore, Sardar Amjad Yousuf, Prof. (Mrs.) Shamim Shawl, Mr. Raja Muzzafar, Prof. Wasiuulah Khan, Dr. Nisar Chowdhary, M. Khawaja Ashraf.

Others on the invitation list are:
Professor Stanley Wolpert, Professor Joseph Schwartzberg, Ms. Victoria Schofield, Professor Stephen Cohen, Professor Richard Shapiro, Dr. Haley Duschinski, Dr. Rodney Jones, Dr. Karen Parker, Professor Angana Chatterji, Mr. Bruce Hoffman.

Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani and Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar are invited.

*********************************************************************
Admission to the Conference is free but registration is required*

Eleventh International Kashmir Peace Conference

Thursday, July 29th at Cannon Caucus Room # 345, Registration starts at 8.00 &
Friday, July 30th 2010 at Rayburn, Gold Room # 2168, Registration starts at 9.00

Name ……………………………………

Address …………………………………………………………………………

Organization ………………………………………………………….

Tel: ( ) …………………………………… Fax: ( ) ……………………

E-mail: ………………………………

Yes, I would like to attend the Conference on Thursday, July 29th 2010 __

Yes, I would like to attend the Conference on Friday, July 30th 2010 ____

E-mail: kashmirconference@yahoo.com or Call KAC:
202-607-6585/202-628-6789/202-628-6788/Fax: 202-393-0062 or 703-295-8683

Exploitation of Kashmiri resources must stop; Pak wrong policies forcing people to be pro India, said Kashmiri leaders in a seminar held in Luton, UK

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:58:00 +0000

05 July 2010
Written by Dr Shabir Choudhry

The seminar tilted Neelam Jhelum Hydroelectric Project was organised by Kashmir National Party in Luton on 4 July, in which Kashmiris and Pakistanis representing different view points took part. All the speakers expressed their serious concerns about the exploitation of natural resources of Jammu and Kashmir, and demanded that this process must stop.

The Kashmiri leaders said India and Pakistan while using our resources must keep in mind that these resources belong to people of Jammu and Kashmir. If people of Jammu and Kashmir do not benefit from the development projects then that would be considered as plundering and looting of our natural resources.

The seminar was chaired by Abbas Butt, who gave background details to the seminar and how Kashmiri resources were exploited. He said KNP is not anti Pakistan or anti India. We have always taken pro people and pro Kashmir actions, and feel proud that we are true nationalists who want to promote liberal and secular politics. We want to defend rights of people of Jammu and Kashmir and promote peace and better understanding among all the ethnic groups living in South Asia.

KNP Chairman said: we can choose friends but we cannot choose or change our geography. We all have to live in South Asia, and it is in the interest of all that we learn to live in peace and share our resources for the betterment of people of this region. If policy of loot and plunder continues that will prove disastrous not for only people of Jammu and Kashmir but also for the entire region, as it will provide oxygen to those forces who want to spread communalism, extremism and hatred.

Abbas Butt said, ‘We appreciate Pakistan’s water and energy requirements and want to help them in this regard as well; but they should learn to share resources and not to exploit us by behaving like an imperial power. They need to acknowledge that these resources belong to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and people of the area must benefit from this’.

Dr Shabir Choudhry in his keynote speech said, ‘Water is fundamental to human survival, and many countries have serious shortage of water and energy, yet demand is on increase. Lack of sufficient clean and useable freshwater has adverse impact on economy and prosperity of many countries. Because of this scarcity, water has taken a strategic role for many states; and could be cause of conflicts in future.’ He said many experts believe future wars will be fought over water.’

He said, ‘Water is natural resources of Jammu and Kashmir, but it was India and Pakistan who decided how to use our water in Indus Water Treaty of 1960. We cannot even use water according to our wishes or requirements’. In order to appease his political masters, puppet Prime Minister of Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Sikandar Hayat told a seminar on March 6, 2003 “The freedom fighters of Kashmir are in reality fighting for Pakistan's water security and have prevented India from constructing a dam on the Wular Barrage.”

Dr Shabir Choudhry said: ‘In line with its past policies, Islamabad has started a mega project in its colony, known as Azad Kashmir. They did not even care to consult, get permission, or have a formal agreement with the rulers of this territory. Neelam Jhelum Hydroelectric Project is located near Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistani Administered Kashmir, and it aims to dig a tunnel and divert water of Neelam River which will generate 969 MW of electricity annually’.

He said, ‘The project will benefit Pakistan, but local people will not benefit from it in any form or shape. However, there will be serious economic and environmental consequences for the local people; and their future generations will face very serious economic and environmental problems. Our first priority is to safeguard interest of our people and unfortunately we have to be apologetic over this because of fear of being declared anti Pakistan’. He said, ‘Love of country is part of our faith and we will continue to oppose those who colonise us and loot and plunder our resources’.

Professor Rafiq Bhatti who is a senior leader of UKPNP and have travelled from Mirpur said, ‘KNP leadership should be congratulated for arranging this seminar on a topic which will have disastrous impact on people and environment of the area.’ He said, ‘Many people only deal with current issues, but thinking people also have eyes set on events of future, because we have to plan our future today. We have to ensure what we do today will not be detrimental to the interests of our future generations. Our loyalty should be with our nation. It is our duty to inform our people what is being done to their economy and how our resources are being exploited’.

He said, ‘Both India and Pakistan are plundering resources of our State, and who ever speak out for rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is declared as anti Pakistan’. He said, ‘It is ironic that Sind Assembly can pass a resolution against construction of Kala Bagh Dam even though that is to benefit Pakistan; and no one call them anti Pakistan’. He said, ‘If economic matters are not resolved appropriately then people could be forced to think of alternatives which could lead to extremism and violence.’

Javed Shah, representing JKLF, said: ‘This is a trivial matter and I advise the KNP leaders not to waste time on the dam and water issues. They should use their time and resources on positive things’.

Hussain Suharwardi Shaheed, a leader of Muslim Conference said people of Azad Kashmir have given sacrifices for Pakistan and we will not hesitate to do the same again. But on the issue of construction of mega dams like Neelam Jhelum Project Government of Pakistan should consult us and give us appropriate royalty for this. He said all people uprooted because of these development projects should be compensated. Our party has always supported Pakistan and cared for interests of Pakistan, but we should not be treated unfairly.

Nawaz Majid, Secretary General of KNP British Zone said: Because of wrong policies of Pakistan, people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir are having ideological changes. At one time 100% people on this side of the LOC opposed accession to India, but on my recent visit to POK I have met people who openly said, ‘If given only two choices they will opt for India, as they have better system and more facilities than what could be available on this side.’

He said, ‘Apart from Pakistani dam on River Neelam, India is also constructing a dam known as Kishanganga Hydro Electrical project. These both projects will surely have very serious impact on environment of the area, not to mention its negative impact on wildlife and beauty of the region which is major source of tourism’.

Asif Masood Choudhry who represented NSF, said: KNP leadership should be congratulated for holding a seminar on this important topic which will affect future of our generations. He said the way the Pakistani authorities have started this project clearly shows they do not care about Kashmiri laws or interests of the local people and danger to the wildlife. They have just started construction without any contract with the Azad Kashmir Government; and this clearly shows what kind of independence this government has.

He said: NSF has history of opposing Pakistani occupation and Pakistani policies In Azad Kashmir, and we will continue to do that. He said we will support the KNP leadership in whatever steps they might take to oppose this project which is unjust and exploits our resources.

Master Nisar, a political activist of Muslim Conference said: His party has always supported accession to Pakistan and we have always given sacrifices for the cause of Pakistan. He said Pakistan has serious water and energy needs, and during this difficult time we need to help Pakistan. I am first Pakistani then a Kashmiri. To me Pakistan and Kashmir are same.

Raja Yasin, a political activist of Muslim Conference said: We support Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, but it does not mean that we should not ask for our legitimate rights. We do care for Pakistan’s water requirements, but we should get royalty for this. Pakistan must have a contract with Azad Kashmir government, and must give compensation to the affected people.

Usman Kiani, President of UKPNP said: We are not Pakistanis; even constitution of Pakistan does not regard us as Pakistanis. We must not live in fantasy world. I am a nationalist Kashmiri. I am a Kashmiri first and Kashmir last. UKPNP have worked together with the leadership of KNP and we have shared platforms in Geneva and in many other places. I want to assure the KNP leaders that we will support them in this campaign, because it is in the national interest of our country.

Maqsood Hussain Shah, author and political activist said: we appreciate Pakistan’s water requirements but we also have some genuine requirements. If they build this dam it will affect our lives and lives of our future generations. It will also affect lives of many other species. Pakistan must consult government of Azad Kashmir. We should oppose Neelam Jhelum hydro Project and if need be we should contact the UN and other international bodies. He said we people of Kashmir must be part of any talks on Kashmir. It is not for India and Pakistan to decide our future. He emphasised the need of unity that we could have some say in the future talks on Kashmir.

Ejaz Pracha, a Pakistani activist said: You people have some genuine issues. We have no leadership in Pakistan to protect interests of Pakistan; and you people have no leadership to protect your interests. My advice to you is to get maximum unity and only then you can protect rights and interests of your people.

Nazam Bhatti, President of KNP in his concluding remarks said: ‘We are true nationalist and it is our duty to protect interests of people of Jammu and Kashmir; and we must not be apologetic over this. We must be steadfast in our resolve and totally ignore what critics say about us. Some people have a role to criticise us and deter us from doing our national duty’.

He said, ‘those who have interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir close to their hearts, to them construction of this dam is very serious matter because it is economic and environment disaster. We have right to use our resources according to our requirements. Any project which is against our wishes and against our requirements must be opposed; and if necessary destroyed’. END

Gilgit Baltistan past, present and future

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:22:00 +0000

Presentation by Dr Shabir Choudhry in a Debate on Gilgit Baltistan arranged by Baroness Emma Nicholson in House of Lords on 7 April 2010.

In name of Allah I begin.
Madam Chair, friends and colleagues Aslamo alaykam and good morning.

Acknowledgment

Indeed it is an honour to be here and make a presentation on a topic of Gilgit Baltistan. But before I start my presentation I want to thank Baroness Emma Nicholson and her staff for vigorously working to promote rights of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and especially for the rights of people of Gilgit Baltistan.

Whatever little rights have been given to people of Gilgit Baltistan in Empowerment and Self-Governance Order, 2009, we feel that is because of the pressure generated by the EU Kashmir Report which was passed by overwhelming majority by the EU Parliament in 2007. Baroness Emma Nicholson authored that report and played a key role in getting it through all stages in the EU Parliament.

Location of Gilgit Baltistan

Areas of Gilgit Baltistan are approximately 72,496 square kilometres; and are strategically very important and full of natural resources. This is where South, Central and East Asia converge. It is at the crossroads of three great civilizations and was traditionally a gateway for both India and China to Central Asia and beyond, in to the heart of Europe. This is old trading route known as the Silk Route which contributed enormously to the wealth of so many countries and brought different civilizations closer to each other.

With time strategic importance of these areas has increased. Apart from India and Pakistan, other countries like China, Afghanistan, Central Asian States, Iran, Russia and America also have keen interest in these areas.

Constitutional status of Gilgit Baltistan

Constitutionally and historically areas of Gilgit Baltistan are part of former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. The State, as we know, is disputed and its future is yet to be determined by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Pre Partition map of South Asia shows the State of Jammu and Kashmir at the top, and areas of Gilgit Baltistan are shown as part of Jammu and Kashmir. Also post partition maps of the region clearly shows the area of Gilgit Baltistan are not part of Pakistan. Similarly UN map of the region shows that these areas are part of Jammu and Kashmir.

Apart from these maps the UN Resolutions on Kashmir clearly show that areas of Gilgit Baltistan are part of the State.

Karachi Agreement

Furthermore the Karachi Agreement of 28 April 1949 (which was signed by Nawab Mushtaq Gurmani a Minister of Pakistan and the ‘President’ of ‘Azad Kashmir’, Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, and President of the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas), a copy which is distributed to you, clearly shows that these areas are part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan China Agreement

Also Pakistan signed an agreement with Republic of China on 2 March 1963, in which Pakistan gifted away around 2200 square miles of our territory to China which helped them to start a new era of friendship. In article 6 of this agreement Pakistan acknowledged that the sovereignty of the region did not rest with Pakistan. The agreement reads and I quote:

UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948

A.

3. Pending a final solution, the Territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

Districts

The areas of Gilgit Baltistan are split in to five districts:

Gilgit,

Ghizar,

Diamar,

Sakardu

and Ghanche.

Ethnic Groups

About 2 million inhabits live in these vast areas and the ethnic groups are:

Baltees,

Vashkuns,

Mughals,

Kashmiris,

Pathans,

Ladakhis and

Turks,

These people speak the following languages:

Balti,

Shina,

Brushaski,

Khawer,

Wakhi,

Turki,

Tibeti,

Pushto and Urdu.

The sect-wise breakdown of population in the Northern Areas is:

Gilgit – 60% Shia, 40% Sunni;

Hunza –100% Ismaili;

Nagar – 100% Shia;

Punial – 100% Ismaili;

Yasin – 100% Ismaili;

Ishkoman –100% Ismaili;

Gupis – 100% Ismaili;

Chilas – 100% Sunni;

Darel/Tangir – 100% Sunni;

Astor – 90% Sunni, 10% Shia;

Baltistan – 98% Shia, 2% Sunni.

Struggle is not religious

The above religious divide is important for people to understand, as some people want to present the struggle as a religious one; and they want to impose a decision in name of the religion.

In my view it is a recipe for a division of the State on communal lines, which will be disastrous for the entire region.

Supreme Court of Pakistan and Gilgit Baltistan

Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued various judgements regarding areas of Gilgit Baltistan. I will mention only two here.

· During the hearing of the Indian plane (Ganga) hijacking case started in 1971 and ended on 17 May, 1973, the Attorney General of Pakistan admitted before the Supreme Court of Pakistan that: “No given part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir can decide on its own, to join either Pakistan or India”.

· The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Habib Wahab al-Khairi case on May 28, 1999, ordered the government of Pakistan: that Northern Areas were constitutional part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The government of Pakistan should ensure that basic human rights and other political and administrative institutions are provided in the areas within six months. However, the action should not adversely affect Pakistan’s stand concerning the Kashmir dispute.

Preamble to Constitution of Pakistan 1973 says:

‘Therein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;

Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes;

Wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured;

Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights, including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air, shall be safeguarded;’

All that is good on paper, as we know what rights and protections are available to people of Pakistan, people of Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Also we know government of Pakistan has great experience in avoid implementation of Court orders.

Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009.

On 9th September, 2009 the government of Pakistan issued a new Package for Gilgit Baltistran. In line with its past practise regarding Gilgit Baltistan, the government of Pakistan did not feel important to consult anyone from this area. They did not even consult their appointed Chief Executive or any other member of the Northern Areas Legislative Assembly.

Many people of the area feel in name of ‘empowering people’ the government of Pakistan wants to annex these areas, just like they annexed state of Chitral. Chitral is now part of Malakand Division which is part of Pakistan, just like Swat and Dir.

However in 1878 the Ruler of Chitral known as Mahtar had acknowledged the suzerainty of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, and through him to the British Crown. Thus Chitral was legally part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and government of Pakistan did not show Chitral as part of Pakistan in the Constitutions of 1956 or in 1962. But in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan declared Chitral as one of its territory.

We oppose this ordinance because:

* This act of Pakistan is in clear violation of its obligations under the UNCIP Resolutions;

* It is against Pakistan’s previous stand on Jammu and Kashmir;

* It is against previous decisions of Pakistani Supreme Court;

* It is against Pakistan’s bilateral agreements with India according to which no country can unilaterally change status of any part of Jammu and Kashmir;

* It is against article 257 of Constitution of Pakistan, which reads:

Article 257 of Constitution of Pakistan

When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.

We fear Pakistani government:

Could do same to Gilgit Baltistan what they did to Chitral;

And in this regard some suggestions have been made to government of Pakistan by Basil Nabi Malik in his article:

‘The Constitutional Dilemma of the Northern Areas of Pakistan, and I quote:

1. ‘Pakistan could resolve this constitutional dilemma….by giving the Northern Areas representation in the National Assembly and in the Constitution, subject to alterations upon the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute

2. Unilaterally accepting the Northern Areas as the fifth province of Pakistan by including a sentence stating that “the Northern Areas shall be the fifth province of Pakistan for administrative purposes, until the complete resolution of the Kashmir dispute”,

3. On the basis of this (right of self determination) Pakistan may initiate a referendum in the Northern Areas in order to ascertain whether they would prefer to exist as a region of Kashmir or as a separate autonomous region’. Unquote

4. We fear that Pakistan can ask its puppet assembly in Gilgit Baltistan to declare accession of these areas with Pakistan or hold a referendum and manipulate the outcome.

Challenge to Gilgit Baltistan Ordinance

In view of the above and many other reasons we thought to challenge Ordinance on Gilgit Baltistan in Supreme Court of Pakistan. For this Kashmir National Party in ----consultation with our ally in the area, Shafqat Inquilabi, a leader of the Balawaristan National Front filed a case, a copy of which has been circulated to you.

The case has been filed and we are waiting for the Supreme Court to constitute a bench to hear the case. We understand judiciary in Pakistan is independent; and we hope that they will provide fair hearing to this case and provide justice to more than two million inhabitants of the area.

Policy of intimidation

l We also hope that the Supreme Court will be able to provide protection to Shafqat Inquilabi who is subject to intimidation and harassment ever since he filed this case.

l We fear for his life and for safety and well being of his family.

I hope human rights organizations and the international community will help us to get our fundamental rights and right of self determination.

Madam Chair and respected audience I thank you for your patience.

--
Dr Shabir Choudhry
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell.

India, The United Nations & Kashmir

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:18:00 +0000

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India’s assertion that “there can be no redrawing of borders in Jammu Kashmir” and former Indian Supreme Court judge Saghir Ahmad’s recommendation “to restore the autonomy to the extent possible” need to be supplemented by some observations from the view point of the people of Kashmir. These deserve to be borne in mind by all those who wish the conflict to be justly resolved once and for all.

When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States took the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the people of the territory. The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution on 21 April 1948 which was based on that unchallenged principle. So the issue in Kashmir is about the right of self-determination which was agreed upon by both India and Pakistan, endorsed by the Security Council and accepted by the international community.

The concept to convert the existing cease-fire line into a permanent International boundary is an ideal non-existent solution. Any such suggestion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Kashmir. One cannot imagine a better formula for sowing a minefield in South Asia that will lead them to a nuclear disaster. The people revolted against the status quo and status quo cannot be an answer? Also, Kashmiris wish to emphasize that their land is not a real estate which can be parceled out between two disputants but the home of a nation with a history far more compact and coherent than India’s and far longer than Pakistan’s. No settlement of their status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of self-determination and erases the so-called line of control, which is in reality the line of conflict.

The idea of autonomy for Kashmir is an absolute fallacy. Here one has to rely on a provision of the Indian Constitution. All Constitutions of the world are subject to amendments and Indian Constitution is no exception. If not now, in the foreseeable future, the Indian legislature can delete this provision in the Constitution and the move will not even need a debate in the Parliament.

Secondly, Kashmiris have had the experience of a limited autonomy, which was first practiced under a personal understanding between Prime Minister Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah and later provided for by Section 370 of the Indian Constitution. Kashmir was granted autonomous powers over all sectors excluding communications, defence and foreign affairs. It was eroded and eventually whittled away by the forces of circumstances.

My opinion was confirmed by a poll conducted jointly by major news outlets on Aug 12, 2007: CNN-IBN and Hindustan Times in India and Dawn and News in Pakistan. A majority of those polled in Kashmir Valley (87% to be precise) preferred freedom (Azadi). The Azadi means both the rejection of line of control into an international border and rejection of concept of autonomy.

However, there is but one fair, just, legal, and moral solution to Kashmir which was provided by the United Nations. The procedures contemplated at early stage of the dispute at the United Nations for its solution may be varied in the light of changed circumstances but its underlying principle must be scrupulously observed if justice and rationality are not be thrown overboard. The setting aside of the UN resolution is one thing; the discarding of the principle they embodies is altogether another. So the settlement has to be in accordance with the wishes of the people; impartially ascertained; in conditions of freedom from intimidation.

Kashmiris are open to a constitutional dispensation that answers all of India's legitimate national security and human rights concerns. With regard to the former, they are willing to explore permanent neutrality for Kashmir along the model of the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and a renunciation of war or the threat of force in international affairs along the model of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. They are willing to consider abandoning a military force like Costa Rica, Haiti, and Panama. Moreover, they hold no objection to providing community quotas in government offices along the lines of the 1960 Constitution for the Republic of Cyprus to safeguard against invidious discrimination of any religious or ethnic group, i.e., Pandit, Buddhist, Sikh, and Muslim alike.

With good faith by all parties common ground leading to a final settlement of the Kashmir tragedy can be discovered. An appointment of a special envoy by President Obama, like Bishop Desmond Tutu will hasten the way of peace and prosperity in the region of South Asia.

Dr. Fai can be reached at gnfai2003@yahoo.com

Correspondence:
**********************
Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council
1111 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Suite 420, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Tel: 202-628-6789 / 202-628-6788 / 202-607-6585
Fax: 202-393-0062 / 703-295-8683
E-mail: gnfai2003@yahoo.com

Kashmir is not an issue of bad governance but of self-determination: Mirwaiz

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:04:00 +0000

Geneva, Switzerland. March 20, 2010. During the 13th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, a seminar entitled, “Overcoming Barriers to Realizing the Self-determination” was organized by “The International Educational Development”, an NGO accredited with the United Nations. The seminar was chaired by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Kashmir Center. In his opening remarks, Dr. Fai was keen to remind listeners that self-determination was a basic principle of the United Nations and that self determination and peace and international security are interrelated. The denial of self determination, he said, has brought India and Pakistan - both important countries - to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. ‘For last 63 years they have been talking about Kashmir but there was no face of the people of Kashmir. We want to make it clear that when the UN gave the right of self determination, they gave it to the people of Kashmir, whatever their religion, wherever they live.’ Therefore, Dr Fai said, the genuine leadership of Kashmir must be included in the talks. For the talks to be meaningful Dr. Fai suggested that there would have to be an envoy of ‘an international standing’ that was acceptable to both India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris and he proposed that Bishop Desmond Tutu should be appointed special envoy.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman, All Parties Hurriyet Conference, in his presentation emphasized that ‘when we refer to Kashmir, we refer to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed on 14 August 1947.’ This includes the five distinct regions of the valley, Ladakh, Jammu, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. ‘The APHC has time again tried to talk about Jammu and Kashmir with a view to present the real situation on the ground. It is a political issue; it is not a territorial issue between India and Pakistan it is an issue concerning the fate of more than 15 million people. They believe unless and until the international community and especially the UN come forward, the issue cannot be resolved.’ The government of India, he said, has tried to camouflage the issue by putting irrelevant issues. It is not an issue of bad governance or giving people economic benefits. Nor is it an issue which has been sponsored by Pakistan since 1947. ‘It is high time the government of India realizes that such a huge movement that has been there since 1947 and especially after 1990, is a peoples struggle. The government of India has to stop people viewing Kashmir from the prism of Pakistan.’ Pointing out that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, tortured, jailed, and are missing; he said that no struggle of such magnitude could be sponsored by an external party.

Who are these people who are dying? They are Kashmiris; they are not Pakistanis, who have stood up for their basic rights, their right of self determination. We urge the international community that we Kashmiris, we seek a bright and better future for all peoples of South Asia, which is not possible without peace in Jammu and Kashmir.’ Affirming that the struggle was not a terrorist or extremist one, the Mirwaiz pointed out that the All Parties Hurriyet Conference had taken the initiative to initiate a dialogue even when to do so presented grave risks. ‘We came forward and said it is time to talk, even when the dialogue process was not working.’ Unfortunately, however, he said that although India talks about peace in Kashmir, ‘their approach is totally military. They speak the language of peace but they talk through the barrel of the gun.’ He also indicated that it was ‘far from reality’ to think that people of Kashmir would forget their struggle and he believed that the recent uprisings of 2008 and 2009 were indicative of the strength of a peaceful movement of protest. ‘We had more than a million people marching; they were not people with guns, or hand grenades, they were people who were asking for their rights to be restored to them; but the response was brute force.’

Although India might claim to be the biggest and largest democracy, the Mirwaiz said that their views in relation to Kashmir were very negative, particularly in relation to the ‘black laws’ which have enabled the military forces to act with impunity – especially the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Disturbed Areas Act. ‘The APHC,’ he said, ‘has made suggestions regarding the repeal of the black laws, the release of political prisoners and gradual demilitarization ‘to give the people, strangled under oppression for the last twenty years, some respite.’

The Mirwaiz also made clear that Kashmiris wished well to the people of India but it was important to realize ‘that the issues won’t disappear, unless and until you confront those problems. It is high time that we all sit together. The time has come when we need to come forward, if we continue to evade the problem we will have a situation like in 1965 and 1971 when India and Pakistan fought wars, but now these two countries have nuclear weapons. We Kashmiris want to talk, to engage, to let the dialogue process be meaningful, let there be a mechanism. We need a system of engagement.’ In conclusion, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq affirmed the continuing commitment of the people: ‘they are determined, they are resolved, they have shown the commitment, and India needs to move forward beyond rhetoric. ‘.

Lord Nazir Ahmed, Member, British House of Lords expressed the opinion that the UN resolutions were the only legal documents which exist in relation to Kashmir. He pointed out, however, that since 9/11 the world had changed. Whereas support was given for a UN administered plebiscite in East Timor, as well as to self-determination in the former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, since 9/11 the UN position has weakened. ‘We now have a situation where those who have been oppressed, are called terrorists or Islamic terrorists, it is very unfortunate, the language has changed. We need to get back to the values which the UN stood up for. The UN authority needs to be re instated.’ One way for its authority to be re instated, Lord Ahmed suggested, was for a special criminal tribunal to be set up under international law to investigate those who are responsible for the unmarked graves.

Lord Ahmed also suggested that the UN ought not to allow any country that disregards UN Security Council resolutions to join the Security Council and have permanent membership. ‘I think that it is time for the Secretary General to say enough is enough, if we can have a special envoy on Afghanistan Iraq, then we need a special envoy on Kashmir.’ He also indicated that Kashmiris should be included in any discussions and a start could be made in releasing political prisoners, and investigating disappearances, Finally, Lord Ahmed stated that he believed the international community had a duty to ask both governments in both Pakistani-administered and Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir for good governance. ‘There should be no excuse for the people still to be suffering. ‘

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to Geneva, pointed out that the two longest and most deserving cases on the UN agenda in terms of self-determination were Palestine and Jammu and Kashmir. ‘We see a lot of attention being given to Palestine, as it should be, but Kashmir gets very little international coverage, which is regrettable. But it does not detract from the fact that the denial of the right of self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of the Human Rights charter. Self-determination is a fundamental human right and this right has been granted to the people of Jammu and Kashmir more than 60 years ago.’ Ambassador Akram also emphasized that, for successive Pakistani governments, the commitment to allowing Jammu and Kashmir its self determination lies ‘at the heart of our policy, because self-determination was also the basis on which Pakistan was created.’ Unfortunately, he said, the UN guided plebiscite was not held.

‘Today the situation in Jammu and Kashmir presents a grave danger to international peace and security, not just regional.’ Following the 1998 nuclear tests, Akram reminded his listeners that President Bill Clinton had described Kashmir as the most dangerous place in the world. ‘That danger has not subsided. With every day this danger is accentuated. Pakistan and India have engaged off and on in negotiations in a dialogue, which has so far proved to be sterile. I can say that we, in Pakistan, being the smaller and comparatively weaker country obviously seek a peaceful solution. Unfortunately our Indian interlocutors have lacked the political will to negotiate in good faith. In our view the United Nations resolutions calling for a plebiscite provide the only viable solution to this dispute, because this dispute can only be resolved on the basis of the wishes of the people.’ In relation to the role of the international community, he said that it had not delivered either on its political commitments or on human rights. However he believed that by ‘by a queer twist of international politics and the strategic environment in South Asia,’ which has involved the United States in the region especially in relation to Afghanistan, ‘it seems that some hope is emerging for a possible solution.. .The United States realizes that in order for it to have a safe and honorable withdrawal from Afghanistan, it needs to deal with the security concerns of India and Pakistan, which means dealing with the heart of the problem and the heart of the problem is Jammu and Kashmir.’

Dr Karen Parker, UN delegate of the International Education Development, suggested that it was necessary ‘to give more meat on the bones’ to understand the principle of self determination. ‘so we have an idea of what we are talking about.’ Self determination, she said, ‘is not just a term, it is a legal term and it has elements.’ ‘There are five basic points to self determination: firstly, a people have the right to self-determination when they have an identifiable territory; when you hear the word Kosovo you can see it, you know where it is, or Western Sahara, or the Moluccas, you know where they are on the map.’ The second element, she suggested, was that the people had to have had a period of governing themselves in their land. Thirdly, there is normally some distinction, be it cultural, linguistic or religious. Despite the paternalism inherent in the fourth and fifth elements – the people have to demonstrate a will for self-determination and they have to show they have the capacity – these two were also valid elements in defining self-determination. Moreover, as Dr Parker pointed out, ‘You can’t give the right and then take it away - as has happened with the Kashmiris - and then let it vanish. Describing Kashmir as ‘particularly hot,’ she said that the situation was going to need greater impetus for there to be a resolution.

Internationally renowned peace activist. Dr Angana Chatterji, Co-Chair of the International Peoples Tribunal, spoke in relation to issues which she had encountered in her work. The Kashmir conflict, she said, ‘relates to issues of identity and history, territory and resources. India Pakistan and China have fought wars over this territory.’ Whereas India considers the dispute to be an internal matter and that militarization is necessary to secure its borders, in reality the period between 1947 and 1987 witnessed a people’s struggle for non-violent self determination. In 1988 they began an armed struggle before reverting again to non-violence. In order to achieve its objectives, Chatterji said that the Government of India has been responsible for using ‘discipline and death’ as a means of social control, which has resulted in 70,000 deaths, more than 8,000 enforced disappearances between 1989 and 2009; 60,000 people have been tortured, 100,000 have been orphaned, there is also a high rate of people with suicidal behaviour and the tragic plight of the half widows who do not know whether their husbands are dead or alive. ‘Periods of long detention and interrogation have had a brutalizing effect,’ she said. ‘I speak having made thirteen trips to the valley since July 2006, after hundreds of thousands of testimonials.’

Chatterji also highlighted that there were 600.000 military personnel in the state which continue to act ‘with impunity,’ occupying 10.5 million kanals of land on which there are 671 security camps. Detailing her work with Advocate Pervez Imroz on mass graves discovered in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, she said that they documented 2700 unknown graves, 2943 bodies in 55 villages in 3 districts, which ‘ hold the bodies of people executed arbitrarily.’ In relation to the current wave of protests, she said that these were taking place in response to human rights violations in an attempt ‘to address the lacuna in civil society leadership.’ She further advocated that the Kashmiri leadership should create local mechanisms for consultation. ‘The people who have turned out in vast numbers require local forums with leaders they can trust.’ In closing, Dr Chatterji offered ‘a fragment of a testimonial from a grave digger who said that he had been forced to dig the graves of about 260 people, who described ‘thick soil pressed with bodies, dead in encounters and barbed wire which strangles our land.’

Ms. Victoria Schofield, Independent South Asian Analyst and author of Kashmir in the Crossfire and Kashmir in Conflict endorsed the definition of self determination given by Dr Karen Parker, but also emphasized that there were three obvious barriers to realizing self-determination for the inhabitants of the state of Jammu and Kashmir; firstly because there is no obvious consensus among all the inhabitants of the state. ‘Not all of the state is inhabited by Kashmiris, and not all of the inhabitants call themselves Kashmiri,’ she said. Pointing to the numerically inferior Ladakhis, the Muslims of Kargil, the Kashmiri Pandits, the inhabitants of Jammu , those of Pakistani administered Kashmir – the Suddhans and Poonchis, as well as the inhabitants of Gilgit-Baltistan, she said that what had weakened the movement was a lack of consensus not only amongst these various groupings but also amongst Kashmiris of the valley. ‘And so the first barrier to overcome is obtaining consensus, at the same time as safeguarding the different aspirations of the minority.’ The second barrier was the attitude of the Indian government which opposed a change in the status quo; the third barrier was gaining friends with influence such as might be forthcoming from the United States or the European Union. In conclusion, Schofield indicated that there were some preliminary objectives which could be achieved such as demilitarization, maintaining the rule of law, promoting freedom of speech and movement as well as improving health and education facilities and eliminating corruption.

Professor Nazir Shawl, Executive Director of the Justice Foundation/Kashmir Centre in London suggested that ‘a look at the global arena reveals many conflicts with undemocratic structures and draconian laws.’ Citing Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, he agreed that ‘the real test of democracy is not what is said in the constitution but how it functions on the ground.’ Referring to his own background as an inhabitant of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, who had been forced to leave the valley, he suggested that if ‘the siege of the army’ were to be lifted, and people were to be provided with political space, ‘they will throng on the streets. An ostrich like approach does not solve problems.’ He also believed that it was time the international community acknowledged the gravity of the international dispute as it continues to promote ‘a South Asian cold war’. The Kashmiris struggle for self-determination, he said, should not be considered as ‘merely a historical burden. Geopolitical factors should not become an impediment but a source of facilitation in the interests of regional and global peace. The world’s largest military presence has failed to extinguish the flames of freedom.’ Shawl affirmed that there could be no military solution to Kashmir, and it was time for India and Pakistan to accept Kashmiris ‘as partners for resolution.’ Finally, Dr Shawl pointed out that millions of people in India and Pakistan would welcome a result- orientated settlement. ‘But it should not be dilution of our aspirations. It should not be a hollow truce or patchwork, but a comprehensive agreement.’

Barrister Majid Tramboo, Executive Director of the ICHR/ Kashmir Centre in Brussels emphasized that the Kashmir issue is one of self determination. ‘And I believe self-determination is the only solution for the Kashmir issue within the legal framework of the United Nations.’ He therefore regretted that ‘self determination’ was no longer on the agenda of the Human Rights Council. He also pointed out that the issue of mass and nameless graves had been raised in the European Parliament but that it was also necessary to have a hearing at the UN in Geneva in order to ensure an impartial investigation.

Sardar Amjad Yousuf, Executive Director, Kashmir Institute for International Relations (KIIR) began his presentation by informing the audience that he lived on the other side of the line of control which ‘ we Kashmiris call ceasefire line. We Kashmiris are always confused people because when we are asked who we are, we say we are Kashmiris, and it is very disturbing for us to say whether we are from Pakistan or Indian Kashmir.’ Amjad Yousuf also pointed out what a difficult situation Kashmiris had been facing with constant firing across the LOC until the ceasefire in 2003. ‘We have displacement of more than 500 000 people from LOC. There are many disabled people, plus refugees who have come over during the firing . He also pointed out that there were at least eight different maps of the state of Jammu and Kashmir depending on your particular viewpoint: ‘there is an Indian map, a Pakistani map, a Chinese map, even an American CIA map!’

Ms. Shugufta of University of Azad Kashmir, Kotli elaborated in her paper that the idea and implamentation of right to slefdetermination is embedded deep in roots of history of civilized world. It is a building block of international law. The UN Charter provides an environment to different nations of the world to develop a friendly relation among them based upon the principle of right to self determination. She said that in 1947, two new nations, India and Pakistan emerged in South Asia. With these two countries, decolonization was launched on the basis of the right of self determination. What was good for itself was not considered suitable for the people of Indian occupied kashmir.

The session ended with Nazir Quereshi, Vice President, World Kashmir Freedom Movement, thanking those who had attended and pointing out that the continued occupation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had turned the land into a garrison. ‘In this connection I would say that a step towards the right of self determination would be demilitarization of the area.’ Echoing thoughts expressed by earlier delegates, he concluded that the problem of Jammu and Kashmir would best be resolved ‘through a temperate process under the auspices of the United Nations.’

KNP delegation meets Indian Minister

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:19:00 +0000

London 16 March 2010

Kashmir National Party leaders held a meeting with Syed Asif Ibrahim, Minister Coordination at the High Commission of India in London. The meeting took place on Wednesday at the India House in London.

KNP is the first political party which is based in England and in Pakistani Administered Kashmir to have openly met the Indian officials. Aim of the meeting was to start a process of dialogue, as we are the main party to the dispute and we want to take this initiative to contact all the countries who are directly connected with the Kashmir dispute.

The meeting discussed various issues related to the Kashmir dispute and peace and security of South Asia. The meeting discussed issues related to terrorism, extremism, communalism and human rights; and looked at ways of promoting the peace process and building bridges of understanding.

The meeting also looked at the problems of people of Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the LOC; and problems of Kashmiri Diaspora and how to facilitate the visa process that the people of the State could interact with each other. It was emphasised that Kashmiri culture of peace, tolerance and coexistence should be promoted.

The KNP delegation fully supported the peace process between India and Pakistan as that is the only way forward to resolve disputes. However, they emphasised that the Kashmir dispute is not bilateral in nature; hence the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be made part of the peace process.

The KNP delegation said the Kashmir dispute is not religious, but political in nature. The KNP believes in liberal, democratic and secular politics and wants to support all those forces which believe in the above ideals.

The KNP delegation consisted of the following: Abbas Butt, Ch Sarwar Hussain, Nawaz Majid, Asim Mirza, Syed Zil - E – Naqvi and Dr Shabir Choudhry. END