Bhim Singh welcomes India’s stand on ‘Gilgit-Baltistan’

Bhim Singh welcomes India’s stand on ‘Gilgit-Baltistan’

Prof. Bhim Singh, Chairman, National Panthers Party and Member, NIC today hailed the reaction by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India on the Pakistan’s attempt to legalize its occupation of Gilgit-Baltistan by treating this part of Indian Territory as 6th Province of Pakistan.

Prof. Bhim Singh expressed satisfaction vis-à-vis India’s commitment on Gilgit-Baltistan, a Territory of Jammu and Kashmir which was occupied by Pakistan in 1947 by kidnapping and illegally detaining the then Governor of Gilgit-Baltistan, Brig. Ghansara Singh who was appointed by Maharaja Hari Singh. Since then this area of Chitral, Gilgit and Baltistan comprising 32,500 sq. miles continues to be under the illegal occupation of Pakistan with India keeping mum on the plight of its habitants who were citizens of Jammu and Kashmir.

Prof. Bhim Singh thanked the Prime Minister of India for accepting his 40 years old demand that India should take up the cause of liberation of Gilgit-Baltistan from Pakistan and restoration of fundamental and human rights to its 1.5 million citizens who continue to remain as slaves of Pakistan’s military rulers sans basic civil, economic and political rights for the past six decades.

Prof. Bhim Singh said that policy of the Government of India under Dr. Manmohan Singh towards Gilgit and Baltistan has strongly focused the attention of the world that, “Entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India by virtue of rejection of 1947. The so-called ‘Gilgit-Baltistan empowerment and Self-government Order-2009 was yet another cosmetic exercise intended to camouflage Pakistan’s illegal occupation”. This is for the first time that India has conveyed its message in clear terms to the world that there shall be no compromise on the issue.

Prof. Bhim Singh has urged on all the groups and political organizations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir everywhere including in Europe, UK, USA, POK to organize a universal, civil and political rights solidarity day with our people in Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral on February 1, 2010. He appealed to APNA, Gilgit-Baltistan Liberation Groups and their leaders to organize protests and demonstrations for the liberation of Gilgit-Baltistan from the illegal occupation of Pakistan.

Sd/-Sudesh Dogra

Political Secretary

Huge anti-Pak protests in PoK, violence erupts

Huge anti-Pak protests in PoK, violence erupts

ANI

Published on Sat 24th Oct 2009

 Islamabad, Oct 24: Kashmiris from all walks of life observed a “Black Day” in Pakistan Kashmir, including capital Muzaffarabad, on the occasion of the 62nd anniversary of the invasion of the area by Pakistani army men disguised as tribesmen from the North West Frontier of Province (NWFP), known as the Lashkars. A large number of people, carrying black flags and protest placards, participated in demonstrations held in various parts of Pakistan Kashmir. AHuge anti-Pak protests in PoK, violence erupts ANIPublished on Sat 24th Oct 2009 07:45:31Updated On Sat 24th Oct 2009 07:46:51 Islamabad, Oct 24: Kashmiris from all walks of life observed a “Black Day” in Pakistan Kashmir, including capital Muzaffarabad, on the occasion of the 62nd anniversary of the invasion of the area by Pakistani army men disguised as tribesmen from the North West Frontier of Province (NWFP), known as the Lashkars. A large number of people, carrying black flags and protest placards, participated in demonstrations held in various parts of Pakistan Kashmir. Among the participants were Arif Shahid, the general secretary of the All Party National Alliance (APNA), Baltistan National Front leader Nawaz Khan Naji and Abdul Hamid Khan, the Chairman of Balawaristan National Front, besides others. So vociferous were the protests by the almost 800-odd participants, that security forces deployed to ensure maintenance of law and order, had to use teargas shells and firing in the air to disperse themmong the participants were Arif Shahid, the general secretary of the All Party National Alliance (APNA), Baltistan National Front leader Nawaz Khan Naji and Abdul Hamid Khan, the Chairman of Balawaristan National Front, besides others. So vociferous were the protests by the almost 800-odd participants, that security forces deployed to ensure maintenance of law and order, had to use teargas shells and firing in the air to disperse them

Kashmiri Pandits: On the road to extinction

Kashmiri Pandits: On the road to extinction
By P.N.Razdan

The Kashmiri Hindu���s tragic saga continues to this day with neither the state nor the central governments doing enough to relocate those who fled their homeland.
Kashmiri Pandits, the Hindus of Kashmir valley, have been Kashmir’s original inhabitants. Their roots in the valley can be traced back to 5,000 years. Their history dates back to the time when one of their earliest kings, Gonanda I, fought and died in the Mahabharata battle.

The Kashmiri kingdom comprised the present valley, Gilgit, Baltistan, parts of Punjab and even extended, at one time, to Western Tibet and Afghanistan. It witnessed a religious transformation from Buddhism in the 4th and the 3rd centuries BC to Brahmanism — Shaivites and Shakti worshippers — till the 11th century AD when conversion of Hindus to Islam started with the annexation of Punjab by Mahmud Ghazni in 1021 AD.

Beginning of the 14th century saw mass Islamic conversions with the arrival of a trio comprising a Sufi saint, Bulbul Shah, from Turkey, Rinchan, a rebel prince form Tibet and Shamir, a Muslim religious preacher from Swat valley in Persia. The trio joined hands to transform the Hindu kingdom of Kashmir into a Muslim empire — a dream that Arabs had nurtured for more than five centuries.

Mayhem, plunder and subjugation were unleashed in the next 500 years. Savage methods and brutal force was used to make the innocent locals embrace Islam. Except for a brief period of relief under pious rulers Zain-ul-Abdin and Mughal emperor Akbar, Hindus continued to be forcibly converted. Their temples were ransacked and wrecked, scriptures were burnt, and taxes (jazia) were imposed. People had no option but convert, flee or commit suicide. To escape the wrath of the brutal persecution, there was mass exodus from Kashmir. There are records of at least six mass exoduses during this period and Kashmir history records that only 11 Hindu households were left at one time. All other Kashmiri Hindus were either killed, converted to Islam or had migrated to safer places.

Kashmir returned to peaceful times after its annexation by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1819 at the invitation of a Kashmiri, Pandit Birbal Dhar. Peace and order was restored and all punitive laws against Hindus were revoked. This was followed by hundred years of peaceful rule by Dogras of Jammu till the Indian independence in 1947. Sheikh Abdullah, who led the independence movement in Kashmir, was a great votary of secularism and several prominent Kashmiri Pandits were his closest colleagues during the freedom struggle against the Maharaja. Kashmiri Pandits therefore occupied important positions in Jammu & Kashmir as part or the newly born Indian Republic. Estimate of their population then is about 1.50 lakh forming about 9 per cent of the valley’s population.

Post independence, Kashmiri Pandits lived a peaceful life in the valley and enjoyed all rights available to the citizenry. They formed an important part of the composite Kashmiri Hindu-Muslim-Sikh culture, popularly called Kashmiriyat. During the communal flare-ups of the partition, Mahatma Gandhi saw a ray of hope in the state’s religious harmony. Kashmiri Pandits, however, had to make adjustments with the growing aspirations of the Muslims in a free political set up. Their absentee land lordship over agricultural lands got eschewed under the tenancy and land reforms initiated by the people’s government in 1952 and this affected a large number of Pandit families. Being an educated class, Pandits, who were solely dependant on government employment, had also to concede space to fellow Muslims, who, too, were now educated and were claimants to government employment. These and a long agitation in 1967 over the kidnapping of a Pandit girl by a Muslim boy and the government apathy on the issue started a low-key migration of Pandits outside Kashmir. However this wasn’t so large as to draw the state government’s attention, particularly as Kashmir appeared so peaceful in the 1971-87 period after the 1971 Indo-Pak war that separated East Bengal from Pakistan.

The events of 1989 turned the tables on Pandits. As a follow-up of the Pakistan-sponsored militancy that started in 1989-90, almost the entire community of 2.5 lakh Kashmiri Pandits was forced to leave the valley following arson, rape and killing of about a 1,000 members of their community by terrorists. This was their seventh exodus. The state government made makeshift arrangements for these migrants in tented camps around Jammu, Udhampur and Delhi. Many of them stayed voluntarily with friends and relatives in different parts of the country. As of now, there is no change in this situation and these temporary residences of the migrants continue. Although the government provides relief in cash and kind to registered migrants and salaries to those who were in employment, yet the loss of home and snapping of ties with their roots has made a tremendous impact on their physical, social and mental make up. Out of Kashmir’s total population 5.5 million, there are now about 5,000 Kashmiri Pandits left in the valley. They have dared to stay on despite the militancy.

Kashmiri Pandit community is therefore at the cross roads of history today. This diaspora of around 7 lakh people is scattered all over the globe. They live practically in every corner of the world — from the migrant camps in the outskirts of Jammu city, to medium towns and metropolises in India, Europe, North America and Africa. They are stateless Indian citizens, who have no vote, no constituency and no representation in Parliament or the Assembly of their home state. They have become refugees in their own country. Their employment in the state has dropped from 14,000 to just 1,000 and there are no new recruitments happening. Admissions to professional colleges in the state stopped the day they left the state. Had the state governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka not reserved one seat in each engineering institute of the state for the migrant community, Kashmiri Pandit youth would have been on the roadside and turned into bad elements. Their exodus from Kashmir has not only deprived them of their homeland, but also their properties, culture, language, history, rituals and the social milieu they inherited and conserved for thousands of years. They are finding themselves at the cross roads of history where the only road visible is the one leading to their extinction.

Kashmiri Pandits have been a highly accomplished community. It has produced several luminaries in history. Kashmir has been a seat of Buddhist philosophy, Shaivism, Sanskrit learning, and a messenger of Vedic civilization to India. Between the 9th and the 14th centuries, Kashmir produced a galaxy of intellectuals like Kalhana, the great historian of the world. Kalhana’s Rajtarangani, a chronicle of the kings of Kashmir, Patanjali’s Mahabasya commentary on Panini’s works on Sanskrit grammar, Abhinavgupta, the Shaivist philosopher and Saint Suyya, the great engineer who rid Kashmir of incessant floods and built the town of Sopore in northern Kashmir stand a testimony to the intellectual heritage of the Pandits. They are many other Pandit luminaries, including Pingala and his monumental work Pingalasutra on metrics and prosody, Lal Ded, the great mystic poetess and philosopher, Kshemendra the Sanskrit poet and playwright, known as “Vedvyasa of Kashmir” on account of his commentaries on Ramayana. They made priceless contribution in the fields of music, dance, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy and literature. Kalidasa the Sanskrit poet and Caraka, the great physician and author of the famous book on medicine Charaksamhita are also believed to be from Kashmir.

In the last century, Kashmir gave India its first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Swami Lakshman Ji spiritualist and guru on Shaivist philosophy and Tantraloka, Pandit Gopi Krishna, the master and researcher in Kundalini techniques, Anupam Kher the Bollywood actor, R N Kao, the author and first chief of RAW, Suresh Raina, the emerging young cricketer, several administrators, judges, journalists, military personnel, engineers and doctors.

Kashmiri Pandits have won laurels in every field, be it business, computer software or research, in India and abroad. Their ingenuity, analytical mind and sublime nature have been appreciated all over.

A disintegrated community, not unsurprisingly, has so many community organizations to take care of the local needs, interaction with the mainstream communities, and above all to keep their age-old culture protected. Almost every Kashmiri enclave in any town has an organization, which arranges community meets on prominent festival days, yagyas, interactive parties, etc to foster a cultural bonding. The younger generation that has hardly seen its roots is fast merging with the local conditions and societies, hardly speak Kashmiri language, and marry outside their community without any taboo.

Despite occasional outbursts and pleas for their honorable return to the valley, they draw a blank from the government, Kashmiri Muslims and general public. Nobody seems to care to save this illustrious community from becoming extinct.

Kashmiri Pandits are politically irrelevant too. Being an uprooted lot, they do not constitute a vote bank, are not a slogan-shouting crowd and are too self-oriented to be of relevance to the politicians. They do not have an apex political body to represent themselves, which probably is their greatest failure and the reason to be so extraneous to the people, media and the government. The first time they were given a political platform in the last 16 years of their exile was at the first roundtable on Kashmir held in Delhi in February this year. Their demand of a carving out a separate homeland for them in the Kashmir valley – a state or a union territory – was turned down by both the state and the central governments. And, the issue of their return to Kashmir has been relegated to the background and has been tagged with the return of other refugees from across the LOC.

Kashmiri Pandit community is at a precipice. The state and central governments need to appreciate the community’s predicament. More importantly, the Kashmiri Muslims need to welcome the community back to their homes for preservation of Kashmir’s ancestry and the mosaic of cultural synthesis the valley is known for.

Integration of the community and its development as a separate social sect is possible only if it returns back to its homeland roots. It is important for this to delink the issue of the return of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir problem. All separatist and national parties in J&K and migrant Kashmiri pandits need to sit together and chalk out a detailed coordinated plan of action for an unconditional and honorable return of the displaced persons. Return of Pandits is possible through a social initiative. The government role should start only after the community returns to its home.

Other steps that can inject confidence in this community could be the reservation of one seat through nomination in Parliament under Article 331 of the Constitution on the lines of the Anglo-Indian community and similar reservation of two seats in the state assembly. These measures would reassure the community of their safety. Also, certain laws need to be introduced in the state constitution that guarantee quick redressal of the community grievances, reservation in state employment and admissions in professional colleges and creation of a full-fledged Ministry for Return and Rehabilitation of Migrants (MRRM) to liaise with the migrants and redress their problems.

Happily the conditions in the valley are fast changing for the better. Dark clouds of fear and mistrust are giving way to those of hope and goodwill. Service in the spirit of a self-preservation of their heritage by all Kashmiris irrespective of religion, can save the Kashmiri Pandit community from their current hardship and extinction.

Plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan

Plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan

 Constitutional, political and socio-economic deprivation, miseries and plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan Northern part of Kashmir’ Speech delivered by Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri on April, 2008 in European- Parliament Respected Baroness Emma Nicholson, Member European Parliament, Vice Chair Foreign Affairs Committee and Vice Chair sub- committee on Human Rights in the European Parliament, architect of first European Parliament resolution on Jammu Kashmir. Madam Chairperson, Chair IKA Dr Nazir Gillani Sahib, Mumtaz Khan, Vice Chair IKA, Dr Shabir Chaudhry, Abbas Butt Abdul Hamid Khan Chairman BNF, dear journalists, ladies and gentlemen. I would warmly welcome you in this august conference and taking this opportunity to bring you constitutional, political and socio-economic deprivation, miseries and plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan Northern part of Kashmir. People of Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan have special respect and honor for you Madam Chairperson. Dear Delegates, Before going into the historical perspective of Gilgit Baltistan I would like to present my views on Jammu Kashmir and its political, constitutional, socio-economic, cultural, educational, religious, and lingual history and its long history of relations with Northern Part Gilgit Baltistan. Jammu Kashmir is north western region of the Indian sub-continent. Until the mid 20th century, the term “Kashmir “referred to the Valley lying between the great Himalaya and the Pir Panjal range; since then, it has been used for a larger area that today includes Jammu Kashmir consisting of Kashmir valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan Chinese administered region of Aksai Chin. The oldest account of Kashmir history is Rajtirangni of Kalhana which was written in 1147-1149 CE.Though Kashmir has long history of foreign occupation but it’s important feature is that the prominent Chak ruler of Kashmir and Ali Sher Khan Anchan who is known as Ranchan Shah in Kashmir was belonging to the Gilgit region that proves that the Gilgit Baltistan region had a strong influence in Kashmir political affairs in the past. Under the paramountcy of the British crown that lasted until 1947 when the former princely state became disputed territory between its neighbors India, Pakistan and China. The total area of the state is 84471 Sq Miles and 12million population bigger than many independent nations in terms of population and area particularly five European countries, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland together. At this point I would say that the founding father of this state was Maharajah Gulab Singh despite our differences with treaty of Amritsar of 1846. I would also pay tribute to the loyalty and patriotism of Maharajah Hari Singh and I would say that If Maharajah Hari Singh had not enacted the law of “State Subject Rule” of 1927 Kashmiri people under different administrations and political systems would have been turned as minority particularly those who live under illegal administration of Pakistan since 1947. Respected Delegates, At this moment when different lobbies are trying to distort the facts and misleading world community I would like to put forward my submissions so that historical misconception can be clearly understood. * It is evident that India came into Kashmir through a treaty of accession while Pakistan infiltrated it’s tribal in Jammu Kashmir and illegally occupied about 36000Sq Miles of State. * Under UNCIP resolutions Government of Pakistan failed to comply with the UNCIP resolutions as UNCIP resolutions clearly asked Pakistan to withdrawal all its armed and para-military forces and civilians simultaneously from state and India was to withdraw bulk of its forces after that. * Therefore, unless Government of Pakistan fulfills the UNCIP resolutions condition, asking India to revisit the treaty of accession and seek the opinion of Kashmiris on the treaty. But it is the duty of Indian government to protect the life, liberty, property and dignity of the Kashmiri unless final solution is sought. While on the other hand government of Pakistan has denied the fundamental rights and freedoms of people of Gilgit Baltistan. We call Karachi agreement as conspiracy against the identity and unity of Kashmiris by the Pakistani authorities and reject it for following various reasons. 1- At the time of Karachi Agreement on 28th April-1949 there was no representative of that region. 2- The people of Gilgit Baltistan are kept deprived, politically, constitutionally and forced to live unprivileged and underdeveloped since 1949. 3- No legislature was formed for the people of these areas. 4- There are no notable institutions like healthcare and hospital except Agha Khan Rural Support Program (AKRSP). 5- As Karachi agreement was clearly infringe to the autonomy and fun political, democratic, and cultural and human rights of the people of the region. Through Karachi agreement Pakistani authorities have assumed extraordinary powers and region became sole domain to ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas (KANA) 6- Muslim Conference and its leadership had no democratically legitimate mandate for the people of Gilgit Baltistan to sign such agreement on their behalf with Government of Pakistan. It is irony that Government of Pakistan takes a very different route to govern the affairs of Gilgit Baltistan unlike in Pakistani Administered Kashmir which consist of 4000Sq Miles was given a nominal institutions like Legislative Assembly, President, Prime Minister, Supreme Court, National Flag and National Anthem, but Gilgit Baltistan which is 28000 Sq Miles was put under the mercy of a low rank officer in Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas. The population of Gilgit Baltistan consists of many diverse linguistic, ethnic and religious groups’ isolated valleys separated by some of the world’s highest mountains. Urdu is the lingua franca of the region, understood by most male inhabitants. The Shina language (with several dialects) is the language of 40% of the population, spoken mainly in Gilgit, throughout Diamer, and some parts of Ghizer. The Balti language, a sub-dialect of Ladakhi is spoken by the entire population of Baltistan. Minor languages spoken in the area include Wakhi spoken in upper Hunza, and some villages in Ghizer, while Khowar is the major language of Ghizer. Burushaski is an isolated language spoken in Hunza, Nagar, Yasin (where Khowar is also spoken), Some parts of Gilgit and some villages of Punyal. Another interesting language is Domaaki, spoken by the musician clans of the region. Gilgit Baltistan is rich in natural resources. Its major resources are gold, emerald, uranium, forests and water blue gold in modern terminology. Government of Pakistan is collecting billions of rupees from the tourism of this area. World highest and tallest peaks are situated in this area. Mount K2 and Godwin- Austin are one of them which attract expeditions and mountaineers across the globe. Trans Karakoram route which is the only link of Pakistan with China trade and commerce but local people are kept isolated of any benefit of such business. This area is blessed of huge assets of water resources. Kashmir has five rivers which are 1. River Indus 2. River Kishanganga 3. River Jhelum 4. River Chenab 5. River Poonch This area is most marginalized in the field of health and education. There is only one university for the population of 2 million people, but no medical and engineering college or polytechnique institute for the population of entire region. The women situation in the area is even worst due to poor health care facilities have deteriorated health conditions in female and they are particularly victim of Pakistani state fundamentalist policies in this area. There are only two colleges in the area and literacy rate among men is 14% and 3.5 % is among women. There is no major hospital in the area except Agha Khan Rural Support Program (AKRSP), which is the only Non-Governmental- Organization (NGO) providing primary health care to the people of this area. There is no industry in this area. Water and sewerage system is non-existent so is the electricity where more than two third of the population of the area. The attempts to wage a political struggle through the Northern Areas Legislative Council (NALC), have been handicapped by the ban imposed by the Pakistani authorities on any one contesting elections unless he or she pledge that the Gilgit Baltistan is an integral part of Pakistan. Similarly constitutional restraints are in placed in Azad Kashmir to bar political opponents from participating in the elections those stipulations are clear violations of UNCIP resolutions. High court of so called Azad Kashmir verdict of 1993 and clear verdict of Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1999 define that Gilgit Baltistan is part and parcel of Jammu Kashmir’ and Government of Pakistan was asked to hand over administrative control of this area to the so called Government of Azad Kashmir or least they should be given opportunity to form their own legislative Assembly. But these verdicts went unnoticed under red tape of ministry of Kashmir affairs that enjoys the total control and absolute administrative powers and financial affairs from Islamabad and local people are treated as slaves. More than two hundred political activists are facing so called sedition charges in this area while constitutionally and legally this region is not part of Pakistan. Dear Delegates, I’m grateful to you for your keen interest in poliitical, constitutional and socio-economic deprivation of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and would like to put following suggestions in this regard. • We welcome the end of military rule and installation of democratically elected Government in Pakistan and we should support democratic forces. • We warmly welcome ban lifted on trade unions and students organizations, and we also express jubilance over the release of top judges of apex courts. Yet an independent judiciary is a dream in today’s Pakistan. We should support the Lawyers’ movement in Pakistan. • Borders should be opened between Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh like some crossing points have been opened in Pakistan Administered Kashmir. • A bus service should immediately be started between Ladakh and Gilgit Baltistan so that the divided families and cultural links could be reunited and revitalized between both regions. • We strongly urge world community and particularly European Parliament to establish a fact finding mission to be sent in Pakistani Administered Gilgit Baltistan and in Pakistani Administered Kashmir to see ground realities and particularly the worst situation of earthquake victims of October -2005. • Having regard of the world community most generous support to rehabilitate effected people, Government of Pakistan and local administration in Pakistan Administered Kashmir have failed to do so accordingly. • We urge world community and European Parliament to oversee the funds allocated to earthquake victims and misuse of those funds by the concerned authorities and Government officials. • We strongly condemn attack on a member of Pakistani Administrative Legislative Assembly Mr. Tahir Khokhar who was asking in the assembly about misusing the public funds but was beaten in the house by the government ministers. We demand that independent inquiry should be held in this regard and allegations labeled by him must be fairly investigated. • We recommend that to empower women of the most deprived region there should be special quota be allocated for them so that they can also participate in socio-economic and political advancement of 21st century requirements • We also recommend that to provide them free and cheap justice to the people an independent judiciary of world standard be established for the people of Gilgit Baltistan. ltistanight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan

China: Latest assessment of Kashmir issue

China: Latest assessment of Kashmir issue Guest Column-by D. S. Rajan The assessment on Kashmir issue, given by Chen Yiwu, the Pakistan based correspondent of the People’s Daily (Online Chinese language edition, Dec 1 &2,2004) for the benefit of readers in China, is notable for its significance, as views expressed in the authoritative paper invariably reflect the Chinese official stand. Taking note of the resumption of India-Pakistan peace talks since November 29,2004 and giving a historic account of the circumstances surrounding the Kashmir issue, the article described the issue as a ‘time bomb’ in India-Pakistan relations. Hinting that Pakistan’s stiff anti-India position on Kashmir is linked to its inability to take over Hyderabad and Junagarh at the time of partition, the article highlighted the fact that both India and Pakistan accepted the January 20,1948 UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire, demilitarization and a step by step solution on the accession issue by holding a ‘plebiscite’. It added that in the fifties, India considered Pakistan as an aggressor in Kashmir and demanded for full withdrawal of latter’s troops before a ‘plebiscite’ could be held. Pakistan, on its part, asked for withdrawal of troops of both the sides from Kashmir prior to such a plebiscite. Observing that Pakistan’s joining the SEATO in 1954 and later the Baghdad Pact were aimed at resisting India’s strength, the write-up indirectly criticized India for announcing the irrelevance of the plebiscite principle on the pretext of Pakistan’s joining such military blocs. It pointed out that in the 15 years since the beginning of armed attacks in the Indian controlled Kashmir in 1989, 45000 people were killed. Though the accession of Kashmir is basically a legacy of India-Pakistan partition, the subsequent changes in the international situation and the continued uncertainty in India-Pakistan relations, brought other factors like security and political strategy of each side into focus, making the issue further complicated, the People’s Daily item remarked. Analysing the perceptions of India and Pakistan regarding the issue, the item said that although the Indian Congress Party came under compulsion to accept partition in 1947, India till today does not accept the ‘ two nation theory’, which formed the basis for Mountbatten’s formula on partition of the South Asian sub-continent. India is of the view that the partition has caused damage to its historic unity which arose out of the country’s old culture. The partition also had a deep negative influence on India’s big power status as well as defence. Pakistan, on its part, relies on the ‘two nation theory’ to win a broad Muslim religious and national sympathy. Moreover, since its formation, it is intentionally making efforts to gain features, which are different from that of India, so that it can exist as a pure Muslim nation. The article further observed that when Pakistan came into being, India thought that the former would not survive for long and aspired to continuously weaken that country with an eye on its leading position in the sub-continent. Also, India hoped for reunification of the sub-continent some day, considering partition as a mistake. Facing serious imbalance in terms of national strength and keeping in view India’s long term plans, the Government and people of Pakistan were pushed to nurture a feeling of crisis and insecurity. Pakistan saw India’s taking over of Hyderabad and Junagarh by force. It also realized that at the same time, India was not willing to abandon its claim over the Muslim majority Kashmir but with a Hindu ruler. The People’s Daily item opined that these factors led to Pakistan’s resolve to support the cause of Kashmir’s accession to it through use of force. Tracing the strategic reasons behind deepening of India-Pakistan hostility and unyielding positions on Kashmir issue adopted by both the sides, the article said that. Pakistan views the Kashmir issue as being not purely a territorial one, but also religious in nature, in view of the region’s Muslim majority. For India, protecting Kashmir is important for establishing an effective control over other regions in the country, particularly over Punjab through curbing separatist tendencies there. India also feels that if Kashmir goes out of its control, it could face a chain reaction. Kashmir is the home for the family of former Prime Minister Nehru and is thus a pride for the nation and the people. The People’s Daily item added that in addition India feels that the rich Indus river and its tributaries flowing into Pakistan, originate in Kashmir and that a control over this would ensure its domination over the life-line of Pakistan’s water resources. Pointing out to the emergence of internal pressures in each side on the Kashmir issue over the years, the item assessed that as a result, a realistic concession or compromise on the issue appear difficult for both India and Pakistan. As the country’s constitution stipulates that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, New Delhi, irrespective of the party in power, cannot accept any formula for solving the Kashmir issue on the basis of a plebiscite. If it does so, the regime would come under the blame of selling the country’s territory. For Pakistan, helping the Kashmir Muslims on the accession issue is a policy evolved out of an internal consensus. The article remarked that any rethinking in this regard by Pakistan would make the country to face political dangers, particularly in respect of internal stability. Making a reference to measures taken by India and Pakistan like holding of elections to legitimize the regimes in their respective sides of Kashmir, the article said that in such a process, local forces and elements with vested interests have emerged in both sides of Kashmir, capable of putting pressure on India and Pakistan in the matter of making mutual concessions. Though the article is generally balanced, what is visible is a veiled criticism of India for its attempts to weaken Pakistan with an eye on gaining a leading position in the sub-continent as well as its stand on the plebiscite principle. The strategic perceptions of India and Pakistan on Kashmir and the assessment that both the sides may not be in a position to yield or compromise in the face of pressures likely from the vested interests in two Kashmirs, as brought out in the People’s Daily item, give an indication as to how the Chinese view the situation. Interestingly, the People’s Daily item made no mention of other factors relevant to India-Pakistan relations like the nuclear issue, the question of infiltration from across the border and Kargil conflict. This is also the case regarding Kashmir territory ceded by Pakistan to China

China aims to block India’s place in the sun

China aims to block India’s place in the sun
Posted by: John Elliott

It’s probably the tip of the iceberg of China’s ambitions to thwart India’s emergence as a significant economic and maybe diplomatic and military power. I’m referring to what might appear to some to be a crazy article on a Chinese strategic issues website, which claims that China could “dismember the so-called ‘Indian Union’ with one little move”.

The writer has argued that India’s national unity is weak and that China could exploit this by supporting separatist forces, such as those active in India’s north-east state of Assam, and split the country into 20 or 30 sovereign states.

“There cannot be two suns in the sky. China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously,” said the article. That almost certainly reflects Beijing thinking, even though the founder of the website has claimed the anonymous writer has no known government links.

The article was posted last Saturday and was publicised in India yesterday, prompting the Indian foreign ministry to say it appeared to be “an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions”. But what else could India say – especially since the article coincided with apparently cordial talks between the two countries on their border that has been disputed since China defeated India in a brief 1962 Himalayan war.

It is not unusual for China to fly such extreme kites. Philip Bowring of the Hong Kong-based Asia Sentinel website pointed out in a New York Times article two days ago that the arrest last week of two Rio Tinto executives in Beijing for alleged theft and corruption followed an internet article written by an official of China’s National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets, which accused Rio of commercial “spying” that had cost the nation $100bn in higher iron ore prices – an accusation says Bowring that “does not stand up to the most casual scrutiny of trade data”. Bowring then points out that “although the article is no longer on the website, its claims have not been corrected and its imprint on Chinese minds will not disappear”.

The imprint of the India internet article will also not disappear because, whatever the two countries may say officially, it sums up what has been happening for years.

As James Lamont and Amy Kazmin explained a month ago in an excellent FT round-up of the two countries’ tortuous relations, China has been encircling India by developing influence and outposts in Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka, and wants to usurp India’s major role in controlling the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

Pakistan, which China has armed and helped become a nuclear power, has been destabilising India first in Punjab (in the 1980s) and then in Kashmir. China has also for years been encouraging separatist forces in India’s north-eastern states, including Assam, and will no doubt use its growing clout in Myanmar – and Bangladesh – to increase those activities. In the future it could perhaps use its growing influence in Sri Lanka – where it is developing a naval base and advised the government in the recent defeat of the Tamil Tiger separatists – to cause unrest among linked Tamil communities in southern India.It has also strengthened its border claims – for example by opposing a $3bn Asian Development Bank aid project in Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian border state that China claims as “south Tibet”. And it tried to block international approval of the recent India-US nuclear deal with the US.

This is of course a dangerous game and sometimes India has to respond – recently for example by moving fighter jets to the China border and, of course, by meddling in other countries, as a comment by Abhyaan (below) explains.

I have heard a former senior Indian bureaucrat argue privately that China’s basic – and permanent – aim is to force India to focus on domestic issues and thus thwart it becoming a future international rival.

China, according to this view – which is surely correct – is determined to be the world’s sole superpower after America, and does not want that status to be upset by a strong and democratic India backed by the US and Europe. Its tactics have become more insistent in the past two years as it has become irritated by India’s growing links with the US, culminating in the nuclear deal.

Everything that China does in relation to India therefore has to be seen through that prism. India will not fragment into 20 or 30 pieces – it is far too unified for that – but there is no prospect of permanent peace and co-operation between the two countries because, as the internet writer has said, “there cannot be two suns in the sky”.

Kashmir & Jinnah

Kashmir & Jinnah-jagmohanSurprisingly, there is no mention of the Kashmir problem in Jaswant Singh’s book, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence, though this problem throws light on Jinnah’s mind and motivation, his well-crafted approach and his over-powering ambition to attain his objective even if it involved loss of innocent lives.
A couple of years before Partition, Jinnah had formulated his strategy with regard to the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. In the summer of 1944, he visited it, ostensibly for rest. But his real purpose was to establish contact with the two principal political outfits of the state — the National Conference, headed by Sheikh Abdullah, and the Muslim Conference, headed by Chowdhry Ghulam Abbas. He accepted invitations for receptions in his honour from both.
At the reception given by the National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah as well as Jinnah indulged in what may be called an “exercise in ambivalence”. But at the reception held by the Muslim Conference, Jinnah came out openly in its favour. He said: “The Muslims have one platform, one ‘Kalma’ and one God. I would request them to come under the banner of the Muslim Conference and fight for their rights”.
Jinnah also presided over the annual session of the Muslim Conference. In his address, he described Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference as a “band of gangsters”. Later, when this outfit launched its “Quit Kashmir” movement against the Maharaja, Jinnah labelled it “an agitation carried on by a few malcontents who were out to create disorderly conditions in the state”.
Jinnah urged the Muslims of the state to rally under the leadership of Chowdhry Ghulam Abbas and his Muslim Conference. This must have convinced Sheikh Abdullah that his political future would be bleak if Kashmir joined Pakistan. In his autobiography, Atish-e-Chinar, Sheikh has himself acknowledged the hostility which Jinnah displayed towards him: “At that time, Jinnah was intoxicated by power. He thought it beneath his dignity to talk to a poor and resourceless nation. When this equation of power went against him, he woke up in panic from his dream. But by this time, the snake had passed; only its line remained”.
At the time the Indian Independence Act was passed, the political stage of Kashmir was crowded with a variety of actors. The National Conference dominated the Valley but had a limited influence in Jammu and Ladakh. It had developed close rapport with the leaders of the Indian National Congress, particularly Jawaharlal Nehru. Then there was the Muslim Conference which had been gaining ground after Jinnah’s visit to the state. The Maharaja was yet another force. The relations between him on one hand and Sheikh Abdullah and Pandit Nehru on the other were marked by mutual distrust and dislike.
All these actors were soon to play their part in the first act of the tragic Kashmir drama. The Maharaja was indecisive. Jinnah was impatient. Pandit Nehru was caught between his idealism and the stark realities of the situation. Sheikh Abdullah, with streaks of megalomania embedded deep in the layers of his mind, was nursing the ambitions to carve out a virtual “Sheikhdom” for himself and his coterie.
Each one of these actors was pushed on the stage with illusions of his own importance and believed that the drama would end the way they desired. Consequently there was confusion and inconsistency. Mistakes were made and Kashmir soon found itself in the whirlpool of national and international controversy.
The first grave mistake was when Maharaja Hari Singh flirted with the idea of independence. Later Lord Mountbatten recalled: “The only trouble that could have been raised was by non-accession to either side, and this, unfortunately, was the very course followed by the Maharaja”.
Jinnah and his advisers, however, lost no time in working out a plan to secure possession of the state through subterfuge, subversion and infiltration. While on paper a “stand-still agreement”, operative from August 15, 1947, was executed by Pakistan with Jammu and Kashmir, in practice economic blockade was brought about, causing acute scarcity of essential commodities in the state.
On October 16, 1947 Dawn reported: “The Kashmir government is disintegrating. It has already suffered a loss of Rs 2 crores out of its total budget of Rs 4 crores. The tremendous inflation in the prices of necessities has created a feeling of feverish restlessness amongst the masses.”
Earlier, Jinnah had sent his private secretary to Kashmir to build an environment favourable to Pakistan. According to M.C. Mahajan, the then Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, “Communal-minded persons and Muslim divines were worked up and asked to request the Maharaja to give accession of the state to Pakistan”. According to the Tribune’s report of October 23, “West Punjab and Frontier Pakistani crusaders, masquerading as pleasure seekers, had poured into the Valley and, besides carrying on subtle poisonous propaganda, were organising ‘stabbers and fire-raiser’ squads. Menacingly, Jinnah caps were visible everywhere”.
Around the same time, military skirmishes all along the border were manipulated to disperse state forces, the total strength of which was only nine infantry battalions and two mountain batteries. From October 22, large-scale infiltration of armed tribesmen began.
They pillaged, plundered, raped and killed with impunity. Muzaffarabad and Baramulla soon fell to them. The latter was ruthlessly devastated. Of about 14,000 inhabitants, only 3,000 are believed to have survived. Jinnah did not utter a single word of condemnation against such beastly atrocities.
When, on October 27, Jinnah learnt that Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India and the Indian forces had landed in Srinagar, he realised that his plan could not be executed with the smoothness he had earlier visualised. Flabbergasted, he ordered General Gracey to march into Kashmir with Pakistani troops. But General Gracey expressed his inability to carry out the orders without the approval of General Auchinlek, the supreme commander. Auchinlek told Jinnah that in case of a war between the two dominions, all British officers would have to be first withdrawn.
Jinnah was left with no option but to cancel his orders. He asked for a meeting with Nehru and Mountbatten at Lahore. Being ill, Nehru could not go to Lahore on November 1, where the two Governor-Generals met. During the course of discussions, Jinnah proposed withdrawal of all forces — the Indian Army and the tribal invaders. When asked how anyone could guarantee that the latter would be withdrawn, Jinnah, according to Alan Campbell Johnson, the press adviser of Mountbatten, replied: “If you do this, I will call the whole thing off”. Unwittingly, he gave out that the entire invasion had been engineered by him.

* Jagmohan is a former governor of J&K and former Union minister

UNITED STATES OBSESSION WITH THE KASHMIR ISSUE: An Analysis

UNITED STATES OBSESSION WITH THE KASHMIR ISSUE: An Analysis

by Dr. Subhash Kapila

Pakistan excepted, it is the United States of America which stands out as the second nation most obsessed with the Kashmir issue. The American obsession with Kashmir has been persistent for the last fifty years or so.

Paradoxically, when Indian Governments and leaders of all hues have contested Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir, no Indian government or leaders have questioned the United States obsession. Similarly, the Indian media which goes to ridiculous lengths at over-analysis of Kashmir happenings and national security issues, has also not ventured to question the United States obsession with Kashmir.

In the last fifty years, the United States has applied different labels to the Kashmir issue from ‘self- determination’ to ‘aspiration of the Kashmiri people’ to being ‘a nuclear flash-point’ endangering international security’. The constantly changing stand of the United States is reflective of the fact that the United States stand on the Kashmir issue is flexible and can be said to be dependent on two factors at a given point in time: (1) Tenor of India-United States relations and; (2) The strategic utility of Pakistan for any intended United States strategic moves in South West Asia.

Kashmir or the Kashmir issue, therefore is of no concern to the United States, but only an expedient strategic tool for the region. However, since the United States cannot be ignored on any strategic issue, its rationale for its obsession with the Kashmir issue needs to be analysed. This analysis can best be done in reverse order by first analysing whether Kashmir does exist as an issue at all and then trying to understand United States motives.

Kashmir is an Obsolescent Issue: Kashmir has become an obsolescent issue as: (1) Pakistan has failed repeatedly to alter the status by resort to arms and proxy war (2) Pakistan has exhibited an incorrigible pattern of behaviour in reneging on all agreements (Simla Agreement 1972) and accords (Lahore Accord 1999) and UN resolutions (UN Resolution of 1948 and 1949 asking for withdrawal of Pakistan Army from Kashmir) which could have provided the basis for any amicable resolution of Pakistani concerns.

Pakistan and so also the United States have to come to grips with the harsh strategic reality that the Kashmir issue besides India’s legal inheritance, stands resolved through obsolescence itself.

This view stands corroborated by noted authority on conflict resolution and international politics: Prof K.J. Holsti. Prof. Holsti is an eminent Canadian scholar and once President of the International Studies Association.

United States Original Unequivocal Stand On Kashmir Accession: Warren Austin, the United States Representative to the United Nation asserted in the United Nations on February 4, 1948: “The external sovereignty of Kashmir is no longer under the control of the Maharaja…. With the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India…..”.

The above clearly indicates that the United States at the inception of the dispute and conflict generated by Pakistan was abundantly clear and had asserted the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India.

It can be said that this clear assertion was made before Cold War politics could take root in the Indian sub-continent and before Pakistan became an accomplice of US strategic designs.

Subsequent Changes in American Stand: In brief, a historical analysis of subsequent events would indicate that America’s stand on Kashmir kept changing in direct response to India’s stances and attitudes on international issues. The more important factors that came into play, singly or in combination were:

* United States State Department policies towards the Indian Sub-continent becoming overly dependent on the guidance of Sir Olaf Caroe, the British expert and friend of Pakistan.

* United States stand on Kashmir was being determined by Britain. Britain has never till today got over the loss as to why Kashmir did not accede to Pakistan despite, Britain’s determined efforts.

* The Cold War enlistment of Pakistan as a strategic ally for containment of the former Soviet Union.

* India’s policy of non-alignment which became an anathema for the United States and the West.

Broad pattern of American Involvement with Kashmir Issue: The American involvement with the Kashmir issue has been a constant. What has varied is the intensity and this corresponded to the prevailing security environment and USA-India-Pakistan equations. (1) The 1950s witnessed active involvement; (2) The 1960s and 1970s was an era of detached involvement; (3) The 1980s marked US promotion of dialogue.

The 1990s witnessed an intense anti-Indian manifestation on the Kashmir question under the Clinton Administration. This was chiefly due to the pro-Pakistan proclivities of the Asstt Secretary of State, Robin Raphael who on October 23, 1993 declared that: “We (USA) do not recognise the legal validity of Kashmir’s accession as meaning that Kashmir is for ever an integral part of India… The people of Kashmir have got to be consulted in any kind of final settlement of the Kashmir dispute.” It was a strange reversal from what Warren Austin had declared in 1948.

Clinton was later to make amends in the last year of his second administration on this count when Pakistan was berated by him on the Kashmir issue, specifically in terms of respect for the LOC. It must be noted that the proxy war in J&K by Pakistan intensified during the 1990s i.e. the era of United States permissiveness of Pakistan’s delinquency in Kashmir.

What has crept in US policies in the 1990s and being sustained by the present Bush Administration and particularly the Secretary of State, Colin Powell is “the aspirations of Kashmiri people”.

Kashmiri alienation and ‘Aspiration of the Kashmiri People’: Much stands recorded on this count and to make this analysis simpler, what needs to be re-counted is:

* Kashmiri alienation is a myth propagated by Pakistan, Western scholars and the Indian media elite. Alienation in the valley inspired by foreign Islamic Jehadi impulses is restricted and confined to the Kashmir valley. It cannot be applied to the other major and bigger regions of Jammu, Ladakh and non-Valley Muslim areas.

* If Kashmir alienation was so pronounced and claimed by the above sections, Pakistan would have been able to inflict a ‘Bangladesh’ on India. That this has not happened negates such assertions.

The United States and others need to understand that under the provisions of accession of princely states in 1947 under the British policies of ‘Transfer of Power’, Kashmir cannot be made an exception.

In any case, even Pakistan as the main protagonist and contender in Kashmir, would not permit any resolution, incorporating the American invented, 1990′s version of “aspirations of the Kashmiri people”.

United States Strategic Interest in Kashmir: Recent reports had indicated that the United States has strategic interests in Kashmir as an independent entity. An independent Kashmir would be wholly dependent on the United States and would facilitate establishing a permanent military presence of the United States.

This speculative report stands negated as establishing any United States military presence in an independent Kashmir would be costly, terrain-wise strategically unsound, and whose access to a land-locked entity would mean over-flying territories of other nations which may not permit so always.

The United States, therefore, has a strategic objective, of using Kashmir as a “pressure-point” in the conduct of its policies in the Indian sub-continent. Comparatively, use of Kashmir as a pressure-point is more India-intended and more India-relevant. This is the stark reality that all Indians, and especially the liberal fraternity, must note and recognise.

Conclusion: Contentious issues and disputes have a shelf-life and cannot be flogged ad-nauseum. This reality must dawn on the United States. More importantly it must manifest itself in American official pronouncements. Kashmir is an obsolescent issue now and needs to be given a dignified burial, which can best be done by the United States.

Emerging strategic realities in the Indian sub-continent would indicate in faint contours now and in more bold contours in the future, that the United States national interests would best be served in the Indian sub continent and the Indian Ocean region by a friendly India and not a “pressurised” India. A strongly emerging and assertive India becomes that much less “pressure -prone”.

(Dr. Subhash Kapila is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst.

Unmasking China

Unmasking China
By Bharat Verma
Issue: Vol 24.3 Jul-Sep 2009

China will launch an attack on India before 2012.

There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century. The recession that shut the Chinese exports shop is creating an unprecedented internal social unrest. In turn, the vice-like grip of the communists over the society stands severely threatened.

Unemployment is on the rise. The unofficial estimate stands at a whopping fourteen percent. Worldwide recession has put thirty million people out of jobs. Economic slowdown is depleting the foreign exchange reserves. Foreign investors are slowly shifting out. To create a domestic market, the massive dole of loans to individuals is turning out to be a nightmare. There appears to be a flight of capital in billions of dollars in the shape of diamond and gold bought in Hong Kong and shipped out towards end 2008.

The fear of losing control over the Chinese masses is forcing the communists to compulsorily install filtering software on new computers on sale to crush dissent on the Internet, even though it is impossible to censor in entirety the flow of information as witnessed recently in Tibet, Xinjiang and Iran.

The growing internal unrest is making Beijing jittery.

The external picture appears to be equally dismal. The unfolding Obama strategy seems to be scoring goals for democracy and freedom without firing a single shot. While Bush unwittingly united and arrayed against himself Islamic countries and radical Islam worldwide, Obama has put radical Islam in disarray by lowering the intra-societal temperature vis-à-vis America and the Muslim world. He deftly hints at democracy in his talk without directly threatening any group or country and the youth picks it up from there – as in Iran. With more and more Chinese citizens beginning to demand political freedom, the future of the communists is also becoming uncertain. The technological means available in the 21st century to spread democracy is definitely not conducive for the totalitarian regime in Beijing.

India’s chaotic but successful democracy is an eyesore for the authoritarian regime in Beijing. Unlike India, China is handicapped as it lacks the soft power – an essential ingredient to spread influence. This further adds fuel to the fire.

In addition, the growing irrelevance of Pakistan, their right hand that operates against India on their behest, is increasing the Chinese nervousness. Obama’s AF-PAK policy is primarily a PAK-AF policy. It has intelligently set the thief to catch the thief. The stated withdrawal from Iraq by America now allows it to concentrate its military surplus on the single front to successfully execute the mission. This surplus, in combination with other democratic forces, enables America to look deep into resource rich Central Asia, besides containing China’s expansionist ambitions.

To offset this adverse scenario, while overtly pretending to side with the West, the Chinese covertly ordered their other proxy, North Korea, to test underground nuclear explosions and carry out trials of missiles that threaten Japan and South Korea. The Chinese anxiety is understandable. Under Bush’s declared policy of being ‘a strategic competitor’ alongside the ‘axis of evil’, they shared a large strategic maneuverability with others of similar hues. However, Obama policies wisely deny such a luxury by reclaiming more and more international strategic space ceded by the previous administration.

The communists in China, therefore, need a military victory to unite the disillusioned citizenry behind them. This will assist in marketing the psychological perception that the 21st century belongs to China and assert their deep belief in the superiority of the Chinese race. To retain the communist party’s hold on power, it is essential to divert attention from the brewing internal dissent. In an autocratic system normally the only recipe to unite the citizenry is by mannpulating their nationalistic feelings. The easy method for Beijing to heighten the feeling of patriotism and forging national unity is to design a war with an adversary. They believe that this will help them to midwife the Chinese century. That is the end game rooted in the abiding conviction of the communists that the Chinese race is far superior to Nazi Germany and is destined to “Lord over the Earth”.

At present, there is no overall cost benefit ratio in integrating Taiwan by force with the mainland, since under the new dispensation in Taipei, the island is ‘behaving’ itself. Also, the American presence around the region is too strong for comfort. There is also the factor of Japan to be reckoned. Though Beijing is increasing its naval presence in the South China Sea to coerce into submission those opposing its claim on the Sprately Islands, at this point of time in history it will be unwise for recession-hit China to move against the Western interests, including Japan. Therefore, the most attractive option is to attack a soft target like India and forcibly occupy its territory in the Northeast.

Ideally, the Chinese believe that the east-wind should prevail over the west-wind. However, despite their imperial calculations of the past, they lag behind the West, particularly America, by many decades. Hence, they want the east-wind to at least prevail over the other east-wind, i.e., India, to ensure their dominance over Asia. Beijing’s cleverly raising the hackles on its fabricated dispute in Arunachal Pradesh to an alarming level, is the preparatory groundwork for imposing such a conflict on India. A sinking Pakistan will team up with China to teach India “the final lesson”.

The Chinese leadership wants to rally its population behind the communist rule. As it is, Beijing is already rattled, with its proxy Pakistan, now literally embroiled in a civil war, losing its sheen against India. Above all, it is worried over the growing alliance of India with the United States and the West, because the alliance has the potential to create a technologically superior counterpoise.

All these three concerns of the Chinese communists are best addressed by waging a war against pacifist India to achieve multiple strategic objectives. But India, otherwise the biggest challenge to the supremacy of China in Asia, is least prepared on ground to face the Chinese threat.

How will India repel the Chinese game plan? Will Indian leadership be able to take the heat of war? Have they laid the groundwork adequately to defend India? Is the Indian military equipped to face the two-front war by Beijing and Islamabad? Is the Indian Civil Administration geared to meet the internal security challenges that the external actors will sponsor simultaneously through their doctrine of unrestricted warfare?

The answers is an unequivocal ‘NO’. Pacifist India is not ready by a long shot either on the internal or the external front.

It is said that long time back, a king with an excellent military machine at his disposal could not stomach the violence involved in winning wars. So he renounced war in victory. This led to the rise of the pacifist philosophies. The state either refused to defend itself or neglected the instruments that could defend it.

Any ‘extreme’ is dangerous, as it tends to create imbalance in statecraft.

We saw that in the unjust unilateral aggression in Iraq. It diminished the American aura and recessed the economy. China’s despotic regime is another extreme, scared to permit political dissent. This will fuel an explosion worse than the Tiananmen Square. Despite the use of disproportionate force and the demographic invasion of Tibet, Beijing’s hold remains tenuous. Pakistan’s over-aggressive agenda in the name of jihad haunts it now to the point of fragmentation of the State.

Similarly, India’s pacifism is the other extreme. 26/11s will occur on a regular basis as it infects policy-making. Such extreme postures on either side invariably generate wars. Armed with an aggressive Wahabi philosophy, Pakistan, in cohort with China, wants to destabilize a pacifist India. India’s instruments of state steeped in pacifism are unable to rise to its defence.

In the past sixty years, the deep-rooted pacifism contributed to the Civil Administration, ceding control of forty per cent of the Union’s territory to the Maoists and ten percent to the insurgents, effecting a shrinking influence internally, as well in the ‘near abroad’.

India must rapidly shift out from its defeatist posture of pacifism to deter China. New Delhi’s stance should modify, not to aggression, but to a firm assertion in statecraft. The state must also exclusively retain the capability of intervention by use of force internally as well as externally. If it permits the non-state actors to develop this capability in competition, then the state will whither away. On the contrary, the state machinery should ensure a fast-paced development in the Red Corridor even it if has to hold Maoists hostage at gunpoint. The state’s firm and just intervention will dissolve the Maoist movement.

Keeping in view the imminent threat posed by China, the quickest way to swing out of pacifism to a state of assertion is by injecting military thinking in the Civil Administration to build the sinews. That will enormously increase the deliverables on ground – from Lalgarh to Tawang.

Bharat Verma, Editor Indian Defence Review.

Voice of Kashmiri Victims

Voice of Kashmiri Victims
Can you hear the cry or are you deaf?

1. An Appeal to world by Kashmiri Victims

Diabolical plan of Pakistan for the muslimization of Kashmir

Hindus blasted by PAK militants Images: india.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/4059.shtml	HINDUISM UNDER ATTACK! 400000 HINDU BRETHREN HAVE LOST THEIR HOMES IN KASHMIR! IT COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVED ITS WORTHLESSNESS .. HINDUS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTORS! HINDUS, LET US PREPARE OURSELVES TO FIGHT TERRORISTS AND INCREASE HINDU NUMBERS ONCE AGAIN IN KASHMIR !

2. Threats by Pakistanis

The Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) in the valley of Kashmir, irrespective of their age, sex, position status or situation became the prime target of the terrorists’ onslaught. They were warned and threatened, individually and collectively, through word of mouth, through insinuation and innuendo, through posters and press and over loud speakers installed in thousands of mosques all over the valley.

	J&K MUSLIM COMMONODOS FRONT:Leave Kashmir in one month otherwise danger to life and family. This is Last Warning. By Order Dist. Commander
	Seal of the Central Office of Allah TigersAllah-O-Akbar MUSLIMS AWAKE ALL INFIDELS VANISH JIHAD IS APPROACHING
	Terrorists’ propagandaCourtesy: http://www.kashmir-information.com/Appeal.html

[^Top]

3. Pakistan’s comment on terrorism

We are fighting in our own land. That is why it is not terrorism

- Ghulam Qadir, Finance Minister in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir

Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1577093.stm

4. The Islamic Brutality towards Hindus

• The Britannica mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar THE GREAT(???) ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar’s court historian.
• Afghan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms ’1,500,000 residents perished.’ ‘Thus,’ writes Vyas, ‘it is evident that the mountain range was named as Hindu Kush as a reminder to the future Hindu generations of the slaughter and slavery of Hindus during the Moslem conquests.’
• Over 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits have been forced to flee their homeland. Many Pandit men, women and children have been brutally murdered. About 70,000 still languish in makeshift refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi.
• Scores of temples in Kashmir have been desecrated, destroyed, looted, more than 900 educational institutions have been attacked by terrorists. Properties of Pandits have been vandalised, businesses destroyed or taken over, even hospitals have not been spared.
  [^Top]

5. Opinions of Kashmiri Muslims

In a letter to the Urdu daily, Jasarat, Amir Humza Qureshi, wrote: “It is a fact that people of this region (Northern Areas) are facing more human rights violations and whenever the official (Pakistani) media talks of repression in (Indian) Kashmir, people with strong hearts laugh at this hypocritical attitude, and people with weak hearts cry.”
“India is not perpetrating even one hundredth part of the repression that people spread over an area of 28,000 miles have been facing for the past 50 years. The Indian Government has given people all their fundamental human rights and in spite of that they are in a state of confrontation against the government. But the people of this region (Northern Areas) are far behind the rest of the world in matters of fundamental human rights, justice and economic development.”

This is in stark contrast to those in the Islamic movement that see Indian Kashmir as territory that needs to be liberated from the clutches of India, and see any retreat from confrontation with India (regarding Kashmir) as a betrayal of the “Islamic” cause. For instance, an opinion piece on khilafah.com argues: “Therefore, the only way forward for Kashmir is to liberate it physically and return the rule back to Islam. This is the verdict from Islam and as Muslims we are required to accept the judgement of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta�aala). The obligation lies on the Pakistani army to move and overthrow this illegitimate Pakistani regime (i.e. the Musharraf regime), and give its support (nussrah) to the sincere sons of this Ummah who are calling for the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah State which will work to reunite the land of Kashmir with the land of Pakistan and one day Insha-Allah, the whole of India. (Note that this view considers not just Kashmir as part of the “Islamic Khilafah State” but all of India as well.) Most recently, Altaf Qadiri, secretary general of the Hurriyat Conference’s Pakistan chapter was quoted by Pakistani newspaper Daily Times as having told reporters: “…The present government in PoK is worse than the Farooq Abdullah government (of Indian Kashmir)” (As reported on July 26, in the Indian Express).Note : Hurriyat Conference is widely perceived as being anti-Indian, and who for long was considered the main, even sole “legitimate” voice of the Kashmiri people ought to be the greatest indictment of Pakistan’s claim to be the greatest “upholder and champion of Kashmiri self-determination”. Contrary to all the rhetorical bombast, the Pakistani military is, in fact, one of the greatest hindrances to the realization of self-determination in multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious Jammu and Kashmir.

[^Top]

6. Hidden Facts of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir

• In 1991, POK’s ” Prime Minister”, Mumtaz Rathore was dismissed, arrested and flown by helicopter to a Pakistani prison.
• In the 1996 elections in POK, parties and candidates who wished to participate on the platform of independence and refused to sign the declaration calling POK�s accession to Pakistan an article of faith, were denied the right to field candidates.
• The oath of office for the President, PM, Minister, Speaker, MLA or MLC of POK clearly includes the following clause: “That I will remain loyal to the country (Pakistan) and the cause of accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan”.
• But such oaths are completely one-sided since the residents of POK are given no rights in Pakistan – they may neither vote in Pakistan’s general elections, nor take their grievances to the Pakistani Supreme Court. Nor may they hold any public office in Pakistan. Nor do they have any rights on the Pakistan National Budget. But even those who go along with such insulting inequities are then treated shabbily by the Pakistan authorities. After the elections in June 1996, the “President” of POK, Sikander Hayat Khan, was removed through a voice vote in the Assembly.
• Shaukat Ali Kashmiri, chairman of the United Kashmir People’s National Party (UKPNP) based in POK, was picked up by men from the Pakistani security forces near Bagh and reportedly tortured. After his release, Shaukat Ali Kashmiri (who has now taken refuge in Switzerland) condemned the killing of innocent villagers by the Pakistan-backed terrorists, observing: “What kind of freedom struggle is that which kills its own people. We cannot continue like this where the foreign mercenaries continue to kill the local inhabitants”. He also criticized the Pakistan Government for detaining several leaders of Balwaristan, Gilgit and PoK for speaking against Gen Pervez Musharraf.
• Young cadres were incited to cross over to Pakistan and Pakistan-held Kashmir so as to receive arms training and carry out the diabolical plan for the muslimization of Kashmir as a prelude to its secession from secular democratic India.
• Fear loomed large and the terrorist shadow stalked educational markets and other public places wherever the Kashmiri Pandits had a representation, however small. They were identified and denounced;
• Hit lists were exhibited on electric poles, office doors and entries to numerous institutions; and the public at large was exhorted to watch them and hound them out.
• They were followed and kidnapped from their homes and places of work and interrogated and tortured.
• A spree of killings of the intellectuals of the community started.
• This was followed by indiscriminate gunning down, hanging, dismembering, tying with grenades and blasting into pieces, skinning, burning and sawing alive the members of this ethnic minority of all walks of life.
• Many of the victims after being butchered were thrown into streets as exhibits for everybody to get terrorised. The bereaved were not permitted to mourn the dead and perform the last rites. Those who dared to attend the funeral were earmarked for reprisals. Molestation and rape was the order of the day.
  [^Top]

7. Concluding Remarks :

1. There are evidences that the Muslims in the Pakistan illegally Occupied Kashmir are Suffering more than those in India.
2. Maximum number of Muslims in India and POK are in favour of the more benevolent Indian Rule.
3. No country can have the right to annexe another Country’s territory under pretext of Religious or Communal Majority alone.
4. In terms of Religious Majority, Pakistan itself has less muslims than in India. Hence, India should ideally annexe the whole of Pakistan if the logic of “Religious majority” holds good.
5. Hindus in Kashmir are getting killed for no fault of their’s by Islamic Jihadis from Pakistan.

[^Top]

8. The most important Conclusions :

1. The people of India can no longer depend upon the Government of India to free Kashmir once and for all from Islamic Terrorism.
2. It has become certain over the years that to rid Kashmir of Terrorism, people of India, especially Hindus, will have to themselves lift up the Shivadhanushya of Destruction of terrorists with the blessings of Saints and Deities.

If you feel you are NOT Blind, please participate in protest drive, This is first step… Please spread the message to as many people as possible. Awareness shall definately make the difference.