Return of Migrants : Kashmir is under the control of India…………………

Return of Migrants : Kashmir is under the control of India………………… Daya Sagar Sharma

A Look Through the Mist

The upper reaches of areas of Doda, {Bhaderwa/ Kishtwar/ Ramban } Rajouri, Poonch, Udhampur, Kathua too are affected by militancy as are areas like Baramulla, Kupwara , Anantnag, The muslim population in these areas too is reasonable large. The people are poor and good number is Hindu in these areas. So far the official data as is available does not indicate appreciable displacement / migration from areas outside Kashmir valley though there have been many brutal killing and rape cases there. Under the circumstances all Kashmiri { Valley }Muslims are being misunderstood by the other world as being fully involved in pushing out Kashmiri Hindus from valley. Where as the truth is not so. Delay is causing a great damage to the good will of Kashmiri Muslims as well as the ties between Hindu & Muslim could weaken more out of ignorance. Though the number of Kashmiri Migrant families that actually migrated from 1989 to 1991 { majority being Kashmiri Hindu …Pundits } from Kashmir valley is not known , the Kashmiri Pundit families who have got them selves registered as Kashmiri migrants { some also call their self as internally displaced } may be over 50000. The number of muslims / Sikhs / non Kashmiri speaking Hindu may be hardly 2 to 3 percent of this number. So when we refer to the return of Kashmir Migrants to Kashmir valley , it is taken as with reference to return of Kashmiri Hindu to Kashmir Valley { that too particularly Kashmiri pundits }. Local Hindu from Kashmir Valley is out for over 20 years. It makes the out side world think convincingly that India has some serious problem in J&K. The question that more disturbs is that when 500000 to 600000 Indian tourists { nearly 90 percent non muslims } can visit Kashmir Valley for leisure and vacations { including honeymooning } every year over a period of 4 months , why can not the safe return of Kashmiri migrants be made possible ?. In case some one contests that since the majority community { muslims } of Kashmir is not for India the Kashmiri Pundits so are not safe in valley. In case for argument sake it is accepted then the another question that rises is that how are 500000 to 600000 Indian tourists { nearly over 90 percent non muslims } are visiting Kashmir Valley for leisure and vacations { including honeymooning } every year over a period of 4 months ? Some KP migrants do argue that the tourist Indians visit Kashmir forgetting their identity ? This way one would even conclude that 100 crore “Indians are migrants” as regards Kashmir Valley . This is not a convincing plea. Rather it more questions the seriousness of New Delhi in cooling down the turmoil in JK. The foreign countries under the circumstances are getting the impressions that {i} it is only Kashmir valley that is disturbed and Kashmiri majority { muslims } had not accepted 1947 accession {ii} it is only Kashmiri Hindu { Pundits } who express rights over the land of Kashmir valley and oppose the separatist movement {iii}Jammu and Kashmir State { Particularly Kashmir region }is under the influence of separatist and externally sponsored terrorist activities {iv} the GOI has no control worth providing socio economic security to the Kashmiri Hindu or those who dare profess Indian nationality in Kashmir. Where as the facts are surely not like this. Yes one could say that New Delhi has not so far set the return of Kashmiri Hindu to valley as its first priority. No doubt as regards the economic and social support to Kashmiri Migrants Government of India has been reasonably considerate in sensing the miseries of those Kashmiri Pandits who had to run away from Kashmir Province in 1989/1990. Some of them still staying in the tents and one room tentaments provided by the J&K Government at Nagrota, Muthi, Mishriwala and Roopnagar near Jammu. POJK is under the control of Pakistan but Kashmir is under the control of India. POJK Displaced persons were displaced in 1947 from Pakistan Controlled parts of Kashmir { Jammu and Kashmir }.Sensitizing the conditions for socio economic return of POK Displaced Persons does have international compulsion . But Kashmiri migrants are away from their own homes in Indian controlled territories of the day. Government of India proposed { 2004/2005 } to add one more pacca room to the one room accommodation already provided to migrants and laying foundations of multi storey pucca apartments in 2007 for Kashmiri Migrants outside Valley have surely been wrong signals { indirectly strengthening terrorist / separatist cause signaling that GOI is not hopeful for ensuring the safe return of Kashmiri Hindu to the Valley even after 20 years } to the World community. Kashmiri kids who were in primary class in 1989 are now { 2009 } the thinking youth force of Kashmir valley. The way time has been lost has made many of them to start thinking of some dispute regarding their Nationality. Non Hindu Kashmiri is regularly so mis informed after 1989 about the intentions of Bharat Sarkar that they do not much believe in confidence building efforts of the government officials as well as the security forces . They doubt the trueness of government loyalists. The local Kashmiries are getting more and more confused ; more and more misinformed. Those who are staying back in Kashmir valley and are in teens / twenties this day have very less positive information about Kashmir being India. Enough rearing grounds have emerged for anti India forces ( Pakistan, foreign mercenaries and local insurgent/ Pakistan loyalists) to win confidence/ sympathies against India. The socio political environment in J&K is deteriorating. Any more delay for return of Hindu migrants would dismantle the communal matrix beyond normal reconstruction. The Kashmiri Hindu migrant kids of 1989/90 too are the youth of the day. They too carry horrifying memories of 1989/1990 when their parents had to run away carrying what ever they could pick. All these years it is the Kashmiri Pundit who has conducted more of the seminars, workshops, conventions on the subject of Migration from Kashmir valley . Surely Pundits were forced by the circumstances to paint the secularism of Kashmiri muslims that rough {may be were under compulsions to speak not good about the secular credentials Kashmiri Muslims }. Under the present circumstances they will not find it easy to live with the post 1990 Muslim Community. Unless assured of ultimate social security and economic benefits .Some migrant leadership may not feel the prevailing security conditions worth taking risk of losing the benefits in education, business , jobs and sympathies they are presently getting as migrants. The response the Prime Ministers package for the Kashmiri Migrants has got could make some to even infer that the Kashmiri Migrants too do not appear to be that much interested for return to Kashmir. Migration has not taken place due to economic reasons and hence government of India should not hope possible return in economic packages only. There fore some hard decision will have to be taken. Government of India must set return of migrants to Kashmir Valley as priority number one. Delay in their return is causing more and more damage to the people of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole..

 ( * Daya Sagar is a social activist and senior coloumnist on Kashmir affairs dayasagr at yahoo.co.uk }

India Snubs OIC’S Kashmir Resolution

India Snubs OIC’S kashmir Resolution

ANI

NEW DELHI – India has rebuffed OIC resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir passed by 36th session of the Council of Ministers in Damascus, Syria recently.

 

The 57-member grouping has made a direct reference to the last year Amarnath land row in Jammu and Kashmir.

A statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs said: “We note with regret that the OIC has chosen to comment on India’s internal affairs during the 36th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers held in Syria on 23rd – 25th May 2009. The OIC has no locus standi on India’s internal affairs”.

The OIC in its resolution expressed concern over use of force against the economic blockade during the Amarnath land row agitation and have also regretted that following the Mumbai incident Indian government have put a pause on the composite dialogue.

The Islamic conglomerate also urged India to resume composite dialogue.

India also took umbrage over OIC calling catastrophic 26/11 Mumbai attack as merely an incident.

The MEA statement said: “We also note with dismay that in the resolution adopted, the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November, 2008, has been referred to as a mere “incident.”

For almost two decades, the OIC has been has been advocating the issue of self-determination and resolution of Kashmir in accordance with the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949, but this time it went a step further by directly referring to the Amarnath Land row in its resolutions.

Pakistan, which is a member of this group, has vociferously raised issues pertaining to Kashmir at this forum. By Naveen Kapoor (ANI)

PoK leaders want merger with India

PoK leaders want merger with India
By d-sector Team

Fast changing geo-political equations have made India extend its helping hand to political groups in PoK who have now been openly seeking New Delhi’s help in their struggle for survival and freedom.

While all and sundry in India are criticising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for bringing Balochistan on to the agenda of Indo-Pak bi-lateral talks, an international seminar organised in New Delhi has once again brought to the fore the approach-avoidance conflict India faces in dealing with the expectations of disenchanted communities from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and frontier regions.

Till recently India did not want to be seen as meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs, but several political groups in PoK have now been openly seeking New Delhi’s help in their struggle for freedom, dignity and human rights, and now it seems New Delhi is willing to extend a helping hand to the distressed Karakoram communities. India now claims “legitimate interest in territories and peoples that are part of India but under illegal occupation, both to the west as well as to the east”.

These groups say that since India continues to consider the whole of Kashmir, including PoK, as its own territory, it is its duty to protect the local communities against Pakistan, a foreign aggressor for them.

Some of these political leaders and intellectuals from areas around Gilgit and Baltistan in PoK, referred to as Northern Areas by Pakistan, travelled to New Delhi to participate in the seminar on ‘Society, Culture and Politics in the Karakoram Himalayas’. The seminar was dominated by tales of discrimination and persecution of the local people in these areas by Pakistan’s civilian and military establishment.

“I am surprised that India has no concern about what is happening in Gilgit and Baltistan. Pakistan has been openly supporting and encouraging militants in Indian Kashmir and New Delhi doesn’t even want to keep contact with areas that are officially still a part of its own territory,” said Abdul Hamid Khan, chairman of Balawaristan National Front, a political party whose objective is to gain independence from Pakistan. Northern Areas are historically known as Balawaristan.

Khan, like most other political leaders from the region, lives in exile in Europe. He said the Indian position was even more surprising considering the fact that most political formations in the area were now open to a merger with India.

“Even an independent Balawaristan is in larger interest of India as it would not support terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir,” he said.

Shaukat Kashmiri, leader of the United Kashmir National People’s Party, one of the largest political formations in the region, also spoke about a reunification with India. Kashmiri, who is chased by the ISI, has been operating out of Switzerland for the past few years.

Though the leaders from PoK complained about the indifference India shows to their concerns, few former diplomats, army officials and intellectuals of India actively participated in the seminar.

Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change Shyam Saran made the inaugural address, in which he said, “The destinies of the Karakoram communities and the vision of India as a successful and inclusive plurality are in a sense, linked more than symbolically. We have a duty to be engaged more actively in the survival and I would venture to say, revival of these challenged communities.”

Evidently India is reaching out to the communities in the Karakoram areas – stretching from Swat, Buner, Waziristan, Balochistan and Xinjiang to Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan in the Northern Areas to Jammu & Kashmir. Significantly, most of these areas lie within the territory of the erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir state.

India’s effort in getting together leaders from these regions is significant considering the rising unrest in several parts of Pakistan’s frontier regions as a result of the stresses of extremism and terrorism. For the first time, India is appealing to these indigenous mountain cultures, regardless of their religion, to bond as communities, rather than as parts of countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and China.

“It is our collective responsibility to preserve and to promote this varied culture, created by people who have a long history, settled existence and outstanding contributions to civilisation. India feels very much a part of this civilisational network which has enriched its own culture,” Saran said.

“In its interaction with Pakistan on Jammu & Kashmir, India has always insisted that all cross-LoC links and potential projects for cooperation in specific areas must cover the entire erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan. Any consultative mechanism across the LoC must be between self-governing and representative entities and that, too, includes Gilgit and Baltistan,” he added.

–

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

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.

Kashmir: The origins of the dispute

Kashmir: The origins of the dispute Current tensions go back decades By Victoria Schofield, author of Kashmir in Conflict

 In August 1947 when the Indian subcontinent became independent from Britain, all the rulers of the 565 princely states, whose lands comprised two-fifths of India and a population 99 million, had to decide which of the two new dominions to join, India or Pakistan. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, whose state was situated between the two new countries, could not decide which country to join. He was Hindu, his population was predominantly Muslim. He therefore did nothing. Instead he signed a “standstill” agreement with Pakistan in order that services such as trade, travel and communication would be uninterrupted. India did not sign a similar agreement. Law and order In October 1947, Pashtun tribesmen from Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province invaded Kashmir. There had been persistent reports of communal violence against Muslims in the state and, supported by the Pakistani Government, they were eager to precipitate its accession to Pakistan. Mountbatten favoured Kashmir’s temporary accession to India Troubled by the increasing deterioration in law and order and by earlier raids, culminating in the invasion of the tribesmen, the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, requested armed assistance from India. The then Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten, believed the developing situation would be less explosive if the state were to accede to India, on the understanding that this would only be temporary prior to “a referendum, plebiscite, election”. According to the terms of the Instrument of Accession, India’s jurisdiction was to extend to external affairs, defence and communications. Troops airlifted Exactly when Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession has been hotly debated for over 50 years. Nehru’s representative met the ruler of Kashmir Official Indian accounts state that in the early hours of the morning of 26 October, Hari Singh fled from Srinagar, arriving in Jammu later in the day, where he was met by V P Menon, representative of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and signed the Instrument of Accession. On the morning of 27 October, Indian troops were airlifted into Srinagar. Recent research, from British sources, has indicated that Hari Singh did not reach Jammu until the evening of 26 October and that, due to poor flying conditions, V P Menon was unable to get to Jammu until the morning of 27 October , by which time Indian troops were already arriving in Srinagar. In order to support the thesis that the Maharaja acceded before Indian troops landed, Indian sources have now suggested that Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession before he left Srinagar but that it was not made public until later. This was because Hari Singh had not yet agreed to include the Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah, in his future government. To date no authentic original document has been made available. Pakistan immediately contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India when the standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force. Pakistanis also argued that because Hari Singh fled from the valley of Kashmir , he was not in control of his state and therefore not in a position to take a decision on behalf of his people. ‘Bad faith’ In the context of Pakistan’s claim that there is a dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the accession issue forms a significant aspect of their argument. By stating that the Instrument of Accession was signed on 26 October, when it clearly was not, Pakistan believes that India has not shown good faith and consequently that this invalidates the Instrument of Accession. Indians argue, however, that regardless of the discrepancies over timing, the Maharaja did choose to accede to India and he was not under duress. On the basis of his accession, India claims ownership of the entire state which includes the approximately one-third of the territory currently administered by Pakistan. In 1949 Maharaja Hari Singh was obliged by the Government of India to leave the state and hand over the government to Sheikh Abdullah. He died in Bombay in 1962.

Text of Memorandum submitted by 14 Muslim leaders of India

to Dr. Frank P. Graham, United Nations Representative

14 August, 1951

Reproduced from:
Converted Kashmir – Memorial of Mistakes
A Bitter Saga of Religious Conversion
Author: Narender Sehgal
Utpal Publications, 1994

It is a remarkable fact that, while the Security Council and its various agencies have devoted so much time to the study of the Kashmir dispute and made various suggestions for its resolution, none of them has tried to ascertain the views of the Indian Muslims nor the possible effect of any hasty step in Kashmir, however well-intentioned, on the interests and well- being of the Indian Muslims. We are convinced that no lasting solution for the problem can be found unless the position of Muslims in Indian society is clearly understood.

Supporters of the idea of Pakistan, before this subcontinent was partitioned, discouraged any attempt to define Pakistan clearly and did little to anticipate the conflicting problems which were bound to arise as a result of the advocacy of the two-nation theory. The concept of Pakistan, therefore, became an emotional slogan with little rationale content. It never occurred to the Muslim League or its leaders that if a minority was not prepared to live with a majority on the sub- continent, how could the majority be expected to tolerate the minority.

It is, therefore, small wonder that the result of partition has been disastrous to Muslims. In undivided India, their strength lay about 100 million. Partition split up the Muslim people, confining them to the three isolated regions. Thus, Muslims number 25 million in Western Pakistan, 35 million to 40 million in India, and the rest in Eastern Pakistan. A single undivided community has been broken into three fragments, each faced with its own problems.

Pakistan was not created on a religious basis. If it had been, our fate as well as the fate of other minorities would have been settled at that time. Nor would the division of the sub- continent for reasons of religion have left large minorities in India or Pakistan.

This merely illustrates what we have said above, that the concept of Pakistan was vague, obscure, and never clearly defined, nor its likely consequences foreseen by the Muslim League, even when some of these should have been obvious.

When the partition took place, Muslims in India were left in the lurch by the Muslim League and its leaders. Most of them departed to Pakistan and a few who stayed behind stayed long enough to wind up their affairs and dispose of their property. Those who went over to Pakistan left a large number of relations and friends behind.

Having brought about a division of the country, Pakistan leaders proclaimed that they would convert Pakistan into a land where people would live a life according to the tenets of Islam. This created nervousness and alarm among the minorities living in Pakistan. Not satisfied with this, Pakistan went further and announced again and again their determination to protect and safeguard the interests of Muslims in India. This naturally aroused suspicion amongst the Hindus against us and our loyalty to India was questioned.

Pakistan had made our position weaker by driving out Hindus from Western Pakistan in utter disregard of the consequences of such a policy to us and our welfare. A similar process is in question in Eastern Pakistan from which Hindus are coming over to India in a large and large number.

If the Hindus are not welcome in Pakistan, how can we, in all fairness, expect Muslims to be welcomed in India ? Such a policy must inevitably, as the past has already shown, result in the uprooting of Muslims in this country and their migration to Pakistan where, as it became clear last year, they are no longer welcome, lest their influx should destroy Pakistan’s economy.

Neither some of the Muslims who did migrate to Pakistan after partition, and following the widespread bloodshed and conflict on both sides of the Indo-Pakistan border in the north- west, have been able to find a happy asylum in what they had been told would be their homeland. Consequently some of them have had to return to India, e.g Meos who are now being rehabilitated in their former areas.

If we are living honorably in India today, it is certainly not due to Pakistan which, if anything, has by her policy and action weakened our pooition.

The credit goes to the broadminded leadership of India, to Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to the traditions of tolerance in this country and to the Constitution which ensures equal rights to all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion caste, creed, colour or sex.

We, therefore, feel that, tragically as Muslims were misled by the Muslim League and subsquently by Pakistan and the unnecessary suffering which we and our Hindu brethren have to go through in Pakistan and in India since partition, we must be given an opportunity to settle down to a life of tolerance and understanding to the mutual benefit of Hindus and Muslims in our country – if only Pakistan would let us do it. To us it is a matter of no smaller onsequence.

Despite continuous provocations, first from the Muslim League and since then from Pakistan, the Hindu majority in India has not thrown us or members of other minorities out of Civil Services, Armed Forces, the judiciary, trade, commerce, business and industry. There are Muslim Ministers in the Union and State cabinets, Muslim Governors, Muslim Ambassadors, representing India in foreign countries, fully enjoying the confidence of the Indian nation, Muslim members in Parliament and state legislatures, Muslim judges serving on the Supreme Court and High Courts, high-ranking officers in the Armed Foroes and the Civil services, including the police. Muslims have large landed estates, run big business and commercial houses in various parts of the country, notably in Bombay and Calcutta, have their shares in industrial production and enterprise in export and import trade. Our famous sacred shrines and places of cultural interest are mostly in India.

Not that our lot is certainly happy. We wish some of the state Governments showed a little greater sympathy to us in the field of education and employment. Nevertheless, we feel we have an honourable place in India. Under the law of the land, our religious and cultural life is protected and we shall share in the opportunities open to all citizens to ensure progress for the people of this country.

It is, therefore, clear that our interest and welfare do not coincide with Pakistan’s conception of the welfare and interests of Muslims in Pakistan.

This is clear from Pakistan’s attitude towards Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir, first, on the ground of the majority of the State’s people being Muslims and, secondly, on the ground, of the state being essential to its economy and defence. To achieve its objective it has been threatening to launch “Jehad” against Kashmir in India.

It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who like the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the interest of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State. In its oft-proclaimed anxiety to rescue the 3 million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus in the State, Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of 40 million Muslims in India – a strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow- Muslims. Our misguided brothers in Pakistan do not realise that if Muslims in Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus in Kashmir why should not Hindus, sooner or later, retaliate against Muslims in India.

Does Pakistan seriously think that it could give us any help if such an emergency arose or that we would deserve any help thanks to its own follies ? It is incapable of providing room and livelihood to the 40 million Muslims of India, should they migrate to Pakistan. Yet its policy and action, if not changed soon, may well produce the result which it dreads.

We are convinced that India will never attack our interests. First of all, it would be contrary to the spirit animating the political movement in this country. Secondly, it would be opposed to the Constitution and to the sincere leadership of the Prime Minister. Thirdly, India by committing such a folly would be playing straight into the hands of Pakistan.

We wish we were equally convinced of the soundness of Pakistan’s policy. So completely oblivious is it of our present problems and of our future that it is willing to sell us into slavery – if only it can secure Kashmir.

It ignores the fact that Muslims in Kashmir may also have a point of view of their own, that there is a democratic movement with a democratic leadership in the State, both inspired by the progress of a broad minded, secular, democratic movement in India and both naturally being in sympathy with India. Otherwise, the Muslim raiders should have been welcomed with open arms by the Muslims of the State when the invasion took place in 1947.

Persistent propaganda about “Jehad” is intended, among other things, to inflame religious passions in this country. For it would, of course, be in Pakistan’s interests to promote communal rioting in India to show to Kashmiri Muslims how they can find security only in Pakistan. Such a policy, however, can only bring untold misery and suffering to India and Pakistan generally and to Indian Muslims particularly.

Pakistan never tires of asserting that it is determined to protect the interests of Muslims in Kashmir and India. Why does not Pakistan express the same concern for Pathans who are fighting for Pakhtoonistan, an independent homeland of their own ? The freedom-loving Pathans under the leadership of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Dr. Khan Sahib, both nurtured in the traditions of democratic tolerance of the Indian National Congress, are being subjected to political repression of the worst possible kind by their Muslim brethren in power in Pakistan and in the NWFP. Contradictory as Pakistan’s policy generally is, it is no surprise to us that while it insists on a fair and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir, it denies a fair and impartial plebiscite to Pathans.

Pakistan’s policy in general and her attitude towards Kashmir is particular thus tend to create conditions in this cauntry which in the long run can only bring to us Muslims widespread suffering and destruction. Its policy prevents us from settling down, from being honourable citizens of a State, free from suspicion of our fellow-countrymen and adapting ourselves to changing conditions to promote the interests and welfare of India. Its sabre-rattling interferes with its own economy and ours. It expects us to be layal to it despite its importance to give us any protection, believing at the same time that we can still claim all the rights of citizenship in a secular democracy.

In the event of a war, it is extremely doubtful whether it will be able to protect the Muslims of East Bengal who are completely cut off from Western Pakistan. Are the Muslims of India and Eastern Pakistan who sacrifice themselves completely to enable the 25 million Muslims in Western Pakistan to embark upon mad, self-destructive and adventures?

We should, therefore, like to impress upon you with all the emphasis at our command that Pakistan’s policy towards Kashmir is fraught with the gravest peril to the 40 million Muslims of India. If the Security Council is really interested in peace human brotherhood, and international understanding, it should heed this warning while there is still time.

Dr. Zakir Hussain
(Vice Chancellor Aligarh University)

Sir Sultan Ahmed
(Former Member of Governor General’s Executive Council)

Sir Mohd. Ahmed Syed Khan
(Nawab of Chhatari, former acting
Governor of United Provinces and
Prime Minister of Hyderabad)

Sir Mohd. Usman
(Former member of Governor
General’s Executive council and
acting Governor of Madras)

Sir Iqbal Ahmed
(Former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court)

Sir Fazal Rahimtoola
(Former Sheriff of Bombay)

Maulana Hafz-ur-Rehman M.P.
Col. B.H. Zaidi M.P.

Nawab Zain Yar Jung
(Minister Gcvernment of Hyderabad)

A.K. Kawaja
(Former President of Muslim Majlis)

T.M. Zarif
(General Secretary West Bengal Bohra Community)

Shariat Law may soon implemented in POK

Shariat Law may soon implemented in POK

Arif Shahid who belongs to Koyain Khaigla, a far flung area of Pakistan occupied Kashmir says that Pakistan has captured PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan and condemn the role and policy of Pakistan. He has been struggling for these two regions under the banner of Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Front (JKNLF) as its secretary general.
In an exclusive interview to R C GANJOO he expressed his views on the current situation in Pakistan and its impact in these regions.

Q:Since Pakistan is once again facing political crisis, what impact will it have on Pakistan occupied (PoK) and Gilgit-baltistan regions which have been remained under the thumb of Pakistani rulers. And if Pakistan is again ruled by its army what would be fate of these two regions.

ARIF SHAHID – Pakistan may be at any square, it will continue to treat Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) as its colonies as has been handling before. However, as the result of present crisis, it may also change the fate of PoK and GB, but chances seem to be bleak.
In case of army rule once again in Pakistan definitely PoK shall also be placed under some military commander as chief executive and GB zone shall be under martial law as was done by dictator the then army president Zia-ul-Haq. But I think this time army rule shall also take toll of Pakistan itself, because the people of Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP shall prefer to announce their own sovereignty instead of being ruled by Punjabi military again and again. Let us hope something good emerges for these unfortunate people of small provinces in Pakistan this time.

Q:Do you think Swat after getting Islamic rule ( Shariat Law) implemented has further strengthen the morale of fundamentalist forces. Will these forces extend their agenda in your regions also?

ARIF SHAHID: Yes, since the ego of Islamic fundamentalists and extremists is pampered and inflated due to their victory over Pakistan military in Swat, they shall certainly try to expand their infrastructure and activities in other areas of Pakistan as well, although their presence is everywhere in Pakistan, but in unstable organisational structure. As far as PoK is concerned, these forces are already in much organized manner under the patronage of Pakistan military and its agencies. They consider PoK as the future battle ground where Pakistan military establishment shall continue to support them till the issue of PoK is settled in favour of Pakistan. Moreover, the brand of ‘shariat’ they have introduced in Swat already exists in PoK as the ‘Qazis’ sit beside the judges in courts. This sort of judicial structure is helpful to them, and they shall get benefit out of it in future.
Q: What future course Talibans are going to take

ARIF SHAHID: It is evident that some circle in the establishment is having strong links with Taliban. They formed Taliban and trained them but now they become not only dangerous for them but for whole civilized world. Since Pakistan has provided a safe heaven to Talibans and they will turn the world into hell for whole mankind. If they succeeded to implement their own branded shape of Islam in Malakand ultimately they will demand same for Panjab , Sindh and Balouchistan. Sofi Muhammad has already announced that democracy is un-Islamic and Islamic System has having no boundaries. That’s why India has said that extremism is not the only issue of Pakistan but it is a Global Issue.
During the cold war these Islamic extremists were claiming that communism is against Islam. They forbade Pakistani youths for studying in former Soviet Union and China. Surprisingly the prominent leader of this school of thoughts Qazi Hussain Ahmed recently visited China and signed an agreement of friendship with communist party of China. This is a unique development in the politics of the region. And this sign of new change is for what, is to be watched .

Q:What lesson separatists in Jammu and Kashmir should learn from the unpleasant emerging situation in Pakistan and its impact in PoK and G.B regions?
ARIF SHAHID – All the people of Jammu Kashmir who have been romantically attached to Pakistan and have been engaged in proxy war on behalf of Pakistan instead of fighting for their own independence should be realistic enough now at least. They should think that a country which has already been dismembered due to malfunctioning and maladministration, especially due to dictatorship and injustice, and remaining part is again at the verge of disintegration due to the same reasons, deserves to be considered as a comfortable refuge for any people? I think people of all the parts of Jammu Kashmir must have learnt lesson by now.
The expression of solidarity has still been continuing in the Valley of Kashmir since 1988 in one way or the other as a result of that they have lost some 80 thousand precious lives. How much more price they shall have to pay, God knows! In addition to that there are so many historical facts which can expose Pakistan for her expression of solidarity with Kashmiris. Let us see what is the state of her solidarity with both the regions the so called ‘Azad Kashmir’ ( POK) and GB, which are under her direct control. Jammu and Laddakh regions are fortunate enough that they are out of limits of Pakistan’s solidarity’s for being non-Muslim majority

Q: As you said that people in PoK and G.B regions have been suffering since 1947 under the illegal occupation of Pakistan. Are the people prepared to join neighbouring country to get rid of slavery?

ARIF SHAHID –The sane and conscious people of Jammu Kashmir have always been struggling for their freedom to become a secular and democratic entity in a reunified Jammu and Kashmir. But if it is not possible at any cost. They shall have to think about feasible and viable alternatives. Certainly, they shall never think to join a country which is habitual of military rule, dictatorship, feudalism, fundamentalism and religious oppression.
I think that the Muslim majority of PoK shall have to reconsider its priorities as against the past.
Courtsy: bharat khabar

Kashmir and Tibet

Kashmir and Tibet
A PRAGMATIC, PEOPLE ORIENTED, SOLUTION
A strategy paper proposing autonomy to Kashmir and Tibet,
under the joint suzerainty of neighbouring nations

 

The problems in South Asia started with the rejection of Gandhi. Gandhi was totally opposed to partition on the ground that the Hindu and Muslim communities are deeply interwoven in the social fabric of the sub-continent. Today, India has more Muslims than there are in Pakistan. Further, the oppression of the Muslims of Sindh, Baluchistan and North East Pakistan, and the breaking away of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh, clearly show the internal contradictions of partition on grounds of religion.
 
Gandhi wanted a true democracy in which power flows upward from the people. Ignoring Gandhi, a centralised polity, based on exploitative colonial Institutions, was installed. The desire to centralise power led to the partition of India. Kashmir became a victim of indecisiveness of, and mishandling by, the Indian leadership.

1 Facts about the Discord

In keeping with the terms of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir ceded it to India. Pakistan tried to illegally occupy Kashmir by infiltrating irregular armed raiders. Indian forces pushed them out from the Srinagar valley. The Indian leadership unilaterally ordered cease-fire, and offered plebiscite, provided Pakistan vacated the portion left in its illegal occupation. Pakistan never did so. According to India, the plebiscite has become inoperative.
 
China came under communist rule in 1949. Thereafter, it started infiltrating Tibet, then an independent nation of people of ethnic origin different from that of the Chinese, and having cultural links with India. China fully occupied it by 1959. Indian leadership refrained from interfering, and to appease socialist China, recognised its sovereignty over Tibet. Tibetan leaders and over one lakh people took refuge in India. They feel let down by India.
 
In 1962, China attacked India and grabbed substantial part of its territory bordering Tibet. Pakistan, in lieu of support, handed over portions of Kashmir in its illegal occupation, to China. The issues of Kashmir and Tibet are thus intertwined and need to be resolved together.
 
Controlled by the military and the clergy, Pakistan is a democracy only in name. Dominated by the feudal interests of Punjab, it abused East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, and is still abusing its own Muslims of Sind, Baluchistan and the Northwest region. Some Muslim sects of Pakistan such as Shias and Ahmedias, and Muslims who migrated from India, called Muhajirs, are being badly treated. Before Pakistan stakes claim over Kashmir on grounds of religion, it should learn to take care of its own Muslims.
 
With a single-party rule, rightist economic model and a powerful war machine, China has now acquired characteristics of fascism. It is also the biggest violator of human rights. The US government has been asking China to democratise. There is a big people’s movement in USA on autonomy for Tibet. The civil society in India however appears insensitive to the subjugation of the people of Tibet and China.

2 Resolution of the Discord

Pakistan wants India to honour plebiscite in Kashmir as offered by it in 1948. Plebiscite is not acceptable to India since Pakistan never vacated the territory in its illegal occupation. Recognising the line of control as the international border is sometimes suggested. Any solution that divides Kashmir is anti-people, unstable. It destroys the integrity and culture of the people of Kashmir.
 
The present stalemate cannot be allowed to linger unresolved. Pakistan will continue indulging in terrorism in Kashmir in which innocent families get uprooted, killed or maimed.
 
The ego of India and Pakistan cannot be allowed to decide the fate of the innocent Kashmiri families targeted by terrorists, and languishing in refugee camps in India. A stable solution must be evolved at all cost.

 

1. Autonomy under Joint Suzerainty

There can be no lasting peace so long as Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan. The ideal solution is that the entire Kashmir should be with secular India. Had the Indian leadership not withheld its forces, it could have achieved this in 1948. Today, India is unable to regain its territory under Pakistan’s illegal occupation because of international commitments. A legitimate solution, sympathetic to the people, for uniting the two Kashmirs needs to be evolved.
 
A pragmatic solution is that autonomy may be offered, to (1) Unified Kashmir under the joint suzerainty of India and Pakistan, provided its minority communities vote in its favour; and, (2) Tibet under the joint suzerainty of India and China. Ladakh and Jammu, that are predominantly non-Muslim, can through referendum choose to remain in India. The civil society of India, Pakistan and China should take the initiative for creating pressure on their respective governments for accepting such a solution. India, Pakistan and China need to treat Kashmir and Tibet, not as real estate, but as people.
 
Kashmir will then have autonomy over social and economic issues. It shall however not be allowed to maintain any military. India and Pakistan will post military attaches in Kashmir to oversee that neither of them violate the integrity of Kashmir. A similar arrangement can be created for Tibet.
 
India and Pakistan are abusing their own people under faulty constitutions. Neither has the moral authority to stake claim over Kashmir, unless they can assure the people true democratic rights.
 
If Kashmir is granted autonomy, its people should approve its constitution through an institutional mechanism for referendums, ratified by both India and Pakistan. The global community should pressurise China also to democratise through a similar mechanism.

Courtsy:Peoples First_______