Another feather in the cap

Another feather in the cap
Dr Shabir Choudhry 6 July 2007
General Musharaf has done it again. Since overthrowing an elected government in 1999, he had one remedy for all problems of Pakistan: resolve crises by creating new crises. Logic is simple - when one issue is getting out of hand create another and bigger issue and the first issue will be overshadowed, and people will forget about the first one.
By and large he has been successful in his endeavours to keep all parties sufficiently satisfied that they feel compelled to keep on supporting him. And in this list of supporters we find international figures like President Bush, former Prime Minister Tony Blair and other international dignitaries.
He always chooses his targets very carefully, plan them with the military precision and implement them. His military mind sometimes does not fully comprehend implications of his adventures in the field of politics, and gets in to problems, but he has many politicians and legal experts to bail him out of problems.
His record of military expeditions is not to be proud of, be it Kargil fiasco, Wazirstan or Balochistan (for that matter all expeditions taken up by the military rulers have proved to be counterproductive); but he can take some pride in political adventures. Critics say he has maligned the image of the army where they are killing their own Muslim brothers and their own Pakistani citizens; and has led Pakistan in to a kind of civil war where Pakistani troops are attacked in various parts of the country.
He found himself cornered after many blunders, especially after sacking and humiliation of Country’s Chief Justice. He tried to resolve this issue with the same medicine- create more crises, diversions, intimidation and oppression, but this time it did not work. Every move proved to be counter productive, and that resulted in frustration and resentment; and when one takes decisions with that mind set one is bound to make more mistakes.
Proceedings of Supreme Court were proving to be disastrous and source of embarrassment; and to make things worse floods came at wrong time for which the authorities were not ready as they had other priorities. Another problem was Nawaz Sharif’s All Parties Conference, in which he wanted to unite opposition and plan a campaign against the military ruler.
General Musharaf had successfully cultivated Benazir Bhutto and she decided to stay away from Nawaz Sharif Show. She did not want to strengthen her political foe; she knows how to fight back the military ruler. How to corner him, embarrass him or make a deal with him, but Nawaz Sharif’s strength will be at the cost of her weakness; and she is not a fool to strengthen him. I am sure she has got a good package for keeping away from this moot.
On his part the beleaguered General decided to play his trump card. It was time to invade Red Fort; sorry I mean Red Mosque, Pakistan army has plenty of experience in fighting their own people and invading their own territory. And in view of that rich experience Red Mosque was just a walk over for the Pakistan army. There was more than one way to end that and end it quickly, but if it ends too soon then it won’t achieve the desired results; so it was imperative that it drags on to overshadow events taking place in London and else where.
Events of Red Mosque have put every thing on the back burner. People are least interested in knowing who is travelling to London to take part in All Parties Conference. They are not even interested in what is going on the in Supreme Court and what is happening to the plight of the flood victims. Attention of the entire nation is focused around events of Red Mosque. People are concerned about the lives of innocent people.
Only winner in this scenario is the Pakistani ruler, General Musharaf. He has emerged as a tolerant but strong man who can take tough actions. He is the man who can root out extremism and support and perhaps help win the ‘war on terrorism’. His rating in the country and outside has increased; and in the words of famous writer, Ayaz Mir: ‘the government will milk this ‘triumph’ for all it is worth, portraying it as another victory against ‘extremism’.
Many will take it as another feather in his cap. It will help him to sell his future plans with regard to his uniform, general elections and his own election of president to his people, and more importantly to interested parties outside the country.
In view of one commentator this drama has to continue that proceedings of APC, the Supreme Court and plight of flood victims are over shadowed to provide cushion to the government. Benazir Bhutto by staying away from London moot has strengthen the hands of Musharaf, and weakened the opposition, so she has taken out much of the wind out of APC sails; and events of Red Mosque have successfully diverted the attention away from this moot.
Some of Nawaz Sharif’s advisors and leaders are already showing arrogance and behaving like party in office, yet they have long journey ahead of them before they even see buildings of the Parliament. They need to win support of people and other groups which help to win office that they can present their case properly, and become effective in this scenario; but they have to work hard and change their attitude and prove that Nawaz Sharif has leant since he was forced out of office in 1999.
Writer is Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF, Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs and author of many books on Kashmir. He could be reached at: drshabirchoudhry@googlemail.com

Kashmir dispute and peace in south Asia

Kashmir dispute and peace in south Asia

Shabir Choudhry
Contents
1. A note from the publisher
2. Introduction
3. A Brief History
4. Kashmir after the British Raj
5. Kashmir at the United Nations
6. India's Pledges Regarding Kashmir
7. Two Nations Theory and Kashmir
8. Election or Plebiscite?
9. Present Situation
10. Conclusion
11. Appendix
Cover (title)
Inside cover: Maqbool Butt's photo and this
In a public meeting held in May 1974 in Mirpur, he said: ' we have taken oath to fight for independence of Kashmir, but important question is who are we going to fight this war of independence? We must know who has usurped our independence? Who has denied us our right of self-determination? We must know who is our enemy-until and unless we are clear on that we could not fight war of independence. Let me tell you our enemy are all those people, groups, army, police, individuals and bureaucrats who deny us right of self-determination and oppose it.'

'Be clear on this that our struggle is against those members of ruling class who oppose our right to national independence whether they are in Azad Kashmir or in the Indian occupied Kashmir. All those who create obstacles in our way are our enemies and enemies of the independence movement. Prepare yourself for jihad against those who are acting as agents of Pakistan on this side of the border and act as agents of India on the other side of the border. We will have to fight them on every stage be it political or military- if they come in our way remove them by force. Movements of National independence are fought at every level and all workers, peasants, merchants, businessmen have to play their due role in it.'

1. A note from the publisher (You should write something)

2. Introduction
Over the years the Kashmir dispute has come high up on the international agenda, and there is call from many quarters of the world that it must be resolved through a process of dialogue. But there are some who oppose the idea of dialogue and insist that Kashmir has to be conquered - India has to be defeated militarily in Kashmir, and then join Pakistan. Indian policy on the other hand is to crush the militants, and maintain the status quo.

People of Kashmir have paid great sacrifices for the cause of independence, but they are still forcibly divided and still suffering. Both India and Pakistan have their own agendas on Kashmir, both want Kashmir for territorial, economic and strategic reasons. Interest of the Kashmiri people is not their top priority. Whereas India is accused of gross human rights violations in Kashmir, Pakistan is also responsible for denying people of Kashmir their basic human rights. Purpose of this small booklet is not to give details of human rights violations, as there are dozens of booklets are available on the subject. It would be, however, appropriate to mention that there is no comparison between human violations committed by India which include indiscriminate killings, rapes, custodial deaths and destruction of property etc; and the denial of basic rights by Pakistan.

The present struggle in Kashmir started as a war of liberation and aim was unification and independence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This movement was later taken over by groups who wanted to wage 'Jihad' in Kashmir. Their aim was to liberate 'Muslim Kashmir', make it part of Pakistan; and then proceed to other areas for Jihad. These groups have upper hand in militancy but they have 'successfully' communalised the movement, and as a result of that the Kashmiri struggle is no longer perceived as a movement for independence.

The Kargil conflict in Summer of 1999 very nearly escalated into a full scale war between India and Pakistan. It is because of this and some other factors that there is a greater emphasis to resolve the Kashmir dispute. There could be no peace and stability in the region until and unless the Kashmir dispute is resolved; and if appropriate measures are not taken soon then there is a danger that the conflict could lead to another war between India and Pakistan. Before we look at any possible solution of the Kashmir dispute it is important that we have some understanding of the history and the legal status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.


3. A Brief History

ion The State of Jammu and Kashmir, comprising an area of around 85,000 square miles,borders on India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. A small strip of Afghanterritory known as the Wakhan Corridor divides the state from CentralAsia. The State is divided in to four parts. One third of the State is underdirect and indirect control of Pakistan, while the bulk of the countryand its people have been under Indian occupation since 27th October 1947. Two portions of the Kashmiri land are under Chinese control. China took Aksai Chin from India in a war, and Pakistan ceded the other small area to China in a border adjustment in 1962.

(Print a map here showing these areas. I can provide you one or take from my book AK role)The Kashmiris have always striven to break the chains of oppression andforeign subjugation in their quest for national emancipation. The presentmilitancy in Indian occupied part of the country is thereforeneither accidental nor a flash in the pan. However it could be said that therecent changes and dismantling of oppressive regimes in Eastern Europe, and events in Iran and Afghanistan provided impetus for the intensification of the uprising, the roots ofdiscontent have been gathering strength ever since Indian Para - troopers weredropped in Kashmir to suppress a war of liberation against the autocraticand despotic Dogra Maharaja.

The mass uprising by the Kashmiris against Indian occupation is thus a manifestation of the Kashmiris' desire to secure the most basic and fundamental human right to determine their future with out any restriction imposed on them. In order that the situation may be clearly appreciated and understood in its proper context, a brief account of this unfortunate nation's glories, sorrows and oppression under foreign subjugation needs to be given.'The history of Kashmir is the history of a living people. From ancient times they have passed through days of joy and sorrow, of affluence and penury. But whether in sunlight or shade, the Kashmiris stuck fast to their humanistic principles, and did not fall a prey to religious intolerance and narrow-minded bigotry'.1 The history of Kashmir is traceable as far back as 5,000 years. Twenty-one dynasties of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Zoroastrians had ruled Kashmir until the 14th century AD when Muslims appeared on its political stage. Of these twenty-one dynasties, eighteen were native; under whom Kashmir enjoyed an independent status and comparatively high prosperity. During the period of Lalita Ditya, one of the most powerful kings of the pre-Muslim era, who ruled Kashmir from 715 to 752 AD, most of the present Punjab, part of Tibet and large area of Central Asia were under the Kingdom of Kashmir. Kashmir commanded high respect from all neighbouring states.Muslims ruled Kashmir for 479 years (1340 to 1819 AD) and this period included 240 years of independence. Kashmir attained the peak of her glory during the reign of Sultan Zainul Abedin (1420 to 1470 AD), popularly known as Budshah. He was one of the noblest sons of the soil, hence his title Budshah, meaning the great king. People called him Budshah out of love andaffection. Even today he is held in great respect. Kashmir during his rule was a model of economic prosperity, social justice and communal harmony in the whole region. As a great centre of learning and culture, Kashmir attracted students from India, Persia, Central Asia and the Middle East. All the neighbouring states held Kashmir in high esteem while trade and commerce were at their peak.Budshah's rule of 50 years is thus called the 'Golden Period' of Kashmir's history. Before Budshah, Sultan Shahabuddin, another illustrious son of Kashmir, had done a great deal to consolidate Kashmir's independence, making it possible for Budshah to create a true welfare state. With the death of Budshah began the gradual decline of the golden period. His Shamiri dynasty was later overthrown by Chacks, who ruled Kashmir for quite some time.

In 1586 AD the independence of Kashmir came to an end when Akbar, the great Mogul King of India, annexed Kashmir-but only after having suffered two defeats (and perhaps the only two during his reign) at the hands of the Kashmiris The Moguls ruled Kashmir for around two centuries. As lovers of beauty, they added to the loveliness of Kashmir, but did not much care toimprove the conditions of ordinary people. On the contrary they introduced the Kashmiris to a way of life, which gradually deprived them of their bravery and self-confidence.With the decline of Moghul power, the Afghans annexed Kashmir. Afghan rule over Kashmir, which lasted 67 years (1752 to 1819 AD), was one of cruelty and looting. Most Afghan rulers of Kashmir crushed the people ruthlessly. Their only aim was to extract money from the country, and they robbed Kashmiris on one pretext or another. But there was worse to come forthe peace loving Kashmiris. The state was conquered and colonised by Sikhs. Sikh rule lasted only 27 years but was far worse than that of Afghans.
Continuous slavery and ruthless suppression by alien rulers badly demoralised the Kashmiris, who could not put up a concerted resistance against them. The Kashmiris were further subjected to slavery when, in 1846, the British conquered Kashmir as a result of inflicting defeat on the Sikh ruler of the Punjab, with the help of the treacherous Gulab Singh, a minister of the Sikh court.For strategic and economic reasons the British sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh for a sum of 7.5 million rupees (less than £300,000) like a commercial commodity. This most ignominious andinhumane transaction took place under an agreement called the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846. Gulab Singh and his successors ruled Kashmir with an iron hand, known as the Dogras, these rulers subjected Kashmiri patriots to the most inhumane atrocities including some, especially in the Punch area, being flayed alive while others were drowned in the beautiful lakes of the Kashmir Valley. Those drowned only complained about the shortage of food, and as a result the full load of the boat was thrown into the lake.

This wave of oppression continued unabated until the Muslims of Kashmir realised that they would perish if they continued to let the ever-increasing oppression go unchecked. Thus they abruptly rose in revolt against the despotic ruler in 1931, and in a period of two years forced theMaharaja to concede to them a number of political, economic and social rights. It must be borne in mind that the Kashmir people never accepted alien rule, and their quest for independence continued despite these nominal concessions.4. Kashmir after the British RajIn 1946, a year before the British rule came to an end in India, the Kashmiris had risen in open revolt against the Dogra rule. The political movement, known as the 'Quit Kashmir Movement', was ruthlessly put down and its leaders were sentenced. So at the dawn of Indian independence from British rule (15 Aug 1947), the popular struggle for emancipation and human rights had taken a firm hold in Kashmir. The unsuspecting Kashmiris, whose popular movement for democratic rights took great encouragement from the anti-British struggle in pre-independent India, were to face the might of independent India's army.The Maharaja had his own strong reasons for not acceding to either the new Dominions, and despite all the pressure, he did not accede. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj ended in India, and with it ended the British paramountcy that released the State of Jammu and Kashmir from all its obligations to the British, hence Kashmir emerged as a fully independent country. After the lapse of paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir possessed all the attributes of a sovereign state, which were enshrined in the Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention held in 1933, to work out details about rights and duties of states.
In their struggle against the despotic ruler, the people of Kashmir declared on 4th October 1947 the Provisional Government of Kashmir.2 The Maharaja's government was on the verge of collapse, especially after the tribal attack his army was on the run, and the morale of government officials, including the Maharaja himself, at its lowest ebb.

It is widely believed and there is plenty of evidence to prove that Pakistani authorities masterminded the tribal invasion. But not all members of the Pakistani government were in favour of involvement of the Tribesmen. Some thought the support of tribesmen was crucial to win Kashmir without directly involving Pakistani troops. Others thought this policy could backfire and 'probably precipitate the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir into the arms of India, and persuade the Maharaja to sign instrument of accession to that Dominion'. 3


Anyhow anticipating the fall of his capital, Srinagar, the Maharaja fled to Jammu for the safety of his family. It was at this time, when he felt defeated and demoralised, and had virtually lost control, that he was approached by V.P. Mennon on behalf of the Indian Government, who asked for accession of the State to India. Defeated and panic-stricken, the Maharaja did not need any convincing to sign the document. And on 27th October 1947, the Indian forces landed in Kashmir, hence started a new phase of foreign rule in Kashmir.

The latest research by prominent writer Alaister Lamb shows that the Maharaja did not sign an Instrument of Accession, but there is no conclusive evidence to prove this. If this claim is true then India's position on Kashmir could be challenged. But since this claim, made in 1994, no one has taken an initiative to challenge India on the basis of fraud and illegal occupation of Kashmir.4 This so-called 'accession' was contrary to the publicly expressed will of Kashmir people, and the Indian government, including Mountbatten, the new Governor-General of an Independent India knew that. Mountbatten, as a Governor General of an independent India in response to the Maharaja's letter, made it clear that the so-called 'accession' was 'provisional'. He wrote:'Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any state where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.'5India, now, claims that the State of Jammu-Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian Union, because the Maharaja signed the 'Instrument of Accession', but they have forgotten that the 'accession' was provisional and subject to a plebiscite where people of Kashmir had to decide future of Kashmir. Perhaps it would be pertinent to quote a few sections of the 'Instrument' to check the Indian claim.Section 7: Nothing in this instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future constitution.Section 8: Nothing in this instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force inthis State. 6The Government of Pakistan protested against this unconstitutional and invalid Act of 'Accession', and ordered its forces to attack Jammu. The idea was to cut the supply route of the Indian army to Kashmir. But unfortunately this order was later withdrawn under pressure from British Military chiefs in India. Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, realising the Pakistan Government's anger, wrote to the Pakistani Prime Minister on 27th October 1947, and gave this assurance:'I would like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view.' 7This is, what Nehru said about the future of Kashmir. On the other hand, Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the Governor-General of Pakistan, asserted that:
'The States were fully entitled to say that they would join neither of the Constituent Assemblies. Indian States were sovereign states for every purpose except insofar as they entered into treaties with the Crown. The Crown was under certain obligations to them and they to it, according to terms of treaties and agreements, which had been entered into.' Again, in a statement on 17 June 1947, Mr Jinnah declared that after 'the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or decide to remain independent.'8Mountbatten also explained the legal position of States: 'Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom-technically and legally they become independent.'9

5. .Kashmir at the United Nation
Despite Indian military intervention in Kashmir to deprive the freedom fighters of total victory over the tyrant Maharaja, the Kashmir people made important advances. The Indian Government after failing to achieve military success decided to bring Kashmir under international jurisdiction and sought the help of the United Nations. The Security Council of the UN looked into the Kashmir problem in great detail and set up a Commission to investigate the matter by visiting India, Pakistan and Kashmir. After detailed investigation the following resolution was passed by the Security Council on13 August 1948:'The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement, both governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured'. 10When the question of the future status of the State arises, it is believed that the State could have three possible options: accession to India; accession to Pakistan or complete independence.
It was the third option, which Maharaja had in mind, and this was why he refused to accede to any Dominion before the lapse of Paramountcy, despite enormous pressure from Mountbatten and the powerful Congress leadership.The Pakistan Government was not keen about complete independence of the State. The Pakistan Foreign Office wrote a letter to the UNCIP, and enquired if the 'future status' implied the independence of the state. UNICP replied that the State could also become independent if the people of Kashmir decided in favour of that. As this was not desired by the Pakistan Government, the Foreign Minister, Sir Zafarullah Khan, in a letter to General McNaughton, President of the Security Council, proposed that 'for the words future status of Jammu and Kashmir substitute the following: the question of the accession of the State of Jammu Kashmir to India or Pakistan.' 11The Pakistan Government's attitude indicated two things:

1. The Pakistan Government, in principle, could accept the whole State becoming part of India, if the people of Kashmir so desire, in a proposed plebiscite, but she was not prepared to accept the Kashmir people's verdict to stay independent. It must be remembered that the UN resolutions asked Pakistan to withdraw her forces from Kashmir whereas India was allowed to retain 'bulk' of her forces for maintaining peace and security. Part 2 and section 2 of the resolution reads like this:

' The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting'.12

If a plebiscite was to be held when Indian forces were present there and Sheikh Abdullah, most popular Kashmiri leader, at the helm of affairs, it was more than likely that the outcome would have been against Pakistan. Despite that Pakistan agreed with the resolution, it is however different thing that Pakistan was not very keen to vacate the Kashmiri territory under Pakistani control. Alastair Lamb, who is considered to be pro Pakistan in his approach, made the following observation:

'In the early days of dispute it is unlikely that a majority of the population of Kashmir and Jammu province would in fact, had they been given the chance to express their preference, have opted for union with Pakistan.'13

2. The Pakistan Government's support to the Kashmiris' right of self-determination is not purely in the name of 'Muslim brotherhood', humanity or sympathy, as was generally assumed. This is because the Pakistani Government's support was not extended to help the Kashmiris emerge as an independent nation; rather it was given in anticipation that Kashmir would become part of Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan had political, material and strategic interests in Kashmir, but these should not have been obtained at the price of the Kashmiri peoples right of self-determination.The result of the Pakistan Government's political and diplomatic endeavourswas the Second Resolution of UNICP, passed on 5 January 1949. Fearing the possibility of an independent Kashmir, The Pakistan Foreign Office, in a letter to the Security Council, enquired if the words 'future status' could mean an independent Kashmir. The reply was that the Kashmiri people could have an independent Kashmir if that was the majority decision. After receiving this reply, the Pakistan government decided to suggest an amendment to this resolution. It was unfortunate that the Pakistan government in its letter to General A. G. L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council, dated 28 December 1948, wrote to propose a change in this clause:

Paragraph 1 (A) reads,

For the words "the future status of State of Jammu and Kashmir" substitute the following:
"The question of the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan. 14

As a result of this request the next resolution which was passed on 5 January 1949, read like this: 'The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan, will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite'.15
The Pakistan Government inflicted serious damage to the Kashmiri freedom struggle by circumscribing the internationally accepted and practised concept of right of self-determination. And because of this, the Kashmir problem appeared to the outside world like a territorial dispute, rather than a struggle for the emancipation of oppressed people. It is obvious that other governments do not wish to be involved in territorial disputes, but they find it easy to take a stand on a principle of right of self - determination.6. India's Pledges Regarding KashmirWhen the Kashmir question was a major international issue debated in the UN, Indian Government officials made a number of solemn pledges, some of which are produced here:It is not for India or Pakistan, whatever our wishes, to decide the future of Kashmir. Kashmir and the people of Kashmir are not commodities for barter or for bargain. It is inherent right to determine their own future. It is this right we openly acknowledged long before Pakistan came into this picture. We are convinced that only the people of Kashmir could finally decide their own future and we stand by every assurance we have given to the UN in this behalf. 16On 15 January 1948, at the UN Security Council, the leader of India's delegation to the UN, on behalf of the Government of India, declared that '….whether she (Kashmir) should withdraw from her accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent with a right to claim admission of as a member of the UN. All this we have recognised to be a matter of unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal is restored there.'In his broadcast on All-India Radio on 2 November 1947, the late Jawaral Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India, announced 'We have decided that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. The pledge we haven given and the Maharaja (the ruler of Kashmir) has supported, it is not only to the people of Kashmir but the world as well. We will not and cannot back out of it.'In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 31 October 1947, Mr. Nehru said: 'Our assurance that we withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order have been restored and leave the decision regarding the future of the State to the people of the State, is not merely a pledge to your Government, but also to the people of Kashmir, but to the world as well.'
On 9 July 1951, Mr. Nehru, while submitting a report to the All-IndiaCongress Committee, said: 'Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prizefor India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodityfor sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its peoplemust be the final arbiters of their future.'
The above quotations clearly show that even the Indian government did not take the so-called 'accession' as final. And it was because of this the Government of India agreed in the United Nations Security Council to hold a plebiscite to determine the future of Kashmir. Otherwise no government can possibly agree to hold a referendum in a territory which it genuinely believes to be its own to determine its future. Furthermore successive Indian governments have held talks with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute, again confirming that the 'accession' was not final.

An Indian leader Jaya Prakash Narayan eloquently put this point, he said:

'I may be lacking in patriotism or other virtue, but it has always seemed to me to be a lie to say that the people of Kashmir had already decided to integrate themselves with India. They might do so, but have not done so yet. Apart from the quality of the elections… the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was never made an election issue at any of them…. Lastly, if we are so sure of the verdict of the people, why are we so opposed to giving them another opportunity to reiterate it.'17


7. Two Nations Theory and Kashmir

Pakistan was created as a result of Two Nations Theory and since the State of Jammu and Kashmir has a Muslim majority, by and large people of Pakistani believe that Kashmir should become part of Pakistan. Many Kashmiris share this view as well.

It is strange that People have forgotten the State of Junagarrh, a State which, according to the rules agreed by Muslim League and Congress at the time of Partition, acceded to Pakistan. They have even forgotten the loss of East Pakistan, now known as Bangla Desh, which at one time was a legal part of Pakistan. But when it comes to Kashmir people become very emotional.

Leaving emotions and rhetoric aside let us see the legal and constitutional position. The demand for a separate homeland for Muslims was put forward in a resolution in 1940, and it is known as a Pakistan Resolution. Let us see if this resolution demands the inclusion of Kashmir in this new country. The resolution reads:

"…That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North - Western and Easter zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constitutional units shall be autonomous and sovereign".

It must be noted here that the British Raj in India consisted on two units, namely British India and Princely India; whereas the British directly ruled the former the latter was semi- autonomous. The Two Nations Theory was applicable only to the British India and those who passed (Muslim League and Mohammed Ali Jinnah) the "Pakistan Resolution" were aware of this legal position, and did not include Kashmir in their demand of a Muslim State.


This Resolution, as we all know, was passed in 1940, and Pakistan emerged as an independent State on 14 August 1947. No where between these two dates Mohammed Ali Jinnah, President of Muslim League or any other Muslim League leader demanded that Kashmir should be part of their demand for Pakistan. Between 1940 and August 1947, literally hundreds of speeches were made by different League leaders, and dozens of resolutions were passed by the Muslim League, and at no time they demanded that Kashmir should be part of their demand for Pakistan. Even at that time they knew Kashmir had Muslim majority and that it was adjacent to proposed Pakistan territory, with all its routes, but they did not demand for its inclusion in Pakistan. One wonders why? The answer is very simple. They all knew that it was the British India which was to be divided, and the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely States whether they had Muslim majority or not.

As the time for the partition of British India became near people genuinely got worried about the future of Kashmir. Some of them were not clear about the legal position of Kashmir, and others wanted Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. They went to Mohammed Ali Jinnah and asked him about the status of Kashmir, to which he replied:
"..After the lapse of Paramountcy the Princely States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states, and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to the States to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or decide to remain independent. In my opinion they are free to remain independent if they so desire".18

Mohammed Ali Jinnah made a similar statement on 11 July 1947 to the Kashmiris leaders Choudhry Hamidullah Khan and Professor Isaaq Qureshi. Apart from these statements Mohammed Ali Jinnah practically demonstrated that the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely States. When the case of Hyderabad came under discussion, Mr Jinnah was very forceful in his views. He said that the Nizam of Hyderabad had every right to become an independent ruler if he wished, but he could join either of the constituent assemblies as well. Similarly Mr Jinnah accepted the accession of State of Junnagarrh, and like Hyderabad it had clear non- Muslim majority. If the Two Nations Theory was applicable to the Princely States then both of these should have automatically become part of India as they both had non-Muslim majority. Since Mr Jinnah knew the legal and constitutional position he supported the Princely States right to either become independent or choose between the constituent assemblies.


Apart from the above formidable evidence I want to produce what Mountbatten had to say on the status of Princely States. In his speech to Princes in the Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947, he said:

The Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom - technically and legally they become independent".18

Apart from these quotations I could produce many more statements made by various Pakistani leaders who clearly support the Kashmiri peoples right to independence. They say we would naturally like Kashmir to become part of Pakistan but it is for the Kashmiris to decide what they want to do. There is no need to discuss this any more as legal and constitutional position is established beyond any doubt.

As for wishes of people are concerned we can wish anything, and we know that not all wishes come true. Also wishes do not change the legal and constitutional position and ground realities. Millions of Kashmiris wish to live in peace and harmony in a united and independent Kashmir; millions of Pakistanis wish Pakistan to be stronger, prosperous and stable, but it is not happening. There are some Pakistanis who still wish if Bangladesh was East Pakistan, but the ground reality has changed, and we have to learn to live with these changes.

8. Election or Plebiscite?The former Indian Prime Minister, Rajieve Gandhi, claimed that in Kashmir (Indian-occupied) a number of elections had taken place in which people had used their democratic right to vote, and that there was no need to hold any kind of plebiscite. It is quite clear that elections are no substitute for a plebiscite. As a result of Rajieve Gandhi's remarks, the Kashmir people decided to boycott the General Election held in November 1989, and less than 3% of the people turned out to vote. This clearly shows that the people of Kashmir do not want to live with India.Apart from that, when such a plea was raised by India in the Security Council, the Council rejected it and adopted a resolution on 30 March 1951, in which it stated:
'that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed in the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. The convening of a Constituent Assemblyrecommended by the General Council of the 'All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference' and any action that Assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire state or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.' 19

It must be noted here that the State Legislature of Indian-occupied Kashmir, which ratified theso-called 'accession', had 75 members, and in the election, which Indiaclaimed to hold, 73 candidates were returned unopposed. In the previouselection, of 1951, all 75 candidates were so 'elected', unopposed. So onecould see, in the first place, the legality of the so-called 'accession''secondly, the legitimacy of the State Assembly's 'election' and subsequent'ratification'. India's claim is wholly based on this 'accession' which wasprovisionally accepted by Mountbatten and rejected by the United Nations;and the 'ratification' of this 'accession', which was also unacceptable tothe UN and the Kashmiri people. The Security Council of the UN, in itsResolution on 24 Jan1957, reaffirmed that:'the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the GeneralCouncil of All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and any action thatAssembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the futureState and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action bythe parties concerned does not constitute a disposition of the State inaccordance with the above principle'. 20The word 'principle' refers to the Resolution of the Security Council,where it was stated that the Kashmiri people must be allowed to expresstheir will in a democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite underthe auspices of the United Nations.
9. Present Situation

The armed struggle in the Indian occupied Kashmir has seen many twists and turns. It has seen loss of more than seventy thousand lives, rape of honourable Kashmiri women, destruction of property, business and imprisonment and torture of innocent civilians. The struggle has also seen two unilateral cease-fires and has moved high on the international agenda. It certainly has seen a lot more than what we Kashmiris expected -as we have seen massacres of innocent Kashmiris, Muslims and non-Muslims; and above all we have seen the Kargil fiasco which could well prove to be Waterloo for Kashmiris. And tragedy of the Kashmiri nation is that despite all these sacrifices, Kashmir still remains a bilateral dispute in the view of the international community, which has to be resolved by India and Pakistan.

Another sad aspect of the Kashmiri struggle is that the international community takes the Kashmir dispute as a problem that is mainly related to the Indian occupied Kashmir, and especially the Valley. Although the armed struggle is going on only in the Indian occupied Kashmir but it does not mean that only this part is disputed. The entire State of Jammu and Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan, Jammu, Valley and Ladakh, is disputed; and the future of all these areas is to be determined.
It would be completely wrong to assume that the people of these areas are satisfied with the present situation. Struggle for unification and independence is going on in all parts of Kashmir, the difference is in the nature of struggle as in some places it is armed and in other places it is political. It must also be noted that Kashmir is not a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan that they can resolve it bilaterally. The Kashmiri people are the main party to the dispute and there could be no lasting solution without their agreement. Mr Yasin Malik, Chairman of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, makes this point eloquently in an interview with India Today. To a question, "Can you envisage J and K divided into three, obviously on religious lines?", he said:

"No. It is not a religious issue. We want a total reunification of the whole of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not a religious issue. We are not demanding the right of self -determination on the basis of religion. When we speak about the self-determination of the people of Kashmir we say that the right of self -determination must be given to 13 million people of the united Jammu and Kashmir"

To another question about the participation of Pakistan in talks, he said:

" I am not an advocate of Pakistan. When I talk about Pakistan my concern is that one part of Kashmir is under the occupation of Pakistan. Because when we talk about Kashmir we talk about the whole of Jammu and Kashmir- the part which is under the occupation of Pakistan and the part which is under occupation of India."21

This is coming from a chief of most popular and liberal political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. No party, group or individual should assume that the problem is only related to the Indian occupied Kashmir. Our struggle was, is and will remain for a united and independent Kashmir; and we are not going to abandon this until we achieve our objective.

The fact that there is no armed struggle going on in the areas of Kashmir under Pakistani occupation does not mean that these people are satisfied with the situation there. For some reason these people have assumed that we should only have political activity here and support the movement in the Indian occupied Kashmir, and the armed struggle there could also pave way for the liberation of the whole Kashmir. It is this belief together with some other factors that have kept peace here. It must be noted that people of so called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan are also denied their basic rights. One only has to look at the following fact file on Gilgit and Baltistan to understand the situation:

10. Fact file on Gilgit and Baltistan

· Legally and constitutionally part of State of Jammu and Kashmir;
· On 26 March 1935, Gilgit was leased to the British by the Maharaja for 60 years;
· On 1 August 1947, these areas were returned to the State Government by the British;
· Maharaja Hari Singh appointed Brigadier Ghansara Singh Governor/Administer for Gilgit and Baltistan;
· Campaign against the Maharaja also spread to Gilgit and Baltistan, and on 1 November 1947, the Gilgit Scouts revolted and arrested the Governor;
· On 16 November 1947, the first Muslim Political Agent assumed administrative responsibilities;
· Area is much larger than Azad Kashmir - some 72,496 sq kms;
· It is divided into six districts called Hunza-Nager,Gilgit, Koh-e -Ghazer, Ghanchi, Diamer and Skardu;
· Diamer is a Sunni majority area, other districts have Shia majority;
· Total population is 1.5 million of which 50 % are Shia, 35% are followers of Agha Khan and 15 % Sunni
· UN resolution of 13 August 1948, (accepted by India and Pakistan) calls upon India and Pakistan that 'the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people…' This of course applied to the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan;

· On 28 April 1949, the Government of Pakistan, Azad Kashmir Government and Muslim Conference signed the Karachi Pact. This delegated powers to Pakistan to control Gilgit and Baltistan through a Political Agent. Also many other powers were delegated to Pakistan in relation to Kashmir issue, and Azad Kashmir government's role was considerably curtailed;

· It is claimed that on enforcement of the Jammu and Kashmir Government Act 1970, the Karachi Pact of 1949 lapsed;

· In 1963, Pakistan Government transferred a sizeable area of Gilgit and Baltistan to Republic of China in a 'border adjustment';

· On 16 March 1963, India protested to the UN that Pakistan has violated the UN resolution by giving away this area to China;

· Mr ZA Bhutto replied to the Security Council, "The Boundary Agreement (between Pakistan and China) does not affect the status of Jammu and Kashmir… It does not derogate one jot or title from the right of self-determination of the people".
· An Advisory Council for the Northern Areas was formed in 1971;

· Frontier Crime Regulation lifted in 1972 by ZA Bhutto;

· In 1982 Pakistan's military ruler General Zia Ul Haq proclaimed that Northern Areas belonged to Pakistan. Which was clearly against the UN resolutions on Kashmir and Pakistani stand on Kashmir;

· People of Northern Areas are deprived of basic human rights. Tariq Hussain in his article 'The Last Colony', published in a reputable Pakistani monthly magazine, 'Herald' of April 1990, wrote:

'The continuing sectarian violence, economic neglect and feelings of mistrust towards 'Pakistani administrators' in the Northern Areas constitute a strong case for giving it the right to self - rule and self-management in economic matters. Unless these rights are conceded at an early date, the situation could develop into a serious embarrassment for the federal government and Pakistan'.

He further wrote:

· 'While policy makers and ordinary Pakistanis watch and debate the developments in Kashmir, sectarian violence has once again raised its ugly head in the Northern Areas. As Pakistanis from all sides of the political spectrum proclaim Kashmir's right to self -determination, it is time to observe that this very right has yet to be given to the people of the Northern Areas'.

· Moeen Qureshi announced a reformed package in 1992, and appointed a Chief Executive based in Gilgit with the status of Federal Minister - this took away some of the powers previously exercised by the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs;

· Benazir Bhutto revised the package of Moeen Qureshi in 1993. The Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs to exercise all powers of Chief Executive. Post of Judicial Commissioner abolished and Chief Court established;

· In March 1993, Justice Majid Malik in his historic judgement declared that Northern Area is Kashmiri territory and directed the Azad Kashmir Government to take over administration of that area;

· In 1994 the first party based elections to the Northern Areas Council were held.

· In 1996, Major (retired) Hussain Shah organised Muttahida Qaumi Party. In an interview with reputable Pakistani daily 'The News' on 14 December 1997, he said:

" We don't want to break Pakistan. What we want is that our basic right to live freely in our own land is recognised…. What we want is AJK like government, our own assembly, our public commission, and right our resources…We have uranium, diamond, emerald, and other precious stones. With such resources, why do we live in so much poverty…While almost 3000 of our graduates are unemployed, the government is paying Rs 32 lakh to the Frontier Constabulary for maintaining law and order in our area, despite the fact that in the last ten years not even a single person of the Northern Area has been recruited in the FC…Two thirds of Pakistan's tourism revenue comes from the Northern Areas and people of the area say that just that will be enough to meet most of our needs".

11. Conclusion

India, Pakistan and the international community must understand that the Kashmir dispute could not be resolved bilaterally. The people of Kashmir are the main party to the dispute, and it is they who should decide the future of the State. For the peace, stability and prosperity of South Asia it is imperative that trilateral talks are held, preferably under supervision of the United Nations, that a mechanism could be worked out to determine the aspirations of the people.

History shows that territorial issues could be resolved bilaterally, but issues relating to peoples right to self-determination could only be resolved by giving them an opportunity to express their will. The approach to resolve the Kashmir dispute was and is wrong. Since Kashmir is not a territorial issue it could not be resolved by bilateralism. A new approach, "trilateralism" is needed urgently, and the international community must realise the danger Kashmir dispute pose to the peace and stability of South Asia.

President Clinton has rightly called Kashmir dispute a "core issue" between India and Pakistan, and he understands that in a nuclearised South Asia it is a flash point that can destroy the region. Apart from the USA and other countries of the world must understand that it is not prudent to leave this flash point as it is in highly charged and volatile region of the world. And if the international community is serious in resolving the Kashmir dispute then it should emphasise on trilateral talks, as this is the only way forward.

There are many in India and Pakistan who support of an idea of a limited war. But the question is could a war be contained? Wouldn't a country losing this 'limited war' on one side be tempted to expand it; or even think of using nuclear weapons? Anthony Davis in his article, 'No limits on a "limited war"' wrote:
'… Moreover, as Indian units battled their way toward training camps well inside the Pakistani-run part of Kashmir, divisions of Pakistan's 10th Corps would be counter-attacking in strength. The upshot is that second-echelon Indian forces would probably be pulled in. "The real danger is that it escalates outside the [intended] geographical bowl," says a Western military analyst. "It's naive to assume you can contain it." Escalation would almost certainly mean a spread of hostilities across the international border - and full-scale conventional war. After Indian shortcomings were highlighted at Kargil, some analysts believe the Pakistan army to be better trained and better led than their foes. But unless international pressure could impose a swift ceasefire, the sheer weight of Indian numbers and equipment would soon begin to tell against the Pakistanis, who geographically have no strategic depth to speak of. At that point, fear war-gamers, Pakistani planners would seriously consider a nuclear response.' 22

If the Kashmir dispute is not resolved then the scenario explained above could become a reality, and that would be a disaster not only for the people of Kashmir but also for all South Asia. We must all work together to avoid this tragedy taking place. It is in the best interest of the people of Kashmir, it is also in the interest of Pakistan, India and the rest of the world.

There is no military solution to the dispute - India despite huge army and all the oppression has failed to crush the militancy, Pakistan is not in a position to defeat India in Kashmir and liberate it; and militants could not be expected to drive out India from Kashmir. So the best way forward is a dialogue between all three parties to the dispute, and the USA could support this process as indicated by Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth:
"I believe it is possible for India and Pakistan to resolve this (Kashmir issue). I don’t think it is beyond the grasp of the two countries. With political will and courage, it could be addressed. US should do everything we can to support that process. There is an expression about the Kashmir issue that India cannot lose it, Pakistan cannot win it and the Kashmiris themselves cannot survive it. It must be addressed and I hope the United States can continue to play a useful role there", 23

References:
1. 'Kashmir and Power Politics', PNK Bamzai

2. Ghulam Nabi Gilkaar declared this Provisional Government on 4 October, but another pro Pakistan government replaced this on 24 October 1947. Majority of people only remember the government announced on 24 October, and only Kashmiri nationalists make reference to the Provisional Government declared on 4 October.

3. 'Birth of a Tragedy Kashmir 1947', by Alastair Lamb, Roxford Books, 1994

4. ibid, page 79
5. A quotation from the letter written by Mountbatten on 27 October 1947, and produced on page 211 by Guru Raj Rao in his book, 'Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem'.

6. ibid page 213

7. White Paper on Kashmir, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan.

8. Statements of Mr Jinnah made on 17 June 1947 is produced on page 337 of 'Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem'.

9. Lord Mountbatten's address to a special meeting of the Chamber of Princes held in New Delhi on 25th July 1947, and produced on page 190 of 'Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem'.

10. Full text of the resolution could be seen in many books including authors book, Kashmiri struggle: role of Azad Kashmir Government.

11. Reports On Kashmir, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, Government of Pakistan, page 7.

12. A quotation from the resolution of 13 August 1948. See full text in Kashmiri struggle: Role of Azad Kashmir Government.
13. Crises in Kashmir, Alastair Lamb, page 78

14. Reports on Kashmir Ministry of Kashmir Affairs Government of Pakistan, page 10

15. Resolution of 5 January 1949.

16. Prime Minister Nehru, in a telegram (No.PRIMIN 21602) to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

17. 'The need to rethink' published in Hindustan Times on 14 May 1964

18. Press statement by Mohammed Ali Jinnah on 17 June 1947, produced in a book called "Qaaide Azam Ka Peghaam" Syed Mohammed Qasim, and published by Pakistan Academy
Lahore.
19. See text in appendix of ' Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem'.
20. ibid
21. Full text of the interview could be seen in 'India Today' dated 18 August 2000. Alternatively see it at: www.india-today.com/ntoday/extra/kashmir/phone-in
22. http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0331/nat.indiapak.war.html
23. Inderfurth said this in a panel discussion on the American university radio.
Kashmir Record & Research Council (KRRC)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


AppendixAppendix 1
Resolution 47 (1948)On the India-Pakistan question submitted jointly by the Representatives forBelgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and United Statesof America and adopted by the Security Council at its 286th meeting held on21 April, 1948.(Document No. 5/726, dated the 21st April, 1948). ------------------------------------------------------------------------THE SECURITY COUNCILHaving considered the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, having heard the representative of India in support of that complaint and the reply and counter complaints of the representative of Pakistan. Beingstrongly of opinion that the early restoration of peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir is essential and that India and Pakistan should do their utmost to bring about cessation of all fighting. Noting withsatisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, Considering that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security, Reaffirms its resolution 38 (1948) of 17 January 1948;Resolves that the membership of the Commission established by its resolution 39 (1948) of 20January 1948, shall be increased to five and shall include, in addition to the membership mentioned in that Resolution, representatives of... and ..., and that if the membership of the Commission has not been completed within ten days from the date the adoption of this resolutionthe President of the Council may designate such other Member or Members of the United Nations as are required to complete the membership of five;Instructs the Commission to proceed at once to the Indian subcontinent and there place its good offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and order and to the holding of a plebiscite by the two (Governments, acting in co-operation with one another and with the Commission, and further instructs the Commission to keep the Council informed of the action taken under the resolution; and, to this end.Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the opinion of the Council and appropriate to bring about a cessation of the lighting and to create proper conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan.A - RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen andPakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing ofmaterial aid to those fighting in the State;(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.2. The Government of India should:(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with theCouncil's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with theCommission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducingthem progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in themaintenance of law and order;(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage; When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;(iii) That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located within their present base area.3. The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the Plebiscite Administrator.4. After the plan referred to in paragraph 2 (a) above has been put into operation, personnelrecruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilised for the re-establishment andmaintenance of law and order with due regard to protection )t minorities, subject to such additional requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referredto in paragraph 7.5. If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such forces of either Dominion as it deems t(effective for the purpose of pacification.B - PLEBISCITE6. The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and carried out.7. The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a Plebiscite as soon as possible On the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.8. The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair andimpartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces and police.9. The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration mayrequire for the performance of its functions.10. (a) The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator. The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority tonominate the assistants and other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartialplebiscite. The terms of service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separatenegotiation between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the freedom of the Plebiscite.11. The Government of India should undertake to prevent to give full support to the Administrator and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery orother undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite, and the Government of India should publicly announce and should cause the Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.12. The Government of India should themselves and through the Government of the State declare and make known that all subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on thequestion of the accession of the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.13. The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State alsouse their best endeavour to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than those who are normally resident therein or who on or since 15th August 1947 have entered it for a lawful purpose.14. The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all politicalprisoners and take all possible steps so that:(a) all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are freeto return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;(b) there is no victimisation; minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection.15. The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.C - GENERAL PROVISIONS16. The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.17. The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.18. The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 21-41948 with the following result:In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Syria, U.K. and U.S.A.Against: None
Abstaining: Belgium, Colombia, Ukrainian S.S.R. and U.S.S.R.

Appendix 2
24TH JANUARY, 1957


*RESOLUTION 122 (1957) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 765TH MEETING ON 24 JANUARY, 1957.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having heard statements from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir,
Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47 (1948) of 21 April 1948, 51 (1948) of 3 June, 1948, 80 (1950) of 14 March 1950 and 91 (1951) of 30 March 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms the affirmation in its resolution 91 (1951) and declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle;
Decides to continue its consideration of the dispute.

*The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 24-1-1957 with the following results:-
Infavour: **Australia, China, **Columbia, **Cuba, France, **Iraq, **Philippines, **Sweden, U.K. and U.S.A .
Abstaining: U.S.S.R.
**Non-Permanent Members of the Security Council.
Appendix 2

The Simla Agreement
2 July 1972



The Government of Pakistan and the Government of India are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.
In order to achieve this objective, the Government of Pakistan and the government of India have agreed as follows:
(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries;
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance and encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;
(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity; and sovereignty and non-interference in each other internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;
(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have divided the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means;
(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;
(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.
Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.
In order to progressively restore and normalise relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:
(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights.
(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other countries.
(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.
(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.
In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both Governments agree that:
(i) Pakistan and India shall be withdrawn to their side of international border.
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.
(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.
This agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instrument of Ratification are exchanged.
Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements of the establishment of durable peace and normalisation of relations, including the question of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians, resumption of diplomatic relations.




Zulfiqar Ali BhuttoPresidentIslamic Republic of Pakistan

Indira GandhiPrime MinisterRepublic of India

Life on Pakistani side of divide.

Life on Pakistani side of divide.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
First of all it is important to understand that areas of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan are also part of State of Jammu and Kashmir, generally known as Kashmir.

Ordinary people on both sides of the forced division suffer in many ways, and deprived of their basic human rights. Those who support Indian rule on one side of the divide are rewarded handsomenly, but those who oppose this and fight for independence face serious consequences.

The situation on the other side of the divide, areas under Pakistan, is not much better as those who support the Pakistani rule there are also rewarded, and those who oppose the social and political system imposed by Pakistan pay prices in different ways.

Those who are considered as genuine threat to the system imposed by Islamabad and Pakistani secret agencies are dealt with heavy hand – people are intimidated, harassed, implicated in false cases and imprisoned. They could be physically attacked, injured and looted, and the authorities will make it appear as an activity of bandits. In extreme cases people could be terminated, and this could again be in form of a staged accident, robbery or mugging which ended up in a death. Because there is no Kashmiri media or even an independent Pakistani media, most of these events go unnoticed, or they are seen as unfortunate accidents.

Two examples will help to understand the situation. A lecturer who is very well known for his pro independent views and who have suffered in the past because of frequent transfers in to various remote places away from family and his village, denied of due promotion, had some problems with one eye cartrate. Doctors suggested a simple operation.

Before he was taken to the operation theatre, and man walked in to room and takes the doctor away for a quick chat. The man is known in the area as a member of ISI Pakistan notorious secret agency, and before he left he said our Professor Sahib is important, please look after him. This simple operation resulted in loss of sight in that eye. Many believe that under fear or on instructions of that man the doctor did what he must not have done.

In another case a nationalist Kashmiri activist who opposed the Pakistani rule in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan had some problems with his kidney. His brother volunteered to donate his kidney that they both could live. But it was unfortunate that both brothers lost their lives, and it is widely believed that local agencies played their role and with help of doctor ‘terminated’ both nationalist Kashmiris.

These two events were told to me by local nationalist Kashmiris in Muzaffarabad during my highly publicised recent visit to Azad Kashmir and Pakistan. I was specifically advised not to get any treatment should I get ill in Azad Kashmir, otherwise my dead body will fly back to UK. Even if I get ill in Islamabad, I was advised to seek medical help very carefully from those I can trust, especially from a foreign medical institute.

While I was in Islamabad in February 2004, we heard burning of 4/5 schools in Gilgit and Baltistan. Why would someone burn a school? Those who control the region don’t want people to be educated, because education brings awareness and tell people what their rights are and how to fight for these rights. The best way to control is to ensure that people don’t get consciousness or knowledge that they could become aware of their rights.

I was also told by more than one person that during those as a result of some demonstrations fifteen people lost their lives. Did you or anyone else saw any news item on this? No, because there is no media there. In an Area of more than 28,0000 sq miles, there is no daily paper, no radio station, no TV no university no medical, college no engineering college and the list could go on and on.

After 9/11 Pakistani government and their agencies, are targeting the following kinds of people: (A) those who oppose Pakistani rule, (B) those who oppose the peace process, (C) those who oppose division of Kashmir what the Musharaf government is planning to do,(D) those who are considered as Islamic fundamentalists, they don’t have to prove that in any court of law, if you don’t like the guy, get rid off him in name of terrorism is the rule applied, (E) those who have personal scores to settle because of tribal rivalry, family feuds or out of favour with local aristocrats/ and war lords.

The following news items also support what I have said. 1.

Press Release 06 May 2004, Toronto,
United Kashmir Peoples National Party The arrest of Sardar Altaf Khan President of UKPNP District Sdhnuti along with Qari Niseer President of Transport union Trarkhel is an act of violation and harassment by the state authorities in order to please the Pakistani agencies those are real cause of their arrests.While police is still harassing other UKPNP leaders and their families in order to silence the protest they have launched for the economical and political rights of the Area. The arrests have been made purely on the behalf and direction of Pakistani intelligence agencies in order to harass the UKPNP leaders and carders and those who raise their voices for the political and economical rights of the people of Pakistan controlled Kashmir.Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmir Chairman UKPNP, and Mumtaz Khan chief Organizer have condemned the arrests and continuous harassment of political leaders and activists, and demanded immediate release of the detainees and to stop the harassment of other activists.They said in their joint statement that state authorities cannot stop people from raising their voice against the economical and political discrimination and injustice existing within the Pakistan controlled part. Pakistan government which misses no opportunity to raise the issue of human rights of Indian controlled Kashmir but denying the same rights and suppressing people voices in its controlled parts doesn't correspond to its claims about the Kashmiri's.They said there is no difference between India and Pakistan policies when question of Kashmiri's economical and political rights is raised.Pakistani rulers such practices are not only violation of fundamental rights but also fall beyond the mandate of UN resolutions to which its owes its presence, and forcing or suppressing the voices of common people exposes its real face and claims it makes regarding the aspiration of Kashmiri's.The inability of local authorities and government to protect the basic rights of the people of Pakistan controlled part deserve immediate attention of world human rights organization and media to end this act of suppress regarding that we have approached and enlightened them with the current situation and demanded to take an urgent action to seek release of the detained leaders.M.Mumtaz KhanChief Organizer United Kashmir peoples National Party
2.
Palandri police has arrested more than two activists, Altaf Khan(UKPNP)and Qari Naseer (JKLF) and some others, they were protesting fordemands for Trarkhal and also formed an action committee in Trarkal , during this protest they have some hard and hot talks with administrationand a case of treason has been charged against them, Qari Naseer hasalready granted bale ,but when he appread in court he arrested and arguedthat there can not be bale of treason case.It should be noted that Qari Naseer is not only a political activist but also a social activist and always played active and front line role for demandsproblems of common people in Trarkhal . as well as Altaf Khan has been struggling for an independent Kashmir and played very active role from the platform of PNP since more than 18 years.and he always raised his voice against the brutal authorities of Pakistan in Kashmir.The arrest of such activists shows that how much is the freedom of expression in Pakistani occupied Kashmir ,while people are not allowed to even speak for their social rights and demands.It should also be noted here that they were damanding the upgradation of InterCollege Trarkhal and for the reconstruction of road from Trarkhal to Hajira ,but a case of treason has been filed against them.We should also keep in mind that the occupant forces of Pakistan in its held partof Kashmir do not want any one to raise any voice in the favour of human rights or for the problems of people.And if some one do so he will have to face explosive consequences as already happend in past.Raja Habib Secretary General Kashmir Thinker Forum ,Wajid Ali wajid UKPNPAzher Kasher JKLF, Basheer Mughal KLF Zareen Khan advocate, JKNAPand other activists of different organization have strongly denounced the arrestof Altaf Khan and Qari Naseer and demanded their release.Rasheed Khan. 3. Govt policies leading Azad Kashmir to civil war: JKLFSaturday May 01, 2004 (0420 PST) Toqueer GilaniRAWALPINDI, May 02 (Online): The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) has said the policies of Sikandar government are cropping up a civil war like situation in Azad Kashmir. In a joint statement issued here on Saturday, JKLF chairman Amanullah Khan, chairman of policy and planning division of the party Sardar Khadim Hussain and JKLF spokesman Dr. Tauqeer Gillani slammed the present government for arresting party leaders. They said the arrests of Qari Naseer and Sardar Altaf in Tarrarkhul is tantamount to state terrorism of Sikandar regime. They said the people are being forced to start violent protest against the arrests. The JKLF leaders said the present government had failed to provide any relief to the common man and now, it is not allowing people to peacefully protest against what they called public-crushing policies and for the addressal of their problems and grievances .They warned the government against dire consequences if it failed to release the detained leaders immediately. End.

I have explained the situation in brief, but should anyone requires more information, I am prepared to answer specific questions.
I want to conclude by saying that I have thorough knowledge of the Kashmiri struggle and its current situation. My Mhil and PhD thesis are on subject of Kashmir, and I am author of more than 15 books on Kashmir. Also I regularly write on current affairs. Some of my writings could be found by doing a google search of my name: Shabir Choudhry
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Spokesman of International Kashmir Alliance. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

New role for Quake victims

New role for Quake victims
Dr Shabir Choudhry 20 October 2005

Earthquake which struck in Kashmir and Pakistan on 8th October 05 has brought untold destruction and misery to the people of these areas. Death toll, according to reports could rise to more than hundred thousand with a few hundred thousand injured and more than half million uprooted from their homes. Tragedy within this tragedy is that despite lofty claims of authorities thirteen days after the event still bodies are lying about and injured and starving people are crying for help and shelter.

Government officials, who were not quick to reach out to people, were quick to snub those who claimed that thousands have died; and portrayed this as a small earthquake. One can see their interest why they want to hide the true figure of fatalities, but truth of the matter is that death figures are far higher than what government officials are giving out.

Edhi is respectable name in the field of welfare in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and according to their report which, was published in Pakistani papers a few days ago, stated that their volunteers have buried more than fifty thousand bodies in Azad Kashmir alone. Edhi is not the kind of NGO, which will spread rumours to frighten people, and if their claim is true than the government has no estimate about the true extent of the disaster.

It is interesting to note that after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s decision to sack his Commander in Chief, it took the Pakistan army only 35 minutes to topple the civilian government and take control of the country; and yet thirteen days after the disaster it has failed to reach out to twenty percent of the area according to their own figure. If the government says twenty percent then we all know that real figures could be much higher.

Pakistan is a nuclear state with seventh largest army, which makes big claims from to time about its professionalism and efficiency. Army in any country should be the potent force to carry out the rescue missions and maintain law and order, and it is supposed to have its own command and control system in place before it could implement other plans; and in Pakistan we have army running factories and other institutions of the civil society, hence a little time for other activities.

Commenting on governments efforts to help the victims, Imran Khan said, "The government effort has been non-existent….There is no direction to the effort. Ordinary citizens are stuffing their cars and coming here, but the government is nowhere".
Ayaz Mir, famous columnist of English Daily, Dawn, while criticising the response of the army, said, "What they like to say about it is that it is the only functioning institution in the state and when all else fails, it's the army that holds everything together. The one institution which failed above all is the army."

According to some analysts, army’s slow response and negligence, has now provided ‘an opening for hard-line Islamic political parties and their associated social welfare groups, which have quickly and prominently swung into action… As a result of the Pakistani government's failure to get aid to the most remote areas, Kashmiris living in towns such as Bagh have turned for help to the comparatively well-organised Islamic militant groups, officially banned by Musharraf.’ And this according to Western media reports could help ‘Pakistan-based Islamic militants, who spent the past decade fighting Indian rule in the region, have announced a "holy war" to help victims of the earthquake.’

While commenting on this situation, Hassan Rizvi, Political analyst said: "The militants are taking matters into their own hands and winning over members of the public on the ground. Their popularity will soar in these regions as a result and the government will appear directionless. It is a very dangerous situation."

According to foreign aid agencies, including UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. Jan Egeland, government’s relief operation ‘is a logistical nightmare and in the first phase even the big cities could not be reached'. If people are to live there a few more days in rain and cold without appropriate food and shelter, and injured without any treatment, then fear is that death toll could go beyond anyone’s expectations.

Imtiaz Alam, famous columnist of the News, wrote: ‘What makes things even worse is that those on the helms continue to under-estimate the devastation and, resultantly, the tasks ahead. Why should the international community respond more than what we continue to understate? The administration, which still doesn't have the correct estimate of dead and missing under the rubble of Margalla Tower in Islamabad, continue to understate the casualties and the losses only God knows to what end.’

There is huge shortage of tents in all the affected areas, and all the relief providers and victims are crying out for tents. One wonders what has happened to all the tents. Apart from the civil government stocks, army also has large stocks of tents; of course they go on training schemes and at borders where tents are used. Also these religious parties have very larger gatherings in which up to million people take part and they all live in tents. What has happened to all these tents? Some of these religious parties provide temporary shelter to more than million people who go there for religious training, why can’t they use these tents to provide temporary shelter to victims of the disaster.

According to some reports tents are there, but selfish people with greed are selling them to people at much higher prices. A sad story told by daily Nation, London (Pakistani paper) is that some Pakistan army officers are also involved in money - making business, and they are selling tents that were designated for the victims. A colonel of Pakistan army named Asif, was caught red handed in Rawalpindi as he was selling each tent for five and half thousand rupees. He accepted that he has already sold 400 tents to desperate people trying to help the victims.

That is bad as it is, but what has surprised me is the statement made by General Musharaf. Earlier today he visited affected area of Balakot, where he addressed an audience, which apart from his security men had victims of the quake as well. Someone complained about activities of criminals and thugs looting people, to which General Sahib said: you people should catch the looters and hang them upside down with trees.

With all due respect general Sahib, I thought it was the job of government and police/ army to maintain law and order, and hang criminals if necessary. These traumatised, hungry and uprooted people who might not have had good meal for a number of days are hardly suitable to catch the criminals. Some of these people have lost their love ones and have seen death and destruction everywhere, they need help and need it desperately, please do not give them additional responsibilities to police the area.

Even if they apprehend someone, and hang him upside down with trees, they could be charged by police for taking law in to their hands. It is best that those who are paid to do the job of policing and maintaining law and order should do their job, and if possible help and support these victims of the disaster.

Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com

Open letter to Tony Blair

Open letter to Tony Blair
09 November 2004

Right Honourable, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain
10 Downing Street,
Westminister
London

Dear Tony Blair

Re: Your aggression in Iraq

Before your illegal war on Iraq and indiscriminate bombing of heavily populated areas, which resulted in massive human rights abuse, killing of innocent people, we cautioned you in a letter dated 07 April 2003, ‘that by this aggression you will create chaos and instability and you will give birth to future ‘terrorists’ as people will take revenge for barbarism unleashed in name of ‘liberation’. That has proved correct, and you can see how instable Iraq has become.

We also said that your aim was to invade Iraq for other reasons and so called threat of weapons of mass destruction was only used as an excuse. We pointed out that if you sincerely wanted to control spread of weapons of mass destruction then your first target should have been Israel followed by North Korea. We said you will never dare to take any actions against these states because they do possess these weapons and have the ability to use them as well; and you and Americans only choose weak targets.

It was also pointed out to you in a letter dated 08 May 2004, that: ‘this theory that one can end terrorism with more terrorism has not worked in the past and it is doomed to fail in Iraq as well, even though manipulators like Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Bush, Powel and Rumsfeld are subscribing to it and actively following it.’

In heart of heart you know what you are doing in Iraq in name of ‘liberation’ and ‘democracy’ is totally wrong, aim of your aggression was to find and destroy WMD, not to change a government whose head has now refused to follow your and American line.

As long as he looked after American and British interests, he was a ‘good boy’ in your books and was given everything including chemical and biological weapons. When he was killing ‘his own people’ and was fighting your war against Iran causing destruction and killing of innocent people, your governments fully supported him.

Now Sadam Hussain is blamed for killing his ‘own people’ and imprisoning thousands of Iraqis. Of course he imprisoned and killed all those who opposed his rule in Iraq, and we don’t support him for that; please tell me what are you doing to those who oppose British and American occupation in Iraq?

One can say that only difference is that he did not use a sledge hammer to crack a nut, meaning that he did not use F 16 fighters, helicopter gun ships, dropped bombs weighting 2000 pounds and missiles in densely populated cities.

Despite being proved wrong on Iraq and a ‘champion’ of illegal and immoral war in which victims are innocent Iraqi people, I am surprised you have nerve to say that only ‘criminals, killers and terrorists’ are creating problem in Iraq.

If fighting forces of occupation and subjugation is a ‘criminal’ act and ‘terrorism’ then what name would you give to those British people who fought against German occupation; or those Afghanis who fought against the Russian occupation?

Tony Blair, it is still not too late, you can stop or at least reduce the suffering of the people of Iraq. You don’t have to follow the Americans in international affairs. You could be proud in your heart that you are a friend or an ally of a ‘super power, but remember, Allah is the greatest and no super power could even remotely match His powers. Many tyrants and leaders in the past who assumed themselves as head of ‘super governments’ were punished by Him and destroyed.

You need to ask yourself, are people of Iraq better off after this aggression? Is world more safer place now? Are British interests and British lives safer now than they were before the start of this aggression?

With military might you can crush resistance in Faluja and in other places but you will never win peace because your prescription for achieving peace and democracy is flawed. You DONOT plant democracy by occupying a country, by dropping bombs in civilian areas and by killing innocent people.

We are part of British society and want to see peace and prosperity here, but we fear that your policies are having adverse affect here, and Britain could be a target of retaliation.

I hope that you will do your best to win peace and stability in Iraq and withdraw your forces that innocent British and Iraqi lives could be saved.

Yours sincerely




Dr Shabir Choudhry

Sumeer Bhat Sahib Adab

Sumeer Bhat Sahib Adab

Thank you for your email, and I apologise for delay in responding.

You have raised very important questions. However they are not simple questions which could be answered by yes or no type of replies; and if I start answering them in detail, I will end up writing a book.

Anyhow short answers are as follows:

Was Maqbool Bhatt only concerned for so called Azadi?

Answer: Maqbool Butt Sahib was a sincere man who wanted independent and sovereign Jammu and Kashmir. His political philosophy was practical and offered a way out to both governments, but they both had their own designs on Kashmir, hence we find ourselves in this impasse.

However he was human being and every human is subject to mistakes and errors, but I cannot question his sincerity and loyalty to his cause, and I salute him.

How is it possible for Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Shabir Shah, Yasin and others to have unlimited resource financially. And how do they palatial bungalows?

Answer: Here you might be able to help me, as my knowledge of other side of LOC is somewhat limited. A reliable friend told me that special kind of trees were planted there by some people, which grow dollars and rupees. Where about of these trees are not known to everyone; and those who know where these trees are, for obvious reasons, won’t tell others.

If this is true then it solves the riddle. However you can look in to this.


Why doesn’t Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s children join the so- called freedom movement?

Answer: I don’t know the real reason, he might be making his contribution some other way; but you got to understand that we also need doctors and foreign educated young men who could help us to run this state once it gets its independence.

I am sure you wouldn’t like to be operated by a person who is not qualified and experienced. Also I hope that you wouldn’t like our society to be held back and ruled by illiterate people.

Who do you presume to be the genuine party in struggle for freedom?

Answer: There are many parties which are genuine, because of their constitution and (written) ideology, but problem is with their leaders who don’t care about constitution and ideology. Since you did not ask about the leaders so I am at liberty to leave it at that.

Has your group ever been involved in armed struggle? And do you have presence in Indian Kashmir?

Answer: Our group came in to being in 2002, and we have no role in militancy, in fact, we have been speaking against so called Jihad and militancy since mid 1990s. But you must understand that prior to this we were part of JKLF Yasin Group, which abandoned armed struggle in mid 1990s.

Also you need to note that in our group, apart from me, there are other eight founding members of the JKLF.

We don’t have official set up on Indian or Pakistani side of the divide, but we have hundreds of friends and sympathisers who urge us to set up official branches. Hitherto I have personally opposed this, hoping that leaders of other groups will realise that flirtation with ideology and agencies is damaging the cause.

Despite secular overcoat and hat, some are wearing a communal jacket, and that goes against the JKLF ideology; and our fight is to purify the ideology.

If we want we can have branches in Jammu, Valley, Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit and Baltistan where non Muslims will also join us, but in the fast changing politics of Sub Continent we are reviewing our policies and our strategies.

How much following do you have in Pakistan occupied Kashmir?

Answer: No nationalist party has a large following because of the situation there. If we announce a set up there, we are assured that many people from different groups will join us. I have partly answered this in no 5.


Is POK really Azaad?
Answer: I have written so much about it to explain what azadi Azad `Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan has. In nutshell, both of these areas are colonies of Pakistan.


Are you in control of your struggle?

Answer: By this if you mean struggle of our Group, then answer is a big yes, because we make our own decisions as they suit us and our ideology which was articulated in 1977, and our group is the only JKLF groups who adhere to it.

But if by struggle you mean the movement then answer is no; but those who manipulated, manoeuvred and initiated this, they are still in control; and way the things are they will remain in control for years to come because of compromises and subservient attitude of Kashmiri leaders.

What has changed since 9/11 in your struggle for so called Azaadi?

Answer: 9/11 not only changed character our struggle but also the world politics. I think it has clearly helped the point of view we have been promoting.

I still remember when I wrote an article in mid to late 1990s, criticising activities of Jihadi groups, I was declared as ‘anti movement’ ‘anti Islam’, ‘anti Pakistan’ ‘pro India’ and even ‘Hindu’. Many threats were given to me, and even close JKLF colleagues said that I had made a mistake to invite wrath of this powerful lobby.

Some said you step outside UK and you will be sorted out. I have been to Srinagar and many times to Islamabad and Azad`Kashmir since that. Despite opposition from some quarters I managed to survive and was elected unopposed President of JKLF in 1999, remember the split took place in 2002. As a President I continued with the policy of the JKLF, and a strong diehard group always supported me at every juncture.

Good thing is that some of those who were after my blood for writing against activities of Jihadies are now actively doing jihad against Jihadi groups.

The time it has taken me to write these answers I could have easily written two articles on topics which need my urgent attention, so please no more list of questions, I wouldn’t mind one or two questions or clarifications.

Once again thank you.

Dr Shabir Choudhry

Visit of 9 ‘generals’

Visit of 9 ‘generals’
Dr Shabir Choudhry 10 July 2005

Even if we are complacent with words the fact remains that State of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly divided and occupied by India and Pakistan, (although some area is under China but under the present situation it does not come in to equation).

Despite clear occupation and subjugation of the State, one region under Pakistan is known as ‘Azad Kashmir’, and this allusion of being ‘azad’ satisfies ego of many people of this region. This false sense of being ‘azad’ motivates them to ‘liberate’ areas under the occupation of India, while forgetting their own plight and plight of their fellow countrymen in Gilgit and Baltistan.

In June 2005, we saw a visit of nine ‘leaders’, rather nine generals who marched in to Pakistani occupied Kashmir, just like Roman generals used to march in to areas they conquered. The way they were greeted by people of Azad Kashmir and occupiers of this area and Gilgit and Baltistan indicated as if these people were coming here after liberation of territory under the occupation of India.

These ‘conquering generals’ always considered themselves as superior citizens of the State, and didn’t find anyone suitable in Azad Kashmir to represent them, so they had to ‘export’ their own favourites to represent them in APHC and in Islamabad.

These nine generals spent less time in Kashmiri territory, Azad Kashmir, and more time in the country which occupied a large part of their homeland and enjoyed receptions and banquets there. They did not dare to visit Gilgit and Baltistan, a region of the State occupied by Pakistan where people are still denied of basic human rights.

These leaders who were greeted here like heroes, did not even speak about Gilgit and Baltistan and about the plight of the people; but thought it appropriate to attack and humiliate their hosts, leaders of Azad Kashmir. This is not to say that leaders of Azad Kashmir are above criticism and that their role is exemplary, but there are some traditions and moral values which we should all respect.

If leaders of Azad Kashmir have adopted selfish attitude and have not fulfilled national aspirations of the Kashmiri people, they are not alone in this, leaders on the other side have done worse and they are more in number.

One can even question credentials of these visiting ‘kings’ who are beamed through Pakistani media as Kashmiri leaders, and ask what they have done to get unity and national emancipation. One has to see if they added to the problems and suffering of the ordinary people, or they have done something to alleviate this misery and suffering.

It is unfortunate that leadership is imposed on the people of Jammu and Kashmir from abroad, and for many decades it has been the Pakistani establishment and media who have chosen leaders for us. Kashmiri leaders on their part have been good in attacking and abusing each other and accusing each other of treachery and working for either RAW or ISI.

When these ‘leaders’ came to Azad Kashmir many thought they will come with a programme for unity or some kind of agenda which will help people of Jammu and Kashmir to get unity and independence. Instead they came armed with criticism and abuse; and wanted to divert attention to trivial issues by personalising matters.

They wanted to ensure that no one asks them about their lack of interest in the area of Gilgit and Baltistan; and lack of interest in other issues which immediately concern people of this area. They ensured that they DONOT say anything which could possibly annoy the Pakistani government and secret agencies, and for that they had to keep peoples attention focussed on other issues.

Despite this abuse and insult, leaders and people of Azad Kashmir showered them with love and respect; and many wonder if they deserved all this. Leaders of Azad Kashmir and especially nationalist leaders rightly question their right and ability to represent all sections of the Kashmiri community.

They all came together which gave the impression that they were all one – members of one team, but it soon became apparent that they were divided lot with individual agendas to suit their personal ambitions. Even the language they were speaking showed that they were individuals with no national programme; but they were all united in one thing and that was to ensure that Pakistani establishment is not upset with anything they say.

They visited Mirpur and biggest problem facing people of Mirpur is the proposed upraising of the Mangla Dam, which will uproot more than hundred thousand people and cause enormous other problems. Pakistan is upraising this dam against declared will of the local people and against their interest. This project will benefit Pakistani landlords and Pakistani industrialists at the expense of local people.

These ‘leaders’ who want to be taken as national leaders, and expect people of Azad Kashmir to rubber stamp their decisions; and yet they did not have courage and sense of responsibility to speak about rights and concerns of these people.

They did not express their desire to visit Gilgit and Baltistan or even to meet leaders of this area because they feared that Pakistani establishment would not like this. And those who tried to shout slogans about Gilgit and Baltistan, Mangla Dam and role of Pakistan were told not to say anything which could annoy Pakistani officials as they have been ‘good hosts.’

This attitude clearly shows that these ‘leaders’ have compromised their views about the Kashmiri struggle, and only want to talk about the Kashmiri territory under the Indian occupation; hence have collaborated with those who want to divide the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

In view of this it is imperative that all those who believe in unification of the state and oppose division as a solution, should come out and tell these ‘leaders’ that they don’t represent us; and that they must not use this struggle as a lucrative business.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir must understand that some of these ‘leaders’ have no constituency and no following, and yet they are projected and imposed upon us as leaders. For what they did there, they were appropriately rewarded and projected by the Pakistani media; and on their return they had this allusion that they were the real ‘leaders’ of Jammu and Kashmir, who (on instructions of Pakistan) will determine future of Kashmir.

Our message to these Pakistan TV leaders is that you do not represent wishes of the ordinary people. You may be representing and projecting the interest of Kashmir’s neighbours but you do not represent wishes of people of Azad Kashmir, Jammu, Gilgit and Baltistan, and Ladakh. You DONOT even represent wishes of majority of the people in the Valley.

Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Struggle for an independent Kashmir

Struggle for an independent Kashmir
Text of Dr Shabir Choudhry’s lecture at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London on 27 April 2005.

The Chairperson, friends and colleagues Aslamo Alaykam

I am grateful to the SOAS Jammu and Kashmir Society, and Nageela Yousaf for providing me this opportunity to speak to you.

Many people believe that the Kashmiri struggle started in 1989; and some think it started in 1931. I disagree with both dates. In my opinion it started in 1586 when an independent state of Kashmir was invaded by the Moghal Emperor, Akbar the Great.

By nature every human being likes freedom; and hate to be enslaved or subjugated. People of Jammu and Kashmir are no different. We also like to enjoy freedom, democracy and prosperity.

In other words the Kashmiri struggle for independence is as old as its slavery and subjugation. This struggle has seen many ups and downs in its long history. Events like 13 July 1931 are different phases of that struggle.

Instead of giving you a long historical background to this struggle I will focus my attention to the events of late 1940s; and will try to update you on the present phase of the struggle. I will also try to explain why the JKLF was formed, and what role it has played.

Is Kashmir part of ‘Two Nations Theory’?

Both India and Pakistan claim Kashmir; whereas India claims it on the strength of provisional accession, Pakistan claims it on the strength of Two Nations Theory. But before we start looking at different options on Kashmir it is important to establish the exact legal position of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As we all know the British Raj in India consisted of two units: British India and the Princely India, and Kashmir was one of hundreds of princely sates in the Indian Sub Continent. Whereas the British India was directly ruled by the British, Princes were taken as allies of the Crown. They enjoyed varying degree of autonomy, but they surrendered their sovereignty in return for the British protection.

At the end of the British Raj in India, they divided the British India; and not the Princely India, as the Two Nations theory did not apply to the Princely States. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was founder of Pakistan and President of Muslim League, in reply to a question on 17 June 1947, said, and I quote:
‘That after the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly {or Pakistan Constituent Assembly} or to decide to remain independent’. Unquote

Apart from this Mohammed Ali Jinnah practically proved that the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States. State of Junagarr had a Muslim ruler and nearly 80 % of its subjects were non Muslims, and the state had no land access to Pakistan. Had the rules of Two Nations Theory being applicable to Princely States, then this state would have automatically joined India; but the ruler of this State acceded to Pakistan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a Governor General of Pakistan accepted this accession.

Similarly Hyderabad state had 80 % non- Muslim majority, and ruler of this state wanted to become an independent ruler. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as a Governor General of Pakistan supported his right to become a sovereign ruler.

These two examples clearly show that the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely states, and Princely rulers had a right to regain their sovereignty after the lapse of British Paramountcy.
This principle was also confirmed by Lord Mountbatten, who as a Governor General of India and Crown’s representative, addressed Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947, he said, and I quote:
‘There had been universal acceptance among the States of the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May and when the political parties accepted the Statement of 3 June they fully realised and accepted that withdrawal of Paramountcy would enable the States to regain complete sovereignty….Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent.’
Unquote
Princely States had to join either India or Pakistan before the lapse of paramountcy, which ended on 15th August 1947, and those states who, for whatever reason, did not accede to either country, legally and constitutionally became independent. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was among those states who did not join either India and Pakistan, and regained their sovereignty after the lapse of British paramountcy.

Is Kashmir an integral part of India?

Now let us examine Indian claim to Kashmir, which rests on that controversial provisional accession. Many people question if at all this accession was signed by the Maharaja. Let’s us assume that the accession documents were signed by the Maharaja, but the point to remember is that it was a provisional accession which had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Pundit Nehru, as a Prime Minister of India, wrote to Liaqat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan on 31 October 1947, and I quote:
Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world. Unquote
To date this provisional accession has not been ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Government of India claims that Kashmir is its ‘atoot ang’, meaning an integral part, and in order to support its claim, government of India says that they have had many elections in Kashmir. Legitimacy of these elections aside, the UN Security Council resolution of 1957, clearly says that no election can substitute a plebiscite.
What this means is that accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is still provisional, and Kashmir is not ‘Atoot ang’ of India and nor it is ‘Sha rag’ of Pakistan. And good thing is both governments are aware of this. If India seriously believed that Jammu and Kashmir was its legal and constitutional part as a result of that provisional accession, then they would not have taken this to the UN, as no country agrees to hold a plebiscite on its territory to determine future of that area.

Apart from that both governments have many rounds of dialogue on the division of the State, and no country agrees to divide its territory and give it away to a neighbouring country. What this suggests is that, to them, issue is related to control of land and its resources, especially very important water resources. And Kashmiris suffer because they live in a beautiful country which is full of resources and its geographical location adds to more importance to its value.

An independent Kashmir

Many people think that the concept of an independent Kashmir is a new phenomenon, and some even link it to New World Order, and some conspiracy theorists even say that it is an India ploy. The concept of a New World Order emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the struggle for an independent Kashmir has a long history.

As I said at the beginning, the people of Kashmir have been fighting for their rights and their independence since 1586. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, was not a democrat, but one thing is clear that he wanted Kashmir to become an independent country; and despite pressure from Lord Mountbatten and others he refused to join either India and Pakistan.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as quoted earlier, in principle agreed that Kashmir could become an independent country. Before the Partition, National Conference was the most popular political party in Jammu and Kashmir, and it favoured an independent Kashmir. Muslim Conference was another important political party, and its acting President, Chaudhry Hameed Ullah Khan also agreed that it is best for Kashmir and all sections of the Kashmiri community that the State becomes an independent country.

It is interesting to note that in the past both India and Pakistan disagreed with each other virtually on everything, but both agreed to oppose an independent Kashmir; and both agreed to keep the Kashmiris out of talks on Kashmir. Just to emphasis this point I want to list some of the main events where we were deliberately kept away from the negotiating table:

People talk of UN resolutions on Kashmir, but we had no input on these, both India and Pakistan presented the case as it suited their national interest. First UNCIP resolution (of 13 August 1948) talked about future status of Kashmir which implied an independent Kashmir; and this did not suit national interest of Pakistan, so they suggested that Kashmiri peoples right to independence should be limited to either joining India or Pakistan.
We were kept away from all bilateral talks on Kashmir which has a long history;
We were not part of the Tashkant Agreement in 1966;
We were not part of the Shimla Agreement in 1972;
Pakistan hosted an Islamic Conference in Pakistan and Kashmiris were not invited. There was talk of all other disputes but no mention of Kashmir;
We were not part of Lahore Declaration;
And we are not part of the present peace process, although we fully support it as we think this could create conducive environment for a final settlement.

They want to decide about the future of Kashmir without making the Kashmiris part of this process; and history of bilateralism shows that when it comes to Kashmir it is doomed to fail because their diagnosis and prescription is wrong. Kashmir is not a bilateral issue, and cannot be resolved by bilateral talks.

It was in 1960s when Kashmiri nationalists regrouped themselves because they thought both countries had their own designs on Kashmir; and rights of the Kashmiri people is not on their agenda. Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front was set up to promote the cause of an independent Kashmir. Maqbool Butt (Shaheed) was its Publicity Secretary; he later became its President.

Maqbool Butt with help of other colleagues organised a secret military wing of this party, known as Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Front. After the Ganga hijacking of an Indian plane in 1970, Pakistan tried to brutally crush both parties in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan in early 1970s.

It was after this that nationalist Kashmiris organised their struggle outside the State. There were small nationalist groups in England, and in 1977 JKLF was formed in Birmingham. I am one of the founders of the JKLF; and it would be pertinent to point out that Maqbool Butt was not a member of the JKLF he was in the Indian prison at that time.

In nutshell the JKLF proved to be the biggest organisation to project the cause of united and independent Kashmir. Unlike some other Kashmiri organisations the JKLF believed in liberal and democratic values and claimed to speak for all sections of the Kashmiri community.

It is unfortunate that practise of some JKLF colleagues indicated undemocratic and communal tendencies which resulted in splits, and also it gave the JKLF bad name. It is also unfortunate that the JKLF is now in many groups, and many people question if some of the groups still adhere to ideology of the JKLF.

The present situation in Kashmir

The State is divided as follows:

As a result of the cease fire in 1949, the State was divided between India and Pakistan. Whereas the Indian side of Kashmir remained one political entity, the area on the Pakistani side was divided in to two units, namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. From the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, Pakistan gifted away nearly two and half thousand square miles of Kashmiri territory to China. On the other side of the divide as a result of a war between India and China, China occupied a large area of Aksai Chin.

On the Pakistani side of the divide Gilgit and Baltistan is directly controlled by Pakistan, and Azad Kashmir has semi autonomous status. Although people are not happy with what Pakistan does in these areas, but there is no widespread discontent and people have not resorted to militancy. Population of these areas is 100% Muslim, but different sects of Islam are in majority in different regions of these areas.

On the Indian side of the divide there is the Valley, Ladakh and Jammu. The Valley has overwhelming Muslim Majority, but Ladakh has one district with Muslim majority and the other with Buddhist majority. Similarly in Jammu there are Muslim majority districts and non Muslim majority districts. Whereas militancy has spilled over from the Valley to some parts of Jammu, Ladakh has been completely quiet.

Militancy

In the long Kashmiri struggle, a military aspect was once again introduced in 1988/9, and leaders of the JKLF have been proudly taking credit for this. However with hindsight many leaders of the JKLF now accept that they were used, and militancy was never under their control; and those who controlled it had different agenda to that of the JKLF.

Many analysts believe that introduction of foreign militants in Kashmir was perhaps the biggest mistake, as it changed the character of the Kashmiri struggle. It helped India to project the Kashmiri struggle as part of Islamic fundamentalism. Their presence was also not appreciated by the local people because this added to their misery and problems.

Militancy whether it was Kashmiri or non Kashmiri has resulted in more than 50 thousand lives, and it has also destroyed social fabrics of the Kashmiri society. In Kashmir, like in any other armed conflict, majority of the victims are innocent civilians. No one has the exact data about total deaths in Jammu and Kashmir, but it is true that majority of the casualties are civilians, and they are not all killed by the Indian forces. There are other non state actors who also did not hesitate to kill innocent people or cause their deaths by throwing bombs in populated areas.

One group of the JKLF headed by Yasin Malik declared a cease fire in 1995, and resorted to non violent struggle. JKLF believes that:

1. There is no military solution;
2. It has to be resolved through a process of tripartite or triangular dialogue;
3. It is not a religious dispute and no decision could be made on basis of religion; and that all sections of the Kashmiri community must be taken on board;
4. Kashmiri leadership should be allowed to meet that they can formulate a strategy to resolve the dispute;
5. Approximately 99% of the Kashmiris agree that there should be no division of the state, as division will cause more harm to the Kashmiris; and also it will detrimental to peace and stability of South Asia;

Bus Service

1. In principle we support the bus service. It gives an opportunity to people to meet their love ones who live on the other side of the forced division. Also it is a good CBM as people to people contacts always help to diffuse tension, but we strongly emphasise that the procedure should be simplified.

2. For example if a person from Gilgit wants to visit someone in Kargil, he has to first go to Muzaffrabad to get a form, which is a very long and difficult journey. I think it takes about twenty hours to get there, and completed form goes to Islamabad, and after clearance from there it goes to New Delhi; and when it gets clearance from Delhi then the lucky person is informed of his ‘success’.

3. I don’t need to remind people that this clearance is given by the secret agencies of both countries. This system virtually gives right to agencies of both countries to decide who should board this bus; and this way many genuine people could be denied of an opportunity to visit their love ones. Also this system will give encouragement to favouritism and corruption as agencies will support application of those who are part of their political system.

4. If the applicant is lucky to get permission, he/she will travel again from Gilgit to Muzaffarabad and board a bus to Srinagar, and from there many hours of long and hard journey to Kargil.

5. We therefore urge that all traditional routes which existed before the partition should be opened, and people should obtain and submit these forms at district head quarters.

6. We also strongly oppose that people of India and Pakistan should not be allowed to travel on this bus as the danger is that it might turn this in to another Wagha border - international border between India and Pakistan. Other routes which suit them more should be opened for people of these two countries. My fear is that if agencies are to decide who should board the bus then obviously they will prefer their own people, and not the Kashmiri people; and when this travel becomes hazard free then one could see more Indian and Pakistanis on the bus rather than the Kashmiris.

7. Another thing which is of concern to us, and which we have repeatedly pointed out and it is about the stipulation that people travelling on the bus could be asked to pay custom if they were carrying goods above certain value. This implies a first step towards an international border, as people don’t pay custom when they carry goods from one part of the country to another.


Kashmiris are not united

As pointed out India and Pakistan have always ensured that the Kashmiri leadership is not part of any dialogue on Kashmir; and to support their policy they sometimes say Kashmiris are divided, and there is no one suitable person to represent them.

True, we Kashmiris are divided, but that can be taken as a positive sign. We are thinking people, and we all have ideas about various things. Isn’t it true that all thinking people differ on certain things? What about Pakistani and Indian societies, are they not divided over many issues? Don’t they have many parties and groups? This is a flimsy excuse to keep us away from the negotiating table.

We say it should not be their problem which team will represent us on the negotiating table. You let us meet and we will select a team which will represent all sections of the community, and protect the national interest of Jammu and Kashmir.





Is an independent Kashmir viable?

India and Pakistan oppose an independent Kashmir not because it is not economically viable, but because they know that an independent Kashmir has a great economic potential.

Jammu and Kashmir has great economic potential, and there are many sources to generate revenue. If we, for time being, leave economic potential of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan aside, and only concentrate on one revenue generating source still we can be economically self reliant.

A research done by Kashmir Foundation for Peace and Development claims, that if we concentrate on Hydro Potential of Indian side of Kashmir, then we can generate 20,000 mega watt of electricity from there. The cost to generate one unit is only 20 paisa, and it is sold at 2.50 rupees. It means a net profit of 2 rupees and 30 paisa per unit. This source alone, according to the research, is sufficient to make Jammu and Kashmir self reliant; and it will pay back all the costs of the project within three years.

Last month I was in Islamabad where I met some Western diplomats. During the meeting they acknowledged that majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir were in favour of an independent Kashmir. They also agreed that economically it is viable, but the problem was attitude of India and Pakistan. An independent Kashmir cannot survive if India and Pakistan and the international community do not guarantee its independence.

Of course India and Pakistan have their genuine concerns about an independent Kashmir; and they also have economic and strategic interests. We Kashmiris want to be a source of friendship, cooperation and stability in South Asia. We cannot maintain our independence if we have two strong and hostile neighbours. We will all have to learn to live like good neighbours.

Both India and Pakistan have much to gain if there is peace, stability and economic cooperation in South Asia. Economic interests and other internal and external forces are pushing both countries towards a common goal and that is to have peace and economic cooperation in South Asia.

Of course India has much larger agenda which is to do with its international role and that could not be fulfilled without sorting out problems of South Asia first. And in my opinion for peace, stability and prosperity of South Asia, both India and Pakistan will have to agree to some kind of an independent Kashmir in near future.

Thank you for being so patient.

After the lecture there was question and answer session for half an hour.

Role of MQM in Relief work

Role of MQM in Relief work

Dr Shabir Choudhry email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com

There are people who have many bad things to say about MQM as a party and a movement, and they even have criticism to make over their role in the relief work. As a Kashmiri nationalist I welcome their help. According to news in Pakistani papers there have been some clashes between MQM workers and Jammat E Islami workers in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Rivalry between these two go back to Karachi and has manifested itself even in the filed of relief work.

As far as I am concerned MQM was among the first to activate its cadre to support the victims of the earthquake, and they have provided millions of rupees and blankets etc; and have helped to save thousands of lives. We are grateful to MQM for everything they have done for us, and we hope that they will continue to help us because still there are millions of people without any shelter.

MQM, at one time, was only a regional or ethnic party with interest largely restricted to Karachi and Hyderabad, but we saw role of MQM gradually expanding to the rest of Pakistan. Over the years they have played an important role in the national politics of Pakistan; and now they have moved to Pakistani Administered Kashmir to help the quake victims.
Before the rise of MQM, Jammat e Islami had a big say in politics of Karachi, and after bitter confrontation their position was take over by MQM. And now that MQM workers came to Pakistani Administered Kashmir this alarmed Jammat e Islami, because they feel they could be squeezed here as well.

I can see MQM playing an important role not only in Pakistan but also in Kashmir as well. Sooner or later Pakistani government has to make some compromise on Kashmir and they have shown their ability to make u turns on important issues and get away with it. Kashmir dispute is a different ball game; the government has to get support of some powerful forces in the country.

MQM over the years has proved that they have the ability to mobilize public support on important issues, and effectively support the government. MQM Chief, Altaf Hussain, by sitting in London can call shots and make things happen in Pakistan. The military government and MQM need each other in order to be relevant. Their interests are common, and they have to forge closer ties to be successful in the next phase, which starts in 2007; but for that a lot of work needs to be done beforehand.

As noted above Pakistan has to swallow a bitter pill on Kashmir, and MQM could be a useful ally in this. It would not surprise me at all if MQM starts its branch in Azad Kashmir. I oppose Pakistani parties to have their branches in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in Gilgit and Baltistan; but if other Pakistani parties can have their branches here then no one can stop MQM to set up their branch here.

Should MQM decides to follow other Pakistani parties and move in to this area, which in one way they have already done because of the relief work, then they could soon be a successful party as they know how to make alliances and mobilize masses.

Who is responsible for London Bombing?

Who is responsible for London Bombing?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 17 July 2005

People of London and Britain are trying to overcome the impact of tragic events of ‘London bombing’; moreover Muslim population of Britain is trying to face new pressures. Muslims and non Muslims have forwarded many theories about these bombers and motives behind this tragic incident, and no one theory could encompass the whole truth.

No one in his right mind could justify killing of these innocent people, but one has to remember that no one is born as a ‘terrorist’ or a ‘suicide bomber’. We are product of the society we live in, and different issues and factors influence our thinking and behaviour. As we live in a global village issues and events taking place elsewhere could also influence our thinking and behaviour.

The term suicide bombing has become an everyday term in our lives. As much as this act is hated we fail to see the root cause of the problem which has never been addressed by the relevant authorities. Increased security will not cease terrorism but recognition of grievances displayed by these desperate acts will play a more positive role in trying to prevent these acts. It has to be said, nothing can be done to fight those who are willing to die for their cause, whether that cause is justified or not in view of others; and there is no protection against this phenomenon.

Tony Blair was warned by many, including this writer that the war against terrorism cannot be fought by terrorism itself. In a letter to Tony Blair dated 07 April 2003, I said, ‘that by this aggression you will create chaos and instability and you will give birth to future ‘terrorists’ as people will take revenge for barbarism unleashed in name of ‘liberation’.

I further said that act of aggression which is carried out in disguise of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and ‘war on terrorism’ will create thousands of more terrorists, and will make the U.K vulnerable to attacks. Apart from me many other people wrote similar things, and if we, the ordinary people, could envisage this, the authorities with vast knowledge and experience could have also seen this; but strategic and economic interests were too high and these threats were ignored by the authorities.

The killing of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan has been disguised as ‘liberation’ and war on terrorism’. The killing of innocent people anywhere else is seen as an act of barbarity, but victims and those who are neutral in this struggle (crusade) question where is the distinction between the two?

Soon after the bombings in London Muslim scholars, community leaders and imams tried to take lead in condemning these bombings; of course members of other faiths and other communities and political leaders also condemned this act. Asian media, especially Asian TV channels held special programmes to condemn this and show solidarity with the government and the families of victims.

Vast majority of Muslims strongly oppose actions like this, and even though they had no prior knowledge about this incident, they feared that they will be accused of supporting or condoning this; and they felt they had to do more in order to show that they were not on the side of these terrorists.

I am among those who have opposed violence for many years and have paid a big price for this as well. I have no problem with these people condemning terrorism, but wonder if that is enough to stop terrorism. I also wonder if these people are sincere in condemning terrorism; or they just want to condemn terrorism in London because they fear it could possibly affect them.

Some of these people from Pakistani/Kashmiri back ground who are trying to take lead in condemning terrorism in London are the ones who opposed us when we spoke against violence in Kashmir and advocated a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

It was these people who called us ‘anti Islam’, ‘anti movement’ and ‘anti Jihadi elements’. The blood of victims whether they are in Aldgate (London), Lal Chowke (Srinagar) or Faluja (Iraq) is red, and they are all human beings with brothers, sisters and parents just like all of us. We cannot say that killing of innocent person in London is wrong, because we could feel heat as a result of this killing, and call it holy jihad elsewhere which must continue.

No doubt people of Jammu and Kashmir have genuine grievances against both India and Pakistan, as their homeland is forcibly divided and occupied by these two countries. What adds salt to our wounds is the denial of our inherent right of self determination, as both countries have clear territorial aims and want to deny us to exercise this right to determine our future.

Continued denial of this right has resulted in people resorting to violence, especially on the Indian side of the divide which was of course only possible with support of Pakistani agencies. We proposed a peaceful resolution of this dispute in mid 1990s, and we were criticised by those who wanted the pot to keep on boiling; but now all those who sincerely want to resolve the Kashmir dispute accept that there is no military solution to this dispute and that violence could only add to our problems.

The point I am trying to make is that we have to be honest in our approach to violence. We have to condemn all sorts of violence no matter where it is taking place, and no matter who is behind it. We cannot pick and choose, support it where it suits us and oppose it when tide is against us. A terrorist has no more right to commit an act of violence anymore than a nation state has. A death of one innocent person is a loss of one innocent human being regardless of who committed this act and for what purpose.

Islam is the most misunderstood and misinterpreted religion of all times, and ignorance only breeds the misunderstanding to the point of hate. Islam does not state any where that killing of innocent people will guarantee you heaven in the afterlife nor does Islam state killing of innocent people is justified in any circumstances. Lack of knowledge allows the terrorists to hide under the shield of religion to justify their acts.


Teaching of Islam is very clear on killing of innocent people: if you kill one innocent person that is as if you have killed the whole humanity, and if you save one innocent person and that is as if you have saved the whole humanity. But if we use our knowledge and experience to justify one innocent killing in one area of the world, because it is convenient to us then we are leaving space for others to use their knowledge and experience to justify such actions in other parts of the world as well.

Similarly if we justify killing of innocent people in Baghdad and Faluja because it serves our national and strategic interests then we are leaving space for others to broaden the area of conflict to satisfy their interest, no matter how obnoxious and condemnable these interests are.

What surprises many is that when Faluja was on fire and forces of occupation were unleashing most advanced and deadly weapons, at that time community leaders, religious scholars, and managers of Asian TVs did not find it appropriate to have discussion on the situation in Faluja where innocent Iraqis were facing bombs from everywhere. They should have had discussions to work out strategies to prevent that, and moreover to work out plans to control minds and actions of Muslim youths in Britain and elsewhere in Europe.

Some people are surprised and shocked by these attacks. I am among those who are saddened but not surprised, because it was clear that our foreign policy has made us target of these kinds of attacks. Tony Blair and George Bush say that these people attack us because they hate democracy and Western life style. This is not true. Once again they are trying to mislead people. If these terrorists hated democracies and Western life style then why they are not attacking Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and many other Western democracies. Answer is very simple: these countries have not committed aggression Muslim countries and have not supported aggressions and tyrants; whereas Britain and America have led this aggression and caused death of thousands of innocent Muslims.

One wonders who is responsible for this carnage. Is it our foreign policy which is perceived as anti Muslims and anti Islam by many, partly responsible for making London a target of these attacks? Or are we, the members of the Muslim Community, especially from South Asia, partly responsible for failing to teach our children that Britain is our home, and anything which hurts Britain will ultimately hurt us too. Apart from that have we failed to teach our children that as Muslims we must abide laws of the country we choose to live in, and must not work against interests of that country?

Or are those people partly responsible for this, who condone acts of terrorism in certain parts of the world because it suits them? Or these young men were mad and destructive, and were born with evil embedded within them?

I know the trend since the London bombing has been to write against these acts and not to write to open the reader’s mind to acknowledge a problem that is so deeply embedded within the structure of our government that maybe we should blame the same government promoting terrorism by its own acts. No matter what the trend is, I have always spoken out in support of what I believe is correct.

I would like to end this article by leaving these questions for my readers:

Alqaeeda members are perceived as very intelligent and well organised people, then why is it that these so called suicide bombers left their ID’s and other documents behind; and in case of America, left training manuals to fly aircrafts in Arabic in their cars?

Why would a car with explosives be left in a public place (car park in Luton), especially if the car was hired out in a name of one of the alleged terrorists?

Could they have not just boarded a train from Leeds or even steel a car to drive to Luton?

Why would so- called ‘Muslim bombers’ target pre-dominantly Muslim and ethnic minority areas to show retaliation against a Western society?

Many Muslims believe that one of the reasons why Britain joined America in this aggression was economic; and if the aim of these terrorists was to harm Britain, then wouldn’t it have been more effective to commit these acts one day earlier to sabotage Britain’s chance of holding Olympics in 2012. If this had happened on 5th or 6th July, instead of 7th July then there was no way Britain could have hosted Olympics and that would have surely hurt Britain economically.

Could it be possible that like in the case of Weapons of Mass Destruction, evidence was sought to suit policies and aims of the government; now evidence is ‘established’ or ‘planted’ to make an opening for a another war? Could all this be to create public fear and panic to condone such an action?

9/11 was used to launch a war against terrorism and that helped America and UK to fulfil their strategic and economic aims; and I hope this, 7/7, is not a prelude to another form of aggression.

Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com

Who paid for this?

Who paid for this?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 28 October 2004

Over the past twelve months a lot has happened in South Asia and clearly some progress has been made in understanding and resolving the Kashmir dispute. International Kashmir Alliance which is pro people and peace alliance visualised this progress last year and after careful preparation felt to forge unity and better understanding among different ethnic Kashmiri groups; and for this purpose announced first International Kashmir Conference in London to promote intra Kashmir dialogue.

Apart from inviting notable Indian and Pakistani politicians IKA invited Kashmiri leaders from all regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir who represented all shades of political opinion.

Those who opposed unity among different Kashmiri groups and didn’t want the Kashmiris to organise themselves to have a say in the future of Kashmir unleashed strong propaganda against the IKA leadership and this conference, alleging that it was funded by India.

A Kashmiri friend who also read this news item, which was displayed on front page of every newspaper, commented that hitherto Indians have always ensured that the Kashmir dispute is not mentioned in any international arena; and if they have started ‘funding’ such conferences then they must be out of their minds.

Kashmiris and Pakistani masses have amazing attitude, they can take money from American, British, Russian, Iranian, Pakistani and other agencies, look after their interests and feel proud about it. Those who have commercialised this struggle and take money for it, like to keep attention focused else where, so they make silly allegations against their political foes that so and so has received money from India. Innocent people forget every other type of money taken by these merchants and go berzerke on mere allegation and don’t even ask for any evidence.

With announcement of first Intra Kashmir Conference, it appears as if IKA opened a flood gate of Kashmir conferences and now hardly a week goes by when there is not a meeting of some Kashmiris which is called ‘International Kashmir Conference’.

In some of these so called ‘International Kashmir Conferences’ people from one region of Kashmir representing views of Islamabad get together to declare that they are representatives of Kashmiris, knowing full well that they have no one to represent people of the following communities or schools of thought:
Shias from Gilgit and Baltistan
Sunnis from Gilgit and Baltistan
Ismailis from Gilgit and Baltistan
Pro independent parties from Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan
Dogras from Jammu
Hindus from Jammu
Muslims from Jammu
Pandits from Jammu or the Valley
Pro independent groups from the Valley
Pro India groups from the Valley
Muslims from Ladakh
Budhists from Ladakh and
Sikhs and Bakarwals

A group of Kashmiri people who have many hats on their heads have concluded some ‘Kashmir Conferences’ in important capitals; and one such ‘conference’ has just ended a few days ago in London. In these conferences they spend generously and have opened large offices in posh areas of important capitals. These people are personally known to Kashmiri political activists, and a few years ago some of them had difficulty in paying their own fuel bills and were taken to court for non payment; and now they spend lavishly and travel first class.

We know these people have not sold any hotel to meet expenses of these conferences; nor have they sold any factory or orchard for this purpose; and Kashmiris have right to ask where this ‘Mann o Salva’ is coming from and what they have sold to get it.

Purpose of these ‘conferences’ is not to build consensus among different Kashmiri groups that they can collectively raise voice against any kind of forced division of the State; rather their agenda is to ensure that the gulf among Kashmiris is widened and they project a Kashmir policy which suits Islamabad.

Even though the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed and occupied, yet these people only ask India to quit Kashmir, and remain quiet about areas under Pakistan. They will never speak about any wrong doing on the Pakistani side of the divide, as if people here are enjoying heavenly peace and tranquillity; nor will they speak of any wrong doing by militants as if they were army of angels sent from heaven to accomplish a mission of love, peace and fraternity.

This policy of some Kashmiris provide a legitimate reason to India to claim that the whole movement is a Pakistani sponsored, and that people from outside have created chaos and disturbance in Kashmir. Also this policy makes Kashmiri claim of state human rights violations less credible to our Western friends when we try to exonerate militants of any wrong doings and present them as little angels.

We all know that human rights have been committed and innocent people have lost their lives and have suffered immensely, but it will be wrong to accuse India for everything. Apart from the Indian state craft other players have been in action as well, and we in IKA have this courage to blame India for its role, blame Pakistan where Pakistan is to be blamed and also blame militants and Jihadis, especially who are non Kashmiris and who are on a mission to ‘purify Kashmir from non Muslims’.

All those Kashmir who want to see their homeland united and who want to live in peace and harmony need to stand up and be counted. Those who have made the Kashmiri struggle as their business would like the State to remain divided and this chaos to continue because this is good for their business, but this is not good for ordinary people of Kashmir, Pakistan and India.

We need to ensure that these people are identified and countered at every level until such time that they realise that they are causing mischief and harm to the interests of ordinary Kashmiri people. Also we need to ensure that this peace process continues as this could lead to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute, and can bring peace, stability and prosperity to South Asia.

In order to get best for the people of Kashmir we Kashmiris, especially the leaders, have to think as Kashmiris and protect interests of all sections of the Kashmiri community. India and Pakistan are nation states with large infrastructures to protect their national interests, and DO NOT rely on puppets to look after their national interests.

Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Peace in Kashmir

Peace in Kashmir
Text of speech made by Dr Shabir Choudhry, Spokesman of IKA, in a peace conference held by International Kashmir Alliance in Canada on 27/28 November
2004.
Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

It is desire of every normal human being to live in secure and stable environment where they can enjoy prosperity and freedom. Security, stability and prosperity could only be achieved when there is peace. Absence of peace brings chaos and economic instability which only suits a small number of people.

People of Kashmir are not different from anyone else, and rhetoric aside they also want to live in peace and enjoy economic stability; but what they have gone through over the years it must not be construed as peace at any cost. They want peace with dignity. They want culture of fear and intimidation to end.

India and Pakistan have declared cease fire in Siachin and on LOC. We welcome this and all other confidence building measures which are desperately needed to achieve peace in the region. These measures good as they are, are only saving lives of Pakistani and Indian soldiers in these places and are not providing any relief to the suffering people of Kashmir.

People of Kashmir have lived through hell in the past fifteen years, and they continue to suffer. Every day they lose lives – some are killed by bullets and others die in cells or are made to die in shame because their sister or daughter has been rasped.

In past we have accused each other for wrong doings in Kashmir and this culture of blame game was used to divert attention from the real cause. Now that a peace process has started which has made some progress, it is not appropriate to continue with this blame game which only emitters the environment.

In order to resolve the complicated dispute of Kashmir we need cooperation and goodwill of all three parties to the dispute; and by accusing each other or by putting each other down we can only widen the gulf of differences, hence prolong misery and suffering of the Kashmiri people.

This approach will also hold back progress of South Asia, and people of this region have already suffered too much because of this dispute. We have to think of not only Kashmir but South Asia. Like people of Kashmir people of India and Pakistan are also paying a heavy price because of this dispute. They are also living below the poverty line because their governments are diverting funds to meet military requirements.

We need to focus all our attention in creating appropriate environment in which people can trust each other, and work together to achieve peace and stability which could lead to Kashmiris getting their national identification and right to determine their future.

All those who want to resolve the Kashmir dispute and want to have peace and stability in South Asia must understand that Kashmir dispute is not a religious one in nature. It is a political dispute and we must find a political solution for it. Any attempt to impose a decision based on religion could create more problems, and destabilise the entire region as its implications could affect other areas of the Sub Continent.

It should also be remembered that Kashmir is one political entity, and no matter what is the final solution, the state must remain one. Division of Kashmir in any form or shape will not provide a just and lasting solution.

After fall of Soviet Union, nuclearisation of South Asia and 9/11 world politics has changed dramatically; and we Kashmiris must adapt to new situation and make new strategies which can win us friends and sympathisers.

All those who project use of gun to settle the Kashmir dispute are not well wishers of Kashmiris. Similarly all those non Kashmiri militants who are in Kashmir are requested to leave as they are not helping the cause. Their presence is adding to the miseries of the people.

As noted above the Kashmir dispute is a complicated one, and in order to resolve this complicated issues, one needs goodwill, determination and patience. Despite all the goodwill and determination it may not be possible to resolve this complicated dispute in one go because of deep rooted and strong views on this. We may have to resolve it in stages by putting confidence building measures in place.

Both India and Pakistan have taken certain measures which could be taken as a first stage, and this has helped to cool down the temperature. This momentum must be carried forward by taking certain more actions, and government of India should take initiative by declaring a cease fire in Kashmir. This time people of Kashmir will welcome this initiative and support the peace process.

Apart from opening Muzaffarabad and Srinagar Road, other traditional routes should also be opened, and this will surely help the peace process. People who have been forcibly separated for past 57 years must be given a chance to interact with each other and strengthen social, cultural and economic ties.

The peace process could also be supported by releasing of political prisoners and by allowing political leaders to travel across the LOC. Not only APHC leaders should travel across the LOC but also other political leaders from both sides, especially leaders representing Kashmiri minorities should be allowed to go across and forge bridges of understanding.

It must be understood that people of Kashmir are the main party to this dispute, and they could not be bye passed by India and Pakistan to find a solution of Kashmir. A mechanism must be worked out that they can become part of the peace process.

It must not be a concern of India and Pakistan who will represent the people of Kashmir. If they let people of Kashmir interact with each other they can select their representatives who can effectively protect Kashmiri interest.

Until such time that the Kashmir dispute is resolved the people of Kashmir must not be deprived of their basic human rights on both sides of the divide. Not only that people of Gilgit and Baltistan don’t have basic human rights they are also deprived of their identity and legal status. A false name of Northern Areas is given to their homeland, as if this was a Pakistani territory.

Apart from that in complete violation to the State Subject Ordinance, which was put in place by the Maharaja to protect Kashmiri interests, government of Pakistan has settled tens of thousands of Pakistanis in Gilgit and Baltistan to change demography of this region. This practise must stop and those who have illegally settled in Gilgit and Baltistan must be sent back to Pakistan as their presence is causing enormous problems to the local people.

All those people who have been uprooted because of the trouble in Kashmir including members of the Pundit community must be settled back in their homes and appropriate compensation should be paid to them. These people are part of Kashmiri history and culture and they must be made comfortable to come back to their homes.

President Musharaf has made some interesting suggestions and people have criticised him for that. One must accept that it is a daring move, which none of his predecessors could dare to take. I don’t accept everything he has said but it is wrong to out rightly reject everything he has said. There are some positive aspects of his speech, for example he recognised that:
areas of Gilgit and Baltistan are part of State of Jammu and Kashmir;
the UN resolutions have failed to provide a solution and that they have to find a solution outside of these resolutions;
there is no military solution to this dispute;
Jihadi forces and other forces of extremism are hurdles in peaceful resolution of the dispute;
solution will come through a process of dialogue;
an independent Kashmir is also an option.

One can see it is a big change from Pakistan’s previous stated position and we should commend him for this, and hope that he will continue with this peace process. END

Kashmir needs change of heart

Kashmir needs change of heart

Although situation has changed due to on going peace process, and especially after the deadly earthquake in Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan; but we must remember that at one time, Kashmir Dispute was referred as a ‘flash point’. This ‘flash point’ could have lead two hostile nuclear neighbours to full scale conventional, and possibly ‘non conventional’ armed conflict. It is argued by many that it is because of this ‘grave danger’ the Kashmir dispute has to be resolved.

No doubt the Kashmir dispute is one of the oldest, and it poses a serious threat to peace and stability of South Asia. And we Kashmiris more than anyone else want peace and stability in the region and want the Kashmir dispute to be resolved; but it should not be resolved just because the status quo is a threat to the peace of South Asia. Also that the status quo is in way of a larger interest of certain interested parties.

The Kashmir dispute must be resolved in its own right, as a case of Kashmiri peoples unfettered right of self- determination, a right that has been denied to the people of Jammu and Kashmir for many decades. It should be taken as an issue of a nation, forcibly divided, oppressed and denied basic humane rights, not of a territorial dispute, and a bone of contention between the two countries.

By taking this approach we do not only think of Kashmiri regions disturbed by the on going armed struggle, but also take the State of Jammu and Kashmir as whole being disputed. We ought to look for a solution of the whole State, not find a solution based on districts and regions because of the trouble in those places. If unfortunately we followed this route then it would surely lead to more trouble and chaos in future.

Those people who wish to resolve this dispute must also realise that by attempting to find a solution on regional bases, hence forcing a division of the State, is tantamount to sowing seeds for future trouble and instability. Also they need to understand that this approach of dealing the dispute as a territorial one, would not only be unjust and denial of rights to the people of Kashmir, but it would also not provide much desired security and stability in the region.

It is unfortunate that some of those who are entrusted to resolve the dispute do not have basic understanding of it; and what makes it more difficult is their arrogance and allusion that they know it all. They wrongly assume that they have monopoly in wisdom and refuse to learn, listen to anything that is different to their view, or make any effort to acquaint themselves to the ground realities.

Kashmir belongs to the Kashmiri people, and they are principal party to the dispute with inalienable right and a ‘title’. India and Pakistan on the other hand, have ‘claim’ to the State of Jammu and Kashmir because of being our neighbours, and because of their national interest. They are party to the dispute because of their de facto control of parts of the State. Pakistan had claim to state of Junagadh, in fact, this state acceded to Pakistan, and Pakistan accepted that accession, but just because Pakistan had no physical control over any part of the state that claim is no longer there.

Similarly present day Bangladesh was yesterdays East Pakistan, an integral part of state of Pakistan, but when West Pakistan lost physical control of its integral part, they abandoned their claim over that territory, and no one speaks about it as a Pakistani territory any more. So it is the physical control of parts of the state on which Pakistan rests its case on Kashmir; and India rests its case on the provisional accession, validity of which has been in dispute ever since.

Pro Kashmiri stand

Both countries wanted to get Kashmir and worked out different strategies for this, so both presented the Kashmir case as it suited their ‘national interest’, not what suited the people of Kashmir. Both established their puppet governments in the areas under their respective controls, and also set up their “A” and “B” teams, which either propagated Indian point of view or Pakistani point of view.

The Kashmiri voice was simply not present; there were no platforms where the people of Kashmir could present their case. Those Kashmiris who were ‘provided’ with an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Kashmiri people had either Indian or Pakistani baggage with them, and that certainly did not help the matter. This resulted in confusion at every level, and the Kashmir was seen as a territorial dispute between the contestants.

It is because of this confusion and lack of clarity that despite losing more than 50,000 lives, at international level the Kashmir dispute is seen as a ‘matter between India and Pakistan’, which they have to resolve bilaterally. In other words Kashmir dispute is seen through eyes of either Islamabad or New Delhi, and those Kashmiris who were trying to put forward the Kashmiri perspective were, until very recently, dismissed as being ‘anti movement’.

No matter what Pakistani and Kashmiris leaders say for public consumption, when it comes to discuss the solution of Kashmir, at international level term of reference are not UN resolutions but Shimla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. This means these so-called specialists occupying seats in ‘Foreigners Office’ have done a serious damage to the cause of Kashmir.

Some people think India is to be blamed for all the ills in Kashmir, therefore, all criticism should be targeted against India; others think ‘source of trouble is Pakistan’, and they only criticise Pakistan. Both these approaches are wrong. We can spend rest of our lives yelling against India on every street corner in every city of the world, and it wouldn’t make iota of difference to the Kashmir dispute, if anything members of the international community could see this approach as ‘Pakistani sponsored’, and that would not only take steam out of this but also create problems for Pakistan.

We need to have a balanced approach, but when someone tries to have this and endeavours to put forward a view that is against the policy of Islamabad, certain quarters in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir swing into action, and make wild allegations. These people claim to have monopoly over wisdom and loyalty, simply fail to distinguish between a government and a state. In their view a criticism against the Kashmir policy of a Pakistani government, especially made by a Kashmiri, is opposition to the state of Pakistan, hence regarded as a treasonable act.

As noted above, the world knows a Pakistani view on Kashmir and they also know an Indian version; and during my struggle for the cause of an independent Kashmir, I have tried to give a different perspective in my speeches, articles and books.
The present book, ‘Kashmir needs change of heart’, consists of my articles, written during course of my struggle since June 2004 for the Kashmir cause. These articles are on various aspects of the struggle and readers would note that I have not supported either Indian or Pakistani view - point. I have attempted to have a balanced approach, and have not gone out of way to criticise or demonise one contestant at the expense of the other; and in doing so I have tried to ensure that I project the Kashmiri point of view, and be pro Kashmir rather than be pro Pakistan or pro India.

Do not hide truth

The environment in which we are living and conducting our activities for the unification and complete independence of entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, it is a tall order to keep a balanced approach and continue with the work because of severe pressures and coercion. It is because of this, at times, I had to defend my approach and react to events as I thought appropriate and in the best interest of our ideology.

I must also point out to the readers that I am one of the founders of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, and have held various senior posts, including the posts of General Secretary and President for UK & Europe. I started my political struggle in 1973, when I was only a teenager; and that my struggle is not post 1990 when people witnessed a mushroom growth of Jihadi and other organisation and ‘freedom fighters’.

This mushroom growth was artificial, and more appropriately it was engineered with certain tasks in mind, and people were handsomely ‘rewarded’ for setting up these organisations and carrying forward an agenda which in essence was communal, anti people and deeply divisive. In nutshell, this was not a Kashmiri agenda and it attacked and destroyed social fabrics of the Kashmiri society, and ideals of tolerance, peace and harmony appeared thing of the past.

My friends advise me not to ‘stick out’ my head as it could land me in hot water, but I think I have a duty to pass on the knowledge I have gained after years of research and hard work. I have been told again and again to keep my work and research to myself, in other words sit on the information I have. Whereas Islam says do not hide truth in layers of lies, and that it is crime to conceal knowledge. Prophet Mohammed PBUH said, "He who is asked about something he knows and conceals it, will have a bridle of fire put on him on the Day of Resurrection" (Narrated by Abu Hurairah (r.a.a). Collected by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah and al-Hakim).

I believe Allah Almighty has put me in a privileged position where I had an opportunity to educate myself and gain knowledge on Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations. Now is it correct way to thank Allah for his kindness to me by concealing truth, telling lies and holding back facts, just because there are powerful groups in society who don’t like what I do? In my pinion the best way to thank is to ‘educate’ others and disseminate information that people are better informed; and when it comes to taking some decisions they are not in dark.

I do not expect every one to agree with point of view I have expressed in these articles, but I hope that they will respect my right to hold an opinion and express it. A writer is a product of society and environment he lives in, and reacts to situation or situations he encounters, and readers do not always have advantage of knowing that background.

Despite this I hope that my new book would give readers a different perspective, it would give them information which they might not have; and which powerful groups with great vested interest don’t like them to have, as it challenges their stand on Kashmir. To me it is Jihad to speak out against oppression and injustice, especially when powerful and influential people are in favour of keeping people ‘ignorant’. It is encouraging to note that I am not alone in this Jihad as more and more people are joining it.

I hope that after reading this book, readers will have better understanding of the Kashmir dispute; and that they will support Kashmiri peoples unfettered right of self – determination. I also hope that, as always, I will have some feedback from my readers that I can improve myself.

Change of heart

Whereas world politics had changed with disintegration of the Soviet Union, and especially after the fall of Twin Towers, but we in South Asia were slow to acknowledge these changes and make appropriate changes to our policies. With heads in sand we were happy to continue with the same policies, which meant more confrontation and hatred for each other; and which nearly brought South Asia edge to a nuclear disaster.

However it is encouraging to note that situation in Jammu and Kashmir and in South Asia is also changing fast. If we want to make a positive contribution to our communities and to the region we live in, then we will have to make changes to our approach in problem solving. We cannot continue dialogue with guns pointing at each other, never mind solving sensitive issues.

With entrenched positions and fingers at triggers, we have only caused death, destruction and have brought pain and misery to the people we were supposed to serve and make happy. If we continue with the same mind- set, then we don’t need a rocket scientist to tell us our fate.

But I am sure that won’t happen as we are thinking people, and have the ability to solve our problems without use of gun and outside help. This approach will require change of mind and change of heart; and I hope that we will change our mind and heart for the sake of peace, stability and prosperity of Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia.

Dr Shabir Choudhry 12 November 2005

Telfax: 0044 (0) 208 597 4782 Mobile 0044 (0) 7941 295327
Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com

Time to move forward

Time to move forward
Speech for JKLF International Kashmir Conference, Mirpur Azad Kashmir on 19/20 February 2005
Dr Shabir Choudhry

Mr President, distinguished guests, colleagues, diplomats, journalists and other respectable members of the Kashmiri community Aslamo Alaykam.

When last year International Kashmir Alliance, after observing positive developments taking place in South Asia, announced International Kashmir Conference to be held in London, in which leaders from all regions of Jammu and Kashmir were invited, it opened a ‘flood gate ‘ of public meetings held in name of international Kashmir conferences in different capitals of the world.

And when JKLF announced the International Kashmir Conference, first of its kind to be held inside the State territory, it unnerved people in certain quarters and they rushed to announce conferences. We don’t envy them. They have their agenda to follow which is set up and controlled by non Kashmiris, and we have our own agenda which is pro people, pro Kashmir and is set up by Kashmiri nationalists who believe in unification and independence of Jammu and Kashmir.

Distinction of our conference is that we have invited leaders, journalists and human rights activists from all regions of the State, and have a policy of providing a platform to even our political opponents. Whereas in other public meetings and seminars only those Kashmiri leaders are invited who believe in accession of the State with Pakistan.

Not everyone could come from the other side of the LOC, as some people had difficulties with passports and visas; and others had personal and political commitments elsewhere and could not find time. But they have expressed their goodwill and best wishes to us.

Rationale of the conference

We carefully analysed world opinion on conflict resolution and closely monitored geo political developments in the region, and came to conclusion that there is no military solution to this dispute; and that we must work out a strategy that the dispute could be resolved through a process of dialogue in tripartite or trilateral negotiations.

Both India and Pakistan have their strategies worked out and they sit at the negotiating table to safeguard their national interest, and decide future of us Kashmiris who are not represented in the peace process. Their policies are not pro Kashmir; they are either pro India or pro Pakistan, and harm the interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is unfortunate that we Kashmiris don’t have a strategy on future of Jammu and Kashmir; and it is partly because of this we don’t have a seat on the negotiating table. Some of us want to be part of Pakistan, some want to be independent and others are either happy with the status quo or want to be part of India. And what hurts us more is our eagerness to either eliminate those who disagree with our opinion or declare them as traitors.

With this background and with Jammu and Kashmir forcibly divided in to various regions, we decided to hold this Intra Kashmir dialogue; and we don’t want this conference to be just another conference. We want this conference to reach some decisions and formulate a policy which is agreeable to majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmiri strategy

Before we can ask India and Pakistan to include us in the process of dialogue we need to formulate a strategy. We have to agree on common minimum programme that we can protect national interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir. We cannot wait for a miracle to happen; and cannot continue with the present policy of wait and see while innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir continue to die, and they continue to live under fear of oppression and intimidation.

Time and again a question is asked who will represent people of Jammu and Kashmir, if and when they get an opportunity to join the peace process. It is a good question and it deserves a serious attention. However this question should not worry India and Pakistan, as it is for us Kashmiris to decide who are the best people to represent people of Jammu and Kashmir; and protect interest of the State.

We request both governments to review their current policy of bilateralism as it will not produce a viable and acceptable solution on the Kashmir dispute; and provide us opportunities to interact with each other that we can strengthen our social, cultural and economic ties, and also select our representatives.

It is universally agreed that use of violence is not the best way of resolving disputes, and the Kashmir dispute is not an exception to this rule. People of Jammu and Kashmir have already suffered too much; they, like any one else, deserve peace, liberty and freedom. However it should be construed that Kashmiris want peace at any cost, we want peace, but with dignity and honour.

It is very easy to point fingers that so and so is responsible for suffering and misery of the people; but the issue is much more complex than what it looks, and it is best that we avoid this blame game which is not conducive to friendly environment we are trying to create to take this process further.

While working out a strategy we need to remind ourselves that Jammu and Kashmir is a multi lingual, multi religious and multi racial state; and while appreciating genuine concerns of India and Pakistan, we have to think as Kashmiris and protect Kashmiri interest. Both India and Pakistan have large machineries to protect their national interest, and if we speak either language of Islamabad or New Delhi, we won’t be helping the Kashmiri cause; in fact, this will further complicate the matters.

Any solution of Kashmir dispute which gives rise to extremism and communalism could only exacerbate problems of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and that of India and Pakistan as well. We, therefore, need to formulate a strategy which promotes regional and communal harmony; and opposes division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as division in any form or shape will not provide much needed peace and stability.

We, as leaders of different Kashmiri parties with welfare of people in mind, have to consider the following:

1. What mechanism is required to make Kashmiris part of the peace process; and how to elect/select Kashmiri representatives?

2. Will the bus service and ‘softening’ of borders help the peace process, and if so how it should be done?

3. Can the peace process be successful while militancy continues and there is a large concentration of army in the State?

Power of this lobby is declining

Power of this lobby is declining
Dr Shabir Choudhry 26 September 2005

Tables have been turned – yesterday’s hero, First Mujahid (Mujahid e Awal) and most trusted man of the Pakistani rulers, has been castigated as a ‘traitor’ just because he decided to speak truth about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

According to news emanating from Pakistan powerful lobby, which thrives on communalism and hatred has strongly criticised Sardar Qayyum Khan, former President and Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir. They have called him a ‘traitor’ for criticising the role of militants in Jammu and Kashmir. They claim in this old age Sardar Sahib has been influenced by ‘evil’ of ‘liberalism’ and ‘enlightened moderation’.

Holy prophet (peace be upon him) preached moderation; and it is news to all educated and thinking people that moderation could be called ‘evil’; and that caring for minorities and speaking against communalism and hatred could be termed as treason.

I have no love for Sardar Qayyum and his politics, but I respect him as a Kashmiri who is perhaps same age as my beloved father who has always taught me to respect elders. I can still recall, and memory of other Kashmiri nationalists should also be not that bad, that they forget what Sardar Qayyum Khan used to say about Maqbool Butt- traitor, an Indian agent etc. Also it is still fresh in minds of people what he said in Dadyal, Mirpur about pro independent people- he called them as ‘illegitimate’ (Jaharriyun Ki Pidaaish hain)’.

But all that is in the past. We have to learn to forgive and accommodate all Kashmiris and should not hold their past in the way of unity and just solution of the Kashmir dispute, which is prerequisite to peace and stability in South Asia. It is absolutely important that we put past of our leaders behind us, as many of us intentionally or unintentionally have made mistakes. We need to formulate a policy that could help us win peace, freedom and dignity which has been absent from the State of Jammu and Kashmir for many years.

Qaaide Azam’s Pakistan which was supposed to provide, peace, dignity and freedom from political and economic exploitation failed to achieve its objectives because those who opposed tooth and nail very idea of Pakistan were allowed to take control and influence policies of this new country soon after the death of its founder. This powerful lobby, through its use of religion and mosques, created a situation in which communalism, hatred and chaos flourished; and Qaaide e Azam’s dream of liberal and democratic society never materialised.

This policy coupled with other blunders resulted in geographical death of Qaaid e Azam’s Pakistan in 1971. What a revenge from Qaaide Azam and his Pakistan by a lobby which was defeated by him in 1947; but alas no lessons were learnt, and this lobby became more powerful and influential with time.

Russian invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent ‘Jihad’, which in true sense was America’s war against the Soviet Russia, proved a major turning point for them, as it opened flood gate of dollars and arms which fell in to their hands and greatly enhanced their influence, status and bargaining position. If ‘Jihad’ in Afghanistan was a lottery then ‘Jihad in Kashmir was a gold mine for them, and at no cost they were going to let this go.

Despite their influence and intimidation sane voices spoke against them, and many notable Pakistanis also joined in this jihad, which we were doing against these forces of communalism and hatred. Air Marshal ® Asghar Khan, who is hailed as Mr clean and a man with vision and sincerity, is among those Pakistanis who have openly supported Kashmiri peoples right to become independent, and as a result they also turned against him.

Now Sardar Qayyum Sahib has also joined us to criticise militancy, in fact, he has gone a step ahead of us. Whereas we say militants cause killing of innocent people and giving bad name to Islam, and that this violence should stop; he has said that Mujahideen are committing terrorism, and killing innocent people. He further said that they have killed people of all sections of the Kashmiri community, and that there is no room for gun in Kashmir.

I welcome remarks of Sardar Sahib, at last he has called spade a spade. One can excuse Sardar Sahib for taking so long to come out openly like this, as he might not have had access to the information while sitting in Rawalpindi and Muzaffarbad and listening to the Pakistani media only; and as soon as he went across and interacted with his fellow Kashmiri leaders he saw different perspective of the Kashmiri struggle which was not so visible from Rawalpindi, and which is not so pleasant.

Sardar Qayyum Sahib should be congratulated for this daring posture and we hope that once he is back in Rawalpindi, he will not say that he was misquoted, as this is the normal practise in Pakistani/Kashmiri politicians. Pakistani heads of State, Prime Ministers and other national leaders have claimed to have been misquoted even though when the reporters have taped their interviews.

Sardar Qayyum Sahib and others who have either joined this jihad with us to fight forces of communalism and hatred, or are still sitting on the fence need to understand that these people are on the run now. Their power and influence is on decline and we must not provide oxygen and blood of our people to boost their commercial interests, which they disguise under the holy name of jihad. Their commercial interests only flourish when people are dying in name of religion and hatred; and when even places of worship become their legitimate targets.

When IKA leaders spoke out against commercial aspect of the militancy, and that people with vested interest have transformed the Kashmiri struggle in to a lucrative business, we were also attacked and accused of being ‘traitors’. Now after some years, leaders like Sardar Qayyum Khan, Professor Ghani Bhat, Umar Farooq, Sajad Lone, Yasin Malik and Amanullah Khan are also seen in the same line.

When we were under fire these leaders did not support us, and left us at the mercy of forces of extremism and hatred, but we will support their right of expression, and will welcome them with open heart in to our camp – a camp which believes in liberal and democratic values and which is pro people and pro peace. It is our responsibility to fight for rights of all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, and encourage tolerance, peace and non - violent approach to conflict resolution.

IKA leaders who have wealth of experience and do not lack in wisdom and goodwill are willing to work with all like - minded people and groups to further the cause of peace and tolerance. I must add here that IKA leaders, like other human beings are not infallible, but have wisdom, courage, and love for their motherland.

Like Sardar Qayyum Khan, Mir Waiz Umar Farooq has also attracted a lot of attention over the past week because of his pro people and pro state approach. He must also be congratulated for speaking in support of United States of Kashmir; and this once again has sent a powerful message that people of Jammu and Kashmir, despite differences of opinion, are unanimous that the state of Jammu and Kashmir must remain one political entity.

I hope that Sardar Qayyum and Mir Waiz Umar Farooq will not, under pressure, abandon their newly discovered love for liberalism and democratic values; and that they will not let people of Jammu and Kashmir down as their services and goodwill are needed for peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

Writer is a Chairman of JKLF Diplomatic Committee, and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir. He is also Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com

Role of IKA in Kashmiri politics

Role of IKA in Kashmiri politics
Dr Shabir Choudhry 10 December 2005

IKA was formed under Geneva Declaration to provide a platform to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that they can express their views without any threat or intimidation. It is a pro people and pro peace Alliance which believes that there is no military solution to the Kashmir dispute; and that the dispute has to be resolved in a process of dialogue involving all three parties to the dispute. It strongly opposes politics of vested interests which is commercialised and which has encouraged violence and proxy war; and this has resulted in loss of thousands of valuable lives and has done enormous damage.

We can proudly claim that we have made a difference in the Kashmiri politics. We openly opposed commercialised politics and gun culture in Jammu and Kashmir; and strengthened those groups and individuals who opposed all this but did not have courage or did not have a platform to oppose these power groups. We provided a voice to disadvantaged groups in the society; and promoted culture of tolerance and coexistence.

IKA not only promoted peaceful resolution of the dispute but also promoted Kashmiri nationalism, as we are the first party or alliance to have reached out to people of all communities and regions and provided them a platform. From this platform, a first International Kashmir Conference in its true sense was held in London, which was also attended by notable people like Benzair Bhutto and Dr Farooq Abdullah.

Despite strong opposition from certain powerful groups it was very successful conference from anyone’s standards; and notable delegates from different social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds sent a powerful message that we don’t want any more violence, and that we want peace, dignity and right to live our lives like other human beings.

We were the pace setter, it helped to change thinking of the people. This provided them encouragement and they felt that they could oppose and challenge those who want to continue this proxy politics and proxy war in Kashmir resulting in mayhem and bloodshed. It also showed that the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, and especially areas of Gilgit and Baltistan also came to limelight first time since the present militancy. A clear message came out of this conference that majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is against division, violence and sectarianism.

IKA London conference also opened a flood- gate and many groups with vested interest started holding conferences in various parts of the world, but they failed to attract delegates from all regions and all communities; and they only looked official show representing one view point.

IKA held its second International Kashmir Conference in Canada, which also proved to be very successful, as more people representing ethnic minorities of Jammu and Kashmir were present. And we also managed to issue a joint declaration from the delegates, which reinforced IKA programme and promoted politics of tolerance and coexistence. It rejected division of Kashmir, and condemned violence and sectarianism. It promoted more confidence building measures, opening of LOC and peaceful resolution of all issues including dispute of Jammu and Kashmir; and insisted that there must be an active participation of the Kashmiri people.

It must be noted here that apart from these conferences IKA leaders held a number of seminars in various parts of the world, and have held many press conferences to highlight different issues, which directly concern the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Also IKA leaders have met British MPs, European MPs and MPs of various other countries, including diplomats of important countries and Think Tanks to project a Kashmiri point of view.

In pursuance with IKA policy and programme of reaching out to people and give out Kashmiri version to the international community, we arranged third International Kashmir Conference in Brussels. This conference, like our previous conferences, was very successful, and some would say more successful because of the contribution, debates, interaction and final outcome in the form of comprehensive agreement known as Brussels Declaration.

But this conference should not be an end itself, this is means to an end, and end being a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of everyone concerned that we can have peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Many positive changes have taken place since our first conference, India and Pakistan are firmly committed to the peace process; and there has been change of attitude to violence and many stumbling blocks.

Even there have been some major changes in Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia since our last conference in Brussels. Earthquake has destroyed thousands of villages and towns in Kashmir and Pakistan, and there are millions of people who desperately need help; and the world community and aid agencies have been very active in dealing with the disaster.

India and Pakistan have also come closer since the earthquake; and they have opened five points across the LOC to help the quake victims. Indian government was among the first to offer massive help, although there were some trust and confidence related hiccups that delayed the relief work and as a result we failed to save thousands of valuable lives. This also indicates that we all need to do more to boost trust and confidence that all the concerned parties to the dispute could sit down around the table and resolve all issues which hold our progress.

What this means is that role of IKA has not finished yet. We need to do more to build bridges among different communities and ethnic groups that we can all trust each other, and work out a strategy to establish peace in the region and face challenges of the 21st century.

I understand that there are other peace loving people and groups who share our ideals and we are willing to work with them; and in this respect IKA leadership has taken some decisions to incorporate and affiliate other like- minded groups and individuals. We planned to announce this strategy in October after completing our discussions with all the concerned groups, but that could not happen due to massive earthquake which has not only killed more than lakh people and destroyed nearly half of Azad Kashmir, but political activities have also been taken over by relief work.

We could not have continued with our political programme after this tragic event for obvious reasons. Anyhow like other aid agencies we have also been active with the relief work, as first priority was to save lives and be with people in this time of desperate need.

However we shall soon be starting our political activities which will have a strong element of relief work. I believe IKA can play a leading role in helping and supporting the peace process; and bringing people from different social and cultural backgrounds on one platform. For this purpose IKA can hold a conference in Islamabad followed by one in New Delhi, which could help people of all shades of political opinion to discuss and debate issues; and forge alliances and unity among different groups.

Apart from that IKA leadership has ability and skills required to help in the negotiations because of their understanding of jurisprudence of the Kashmir dispute; and play crucial role as we believe in non - religious politics, and have strong commitment to liberal and democratic ideals. And this way we can justifiably claim to speak for all sections of the Kashmiri nation as majority share our political ideals.

Writer is a Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF, Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs and author of many books on Kashmir. He could be reached at: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com

You know he has been to Delhi

You know he has been to Delhi
Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

True Kashmiri nationalists have never been in good books of the Pakistani establishment; and as a Kashmiri nationalist who has since teenage days strongly opposed Kashmir’s accession to India and Pakistan, and have consistently advocated concept of united and independent Kashmir, I could never be in good books. And I have no qualms about this, as I know sincere adherence to this ideology would not win favours from those who regard it ‘against their national interest’.

Not all members of Pakistani establishment are sincere to Pakistan, and not all have love and care for Pakistan’s national interest; but I have very sincerely pursued the concept of an independent Kashmir, and this ideology is very close to my heart. Only thing I have to ensure is that I am loyal to my organisation, my ideology and the Kashmiri nation. I don’t have to be loyal to India and Pakistan and their national interests, and I don’t have to follow their dictation, and for this rebellious attitude I have always paid price in different forms and shapes.

Unlike some Kashmiri leaders I have habit of calling spade a spade. Whenever there is an opportunity to speak on Kashmir and explain the ideology of JKLF, I am always unequivocal and focused; and do my best to get the correct message across. My style and message does not change with change of venue and audience, and that sometimes annoys some people.

Apart from advocating and lobbying for an independent Kashmir, I have also very strongly opposed and criticised both India and Pakistan for their respective stands and actions in Kashmir, and I have done that honestly and sincerely and at every level, in writing and verbally. This further infuriated the parties concerned. Verbal opposition has its own importance but written opposition has much greater value, and as, according to someone, I am very ‘bold and foolish’ in my written criticism I have made a few more enemies.

A well-wisher told me that in a private gathering of some Pakistanis and Kashmiris, while discussing Kashmir, my articles and criticism of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy also came under discussion. In that meeting a senior officer of Pakistan’s High Commission was also present, and in order to be good in his eyes someone started criticising JKLF and me in particular. Among them was someone with moral strength and clear conscience, and in presence of this officer he not only defended JKLF but also defended my right to express. I was told, he said:

‘We have right to criticise JKLF and its ideology, but the fact remains that it is this thinking which is getting popular not only in Kashmiris, but internationally as well. As for Shabir is concerned I know he criticises Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, but in my opinion there is a lot of sense in what he says. We may dislike it but his criticism is always based on historical facts, and he has every right to express himself.’

Encouraged by this some other individuals also joined the discussion, and made some favourable contribution; and fearing that the debate could win a few sympathisers for the independent school of thought, the officer decided to take control of the debate, and he said:

‘We are not against JKLF or any other organisation which holds this ideology. Like any other Kashmiri party they have right to hold their views, but what we cannot accept is these people expressing anti Pakistan slogans and showing clear animosity to Pakistan. We have information that many senior leaders who believe in an independent Kashmir are anti Pakistan, and are actively pursuing the Indian agenda. Activities they do or things they say clearly shift attention away from what is happening in the Indian occupied Kashmir. As for Shabir is concern we know his agenda, why won’t he write all this – you know he has been to Delhi.’

His smile and style of conversation completely changed the situation, and people started asking various questions and they started criticising Indian actions in Kashmir, and conspiracies of Hindus, Jews and the Americans against Muslims and especially against Pakistan. Well done officer, with one master - stroke you won the show and completely changed the environment against us, but I wish I was there to respond to these silly allegations.

Another example will illustrate how busy is the Pakistani establishment in its ‘jihad’ against pro independent leaders and especially me. Not long ago I went to my local barber for hair cut. He knows me well and it is quite normal thing to discuss various issues while sitting there. After the hair cut he reluctantly asked me to come outside as he wanted to ask me something, and once outside he asked me: ‘Choudhry Sahib have you been to New Delhi’.

And when I asked him why he wanted to know this, he then told me a story which was similar to the one I have explained above. Only difference was that in this meeting there was no one from the High Commission present, but we all know that there are many who would happily project their point of view by adding little bit of spice to the story.

I told the barber that our message is clear and unambiguous. We have courage and moral strength to say the same thing in London, Islamabad and New Delhi. Yes I went to New Delhi in November 2000 to participate in a Peace Conference which was part of Track Two Diplomacy. This Conference was jointly organised by Islamabad based NGO Institute of Strategic Studies and an Indian NGO International Center for Peace Initiatives.

It is indeed an honour to be invited to such conferences as not every Tom, Dick and Harry is invited to participate in Track Two Diplomacy. Only those people are invited who have either made considerable contribution in their own field or who have some kind of expertise. Apart from me other 4-5 prominent Kashmiris were invited from Britain, including British Parliamentarian Lord Avebury who has made considerable contribution to the cause of Kashmir.

It was not a secret meeting, before I went I discussed it with my colleagues in the JKLF, even friends outside the organisation were consulted, and I issued a press statement before my departure. I discussed contents of my written speech which I was to make there with my colleagues, and even with hindsight I can say that it was a wise decision to go there. From Delhi I proceeded to Srinagar and this visit was in many ways an eye opener, as I was able to get first hand views of the people and parties concerned. A copy of my written speech was available to interested people in Delhi, Srinagar and London.

I wonder why there is so much fuss about my visit to Delhi and Kashmir. I am not the only person who has been to Delhi many other people have been there for various reasons. Every year thousands of Pakistanis either go to India for business or meet their relatives, and they stay there for weeks and months. Hundreds of Pakistani diplomats go there and stay there for 2-3 years. Visits of many journalists and artists take place on regular basis, and they stay there for weeks if not months; and loyalty of all these people who go there does not come into question, because they are Pakistanis.

But one week long visit of a nationalist Kashmiri is portrayed as a sin, even though I have a track record of working sincerely and honestly for the freedom struggle. As if I have given away Kashmir to India or changed my ideology since my return. Those sick - minded people who make such silly allegations need to understand that in this age of global village no one needs to travel to New Delhi to make some kind of deal. India and Pakistan have Embassies and diplomatic missions in nearly all the countries, and interested parties and individuals could make deals there.

It is open secret that some people travel to Geneva to make deals or renew terms of their contracts. Some even travel across the Atlantic and make deals in America; or negotiate new terms. In other words people who have made deals their identities are protected, but those have ‘refused to fall in line’ are used as scapegoats. Innocent Kashmiris and Pakistanis have been taken for a ride for too long, now this practise of ‘police encounters’ and character assassination must stop together with this silly propaganda against participants of the conference.

‘You don’t understand Pakistan’s agenda’
By Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

‘You don’t understand Pakistan’s agenda’, the caller said to me. ‘Be under no allusion, Pakistan is not interested in Kashmiri people’s independence, you people are being used in a proxy war to bleed India’, the caller added and put the phone down.

The caller told me he was calling from Jammu and that he has read some of my articles. In one article, while pointing out contradictions in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, I wrote: ‘At the beginning of the struggle Pakistan supported the idea of an independent Kashmir, and when the struggle for independence was at its peak and destination appeared to be around the corner, Pakistan decided to divert that support in favour of religious groups.’

Also I quoted Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnha’s Statement on Kashmir: ‘That after the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly {or Pakistan Constituent Assembly} or to decide to remain independent’.

The caller who introduced himself as a Kashmiri Pundit was referring to the above, he said, ‘Pakistan has clear territorial aims in Kashmir; they want to snatch Kashmir at all costs…. Don’t be fooled by what Mr Jinnah said before Pakistan was born. He only wanted to fool the Maharaja and the Kashmiris and play for time until he could be in a position to force State’s accession to Pakistan.’

I did not agree with this assertion and explained to him that Mr Jinnah clearly understood the legal and constitutional position of the Princely States, and was very categorical about State of Jammu and Kashmir’s right to become independent. I also told him that I had in-depth knowledge of the subject as I had done extensive research for my Mphil degree {and PhD research}, which is on the Partition of India.

That may be the legal and constitutional position, he said, but what regard do Pakistani’s have for a legal position, a treaty or constitution. He told me that despite having a Standstill Agreement with the Maharaja they masterminded the Tribal Invasion of Kashmir, and tried to take over the State by force. He also gave examples how different Pakistani governments abused their own constitution and disregarded different treaties.

I had no grounds to defend Pakistan’s record, but I didn’t want Pakistan to be humiliated in this debate, so I avoided the discussion by saying that it is not my business what Pakistanis do to their constitution or what form of government they have in their country. As a student of history, I know historical position- Mr Jinnah supported Kashmir’s right to independence in 1947, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Manzoor Qadir supported the idea of an independent Kashmir in late 1950s and this idea also got some support in 1989-90.

‘No’, He said. ‘You people were used in 1989-90 to fight Pakistan’s proxy war. As soon as they realised that pro independent movement was getting popular they clipped the wings, and you, JKLF people should know this more than anyone else.’

I agreed with him to the extent that Pakistan has clear agenda on Kashmir and that is to get Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, hence denying the people of Kashmir a right to become independent. Various Pakistani governments have been very clear about this, and openly declared that Kashmir could not be allowed to become an independent state.

I told him that we understand India and Pakistan’s agenda in Kashmir- Pakistan wants Kashmir and so does India, and it is India that has caused more misery and oppression to the people of Kashmir. People of Kashmir are denied basic human rights and they are killed and tortured to death, even in custody.

Also I told him that we are fighting for unification and independence of the State, and that we are not fighting Pakistan’s war in Kashmir; and those Kashmiris who claim this have their loyalty elsewhere. Kashmir is forcibly divided between India and Pakistan, and both countries have their stooges in Kashmir and they issue statements on the instructions given by their paymasters in Islamabad and New Delhi.

‘Try to understand’ he said. It is Pakistan which has created problems. There was no oppression in Kashmir until Pakistan instigated militancy there and communalised the Kashmiri society. Before militancy was exported to Kashmir by Pakistan, we were all living peacefully.’

I interrupted him and said, it was the Kashmiris who started the militancy, not Pakistan. It is our struggle for independence, and not Pakistan’s proxy war. We are fighting because we are not happy with the forced division and the status quo, and not because Pakistan is encouraging us to do so. If Pakistan and India want to fight a war or settle score against each other they will have to find another battleground.

His argument was that Pakistan wanted the Kashmir dispute to perpetuate, and had no intention of resolving it. In his view Pakistan wanted India to keep on bleeding, and Kashmiris were used to achieve this goal. Pakistan will use you Kashmiris to sabotage the political process India has started to resolve the Kashmir problem. He said, ‘You people have been used in the past and you will be used again to further Pakistan’s agenda by sabotaging the elections in Kashmir; and educated and intelligent people like you should not fall in to Pakistan’s trap.’

I told him that irrespective of Pakistan’s views or agenda on the elections in Kashmir, we Kashmiris believe elections of any kind are not solution to the Kashmir dispute. Elections could be held, like they are held in Azad Kashmir, for administrative purposes, but these elections could not substitute the right of self – determination.

I further said, the Kashmiri struggle is and has been for the right to determine our future without any restrictions imposed on us. And if elections are being held, as has been claimed, to elect peoples ‘representatives’, then such elections should be held on both sides of the divide, and under some kind of international supervision. We oppose elections not because Pakistan wants us to do that, but because we have very bitter experience of the elections in Kashmir; and we firmly believe that the kind of elections India holds in Kashmir will lead us nowhere.

I am known as a critic of Pakistani governments, because I criticise Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, but during this long conversation I found myself not only responding to his points but also defending Pakistan. This is because I have nothing against Pakistan, it is the Pakistani policies on Kashmir which I dislike and criticise. State of Pakistan is sacred to me, as it is to many other Kashmiris; and I believe we need a strong, democratic and prosperous Pakistan for peace and stability of South Asia.

When he realised that he was getting appropriate reply to everything, and that I could not be persuaded to shift my stand on elections or on what India is doing in Kashmir, then he said: ‘You don’t understand Pakistan’s agenda… You people are being used in a proxy war to bleed India’.

Towards the end of this conversation the caller was frustrated and angry. I wonder if he was really speaking from Jammu and that he was a Kashmiri Pundit. It is difficult to say with certainty who he was and where he was speaking from. He could be a Kashmiri Pundit, he could be an Indian official trying to persuade me; or he could be a Pakistani official who wanted to find out my real stand on Kashmir, and wanted to trap me to see if I was really ‘anti Pakistan’ or not.

Whoever he was, what he and other people need to understand is that we Kashmiri nationalists, and members of JKLF DO NOT have double standards. We say same thing with same conviction in London, in Islamabad and in New Delhi. Unlike many other Kashmir leaders and political activists, we don not change our statements and ideological stand when we see new audience.

Our message and stand is unambiguous, our struggle is for united and independent Kashmir, and despite all the odds we will continue this struggle. Also we want to make it clear that we don’t want to fight anyone’s ‘proxy war’ be it India, Pakistan or any other country. But at the same time we ask both India and Pakistan not to fight over Kashmir and resolve the Kashmir dispute through a process of dialogue, and not to ignore the principal party to the dispute in this process of dialogue.

Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

‘You are not a Kashmiri’

‘You are not a Kashmiri’
By Dr Shabir Choudhry 02 October 2004

Not only I call myself a Kashmiri but I am proud to be a Kashmiri nationalist. Whereas an ordinary person living in Kashmir could be an Indian or Pakistani first and Kashmiri second, or he could not have developed consciousness of being a Kashmiri; but as a nationalist Kashmiri I am Kashmiri first and Kashmiri last.

And when someone tells me that I am not a Kashmiri just because I don’t speak a language which is spoken in one part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, I feel I have been humiliated or sworn at. It is insult to me that I have to prove my ‘Kashmiriyet’, and request others or persuade them to accept me as a Kashmiri.

A Pakistani friend told me that I was not a Kashmiri because I didn’t speak the Kashmiri language. I explained to him that I am a Kashmiri because I was born in Kashmir, and that the Kashmiri law recognise me as a Kashmiri.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir generally known as Kashmir consists of the Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. In all regions of Kashmir different languages are spoken by native people with Urdu being the language understood by nearly everyone. In other words, like other nation states in the world, Kashmir also has regional languages, and not every citizen of any country speaks all regional languages of his/her country.

If a person can’t speak Kashmiri, a language of the Valley, it doesn’t take away from him/her ‘Kashmiriyet’; and anyone who speaks the above language he/ she does not hold higher social status just because of this, or becomes a better Kashmiri. If and when a referendum is held we will all have one vote, and those with ability to speak Kashmiri will not have two votes.

This sense of humiliation gets deeper when a fellow Kashmiri with ability to speak Kashmiri doubts my ‘Kashmiriyet’ and calls me a ‘Punjabi. I speak Punjabi or more precisely Pahari, and I am proud of what I am; and this does not make my loyalty to the cause of united and independent Kashmir any weaker, if anything, it gives me additional sense of belonging.

India has hundreds of languages and not everyone speaks Hindi, but they are all Indians. Similarly there are many languages spoken in Pakistan and not everyone speaks all regional languages, and yet they are all Pakistanis; but when it comes to Kashmir anyone who cannot speak Kashmiri is sometimes not considered a Kashmiri.
Time and again we have explained that we are Kashmiris under the "State Subject" Definition Notification dated 20th April, 1927, according to which I am class one citizen; and no one can take this away from me. Definition for the term State Subject Class one reads as follows:
Class I : All persons born and residing within the State before the commencement of the reign of His Highness the late Maharaja Ghulab Singh, Sahib Bahadur, and also persons who settled therein before the commencement of Samvat year 1942, and have since been permanently residing therein.
And note two of this Notification clarifies this further:
Note11 : The descendants of the persons who have secured the status of any class of the State Subject will be entitled to become the State Subject of the same class. For example, if A is declared a State Subject of Class II his sons and grandsons will ipso facto acquire the status of the same Class (II) and not of Class I.
After this clear legal position about my Kashmiriyet, I don’t need a certificate from any Tom, Dick or Harry, especially from those who have confused sense of belonging and misplaced loyalty. I am a Kashmiri whether I speak Kashmiri, Balti, Gojri, Punjabi, Sheena or Pahari; and even if I don’t speak any of the above I am still a Kashmiri, as language is used to communicate with other fellow human beings rather than to ascertain some ones national identity.

Those Kashmiris who call themselves as Indians, do so because the Indian constitution regards Kashmir as part of India, but those Kashmiris who regards themselves as Pakistanis do so in contradiction to the Pakistani constitution which does not regard Kashmir as part of Pakistan. It is strange attitude of these Kashmiris who insist to be known as Pakistanis, yet the Pakistani constitution does not accept them as Pakistanis.

It further surprises the outside world when some notable Kashmiris claim that we are fighting Pakistan’s war; and what this means is that we are not fighting for our own rights and right of self determination, but we are fighting Pakistan’s ‘proxy war.’ After very clear message from notable Kashmiris we expect the world to help us that we can win this ‘proxy war’ based on religious sentiments and become part of Pakistan, which according to the outside world could give support to fanaticism and extremism.

Sardar Anwar Khan was a serving army general when decision was taken to appoint him as a President of Azad Kashmir, of course they had to make certain changes to laws before he became the President of this unfortunate territory. In his statement in New York published on 1 October 2004, he said, ‘In reality Kashmiris are fighting Pakistan’s war…, and that issue of fence on the LOC will be challenged in the International Court of Justice’.

I have dealt with the first part of his statement above, and second part is totally illogical, and yet I will deal with it. When the fence was in the process of being built no one cared to take it to the International Court of Justice to get it stopped, and now that it has been erected with tacit agreement and support of Pakistan, general Sahib threatens India with a court action.

I wonder if General Sahib knows that it is only the nation states who have right to take issues to the ICJ, and a territory over which he ‘presides’ is not recognised as a country; and he is merely considered as a ‘puppet’ of Pakistan. He should also know that Pakistan will not take this issue to ICJ because it was with clear agreement of Pakistan that India built this fence, and Pakistani government will not endanger its newly found friendship and much needed peace process.

In view of this who is our ‘talented’ and ‘all powerful’ president trying to fool? For the past 57 years we have been told that Pakistan is doing its best to get us ‘liberated’, and now we learn that Pakistan is only interested in getting some more territory, some more concessions and has agreed to division of the State. Is our President having us believed that Pakistan government will take this issue to International Court of Justice; or his he just playing with sentiments of divided and oppressed Kashmiris?

President of Azad Kashmir seems to be very concerned about rights of Kashmiri people on the other side of the divide, but he needs to be reminded that people of Gilgit and Baltistan are also Kashmiris; and that these people also deserve to enjoy political and social rights.

Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

You are a ‘failed man’

You are a ‘failed man’
By Dr Shabir Choudhry 08 October 2004

It looks that either my ‘Kashmiriyet’ is causing problems to some people or what I say and write is troubling them. During my recent private visit to Azad Kashmir, I had only one public function, and even that was about the launch of my new book, ‘Kashmir Dispute as I see it’. What I said in this function was widely appreciated, but surely disliked and opposed by those who have to be there even when not invited.

While I was there my aunty passed away, and on my return to London some friends came for a ‘fateah’. I knew two of them well but the third one was unfamiliar face. I welcomed them with traditional hospitality.

After ‘fateah’, as is the normal practice, we started discussing other things and during course of discussion my political struggle and Kashmiriyet was challenged. According to them I spoke Punjabi, eat Punjabi food, wear Punjabi dress and have similar culture to that of Jhelum and Gujrat, therefore I should stop talking about Kashmiri nationalism and independence of the entire State.

They further said independence of the State is not possible as Pakistan won’t allow this. Pakistan cannot survive without Kashmir, water from Kashmir is our life - line, and geographic situation of Kashmir provides us important strategic strength, and we cannot risk that by supporting an independent Kashmir.

Also they said that since I live in England and my children are likely to live here as well, so I should take part in politics in England that our interest as Muslims are protected here.

I tried to explain that I am a Kashmiri and that we Kashmiris have to first look after our interest, although we have sympathies with Pakistan’s problems… One guest interrupted me and said, ‘Shabir Sahib I know you like to argue things, and with your knowledge and experience on the topic you will probably win this debate, but I request you to listen to us without getting into a discussion.’

So I decided to remain quiet and just listen to them. What they said to me was quiet demoralising and frustrating, and in order to get it out off my system and to inform others, I am going to produce a summary of our conversation.

Their advice to me was that I should abandon my stand which has not given me anything apart from making some political enemies and losing my credibility in Azad Kashmiri and Pakistani communities. According to them I have only wasted my time and energy; and that it would be foolish to continue on the same path knowing full well that the dream of an independent Kashmir will never become a reality.

One gentleman seemed to know a quite bit about my ‘struggle’, my ‘talent’ and ‘contribution’, about the JKLF and senior colleagues of different JKLF factions. He said, ‘If you had given same kind of time to British politics, then you could have been in Parliament by now.’ He paused for a moment and continued with his sermon, ‘Even working for the right party in Kashmiri politics could have opened many doors for you.’

His conclusion was that I should not oppose policies of Pakistan, and that I should not oppose upraising of the Mangla Dam, as it is really essential for the economy of Pakistan; and take it from me he said, no matter the strength of opposition, Pakistan will go ahead with it.

If you want to be a winner learn to move with the tide. You do not win when you make establishment your enemy. By this animosity you are making it difficult not only for you but also for your family and future generations. Politics is an art of making compromises but your stubbornness will lead you no where.

What has the JKLF given to you? This is the party for which you have worked day and night since 1977; and the same party expelled you even though you were only projecting the cause of the Party. Those people who did not like your policies got you expelled, and even got you branded as an ‘agent’, and those very people who were your followers are pointing fingers at you. Ask yourself if this is a success or a failure; and with the JKLF split in many factions, do you think you will be successful in your struggle for independent Kashmir?

They stayed with me for more than an hour, and during this time I remained quiet most of the time. Before they left one gentleman said, ‘Shabir Sahib, I am your well wisher and I would like you to think very carefully about the issues I have raised. I think probably it is still not too late to make something out of your failed political life.’

I acknowledge there was a lot of sense in what they said, and after they had gone I was upset and demoralised as sense of being a ‘failure’ was having its impact on me. For some time I was thinking if I had not chosen the path I have, I could have made political future for me.

Then train of thought changed and I said to myself, but I made a deliberate choice to be what I am, and this struggle was not imposed upon me; and certainly I am not among those who joined the struggle after 1990 when bounty for doing so was very attractive.

I had an opportunity to become a Councillor from a very safe Labour seat in 1985, but I declined as I wanted to continue as the Secretary General of the JKLF; even though there were no financial gains to be made as the struggle was not commercialised at that time.

May be I am a failure in eyes of some because despite ability and hard work I could not climb the political ladder, or could not compete with my contemporaries on the wealth building mission. I know some of my relatives have ten times more wealth than what I have, and yet they have not passed tenth class from Azad Kashmir, and have no education from England either.

But my contention is that I was never in a race with them to make money. Some of my relatives and many others came to England as teenagers, and as under Matriculates; whereas they are still under Matriculate with a lot of money in banks, I have different kind of wealth, which no one can take away from me and which is not affected by any exchange rate.

It is true that the JKLF, for which I have worked since 1977, is in many groups and that is a setback to our struggle. But we must not under estimate power and influence of those who occupy us. They have power to make or break any group or alliance, or get some one defamed and removed from the political scene. The fact that we are still in the field projecting the nationalist cause of the JKLF, shows our determination and sincerity.

It is also true that those who were my ‘followers’ and those whom I showed how to walk in politics are today opposing me tooth and nail. With time people change, some change under influence of the propaganda unleashed by agencies, and others change due to attraction of the package offered to them.

But I cannot complain about this as I was warned about it many years ago. When I was President of the JKLF, I was cautioned by very high ranking Pakistani officer to abandon our plan of holding a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission in London. I told him that we are holding this demonstration against closure of K2 newspaper, arrest of Kashmiri leaders in Rawalpindi and upraising of the Mangla Dam. He tried to persuade me that it will divert attention from what is going on in the Indian occupied Kashmir, hence it will be an indirect help to India. When I refused to follow his instructions he warned me that I ‘will have to pay a price for this’.

I could have avoided this defaming campaign against me and rebellion in the JKLF, if I had followed instructions of this senior Pakistani officer, but I chose to ignore him and deliberately invited wrath of Pakistani agencies. So I cannot complain that I was not aware of this, I chose to take on people with power and influence and result is before me.

As far as climbing the political ladder is concerned, I never wanted to become a professional politician, so there is no question of climbing any ladder. Unlike professional politicians my aim was and still is to work for liberation of my motherland which is forcibly divided and where people are oppressed and denied of basic rights. I wanted to fight forces of extremism and hatred. I wanted to have equality for all sections of the Kashmiri community leading to peace and stability in Kashmir and South Asia.

This is a gigantic task, it is idealism and which is not possible to achieve in one’s life time, but that does not mean one should not work for it. My response to all those who criticise me for what I am doing is that this is the right path, and I concede that I might not see fruits of this struggle in my life time, but it is this struggle which is worth fighting for and even to give life for it.

Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

New World Order and Pakistan

New World Order and Pakistan
Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

When Austrian Prince Francis Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian student on 28 June 1914, no one imagined that this incident would lead to the First World War which ultimately changed history and geography of the world. Similarly the planners of the tragic events of 11th September were not fully aware of impact and subsequent consequences of their action. This unfortunate and horrible event will have far-reaching consequences on politics and economics of the world; and could even bring about some geographical changes.

In 1914 Austria under the Habsburg dynasty was one of the major powers, and Serbia was a weaker, but troublesome neighbour. Soon after the incident, Austria accused Serbia for instigating the plot to kill the Prince, and delivered an unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia. No attempt was made to prove Serbian government's involvement in any conspiracy to kill the Austrian Prince; and as expected when Serbia refused to obey, Austria, without any hesitation, declared war on Serbia which escalated into the First World War.

Perhaps history is repeating itself, a few hours after the tragic event of 11th September a 'culprit' was found. There was no need to establish his 'guilt'. Powerful media of the USA, Britain and rest of the world began a 'crusade' to depict Usama Bin Laden and his hosts the Taliban Government as villains who must be crushed. All the necessary arrangements have been put in place to accomplish the 'mission' which is not to seek justice or bring the culprit or culprits to justice but to crush Usama and other Muslim militants.

With this 'crusade' the 'New World Order' announced and established at the time of the Gulf War, will surely enter a new phase. And this new phase of the 'New World Order' will have great impact on South Asia, and more than likely it will bring about political and geographical changes in the region.

Each time in the past when attempt was made to establish a new world order, it resulted in political and geographical changes. The major powers of the time were not happy with the existing world order and balance of power and wanted to change it to suit their plans and ambitions; and even if the Austrian Prince had not been murdered by a Serbian student in 1914, still there would have been a war to change a balance of power and establish a new world order. The War not only changed the balance of power but dramatically changed geography of the world.

The new world order established after the First World War could not achieve the desired results for too long, and the world was plunged into another disastrous conflict in 1939 that again changed balance of power and established a new world order. By early nineties even this world order became out of date and redundant, and George Bush (senior) had to declare a 'New World Order' to meet new challenges.

This 'New World Order' although declared with great enthusiasm and vigour could not take its roots because of different reasons; but it helped to bring about many changes in world politics. It even brought some geographical changes as well- one only has to look at map of Europe. Even there is a kind of geographical change in Iraq where the Iraqi government whether good or bad, has no say in certain parts of the Iraqi Territory. Also the 'New World Order' encouraged and facilitated the 'peace process' in Palestine and Ireland, even though in Palestine there is no peace but only war where unarmed Palestinians are being crushed and destroyed- but may be that is how 'peace' is to be achieved there. Champions of peace and justice see nothing wrong with Israeli F16 and tanks firing in populated civilian areas.

Let us assume for a moment that the events of 11th September had not taken place, in my view, still a way would have been found to embark on the second phase of the 'New World Order'. Like in 1914 it was just not the killing of the Austrian Prince that brought about all those changes briefly mentioned above; similarly it was not tragic incidents of 11th September that led to the present impasse. Plans and thinking was already there, what 11th September has done is precipitated and set in motion the process which authors of the 'New World Order' had in mind.

No one in right mind could justify what happened on 11th September, but one might ask what is about to happen, could that be justified? We have seen incidents of terrorism in the past, this of course is the worst, but we have not seen this kind of response to the previous incidents either. At the time of Okalahoma bombing we saw similar rhetoric against Islam and 'Muslim fundamentalism', but as soon as it was learned that he was 'one of us', everything changed. He was tried and sentenced according to the law. No one demanded response like the one demanded against Usama Bin Laden or the Taliban when IRA committed terrorism in London and else where. There was no witch-hunt of Catholics or any other community.

But now objective is different and that is to implement the 'New World Order' in letter and spirit. This process would, no doubt, mainly damage interests of Muslims, and South Asia could be a battleground for a long and destructive conflict. This is where role of Pakistan comes in. Pakistan had no choice but to co-operate. Many think that Pakistan could well become a target during course of this long 'process'. Pakistan appeared to have no cards and had very little room to manoeuvre. But if we carefully analyse the role of Pakistan after the 11th September one could only admire those who are at the helm of affairs. Pakistan has shown maturity and farsightedness.

For the first time I am impressed with the performance of Pakistani officials who have shown that they have ability to plan and handle situation in international crises of this magnitude. Hitherto they have played their cards very well, but they must be cautioned that they need to tread very carefully as geographical changes could take place. They may not be able to stop changes which are due to take place in that region, but surely they have ability to influence outcome of certain things. Apart from other considerations they must keep this in mind that the Kashmir dispute is still unresolved, and it could not be put on the back burner because of other compulsions. In fact it is time to push the Kashmir dispute at top of the agenda, and show the world that it is not a territorial dispute; and that Pakistan would accept whatever is decided by the people of Kashmir. It is Kashmiri peoples wish that is paramount and it is they who should determine the future of State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Writer is a Director of Institute of Kashmir Affairs and a leader of JKLF.

Why not write against India part 1

Why not write against India part 1
Dr Shabir Choudhry

Last week I had two important telephone conversations with two men, one with Islamabad based journalist, and the other with London based important Pakistani. Both men are very dedicated and loyal Pakistanis, and are in positions where they can influence other people. Both have friendly relationship with me and both are my regular readers.

After reading my latest articles on Azad Kashmir they had a complaint to make, even though they did not challenge the contents of these articles. They appreciated my hard work on Kashmir, especially written work to highlight the plight of the Kashmiri people, but questioned me why I don’t write against India. Their argument was that most of my articles deal with the situation in Azad Kashmir, and I pay less attention to the plight of the Kashmiris in ‘occupied Kashmir’; and in their view Azad Kashmir could do with less or no attention at all.

This is widely held view in Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and in some parts of the Indian occupied Kashmir, and there is some logic in this point of view as well. But there are many who think it is against their political struggle which is based on Kashmiri nationalism. To Kashmiri nationalists all parts of Kashmir are occupied and plight of all areas must be highlighted, that the struggle should be seen as a nationalist struggle, rather than a communal one based on religion and against one occupier only which happens to be non Muslim.

Also Kashmiri nationalists think that if we only concentrate to highlight what India is doing on that side of the LOC, and pay no attention to what goes on to the people on this side of the divide, then it would surely give wrong message to the world outside, and tarnish the struggle as it would be seen as an extension of the ‘Pakistani propaganda against India’. Moreover this is exactly what the Pakistani establishment wants – more concentration on what India is doing on that side, and complete silence what Pakistan is doing on this side of the forcibly divided State.

Similarly India would like to have less attention paid to what India does to Kashmiris in the area under its ‘occupation’, and more attention paid to what Pakistan does in ‘Pakistani Occupied Kashmir’. We want to speak against both, as role of both countries is disliked and opposed; surely there is difference in method, approach and degree of disagreement and opposition. Above all we don’t want to be seen as ‘stooges’ of either India or Pakistan, so we have to oppose positions of both countries.

That is what nationalist Kashmiris think and say regarding highlighting the issues related to Azad Kashmir and Pakistan, but I have some more reasons for paying attention to these areas. Like they say charity begins at home, similarly your fight against injustice and unfair treatment begins at home. You cannot champion cause of human rights and fairness in other areas and other countries by abusing or ignoring human rights in your own home or in your own area.

Israel is abuser of human rights at home and has very little justification and moral authority to talk about human rights issues in other countries; and same applies to many other countries including India. If you are human rights abuser at home then you lose that moral authority to talk about human rights in other countries.

If injustice is done to people of my village and people of my district, then I should raise voices against that as well, not only talk of injustice done to the people in Doda and Srinagar. We need to speak against injustice and oppression wherever it takes place in the world, Doda and Srinagar are parts of the State and it is our duty to speak against oppression and injustice taking place in any part of State of Kashmir.

Because there is more oppression and injustice on that side of the LOC, as a result attention of the entire world is focussed on those areas; and there are many national, Indian, Pakistani and international human rights organisations to highlight human rights abuses there. Apart from that Kashmiri political parties and other groups from both sides of the divide, and many Pakistani groups are paying hundred percent attention to the plight of the people on that side of LOC.

In one sense this approach - all attention to the Indian side of Kashmir - has backfired our nationalist cause, because as far as the world outside is concerned Kashmir dispute is only related to the Indian side of Kashmir, and particularly to the Valley of Kashmir. It is because of this false impression all important governments, experts of conflict resolution and think tanks talk of solution of the area on that side of the LOC. Unfortunately this false impression is growing stronger with time, and people talk of some kind of solution for the areas under India by drawing a new Line Of Control.

This in practise means division of the State, and that is totally against my political beliefs and struggle spread over a few decades. And it hurts me more when I feel that we nationalists of Kashmir have contributed in creating this false impression that the problem is only related to the Indian side of the Kashmir, and on the Pakistani side of Kashmir everything is ‘rosy’.

We accept there is more oppression and human rights violations on that side of the divide, but that DOES NOT makes that area more disputed than the area under Pakistan. The entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, and we need to design our policy to project that, and not continue with the policy which reinforces the false impression that only Indian side of Kashmir is disputed.

As far as contribution made by me and my colleagues is concerned, I don’t think I need any certificate of loyalty from anyone, especially from those who were (and perhaps still are) either benefiting from Indian or Pakistani establishment, when we were demonstrating outside different Indian High Commissions and on streets of Britain to project the cause of Kashmir.

However for the information of younger generation and especially those who discovered Kashmir in 1990s, I want to say that we started the struggle for united and independent Kashmir in 1973, that is four years before the JKLF was formed. It was the time when some of todays Mujahids were part and parcel of the system imposed by India and Pakistan in the divided parts of the State; and some were proudly sitting in Assemblies and holding senior posts by either taking oath of allegiance to India or Pakistan. At that time it was us who challenged the status quo and refused to give in to all sorts of pressures.

Since that date my colleagues and I have been part of the struggle and have organised and participated in hundreds of demonstrations and pickets against India, made hundreds of speeches and issued thousands of statements opposing and condemning Indian rule in Kashmir; not only that, in order to oppose custodial deaths and oppression I and other JKLF activists had hunger strikes outside Indian High Commission and British Prime Minister’s residence.

Why not write against India part 2
Dr Shabir Choudhry


Also I have travelled to different countries to project the Kashmir cause and highlight human rights abuse in the Indian side of Kashmir. Like many other Kashmiris I thought by exposing Indian abuse in Kashmir and by focussing our attention on that side of Kashmir we were doing service to the Kashmir cause, and our nationalist cause.

But as my colleagues and I got more experience and political maturity, and we directly interacted with diplomats and political activists of different countries, we realised that if Kashmir is occupied by more than one country then we are not doing any service to the cause by opposing one country only.

When we focus all our energy to criticise and condemn the role of one country, and remain silent over the role of the other, then the world outside see us with scepticism, and regard us as a ‘B team’. So we decided to have balance in our approach and try to shun this image of a ‘B team’, and criticise both countries for their role in Kashmir. We thought it was only appropriate that people in the area where injustice and oppression is taking place lead the opposition against the country guilty of this injustice, and people working at the international level support it.

Despite this ‘balanced approach’ we adopted in mid 1990s, I have participated in only one demonstration against Pakistani role in the State, and that was against the upraising of Mangla Dam, arrest and detention of political activists in Islamabad and closure of K2, the only newspaper in Gilgit and Baltistan. This is to be compared with hundreds of demonstrations I have organised and participated against India, and if still people think I am anti Pakistan then I can only pray for them.

In many articles and booklets, hundreds of Statements and public speeches I have condemned atrocities in the ‘Indian occupied Kashmir’, and strongly opposed Indian presence there. On this side of the divide, which is increasingly known as ‘Pakistani occupied Kashmir’, I have never condemned Pakistani presence there, however I have tried to expose duplicity in the Pakistani stand on Kashmir.

At the beginning like Pakistan, Indian stand on Kashmir was also full of duplicity and contradictions. Both had territorial aims but both were trying to get Kashmir in name of helping the people of Kashmir, and being their well - wishers and friends.

In 1950s India decided to end this duplicity by declaring that Kashmir is ‘Atoot Ang’, integral part of India. To the Kashmiri people it was a declaration from India that we are usurpers of your independence. Whatever India did in Kashmir after that was to bolster its position there, and could not even pretend that it was done in the best interest of the people.

Once it is established that a country, a group or an individual is enemy, then you don’t need any more elaborations or explanations- enemy is enemy and that is end of it. In view of many people there is no need to spend time and effort to prove that India is enemy of Kashmiri peoples independence, and to best of my knowledge, for many years, India has not claimed that its actions in Kashmir are to get the people their national independence.

Pakistan on the other hand, still has territorial aims in Kashmir, but wants to do everything in the name of Kashmiri peoples independence. Agenda of the Pakistani territorial aims is conducted in the name of ‘Islamic brotherhood’, ‘friend’, and ‘well – wisher’ of the Kashmiri people; but in view of nationalist Kashmiris it is an ‘imperialism’ dressed up in Islamic clothing.

It is because of this duplicity and clear contradiction in the Pakistani stand on Kashmir that nationalist Kashmiris think we need to expose this by explaining legal and constitutional position in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. We need to tell people that Pakistan is also interested in Kashmiri territory; independence of Kashmir and welfare of the people is not close to hearts of the Pakistani elite.

It is quite logical, once a clear distinction is made that Mr X is a friend and Mr Y is an enemy then it becomes easier to formulate a policy to deal with them appropriately. The people of Kashmir have understood India’s role in Kashmir, and they have formulated a policy to deal with that; but despite 55 years of experience and maltreatment in some respects, they are not too sure about the role of Pakistan. So it is imperative that facts are made available to them that in the light of undeniable facts people of Kashmir could formulate an appropriate policy for Pakistan.

No one can deny about gross human rights violations on the Indian side of the divide, even some Indians are acknowledging that now, but does that mean Pakistan should once again get a free hand to uproot people of Mirpur in order to satisfy needs of Landlords and industrialists of Pakistan? Does it also mean that people of Gilgit and Baltistan should be denied their basic rights, even a right to vote?

When Kashmiris protest against this unfair treatment their loyalty to the Kashmiri movement becomes questionable. In other words to be ‘loyal’ to the Kashmiri movement we have to remain quiet whatever Pakistan does, and swallow every pill given to us. Kashmiri patriots are not going to accept this ‘prescription’ and ‘dose’ anymore, because as thinking people they know best what is good for the Kashmir and the Kashmiri movement for unification and independence.

This new thinking was clearly visible in a demonstration against upraising of the Mangla Dam in Manchester, where Kashmiris said, if India is guilty of killing Kashmiris, Pakistan is guilty of drowning them and uprooting them. It would be foolish to adopt ostrich like attitude and dismiss this by saying it is only a few troublemakers. Demonstrations against Pakistani policies have been held in various cities of the world, including every major town of Azad Kashmir.

Because of clear contradictions and duplicity in the Pakistani policy on Kashmir, apart from other nationalist Kashmiris, my colleagues and I thought more effort should be made to expose the Pakistani stand on Kashmir. After all it is not only India that occupies the Kashmiri territory; and it is not only India from whom we are seeking independence. We Kashmiris need to learn from our past mistakes and call spade a spade; and our Pakistani brothers need to be a little more understanding and accommodating, and they must realise that we are not against Pakistan but against Pakistan’s Kashmir policy which is affecting our lives. END

Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Whose Kashmir is it anyway?

Whose Kashmir is it anyway?
Shabir Choudhry

Much has been said and written about Kashmir over the years, but still there is some confusion what is Kashmir, and who is Kashmiri, and whose future is to be determined. Some people deliberately add to this confusion by giving their own interpretation of Kashmir and Kashmiri and the term future. I venture to make some clarification about this, although this is tantamount to inviting some more negative criticism.

When people refer to Kashmir as a disputed territory they mean the State of Jammu and Kashmir which existed on15 August 1947, the day British Raj ended in India and the British Paramountcy in the State of Jammu and Kashmir lapsed. Kashmir therefore is not synonymous to the Valley of Kashmir or Indian held Kashmir. When people want to talk about a region of the State they call it Valley or Jammu etc.

Similarly the future of all constituent parts of the State, namely Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan, is to be determined. The fact that armed actions are limited only to certain parts of the State, namely Valley and some parts of Jammu, must not be construed that only these areas are disputed. The areas of Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan and Ladakh are also disputed, and the people of these areas hold same right when it comes to a vote to determine whether they want some kind of accession or an independent Kashmir.

After this clarification I would like to explain who is Kashmiri. Some people when they talk of the Kashmiri people mean Muslims of Kashmir. And in the eyes of some only those are Kashmiris who speak the Kashmiri language, and wear pheran. All others, to them, are not Kashmirs or at least, first class Kashmiris. Whereas in the eyes of Kashmiri law all citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir are equal in status as explained in the State Subject Notification of 20 April 1927. They all carry one vote and no one is higher in status just because of colour, creed or ethnicity. Islamic teaching on this subject is very clear too.

Those who think of themselves, as members of 'superior race' must stop this nazi practice, as it is undesirable and could further divide the Kashmiri people. There is more than one language, more than one religion and more than one culture in Kashmir, and they all must be respected, unless we are deliberately working for the division of Kashmir on communal lines. This would really mean pushing through someone else's agenda, as it cannot be Kashmiri agenda, because we all believe Kashmir being one political entity.

It is agreed by all that there are three parties to the Kashmir dispute, namely India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri people. Both India and Pakistan claim Kashmir for different reasons. No matter what pretext they use in order to justify their claim on Kashmir, but one thing is clear that they both have great interest in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir and want to annex it even at intolerably high price. Both have spent more resources in their contest over Kashmir than on social and welfare programmes in their countries.

When people talk of three parties to the dispute, it is assumed that all three are with equal rights. This is not true. Syed Nazir Gilani, a known human rights activist and a distinguished lawyer, has rightly differentiated the positions of the parties to the dispute. He said, 'whereas other two parties have claim to Kashmir, Kashmiris have a 'title' to self - determination'. And as we all know any claim could be illegitimate and unjustified, but the 'title' to self - determination is our inalienable right by birth and that could not be challenged. In other words we Kashmiris are the only genuine party to the Kashmir dispute with an irrevocable title, and the other two parties are making claims on Kashmir because of their de-facto control of our territory.

This could be compared with the State of Junagarrh, whose Muslim ruler acceded to Pakistan, even though the State had overwhelming non- Muslim population. India claimed it because the State had non- Muslim majority, and unlike Pakistan, had land access to India. The Pakistani claim rested on the accession made by its Muslim ruler. We all know what happened to the Pakistani claim to this State, and Pakistanis don't even like to talk about it now. In other words claims are made and forgotten according to the situation, and at times claims are declared as illegitimate and unjust, but the 'title' of belonging to a nation is irrevocable.

We are the main party to the dispute, and we should decide how to conduct our national struggle. Those parties and governments construed as our friends may advice us to take a certain course of action but the ultimate decision must lie with us. We have to ensure that we are only pushing through the Kashmiri agenda, and that we must encourage such initiatives that the Kashmir issue is resolved according to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. There are powerful forces determined to push us in a certain direction, and if we are not careful and do not take appropriate steps, we may find another Afghanistan evolving before us.

The writer is a Director of Institute of Kashmir Affairs.
drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Who won-Musharaf or Vajpayee?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 19 January 2003
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Very recently General Musharaf boasted that he has ‘defeated the enemy without going to war’. Before taking his decision to partially withdraw his forces from the Pakistani borders, Mr Vajpayee also claimed that he has ‘won’ the war without fighting a ‘war’, and that he has achieved his aims of the war.

After the war of 1965, similar claim was made by military ruler of that time, General Ayub Khan,that he had ‘won’ the war; and Pakistani nation and Kashmiri, especially on the Pakistani side of the divide, were led to believe that Pakistan had won that war.

A journalist asked Indian Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi that Ayub Khan is claiming of winning the war; and wanted to know her views on this. She smiled and said, you decide who has won. Pakistan started this war in order to get Jammu and Kashmir, area under the control of India. We did not start the war to get the areas which are under the control of Pakistan. In order to see who has won the war you got to see who controls the areas which Pakistan wanted to get? If Pakistan has taken Jammu and Kashmir then Ayub Khan has won, but if those areas are still under our control then of course India has won.

So victory and defeat has to be judged by the war aims; in any case the concept of war has changed over the time. War doesn’t have to be a full-scale war where all available forces march against each other, and endeavour to kill and destroy everything. War is going on between India and Pakistan in Siachin, and mode and method of this war is determined by local situation which doesn’t require a full-scale military clash against each other.

Similarly there is a war going on between the both countries over the control of State of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947, and this war has its own pace, its own requirements and its own weapons and method. This war has many dimensions and, at times, has attracted interference from outside. Strangely many names have been attached to this war spread over many decades, and some of the names are as follows: Freedom struggle, territorial war, proxy war, war for Pakistan’s survival, accession to Pakistan war, Holy Jihad, Fundamentalist war, terrorist war, Communal war, Mercenary’s war, state terrorism etc.

All these titles not only confused the international community but also confused the people of Kashmir; and seriously harmed the independence movement. To the ordinary people of Kashmir their struggle was related to their inalienable right of self –determination, and for their honour and dignity; but there are those with power and interest who claim that they are ‘fighting Pakistan’s war’, and that they are ‘Pakistan’s unpaid soldiers’.

Both India and Pakistan have their own ‘unpaid soldiers’, and these ‘unpaid soldiers’ , who receive with both hands and at times get more than the generals in uniform, have stabbed the Kashmiri cause. It is because of ‘deeds’ of these ‘unpaid soldiers’ that India and Pakistan have managed to keep the status –quo in Kashmir where ordinary people are suffering and these ‘unpaid soldiers’ are living lives like ‘Princes’.

It is the ordinary people who thought that the struggle was for their independence and suffered, and continue to suffer, whereas ‘unpaid soldiers’ on the both sides of the forcibly imposed LOC are living luxurious lives. They have big mansions to live in, expensive cars to drive, money to spend and ready available audience to listen to their sermons about the struggle and sacrifices that struggle demands; whereas their own children are studying in universities, and in some cases abroad.

Coming back to the issue of war, both countries fight diplomatic and economic wars at different levels and at different places, and this war has no borders and every international forum is a battleground. At times Kashmir is also subject of their debates and ‘verbal fights’, but as said earlier, it is the local situation or ground reality which determines what weapons are to be used in the war, and unlike the war on Line Of Control, in this war no guns are used because the ground situation does not allow that.

As far as ‘win’ in the present situation is concerned one has to look at the aims of this ‘near war situation’ and army build up. Long before the 11 September, India claimed that Pakistan was responsible for the situation in Kashmir and that Pakistan must stop helping and supporting Jihadi groups. This was termed as a ‘proxy war’ and ‘cross border terrorism’, and India declared that until and unless Pakistan stops this, there could be no dialogue with Pakistan.

Pakistan on the other hand showed desperation in starting a dialogue and requested everyone to persuade India to begin talks with Pakistan. Because of military rule in Pakistan, General Musharaf was on a very weak wicket, and he faced pressure from many countries including America, yet he refused to take any action against Jihadi groups or against those who were crossing the LOC.

Then came the unfortunate incident of 11 September, which changed many things in the world including fortune of General Musharaf and Jihadi groups. At one time no country wanted to send their senior officials to Pakistan for any serious business, but overnight situation changed and every important leader wanted to visit Islamabad. That no doubt increased the personal profile of General Musharaf, but at the same time he encountered many challenges.

At a time when General Musharaf was surrounded by many serious problems, and America was too involved in Afghanistan and the ‘war on terrorism’, some unfortunate incidents provided India with an excuse to muster forces on the LOC and Pakistani borders. India made many demands and declared that if Pakistan failed to take the required action then India would take appropriate measures to safeguard its interests.

The war between these two nuclear rivals looked imminent, and alarm bells rang in many capitals of the world. This increased tension was called ‘eye ball to eye ball’ situation, and attempts were made to diffuse the tension. At this stage we need to analyse India’s ‘war aims’. Did India seriously want to invade Pakistan or move across the LOC, knowing full well that Pakistan also has sophisticated weapons and a finger on the nuclear button?

What America did in Afghanistan was a beginning of a new era where new rules of engagement were written, and according to these rules India, in ‘self defence’, could have attacked a much weaker country like Nepal or Sri Lanka, but could not take a similar action against strong Pakistan. Pakistani leaders rightly said that India is not America and Pakistan is not Afghanistan, and that they would use every weapon in their arsenal if India crossed the LOC or International border.

In view of this it looks that India’s war aim was not to cross the border to invade Pakistan or take over Azad Kashmir, but to put tremendous pressure that Pakistan is forced to take measures which would be unpopular among the Kashmiris and the Pakistani people. It looks that from this troops build up India wanted to achieve the following important gains:
Appropriate action against the Jihadi groups in Azad Kshmir and Pakistan;
Stop people crossing the LOC, what was termed as ‘cross border terrorism’;
Continue this pressure until elections in Jammu and Kashmir are held and ‘certified’ by the ‘International Community’;
Weaken Pakistan economically that Pakistan could not benefit from the ‘bounty’ it got as a result of its co-operation in the ‘war against terrorism’. Troops build up on the borders has cost Pakistan and India in many millions; India with a stronger economy and large financial reserves was in a better position to afford it. It is partly because of this troops build up that Pakistani economy is still in chaos and cost of living has increased over the years and people have become poorer.

If we view the outcome of this troops build up in the light of above aims list, then it is not difficult to see who has won? We all know what Musharaf has done to crush the Jihadi groups in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and what actions he has taken to control border crossing. His speech of 20 January 2002 left no doubts that he was willing to comply, and later Americans and Indians confirmed that they have witnessed clear changes. Then question is why risk a nuclear war by crossing the border when Musharaf has done more than asked to crush the Jihadi groups?

Despite the above analyses, it is debatable who has won, as it is a matter of opinion, but to me it is immaterial because both have made some gains at the expense of the Kashmiri people. We certainly know who the losers are in this conflict, and that surely are the people of Kashmir. Both Musharaf and Vajpayee are winners, as both have Kashmiri territory under their control, and it is the people of Kashmir who are divided and subjugated. Each round of confrontation brings more victims and more frustration; and it looks that this cycle of confrontations will continue until out of deep frustration Kashmiris themselves might say we accept the status quo. In view of this both have gained something although it looks that Vajpayee has scored more points in this round.

Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir. Email: shabir@k4kashmir.com

Who is ‘Pro India’ now?

Who is ‘Pro India’ now?
Dr Shabir Choudhry

Over the past months both India and Pakistan have made tremendous progress on the road to friendship, and a number of confidence building measures have been put in place to strengthen the peace process. It looks that one by one, like jigsaw puzzle, pieces are falling in place, and all sides to the dispute are ready and willing to make necessary concessions.

This peace process has been welcomed around the world, and people even are suggesting that both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpaee should get Nobel Peace Prize. But there are those who think Kashmiris are being sold once again, and this time it is Pakistan - a country in which they placed their trust- has betrayed them. And there are many within Pakistan who want to punish those responsible for this treachery, and derail the peace process.

These elements still believe that Kashmir could be ‘liberated’, whatever that means in the view of ‘liberation’ of Afghanistan and Iraq, by the use of gun. Forces that advocate this policy think no price is too big. A few years before the fall of Taliban government, one such leader was challenged in a public meeting and asked that more than 2 million people have lost their lives in Afghanistan, and for how long this madness will continue. The leader concerned quoted a verse from holy Qur’an and elaborated that with some Hadees (sayings of Prophet Mohammed pbuh), and boasted that ‘Jihad in Afghanistan will continue even if the death toll surpass 3 million.’

I would like all liberal minded and peace loving Pakistanis to look at some of the following points to understand the situation, that they can support the peace process and make appropriate concessions:

It is that kind of mind – set, explained above, we are faced with in Kashmir as well. These forces believe that Kashmir is for Muslims, and they want to make Kashmir an Islamic state. Most of these people are Pakistanis and they want to practise their brand of Islam in Kashmir first, and then export this Islamic revolution back to Pakistan. They ignored un Islamic practices in Pakistan but were determined to punish Kashmiris for failing to observe them.

Anyone who opposed their ideology was declared as ‘pro India’, and in some cases eliminated. It must be noted that politics of terror and intolerance is a new phenomena in the Kashmiri society, whereas Rights Movement and tolerance has a long and dignified history. It is unfortunate that in the recent past those who pursued politics of terror and intolerance were regarded as ‘freedom fighters’ and heroes by the Pakistani officials and media; and those who advocated tolerance, pluralism, democracy and peaceful resolution of the dispute were projected as ‘Pro India’.

Now the same government, leaders and media is talking of tolerance, peaceful resolution of the dispute and economic interest of not only Kashmiris, but also Indians and other nations of South Asia as well. Question is who is ‘Pro India’ now?

The UN resolutions were corner stone of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy even though the situation had changed dramatically, and especially after the Shimla Agreement the UN Resolutions had no bearing on Kashmir as both governments agreed to resolve the dispute bilaterally.

Kashmiri nationalists opposed the UN Resolutions on Kashmir because they limited Kashmiri peoples right to self –determination. Also the situation in Kashmir had changed because a large section of population wanted to opt for independence and the resolutions did not provide that option. Furthermore the control over the Kashmiri territory had changed since the passing of these resolutions, China had occupied a large area known as Aqsai Chin, and Pakistan has gifted a portion of more than 2000 sq miles to China.

Because of this opposition to the UN resolutions Kashmiri nationalists were labelled as ‘Pro India’ and ‘anti Pakistan’; and now that Pakistani government has abandoned UN resolutions and APHC led by Molana Abbas Ansari has also said good bye to these resolutions, the question is who is ‘Pro India’?

It was Kashmiri Rights Movement that turned violent in 1989, and later on it was hijacked by the Jihadi forces, thus ostensibly making the Kashmiri struggle part of ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’. Kashmiri nationalist opposed influx of Jihadis especially non - Kashmiris because they feared that this will change the character of their struggle, and will help India to win support of the international community. They feared that Kashmir was deprived of independence in 1950s because it became a part of ‘Cold War’ politics; and they could be deprived of independence again because of struggle’s linkage to ‘International Islamic Fundamentalism’.

With that in mind Kashmiri nationalists opposed Jihadi culture in Kashmir and requested the relevant authorities to control activities of these Jihadi groups, and especially infiltration of non- Kashmiris from various parts of the world. They were straight away branded as ‘Pro India’, ‘anti Pakistan’ and ‘anti Islam’. At that time Pakistani authorities refused to control activities of these groups and now that the damage to the genuine Kashmiri struggle has been done, they are doing ‘full time Jihad ‘to crush these Jihadi groups. One may ask who is ‘Pro India’ and ‘anti Islam’ now?

A freedom struggle could easily be termed as ‘violence’ and ‘terrorism’ if those with gun in hand don’t show sense of responsibility and start targeting innocent citizens, especially belonging to different schools of political thought and religion. As more and more civilian deaths were taking place and members of minorities targeted, we warned that this policy would help India to win sympathy and international support.

We pointed out that guerrilla war, if what has been going on in Kashmir could be called this, could not be won by throwing bombs at the bus stops and planting bombs under fruit stalls which will only kill and injure Kashmiri civilians. We requested the relevant authorities to control this trend and that the ‘guerrilla war’ should be taken out to the forests and jungles that civilian casualties could be reduced. As is the practise, we were labelled as ‘pro India’ and ‘Anti Movement’. And now the same authorities are saying that we will not allow any territory under their control to be used for ‘terrorism’ thus implying that in the past it was used for this purpose; and furthermore that it is ‘terrorism’ what is going on in Kashmir. One may ask who is ‘pro India’ and ‘anti movement’ now?

My request to all Pakistani officials and especially liberal and peace loving people is to support our right to determine our future without any pressure and intimidation; and our right to independence should not be construed as pro India act. We are pro people and pro peace and believe that we can all live peacefully in South Asia. Too many people have already lost their lives and women dishonoured. Whereas we must remember why these people have sacrificed their lives, we have to think of those who are still alive and who deserve to live in peace and dignity.

Because of the Kashmir dispute and policy of confrontation a huge loss to economic development of the South Asia has been done, and we are lagging behind in the race of economic development. If the Kashmir dispute is resolved peacefully then we can all work together to achieve peace, harmony and economic stability.
Writer is a Chairman of JKLF Diplomatic Committee, and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir. He is also a Spokesman of IKA. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Who is anti Pakistan?

Who is anti Pakistan?
Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Some times people accuse me of being too critical when writing about Pakistan; some even go to the extent of calling me anti Pakistan. This allegation is without foundations. Yes I do criticise Kashmir policy of different Pakistani governments, and I have every right to do so. But I am not the only person who is critical of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, there are many Pakistani writers who use stronger words than what I do when criticising Pakistani government, then why is that they are not conceived as anti Pakistan, and I am. Is it because I am a Kashmiri nationalist, and it is not considered to be appropriate for a Kashmiri to criticise Pakistani governments?

Perhaps different Pakistani governments have taken it for granted that they have complete loyalty of the Kashmiri people, and when they see some one like me not only unhappy but also critical of Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir they automatically assume that he is anti Pakistan. Then different officials and agencies start a campaign that so and so person is anti Pakistan, or even label him as being an ‘Indian agent’.

In every civil society individuals have a right of expression, in fact this right is so fundamental to human rights that one cannot imagine a civil and liberal society without right of expression. I have seen different Pakistani organisations in London not only speaking against Pakistani governments, but also demonstrating outside Pakistani High Commission; and they have every right to do that. Some even have gone on record to request other governments and donor countries and international bodies to stop aid to Pakistan because, in their view, the government in Pakistan was not democratic and honouring human rights commitments.

Despite the fact that these organisations and their leaders made every effort to deprive Pakistan from getting much needed foreign aid, and yet they were still considered loyal to Pakistan; and their leaders, on their turn, got official positions in Pakistan. But Kashmiris cannot even raise their voice against Pakistani governments even though it is these governments who have messed up the Kashmir dispute. It is these governments who have deprived the people of Gilgit and Baltistan their basic human rights, they have not even granted them a right to vote, and this is happening in the 21st Century. It is these governments who are determined to silence the Kashmiri voice and closed the only weekly paper {K2} in Gilgit and Baltistan.

We Kashmiri are too afraid to raise our voice, let alone going out to demonstrate outside the Pakistani High Commission, because we fear of being haunted and ‘labelled’. We don’t ask any donor countries or international bodies to stop Pakistan’s aid, but even when we demand restoration of our basic rights, including right to hold and express our opinion, we are considered as ‘anti Pakistan’; and in extreme case pro India or an ‘Indian agent’.

What these people don’t understand {or perhaps they don’t want to understand} is that government and State are two different things; governments come and go, but the State remains. Governments could be good and bad, ‘corrupt’ and ‘security risk’, and ought to get criticism from people who are affected by their decisions. Criticism on a bad decision of a government is not an attack on the foundation of a State.

I am and I will continue to be a critic of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy until I see some positive changes, but that doesn’t make me anti State of Pakistan. I don’t criticise Pakistan governments policies, bad as they are, which are not related to Kashmir. Their wrong Kashmir policy, not only affects our freedom movement but also changes the character of the Kashmiri history, culture and rights of ordinary Kashmiri people, and it is because of this I have every right to criticise Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. And during the course of this struggle {right to independence and right of expression}, of which I have been part of since my teenage days, if I get any criticism or any labels I will only take them as medals.

I don’t criticise Pakistani governments because of habit or because I enjoy it. My criticism is always based around some issues, issues which are concerned with the rights of the people and the Kashmiri movement for unification and independence of Kashmir. In the past I have always criticised the Federal government and its Kashmir policy, but it looks that I have to now to criticise actions of Pakistani High Commissions as well; again not because I like to do it but because their actions warrant this.

Violation of right to travel

I have known Mr Jabbar Butt for the past 25 Years. I have known him as Kashmiri nationalist leader, and in my view he is very committed and diehard nationalist. He was the first President of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, and he has also been a President of Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Front. Even though he belongs to a different organisation but I have high regards for him because of his commitment to the cause of an independent Kashmir.

Like many of us he also holds a Pakistani passport which is essentially a travel document, and he has held that Passport for many decades. Despite that he is a proud Kashmiri nationalist, but he is not anti Pakistan, integrity of State of Pakistan is as dear to him as it could be to any devoted Pakistani. Like many other Kashmiri nationalists he has no love for Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, and he does not hesitate to express his opinion on this subject. But does that make him anti Pakistan? Does this mean that his passport should be taken away that he could not travel to Azad Kashmir. Is this not violation of his right to travel? He is an old man who still has some friends and relatives alive in Azad Kashmir, and wants to visit them before either they die or he is too old to travel.

According to documents presented to me, and the media reports on the subject, it looks that Jabbar Butt Sahib is punished for holding is political views. These views are not anti state of Pakistan. I have had many private discussions with him and never found him anti Pakistan, and if the Pakistani officials think that by this treatment they will either ‘discipline’ him or make him ‘pro Pakistan’ then they are mistaken. If anything this policy will push him further in the corner, whereas at present he is holding a middle ground.

And it is when ordinary citizens are pushed in the corner that things start getting wrong, and Pakistani authorities know this too well. Bengalis of East Pakistan were loyal Pakistanis but wrong policies pushed them in the corner, and left them with no room to manoeuvre. Apart from that one big lesson could be learnt from India where Maqbool Butt was hanged in order to avoid ‘future problems’; and we know that India is still paying heavy price for that policy and other wrong policies in Kashmir. It is in the best interest of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir that no tension and controversies are created here.

There is already enough resentment among Kashmiris, particularly related to recent policy changes and issue of Mangla Dam, and it is not prudent to make it worse. Those officials of Pakistan {no matter what their rank or department is} who are making or advocating such policies which are designed to alienate or degrade the people of Kashmir are not well- wishers of Pakistan. And like those policy makers who pushed the Bengali people against the wall, it is these people who are anti Pakistan, and not the suffering people of Kashmir who are fighting for right to live with dignity and honour.

Denial of these rights and bad treatment be it in Gilgit and Baltistan, in Mirpur or on the other side of the LOC, will surely create a situation where people find their back against the wall with no more options left to take. And it is this situation which provides a fertile ground for revolutionary movements. Kashmiri people whether they are affected by the proposed uplifting of the Mangla Dam or not, are thinking why is it that each time they have to pay sacrifices for the well being of Pakistan; and the people of Pakistan are not ready to even let lay down foundation brick for the Kala Bagh Dam.

I request the officials in the High Commission in London not to aggravate the relationship of Kashmiris and Pakistanis in Britain by creating new issues. There is already too much polarisation and Kashmiris and Pakistanis are the most divided ethnic groups in Britain, and if you cannot do anything to unite them please make no effort to divide them further. I also request the official concerned to issue Mr Jabbar Butt with a new passport, and by doing this you would not be doing him any favour, but undoing injustice done to him.

Writer is a Kashmiri leader settled in Britain, and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir.

What should the new rulers do? 20 October 1999

What should the new rulers do? 20 October 1999
Shabir Choudhry
Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs

Many people say Mr Nawaz Sharif was lucky man, despite bestowed with average intelligence, and very little skills in art of governance, he was elected Prime Minister of Pakistan twice. At one time I shared that view as well. Now I consider him to be very unlucky man, not because he is imprisoned by the new rulers, but because he let his people down on both occasions.

Perhaps Mr Nawaz Sharif was lucky, but Pakistanis are unlucky to have successive incompetent and corrupt leaders. When he returned to power for the second time with the majority he wished, like many, I thought he would solve the problems of Pakistan. I went as far as saying that he is the last hope for Pakistan and if he failed then that would derail the democratic process, which would lead to political and economic instability; and powers that be would move in to introduce a new form of government. The new government would be a presidential style of government, which would have many retired army officers as ‘technocrats’.

When Mr Nawaz Sharif came to power for the second time, I wrote an article, Kashmir Dispute and Mr Nawaz Sharif, and stressed the following:
Only when the root cause to the problems is found one can begin to look for possible solutions. Once that is done then he has the majority in the Parliament to implement his plans. Some of the most important problems to which he immediately needs to pay attention are:
- Build shattered economy
- Continue with accountability process
- Build confidence and morale of nation
- Pay attention to constitutional matters
- Build relations with Iran and Afghanistan
- Try to solve the Kashmir Dispute and build relations with India

When we look back at things, we note hat he could not effectively tackle any of the major problems, if any thing the situation is much worse. He began to tackle the Kashmir Dispute, but his approach, like other Pakistani rulers, was wrong. I further wrote:

Nawaz Sharif you are lucky to win the confidence of the people for the second time, use this opportunity and make a mark on the history by making arrangements that the Kashmiri people can exercise their unfettered right of self determination.

In doing so if Kashmir becomes an independent state the people of Pakistan will accept that because they do not want the Kashmiri people to be divided, oppressed and butchered for generations to come. I have faith in the wisdom and generosity of the Pakistani nation and I believe what is good for the Kashmiris is good for them. You need to be courageous and have to show the leadership quality required to do the job. Remember it is exactly 50 years ago when the Qaaid Azam showed his courage and wisdom and created Pakistan He left his mark on the history; now it is your turn to do the same and solve kashmir problem, and this would be the best present to the people for the golden jubilee.

Mr Nawaz Sharif is unlucky because he failed to deliver. Because of his leadership style he got himself into a dead end. He likes to play cricket but on both occasions he hit the bat on the wickets, therefore no credit to any bowler. I wanted him to leave a ‘mark on history’ that he could be remembered. He has left a mark but unfortunately he left a wrong mark in a wrong place, and history will remember him for wrong reasons. Apart from the Motorway and the nuclear explosions, the history would generally remember him for bad things.

Now General Musharaff is in charge and people have welcomed him, even though he is not a ‘legal’ Chief Executive of the country. To the ordinary people this debate of ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ is not important. There is a Chinese proverb, ‘colour of a cat is not important as long it catches mice’ Ordinary people are still waiting for a Messiah, someone who can solve their problems. Colour of his skin or political background is not important to them. Hitherto almost every ruler has used his/her position for personal gains they want someone to work for Pakistan.

The new rulers must not be too benevolent to the welcome they have received. They must remember that people of this area have a long history of welcoming new rulers and discarding those who have lost power. This goodwill of the Pakistani people is not permanent, with time it can change. If they want to be remembered as saviours rather than usurpers of power, then they have to get their act together and pay attention to the root cause of the problems. All the problems, which I listed above, are still there, in fact they require more serious and urgent attention. They cannot cure the ills just by cosmetic changes - the patient requires a surgery.

The task at hand is not an easy one, but one DOES NOT become hero of a nation just by handling an easy task. Apart from dealing with serious domestic problems, the new government has to put up with the wrath of the international community. And with empty coffers, and heavy dependency on foreign aid, it is a gigantic task. The new rulers must work out strategies to face outside pressure, and must not make compromises when doing a ‘surgery’ to take back what is owed to the Pakistani nation. Pakistani foreign exchange reserve is just enough for 3 more weeks, and in the absence of foreign aid which Pakistan desperately need it would be very difficult to pay back loans and survive.

The new rulers can financially survive for months without any help from outside, if they without prejudice to anyone start the accountability process and get the looted money back. This is the only chance to root out corruption, and set up a fair and equitable system of accountability. In order to make accountability fair and equal, not victimisation of Muslim League politicians, the accountability process should cover corrupt people from all walks of life, as it is not only politicians who are corrupt.

The response of the international community may appear to be out of order and too strong, but Pakistan is too important a country to be ignored for too long. The international pressure would fizzle out with time; all you need is strong nerve and clear ideas what needs to be done. Even though cold war era is over, still Pakistan’s geographical position is very crucial. This inherent strength Pakistan can be used positively, but it can only be done if there is political and economic stability in the country. If Pakistani rulers can put their house in order, then international community cannot twist the arm of a nuclear Pakistan.

Another priority of the new government should be the resolution of Kashmir dispute. Many of Pakistan and India’s problems are directly related to this contest to capture Kashmir. If the Kashmir problem is solved according to the wishes of the people, that in turn would solve many problems of India and Pakistan, and this would bring peace and stability to the Indian Sub-Continent. The question is how to solve the Kashmir problem. Both Pakistan and India have fought for Kashmir for the past 52 years. Both adopted strategies that resulted in destruction, deprivation and backwardness. In this continued conflict the Kashmiri people suffered most. It is they who are still divided, oppressed, tortured, killed, raped and deprived of independence.

For the sake of peace and stability in South Asia, both India and Pakistan have to make changes to their declared policy on Kashmir and solve the issue by involving the Kashmiri leaders in the process of dialogue. If they still show obduracy and shortsightness then I am afraid that they will let down the people of South Asia and hold the progress of region. They will have nothing concrete to offer to the people in the new millennium, apart from deprivation, destruction and misery.

Shabir Choudhry

What next for Pakistan?

What next for Pakistan?
Shabir Choudhry It was written in Oct 1999

The inevitable has happened. The army is back in the driving seat in Pakistan, but the question is for how long, and at what cost. And perhaps more important question is who is going to pay this price.

It is believed that the army in Pakistan is never too far from the corridors of power. After the death of late President Zia -Ul –Haq, the army establishment thought that it was best to take the back seat, and dictate things from there. It worked perfectly for them. Whenever they felt that things were not working the way they wanted they manoeuvred political situation in such a way that they changed the driver without causing too much problems, and in doing so they discredited the political leaders and the political parties.

Mr Nawaz Sharif came to power for the second time with a massive majority and strong determination to do better this time. He wanted to control, most if not all the levers of power. In every political contest he came out victorious. Even the very senior army officers had to resign, including the last Commander in Chief, Jehngir Karamat, because of the tussle with Mr Nawaz Sharif, and it looked that he had firm grip on the reins of power -almost complete control on everything.

This, many thought, was a very dangerous sign. It was not good for the health of democracy in Pakistan. The politicians, both in Government and in Opposition, were not happy with the state of affairs. The army, for obvious reasons, was also not very happy with the situation. For the first time in the history of Pakistan they had to take dictation rather than give it. It was too much for their pride and liking. It was not easy for them to challenge the most powerful Prime Minister of Pakistan. It was prudent for them to wait for the right moment that they can move in with guns in their hands, and people of Pakistan still welcome them.

Many believe that the army does not want peace and friendly relations with India. If there is peace and friendly relations between India and Pakistan, there won’t be a strong case to have a large army which consumes most of Pakistan’s resources. So it is in the interest of the army establishment, and perhaps some politicians and the civil establishment that the status quo in the relationship with India remains. The fundamentalists in Pakistan also support the above approach. And many believe that the Lahore Declaration provided the army the opportunity they were waiting for, and they, once again, started manoeuvring things to strike back. I pointed to this danger in an article, Vajapai scores a goal, which I wrote soon after the Lahore Declaration:

During the Vajpyee’s visit to Pakistan the militancy in the Indian side of Kashmir increased, signalling that there is a clear divide in the military establishment, or at least in a sizeable section of it, and the popular government in Pakistan. It is true that the Indian government and the Indian establishment is very happy with the outcome of the visit because their weak (politically) leader has scored a goal and emerged as a victorious. The question is will Nawaz Sharif government be allowed to go ahead and sacrifice Kashmir for the sake of friendship with India, no matter how important it is; or there is a change in the offing? People can be persuaded to accept Kashmir as an independent and friendly state, rather then leaving it in the occupation of India.

It is clear that the agenda of the army was different to that of the elected government. Mr Nawaz Sharif wanted to resolve all the issue with India, including the core issue of Kashmir, and have friendly and cordial relationship. To achieve this he was prepared to make a change to Pakistan’s “Historic stand on Kashmir”. At the time of Vajapai’s visit to Lahore, Nawaz Sharif said: “Both India and Pakistan should go beyond their stated positions”. This, many thought, may not be acceptable to the army and the fundamentalists in Pakistan. There are many hidden secrets about the Kargil adventure, but it is believed that it was army’s response to the Lahore Declaration. The main character in the track two diplomacy and the former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, Niaz Naik, has very recently vouched on this that the Kargil adventure was started to derail the peace process.

After the Kargil debacle it was widely believed that soon there would be a showdown between the army and Mr Nawaz Sharif. The Pakistan army, no doubt, is very organised and disciplined. They planned everything very carefully, analysed the results of each move before taking the next step. It is no surprise that politicians, who cannot tolerate each other for a moment, have the courtesy to dine together or even pray together, all of sudden got together and formed an alliance. Their demand, strangely, was the ouster of Mr Nawaz Sharif, with nothing to offer to the nation. It was very clear that some one else was calling the shots. These politicians got what they wanted the ouster of Mr Nawaz Sharif. In 1977 they asked the army to take over, which they did and everyone is still paying the price for that. They have once again created the situation in which the army could move in and dismiss the elected government. Congratulations! Some of you may get rewards for your services.

Mr Nawaz Sharif cannot be exonerated for his mistakes. For the second time he got himself into a corner where he lost power. There were many things which were wrong, against the norms of democracy, but still this does not justify the military coup. In India, Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed an emergency in 1977, and did things which were clearly against democratic values, and even against the Indian tradition. But it was not the army which moved in to remove Mrs Gandhi, rather it was the electorate of India who rejected her. The same could have happened here in Pakistan, but no one was prepared to wait. The army did not want to be pushed out of the corridors of power, and the politicians, all rejected at the last election, were in no mood to wait and risk the rejection again, especially when there was a chance to get in from the back door.

The men in the uniform must realise that the time for military dictators is over. It is not in the interest of Pakistan to have a military regime. By over throwing an elected government, the army has not done any service to its reputation or the reputation of Pakistan. If he had done this when Mr Nawaz Sharif was returning from Washington, after signing the Agreement with President Clinton, perhaps people have taken this as a ‘patriotic’ action. The action or rather reaction to his own dismissal, General Pervais Musharaf has only shown that he is victorious in the power struggle, because he had a gun in his hand, irrespective of the fact that it is not in the best interest of Pakistan.

The clock cannot be turned back, but the damage could be minimised by taking the following steps:
1. The Constitution of Pakistan is holding the country together, and it must be respected;
2. The President Tarrar must continue in his position;
3. Either the National Assembly should be allowed to elect its new leader or an interim government for the period of two years should be set up;
4. This task should be given to people like Air Marshal Asghar Khan with a reputation of ‘Mr Clean’;
5. The new government, apart from sorting out other huge problems must start negotiations with India to resolve all the differences including the core issue of Kashmir;
6. The army should go back to barracks and there should be no victimisation of opponents.

Shabir Choudhry
Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs

What happened to Kashmiri nationalists?

What happened to Kashmiri nationalists?
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

It must have been sigh of relief for all those who dislike demonstrations on 11th February, including officers of Scotland Yard who deal with demonstrations outside Indian High Commission. There was no demonstration, and even no application to hold such demonstration outside the Indian High Commission from any Kashmiri group this year.

There could be many reasons for this, and one reason is that Kashmiri people are fed up with these demonstrations, and feel that there is no need to ‘waste’ resources on these demonstrations. They argue no one pays any attention to these demonstrations, and it has just become ‘customary’ to hold a small demonstration outside the Indian High Commission.

They feel there could be other methods of projecting the cause of Kashmir, and it might not cost as much as well. And one such method could be holding small seminars in various towns and ‘educate’ people, print appropriate literature to develop Kashmiri nationalism and consciousness of being a Kashmiri rather than being an Indian and Pakistani.

Complete failure of much publicised and officially supported demonstration of Raabta Committee (International Kashmir Co Ordination Committee) on 26th January, also showed that the British Kashmiris are not much interested in holding demonstrations. Perhaps this in turn also influenced the thinking of the leadership of Kashmiri nationalist parties in Britain.

Since his martyrdom on 11th February 1984, there have been demonstrations outside the Indian High Commission every year. In fact these demonstrations or request to hold demonstration, caused considerable problems for officers of the Scotland Yard who grant permissions to hold demonstrations. Kashmiri nationalists although they claim adherence to Maqbool Butt’s ideology of united and independent Kashmir have deep divisions among them.

It was quite normal to have more than one applications to hold demonstrations, and
Kashmiri political parties, in 1990s, endeavoured to take lead to book a place first. And if one party booked it first the others refused to join them and demanded a separate permission and a place to take their dozens of supporters.

This disunity caused a lot of problem for the Scotland Yard officials, and they had to make alterative arrangements, at times persuading the groups to hold two small separate demonstrations twenty yards away from each other. And at times they had to change time of the demonstrations to accommodate two applications, for example, one demonstration starts at 12 and finish at 2pm, and the other one starts at 2pm.

These divisions were not only confined to Britain, in fact, root cause of this was, and is, the ‘home ground’. In majority of the cases it is the politics at home that created disunity; and when the British Kashmiris formed some kind of unity here to show a united front at international level, senior leadership based in Kashmir did not approve it.

It is believed that nationalists, whether they are Kashmiri nationalists or nationalists from elsewhere, are good at having divisions and splits. They also spend a lot of time calling each other ‘traitor’ and ‘agent’ and wasting their meagre resources fighting each other. This is partly because the occupying power, and in case of Kashmir, powers, deliberately create divisions and suspicions to weaken the movement against them. Of course it is in the national interest of agencies of occupying government/s to keep nationalists divided and they do it by giving impression that so and so is ‘our man’ or ‘their man’, or part of our ‘A’ or ‘B’ team, or their ‘A’ or ‘B’ team.

Nationalists tend to fall into this trap of agencies partly because it suits them for personal interest; their rival within the party or the rival group is linked up with an agency, and is ‘an agent’. This ‘labelling’ will suite some as it will give them an edge over a rival group or rival within the party, so they will do the rest by discreetly spreading it. Azam Inquilabi, a veteran Kashmiri freedom fighter, once said, when something goes wrong because of our follies or something that is beyond our comprehension, Kashmiri leaders say agencies have done this.

All Kashmiri nationalists claim to follow Maqbool Butt, but all of them like to have a separate group to project the message of their leader. We all talk of democracy but when decision, taken by the majority, is against us we don’t accept it, and go to the extent of having own little group.

We talk of non - communal politics, yet some of us are not prepared to give same rights to non Muslims of Kashmir; and one reason forwarded in support of this, is that they are not participating in the ‘Movement’. We are not interested in looking at perspective of non - Muslims of Kashmir, and expect them to join the Movement which apparently has strong Jihadi influence. It is like asking Muslims to join a movement to install anti Islam government.

Those who want to divide the State of Jammu and Kashmir wants to ensure that there are strong divisions among Muslims and non –Muslims of Kashmir. Geography of Kashmir and population is spread out in such way that if we don’t win confidence of minority non – Muslims then that will surely pave the way for a division of the State. And if we want to avoid such division of Kashmir then we, as a majority ethnic group, have to be more accommodating; and ensure that it is a struggle of the Kashmiri people rather than struggle of Kashmiri Muslims.

We claim to be fighting for united and independent Kashmir, and have taken arms against one occupier, or supported it, but are not even prepared to talk against the occupation of the other. We are not yet sure if we are Kashmiris, Azad Kashmiris or Pakistanis, and until we overcome these contradictions, it is difficult to make the required progress.

Issue of Mangla Dam is close to hearts of thousands of Kashmiris, especially people of District Mirpur, yet we are unable to organise a campaign. In Britain we have not been able to arrange a strong demonstration to show our anger and disagreement.

Similarly we oppose division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but when it comes to doing something constructive, or forging an alliance to oppose it, we simply issue a statement saying that we won’t allow division of the State, and think we have done our bit. Perhaps we are under this allusion that India and Pakistan would need our permission before going ahead with their partition plans.

Pakistani government before making plans to uplift the Mangla Dam, did not feel it necessary to ask or consult the Kashmiri parties, or speak to people of Mirpur, or the Azad Kashmiri government; similarly when both India and Pakistan have agreed on give and take, they would not ask us if they could go ahead with it. They fully know our strengths, if any, and weaknesses which are many, and they also know which strings to pull in order to get the desired results.

This is a wake up call for Kashmiri nationalists. All is not lost yet, we still have time to forget our differences and put up a united fight. And if we fail to wake up then we have only ourselves to blame, and like Allama Iqbal said, ‘Hamari dastaa’n be na ho gi dastaa’noo main’, meaning that even story of our demise might not be among the stories.

Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir.

Response to "We have lost Kashmir". Part 2

"We have lost Kashmir". Part 2
Shabir Choudhry


I have a long association with the freedom struggle, and before I wrote that piece I gave it a careful consideration. I had sound reasons for writing this article.

I was a teenager when I started work for a united and independent Kashmir, and inshallah I will continue that through out my life. No one should doubt for a moment my commitment to an independent Kashmir, integrity and courage. Come what may I will, even if that means on my own, continue to work for a united and independent Kashmir as that is the only solution of the Kashmir dispute. But what has hurt me is the attitude and response of some people.

I thought we were working as a team for the same cause and that is united and independent Kashmir. Through thick and thin we worked together and worked hard, and at times completely neglecting our family responsibilities. I thought India, China and Pakistan have occupied our Kashmir, and they all have to vacate it that we can have united and independent Kashmir. And only this will bring a lasting peace in South Asia.

But now I am advised that I should not talk about Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan as this annoys some people. And further more that it creates rift in the ranks of "freedom fighters"; and this helps our enemy - India. Therefore I should change my attitude and approach to make it "acceptable" to others. I was further advised that in meetings I should refrain from talking about united and independent Kashmir as this irritates some people present.

This was coming from a person whom I thought was a staunch pro independent. And if I don't adjust my approach to the changing scenario there could be some problems, as decisions are already being taken and you should know which side you should be on.

In other words if I want to be good in eyes of some people then I have to follow a set policy, which practically means forget about Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. In eyes of these people a good political activist is the one who around the clock condemns India and speak about the freedom of the areas under India. I have no problem condemning India for gross human rights violations, and I have done that time and again; but at that same time I have right to criticise Pakistani authorities for their role in Kashmir.

This is where the problem lies. If I criticise Pakistani authorities for their mistakes in Kashmir, and if I criticise senseless killings of innocent civilian Kashmiris then I am not a good Muslim let alone being a freedom fighter or a leader of a political party. What has further disturbed me is that whereas we are fighting for a united and independent Kashmir, some leaders on the Indian side of the LOC have already shown their willingness to accept division. Their fight is for the liberation of the areas which are currently not under Pakistan; whereas we wanted the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir united and independent.

Whether I am liked by certain quarters or not I am a nationalist Kashmiri, and I am proud of this. And for being a nationalist if there is some price, which there is, then I am prepared to pay that, but I will not abandon my path. All the above was too much for my nationalism, and one aim of the article was that we start a discussion and analyse the current situation and see where are we going. And in doing so we must not forget Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan.

"We have lost Kashmir". 3
Shabir Choudhry
Schoudhry@freeuk.com

Dear Aslamo Alaykam

Thank you for your comments on the above article. You have been very sensible with your choice of words. I am sure there would be others with more "fertile and imaginative minds" and they would come out with different stories.

I have a long association with the freedom struggle, and before I wrote that piece I gave it a careful consideration. I had sound reasons for writing this article.

I was a teenager when I started work for a united and independent Kashmir, and inshallah I will continue that through out my life. No one should doubt for a moment my commitment to an independent Kashmir, integrity and courage. Come what may I will, even if that means on my own, continue to work for a united and independent Kashmir as that is the only solution of the Kashmir dispute. But what has hurt me is the attitude and response of some people.

I thought we were working as a team for the same cause and that is united and independent Kashmir. Through thick and thin we worked together and worked hard, and at times completely neglecting our family responsibilities. I thought India, China and Pakistan have occupied our Kashmir, and they all have to vacate it that we can have united and independent Kashmir. And only this will bring a lasting peace in South Asia.

But now I am advised that I should not talk about Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan as this annoys some people. And further more that it creates rift in the ranks of "freedom fighters"; and this helps our enemy - India. Therefore I should change my attitude and approach to make it "acceptable" to others. I was further advised that in meetings I should refrain from talking about united and independent Kashmir as this irritates some people present.

This was coming from a person whom I thought was a staunch pro independent. And if I don't adjust my approach to the changing scenario there could be some problems, as decisions are already being taken and you should know which side you should be on.

In other words if I want to be good in eyes of some people then I have to follow a set policy, which practically means forget about Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. In eyes of these people a good political activist is the one who around the clock condemns India and speak about the freedom of the areas under India. I have no problem condemning India for gross human rights violations, and I have done that time and again; but at that same time I have right to criticise Pakistani authorities for their role in Kashmir.

This is where the problem lies. If I criticise Pakistani authorities for their mistakes in Kashmir, and if I criticise senseless killings of innocent civilian Kashmiris then I am not a good Muslim let alone being a freedom fighter or a leader of a political party. What has further disturbed me is that whereas we are fighting for a united and independent Kashmir, some leaders on the Indian side of the LOC have already shown their willingness to accept division. Their fight is for the liberation of the areas which are currently not under Pakistan; whereas we wanted the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir united and independent.

Whether I am liked by certain quarters or not I am a nationalist Kashmiri, and I am proud of this. And for being a nationalist if there is some price, which there is, then I am prepared to pay that, but I will not abandon my path. All the above was too much for my nationalism, and one aim of the article was that we start a discussion and analyse the current situation and see where are we going. And in doing so we must not forget Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan.



We have lost Kashmir 4
Dear Sohail Sahib Aslamo Alaykam

Thank you very much for your kind remarks and encouragement. I am also grateful to all those who contacted me privately to provide me encouragement and support.

Your example is excellent, and I hope people understand it.

Inshallah I will continue whatever little I can do to achieve united and independent Kashmir.
People can criticise me for what I wrote because they only like to hear good things. They don't want to face reality and like to build imaginary world around them. Instead of accepting our shortcomings we like to blame everything on Jews and Hindus. No one is saying they are our friends but our own behaviour and attitude is also questionable at times.

If we have wrong policy, wrong strategy and wrong approach then India or Israel needn't do anything to fail us, and we should not expect to be successful. Sensible thing after such failure is to analyse our policy, strategy and approach and make appropriate changes rather than blaming others.

It is unfortunate that the Kashmiri struggle has become a lucrative business for some and it is in their interest that the present situation perpetuates. That is why they think there is no need to analyse the present policy and make appropriate changes. I hope common sense prevails and we learn to take matters in our own hands; and find the path that leads to freedom.

Shabir Choudhry

"We have lost Kashmir".

"We have lost Kashmir".
Shabir Choudhry


When the tribesmen and the Kashmiri freedom fighters were approaching Srinager, the Ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh was urged by VP Menon to leave his Summer Capital and move to Jammu. Very reluctantly he left Srinager with his family and personal belongings. According to his son, Karan Singh, the Maharaja did not speak to anyone on his way to Jammu, and after reaching his palace in Jammu he, 'uttered but one sentence - "We have lost Kashmir"'.

A lot has happened since that time. Kashmir is not same since, and it will never be same again. Prior to that the people of Kashmir, especially Muslims, had many problems- in fact they were victims of the Maharaja's maladministration. But the State of Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity. Now the State is split into four parts, and the people of this unfortunate and forcibly divided State are not any better off. They are still oppressed, tortured and are deprived of their basic human rights including their most cherished and inalienable right of self determination.

Not long ago when the present armed struggle was at its peak, and mainly consisted of the Kashmiri groups, we thought that the independence was just around the corner. There were many reasons for believing that. The moral of the people was very high, they were, especially the people of Valley, taking full part in the struggle, India was on the defensive and the international opinion was favourable to the Kashmiris.

Now that we are in twelfth years of the struggle and we have lost more than 70 thousand lives, lost the honour and dignity of thousands of women and have gone through worst kind of oppression, torture and suppression where do we find us. If we adopt an ostrich like attitude then we are still winning and India is about to collapse at any time. But if we analyse the situation realistically then it appears that the tide has turned against us.

But the problem is you cannot say that, as it is not liked by certain quarters. You cannot even realistically analyse the situation, and if you dare do that you would be portrayed as working against the "Movement". Apart from the international press, some Pakistani and Kashmiri papers have started saying that the "tide" has turned in favour of India, especially after the Kargil fiasco, but we are still expected to bury our heads in sand.

Despite our great sacrifices in the view of the international community Kashmir is an issue between India and Pakistan which has to be resolved bilaterally. No matter who was responsible for the Kargil fiasco, Nawaz Sharif or General Pervaiz Musharaf, the fact is that it has proved to be a "Waterloo" for the Kashmiri struggle. One important but undesirable gift of the Kargil conflict is that the international community does not like any breach of Line of Control; and their emphasis is that sanctity of LOC must be maintained.

Apart from that international leaders are indicating that India and Pakistan should find a solution while keeping the sanctity of LOC. This practically means the division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. And to rub salt in our wounds some Pakistani leaders and writers have also started talking of division of Kashmir. The people of Kashmir did not pay huge sacrifices for the division of Kashmir. All political parties of Kashmir, irrespective of their political ideologies believe in the unity of the State that existed at the time of partition of India. The division of Kashmir is not a solution and if it is imposed on us then surely it will prove to be a recipe for future disaster is South Asia.

I am not one of those who joined the freedom bandwagon in 1990s; I am one of the founding members of the JKLF and a writer on Kashmir. I am closely involved in the present struggle, and for many years, like others I used to tell people that independence is around the corner. Over the years my optimism has gradually changed. It is not that I am too old now (I am still in mid 40s) or have lost interest in the struggle. But I have become more experienced and pragmatic now. My pragmatism and experience tell me that situation has changed for the worse. I cannot see light at the end of long tunnel. We must analyse and see what went wrong.

But important question to me is what do I tell my family now. Since 1973 when I started taking active part in the Kashmiri struggle, I have badly neglected my wife and children. I always told them, especially in the 1990s that my organisation and the Kashmiri struggle need my services; and that independence is just around the corner.

The Maharaja of Kashmir found himself in that situation in 1947, largely due to his own mistakes, but he had courage to tell his son and wife that "We have lost Kashmir". I wonder what I tell my wife and children who have badly suffered because of my political activities. Many other people who find themselves in this quandary have to sincerely ask themselves this question, and see what went wrong and how it could be put right.

Shabir Choudhry

We criticise but forget our obligations.

We criticise but forget our obligations.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

All those who make important contribution in life or challenge the status quo, always become controversial. Supporters and guardians of status quo ensure that no one endeavours to challenge the status quo, and those who do, don’t get away with impunity. And Quayyum Raja in this regard is no exception.

Recently there was a news item that Choudhry Mohammed Khan who claims to represent overseas Kashmiris and is a rich man in his own right should pay legal costs of Quayyum Raja. This itself caused a little controversy, some supporting it and others opposing it.

Some people argued that Azad Kashmir government, its Ministers or any overseas representative has not done anything for Quayyum and Riaz who have been in prison since 1984. Now that they have almost served their term (no one knows how long that is going to be), it is not prudent to let them take ‘credit’ and befool people. They argue Azad Kashmir government and all those who support it, are part of the oppressive system that exploits the Kashmiris.

And those who support the suggestion say there is no harm in this, Choudhry Mohammed Khan has double obligation, one as a fellow Kashmiri, and second as a representative of overseas Kashmiris. No one has asked him for help because he is rich and spends huge amount of money on advertisement and parties when Muslim League leaders from Azad Kashmir visit Britain. It is his money and his decision; we are no one to tell him what to do with his money.

We can request him to pay for legal costs because he is MLA for overseas Kashmiris; and his financial contribution will only enhance his reputation. For whatever reason, if he and others have not helped these prisoners in the past does it mean they should not help them now? It is just like saying that if a person has not been following Islam in his past life, he should not do it for the rest of his life too.

Jamil Maqsood, a Kashmiri from Belgium also felt strongly about it and in his email to me, he said: ‘The last issue of weekly ‘Nation’ contains a news about financial contribution for the legal costs for release of Qayyum Raja and Riaz; and someone appealed to Muhammad Khan so -called member of POK Legislative Assembly. There are more than five hundred thousand (5000000) Kashmiris are living in UK, and many more in rest of the Europe; and if everyone pay one Euro or pound, it makes much more money then needed, please don’t make it a drama of this’.

Jamil Sahib’s other comments are not related to this issue, and I might deal with them some other time; however, I agree with him that there are more than half million Kashmiris in Britain, and some of them are very rich as well; but it is shameful to say that despite this there is no help or any kind of support for these two prisoners.

This large and rich Kashmiri community cannot even afford an Urdu newspaper for Quayyum and Riaz, for years both have been paying for their own Urdu newspapers. They get free English newspapers, and in some cases some prisoners have special delivery of English newspapers sent to them by publishers, but in case of Quayyum and Riaz, Urdu news papers and their publishers could not even afford to send a complimentary copy to these two prisoners.

It must be remembered that Quayyum and Riaz are not languishing in jails for any theft, robbery or fraud; or for any act which could have benefited them personally. Both of them were intelligent and talented young men with bright future, and they got involved in something what they regarded as a just cause.

This is our payback to these two men who have sacrificed their lives for what they believed was just and worthy cause. Having said that there are those individuals, especially people like Azmat Khan and Mohammed Younus Triyabi, who have done everything they could do to help Quayyum and Riaz; and I admit that I am among those who have failed to fully discharge their obligations.

Both Quayyum and Riaz are model prisoners, despite most stringent conditions and pressures, both got highest qualifications one can get in jails. In Quayyum Raja’s words, ‘prison itself is a big university…I had been left on my own and then the continued state of uncertainty of my sentence, the death of my eldest brother who was a big source of support, my own heart attack and then mother’s death just three days before MA final exam, it was more than someone like me could take.’

Despite all these pressures and emotional traumas, Quayyum Raja kept his cool, pulled himself together and overcame these difficulties. Indeed, it was a huge task, and not everyone could have done it. Not everyone who goes to jail and suffer abuse come out with academic qualifications, many come out being abnormal human beings. We can be proud of these Kashmiris and their academic achievements.

If they were Irish and were committed of this crime the way they had been committed, then they would have been out many years ago. They are still there partly because we failed to fulfil our obligations, partly because governments of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan, although ‘shed … tears’ for the plight of Kashmiris on the other side of the LOC, decided not to do anything in this case; and partly because politics had a big say in this matter.

As for the legal costs are concerned, I agree, we the Kashmiri community should be responsible for this. Choudhry Mohammed Khan alone could do this and prove that he can also spend money for a cause where there is no direct benefit. Apart from that millions of pounds are collected by various organisations in name of Kashmir, and some of that could also be used for this worthy cause.

No one knows what exactly happens to this money once it is collected, and how much of it gets to needy and deserving people; but managers and directors of these charities have an opportunity to create goodwill by demonstrating that the people on this side of LOC are also Kashmiris and that they also need help.

The money collected in name of Kashmir should be spent on deserving Kashmiris no mater where they are. I have no problem if bulk of the money is channelled to Srinagar, but if a deserving Kashmiri or a family is on this side of the LOC, or are situated in another place, they should also receive help. I hope that Managers and Directors of these charities would pay some attention to this.

Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir.

Vote for Overseas Pakistanis could prove disastrous

Vote for Overseas Pakistanis could prove disastrous
Shabir Choudhry
Institute of Kashmir Affairs

As a matter of policy I do not criticise Pakistan or Pakistani politics, no matter what they do, as long as it does not affect Kashmir or the Kashmiri people. I do not like Pakistan or India to interfere in the affairs of my country, Kashmir, although I have no power to stop them. Whatever they do in their own countries I consider that their internal matter, and even when I feel strong about something I refrain from criticising publicly. But I have to oppose the decision of Pakistan government made very recently, because of its consequences on the Kashmiri people.

According to newspapers the Government of Pakistan is planning to give Overseas Pakistanis a right to vote in Pakistani elections. To many people this is the perfect recipe for disaster, and I tend to go along with this view.

The Pakistani community settled in Britain has more than enough problems on its plate, as it is, then why import more problems from Pakistan. Out of all the immigrants settled in Britain, perhaps the Pakistani community is most divided. There are many reasons for this. Religious differences have some part to play in dividing the community, but the most important reason is the ‘imported’ politics of Pakistan and Kashmir.

The first problem we will face, if the government goes ahead with this unwisely decision, is who is Pakistani. This identification process will create many problems for the Kashmiri and the Pakistani community settled here. It is no secret that tens of thousands of people who hold Pakistani passports do not regard themselves as Pakistanis. They regard themselves as Kashmiris, and holding of the Pakistani passport, which is a travelling document after all, does not make them Pakistanis. Kashmir is disputed territory just like Palestine, and Palestinians holding Egyptian or Jordanian Passport, which they use to travel from one place to another, does not deprive them from being Palestinian. They are just as good Palestinians as any one else can be. Similarly Kasmiris with Pakistani Passports are loyal and true Kashmiris, of course they are well wishers of Pakistan and would like Pakistan to flourish. I am sure they have similar sentiments for other Muslim States as well, and that does not affect their Kashmiriat.

This identification process to register who is Pakistani and who is not is bound to open Pandora’s box. Apart from this the lobbying of candidates will have some Pakistani flavour which will ultimately result in law and order problems on the streets of London. The Kashmiri and the Pakistani community in Britain is already wasting their meagre resources on the politicians from Azad Kshmir and Pakistan, and the right to vote will only aggravate the situation.

Other communities living in Britain do not have their political parties ‘imported’ from their countries, and that is one reason why they are more united and organised in Britain. We only have to look at the Indian Community in Britain, they don’t have any political parties imported from India, and they can concentrate their energies on other things that help them to establish themselves in Britain. It is very clear that the Indian community in Britain is doing better than the Kashmiri and the Pakistani communities. This is partly because they did not waste their resources on the politics of India, rather they worked hard to get into higher echelons of the British society.

To conclude, my request to the government of Pakistan is to do us a favour, and not go ahead with this plan. If they are so keen in granting voting rights to people then they are well advised to grant this right to the people of Gilgit and Baltistan who do not have any right of franchise. And if their belief in democracy is getting stronger then they are advised to sort the problems the democracy and democratic values confront in Pakistan. I hope all the thinking people will try to understand the problems, that we may have in future because of this right to vote, and oppose this move.
Shabir Choudhry

UN Resolutions ask Pakistan to vacate Kashmir

UN Resolutions ask Pakistan to vacate Kashmir
Shabir Choudhry

Many people think that the UN resolutions on Kashmir ask India to withdraw her forces from Kashmir. This is not true. And more disturbing is the trend of distorting the facts. It is possible that some of these people have a little knowledge on Kashmir; and some of course, deliberately distort facts to please others.

Mr Farooq Kitchlew often expresses his opinion in your paper, and he has every right to do that, but he must not fabricate the facts. In his letter, Only one solution (1 March 1999), he wrote: “Let the Kashmiris decide their own future through a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted by the United Nations. That is the only wise and sane solution of this most difficult and thorny problem. Let India withdraw her forces from Kashmir and face the verdict of the people of Kashmir”

Mr Kitchlew and many others who think that only India has to withdraw her forces from Kashmir should read little more on Kashmir. The resolution of 13 August 1948 accepted by both India and Pakistan, clear asks Pakistan to withdraw her forces, and India is to withdraw only ‘bulk’ of her forces, not all of them as assumed by many. For the benefit of readers I quote from the UN resolution, part 2, section A, paragraph 1: “ As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from the State.”

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

Section B, paragraph 1: “When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part 2 A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.”

One can see that it is Pakistan who has to withdraw all of her forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and once that is completed, India has to withdraw ‘bulk’ of her forces in stages to be agreed with the Commission. We all know that Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan are parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and these areas are under the direct control of Pakistan. This being the case how on earth can we ask India to withdraw all of her forces which we seem to be demanding all the time. By all means criticise India for her wrong doings and especially wide - scale human rights violations in Kashmir. But when we start distorting the historical facts it goes in India’s favour, they say other things like human rights violations are also distorted.

I hope people reading this take it as an attempt to correct the historical facts, not to criticise any individual. We should also learn to criticise Pakistan government and the Kashmiri leaders for their wrong doings. By criticising India alone and raising slogans like “crush India” we are not helping the situation. We must learn to solve our differences through continued dialogue and live like good neighbours. People of the Indian Sub – Continent are among the poorest in the world and instead of spending huge amount of money on arms we need to channel these resources for the welfare of the poor people.
End.

U Turn on Kashmir

U Turn on Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com


Different leaders, groups and governments have made changes to their declared policy on Kashmir; and some called these changes ‘U Turns’. Unfortunate history of Kashmir is full of these ‘U Turns’; even if one looks at contemporary Kashmiri history, it is difficult to enlist all the u turns made by different individuals, groups and governments.

After American Ambassador, Mr Robert D Blackwill’s, recent visit to Srinagar, Mufti Sayeed, the Chief Minister of Indian held Kashmir, boasted that there has been a major shift in the American policy on Kashmir. He called this ‘shift’ an American ‘U Turn’ on Kashmir.

Mufti Sayeed, after taking over as a Chief Minister, made some positive gestures in order to win hearts of the people. His gestures had mixed response, some people, including officials of some foreign countries, appreciated him for what he did and encouraged him to take more similar steps.

Of course there were many who criticised him for being a ‘B team’ of New Delhi, who came to power with the Indian agenda- sell the same wine with different label on it. According to this view, people of Kashmir understand real agenda of the New Delhi Government and would not be fooled by this window dressing.

That aside for a moment, as far as the much- talked American ‘U turn’ is concerned, I am loath to agree with this. Although I have no right to speak on behalf of the American policy makers, but as a writer and analyst, I see Americans reacting to the ground realities in Kashmir. We may disagree with their policy in Kashmir, but this is what they have done through the history of the conflict.

In 1947 when rulers of Kashmir and Hyderabad expressed their desire to become sovereign states, there was even a talk of America recognising independence of these states, but was advised by the British, former Imperialist power in India, to wait until ‘course of events take natural course’.

The course of events was manoeuvred, with some help from the British officials, to suit India, and Kashmir was later taken to the United Nations Security Council where Americans played a major role in deliberations. Like any other country they had their national and strategic interest in their mind, but it was the ground reality in Kashmir to which America and other countries reacted.

When there was lull and stalemate in Kashmir, America and other countries reacted to the ground reality by giving less or no attention to it. But whenever there was such activity that changed or threatened to change the existing situation in Kashmir, it drew attention of America and other countries.

History of recent past clearly indicate that whenever there is a serious event in Kashmir, other countries have reacted to it; and unfortunately to draw world attention to the Kashmir dispute and to make a point, some highly objectionable events have taken place for which all three parties to the dispute got blamed.

No doubt after the 11th September, America’s priorities changed and with that changed the strategic thinking which blurred the distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Many believe that this change had adverse affect on the Kashmiri struggle and especially militancy in Kashmir.

India benefited from this changed environment, and tried to win support of the only superpower which had declared aim of fighting ‘terrorism’ in every shape and form. India tried to make a point that what America experienced on 11th September, India has been experiencing this for decades, and this, no doubt, won them some international support.

While this war on terrorism was in full swing, India announced elections in Kashmir. Apart from the Americans other countries welcomed that and encouraged all Kashmiris to participate in it. APHC, which does not have a representative character, although it is the biggest political platform in Kashmir, was repeatedly requested to participate in the elections.

APHC leaders and some other Kashmiri leaders demanded a referendum as elections could not substitute a referendum that was promised to them. In any case they were sceptical that like on previous occasions Indian statecraft would manipulate the outcome of the elections. America and Britain assured them that this time elections would be fair and free, but despite this APHC and some other Kashmiri leaders did not participate in the elections.

It was clear that, once again, America and other countries would surely react to the prevailing situation in Kashmir. To them an election was a major political activity- it was beginning of a process that could possibly create conducive environment in which some kind of dialogue could start.

As we know that the APHC boycotted the elections because of fear of ‘rigging’ and also they thought election could not provide any solution, especially if they are held under the Indian Constitution. Opponents of the APHC considered this as a ‘run away approach’ and failure to face the people, in their view, not all leaders had mass following.

Western officials believed that these leaders had following, but stressed that,
‘Only way to ascertain the strength of this following is to take part in these elections’. Anyhow this debate will continue, people who support the APHC would claim that it was the correct decision to boycott and there would be many who would see it with scepticism.

As far as the visit of an American Ambassador is concerned it was clear that after the elections, America and other Western countries would like to keep close contacts with newly elected administration. This point was made in my interaction with a Western diplomat, and I later produced a part of the conversation in my article ’Kashmir after the elections’, in the following words:
I asked him if his government, and other Western governments would accept the outcome of these elections. He said I am not in a position to speak for other governments but we will accept the new government in Kashmir as a ‘legitimate government’ and interact with it…. we will also interact with separatist leaders, but in my opinion ‘they have, to some extent, lost their standing.’

The present visit of the American Ambassador has only confirmed what many predicted. It is not easy for the Western officials to play down or completely ignore outcome of what they believe is a political and democratic process. No doubt this visit was important one with overt and covert implications, and by not meeting the APHC and other Kashmiri separatist leaders a message was sent out that in view of the American Administration, Mufti Sayeed is an ‘elected representative’, and that they would happily do ‘business’ with him. It further signals that the APHC leadership is not an elected one, as they decided to keep away from the electoral process, hence might not be in the same league.

Dr Nazir Gilani, a known writer and human rights activist, while writing on the issue of the visit wrote:
Americans have certified the Kashmir elections. They have also signalled that Hurriet can no more use the bluff of an American blessing. The cause of the erstwhile American blessing was not any merit of Hurriet but it was the result of a hard work of the Kashmiri activists spread in America, United Kingdom, Canada and various other capitals of the Europe. … US through its ambassador has not only certified the elections, it has praised the valour of the people and tied future interest in the development to peace in the state.

But it does not necessarily mean that there is a ’U turn’ in the American policy on Kashmir. I am sure there is more than one way of keeping in touch with the APHC and other Kashmiri leaders, and officials other than the Ambassador could well be in constant touch with Kashmiri leaders in various parts of the world.

In the view of the American Administration the State of Jammu and Kashmir was disputed before the elections and it was disputed at the time of Ambassador’s visit; and there is no evidence to suggest that America does not regard it disputed any longer. The Kashmir dispute is very complicated one, and has a long history; and no single event could resolve or diminish its importance. Therefore we must not read too much into one single event, and can still rely on the American support for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir.

Trouble in Kashmir: way forward

Trouble in Kashmir: way forward
Shabir Choudhry

Once again the Indian and Pakistani armed forces are on red alert and facing each other on the Line of Control. The situation is not “a war like”, the fact is there is an undeclared war going on, although it is limited to the Line of Control at present, and mainly in the Kargil area. The root cause of all this is the issue of Kashmir.

Both governments have entrenched and contradictory positions on Kashmir. Both have vested interest there and want to make Kashmir a part of their country. And to achieve their objectives both governments have applied different strategies. The net result of their contest over Kashmir is the continued suffering of the Kashmiri people. Whether it is the Indian army shelling across the Line of Control or the Pakistani army, it kills the innocent Kashmiri people on both sides of the LOC.

Apart from the casualties of innocent Kashmiris along the LOC, the Indian army of occupation has killed more than 70,000 Kashmiri men, women and children. Thousands of women were raped and gang raped, thousands of people are disabled and maimed and thousands are still unaccounted for.

The people of Kashmir are making these heavy sacrifices because they want to have a right to determine their own future. The UN resolutions to which both India and Pakistan agreed, limit the right of the people to choosing between India and Pakistan only, hence depriving them right of self determination. In any case these resolutions have failed to provide a solution in the past 50 years. So we have to look for alternative solution – a solution which can satisfy the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, and which is also acceptable to India and Pakistan.

Both India and Pakistan have tried to find a solution in the light of the Shimla Agreement- signed between them in 1972, and they have failed miserably. If anything the situation has deteriorated. More people have lost lives over that past ten years than what were lost in the three wars between the both countries.

The threat of nuclear war is a serious one. The volatile situation on the Kashmir border can lead to a full-scale war between India and Pakistan. Some experts say that there is no threat of a nuclear war. Once a full -scale war starts no one can accurately predict its final outcome. The losing side, in the last resort, can use the nuclear weapons. Already there is a claim that chemical weapons have been used by India after failing to flush out the Mujahidin. Even if there was no threat of a nuclear war, the conventional war is bad enough. Both countries have sophisticated weapons to destroy each other. We DONOT want them to go to war over Kashmir; in any case we DONOT want Kashmir to be a battleground for India and Pakistan.

The war between India and Pakistan is not going to solve the Kashmir dispute, if anything, it will create more problems. Already both countries have huge social and economic problems, and any military adventure will further aggravate this. Highly reputable economist and politician Mr Mehboob –Ul Haq in his report for Mehboob –Ul Haq Centre for Human Development said:

v 61 million people in Pakistan do not have access to clean drinking water
v 54 million people do not have access to basic health facilities
v 8 million school age children do not have access to education
v 47 million people are illiterate
v 72 million people do not have sanitation facilities
v 9 million children under 5 do not have appropriate food and
v 6 million families are living below the poverty line
(Source: report by Khalid Rehman published in Daily Jang on 10 June 1999).

These are shocking statistics. The situation in India is even worse. There is more poverty in India than in Pakistan, yet these governments are bent upon spending huge amounts of money on weapons. These valuable resources could be channelled to complete social and welfare programmes.

The UN and the champions of human rights cannot remain silent forever. How bad the situation in Kashmir has to get before the machinery of the UN gets in to motion. The region of South Asia needs immediate attention. The following steps can help to diffuse the situation:

v International pressure should be applied on both countries for exercising restraint, and resolving the dispute through negotiations

v UN Security Council should send its envoy to investigate the current situation and make new proposals in the light of his/her findings


v After demise of the Lahore Declaration and complete failure of bilateral talks, true representatives of the Kashmiri people from all regions should join the dialogue process.
End

‘To the satisfaction of both governments’

‘To the satisfaction of both governments’
Dr Shabir Choudhry

It is recognised fact that there are three parties to the Kashmir dispute, but whenever there are talks about the future of this former Princely State, Kashmiri leaders are kept away from these talks, even though Kashmiris are the main party to the dispute.

It is the people of Kashmir who are suffering for the past 57 years in this conflict, but for some strange reason it is the ‘satisfaction of India and Pakistan’ which every one seems to be trying to achieve. It is a deliberate policy of both India and Pakistan to ensure that the people of Kashmir do not get their identity, and that they are always kept away from the negotiating table.

One can understand why India and Pakistan want to keep people of Kashmir deprived of their identity, so they try to find a solution of Kashmir which satisfies national interest and territorial aims of both countries, but one finds it difficult to see why other countries are supporting these countries to deprive Kashmiri people of their identity. I wonder why satisfaction of India and Pakistan is more important than identity, future and satisfaction of the Kashmiri people.

Since 1947 both India and Pakistan have used Kashmiri leaders to issue different statements either to support their point of view on Kashmir or oppose the view point of the other country. And unfortunately these leaders have been too happy in fulfilling this role which is against their own national identity and national aspirations. Some made fortune by singing laurels for India, and others benefited by singing praises for every Pakistani ruler, even though their own citizens criticised them for their undemocratic and anti people policies.

Obvious result of this was that both countries assumed a role of advocator of Kashmiris, and role of Kashmiri leaders on both sides of the divide was reduced to even lower than Karzai of Afghanistan and Iyad Allawi of Iraq.

This subservient attitude of Kashmiri leaders strengthened the position of both India and Pakistan and whenever there were talks on Kashmir, Kashmiri leadership was successfully kept away from the negotiation table; and perhaps rightly so because the leadership which is too happy to dance on tune played by either India or Pakistan is not the kind of leadership deserving of mandate of the Kashmiri people.

In the past most of these leaders, even if they had an opportunity to sit at the negotiating table, would have just rubber stamped the decision taken by India and Pakistan. They could have bartered away our rights and our identity just to please their political masters, and to get more personal gains. But with greater awareness and rise of Kashmiryet based on the concept of Kashmiri nationalism, the situation has changed, and if Kashmiri leaders have a chance to sit at the negotiation table they will try to preserve their identity.

My optimism is based on my personal interaction with leaders of all political persuasion, in which they all wanted the State to remain one political entity. This was also confirmed in the recent International Kashmir Conference held in London, in which people from all walks of life and from all regions of State participated, and they unanimously endorsed that there should be a peaceful resolution to the dispute and that the State must not be divided.

This view is confirmed by conscientious and realistic people in Pakistan as well. A famous writer and columnist of Daily Dawn, Ayaz Amir in his article ‘A sincere approach to Kashmir’ stated: ‘Without saying so explicitly, Pakistan wants the division of Kashmir along communal lines, with the Valley acceding to Pakistan or enjoying some kind of international status. A section of Kashmiri Muslims favours accession to Pakistan. But the majority probably is in favour of independence.’

Both India and Pakistan will oppose an independent Kashmir for their own reasons. Both countries know that they cannot get whole of Kashmir and therefore they have agreed to settle for what they have. Pakistani policy makers know that despite two wars and controversial Kargil expedition they could not get any closer to getting Kashmir, if anything they have lost more credibility at the international level.

An independent Kashmir will mean losing what Pakistan already has – some 32 thousand sq miles of Kashmiri territory. To oppose the concept of an independent Kashmir and to claim Kashmir, they will say that Pakistan is incomplete without Kashmir. But they conveniently forget that Pakistan was complete when East Pakistan was part of it. They have lost East Pakistan, and the remaining Pakistan will remain incomplete because there is no chance of Bangladesh becoming East Pakistan again.

How ironic that they have forgotten without much remorse, what was legally and constitutionally part of Pakistan, but are not prepared to let go what is not legally part of Pakistan. And what is not legally part of Pakistan, Pakistani policy makers are prepared to keep it at all costs, and Ayaz Amir commented on this:

‘While with all our expenditure of defence we are no closer to liberating Kashmir, all this talk of core issue serves as an excuse to make the military the holiest cow in the Pakistani pantheon…..For too long we have been governed by the pseudo – strategic pre-occupations of GHQ and ISI. We know where these can lead. Our foremost concern should be the plight of the Kashmiri people… If they want independence so be it.’

Many people believe that apart from the military and civil establishment Kashmir is a problem of a Punjabi belt from Rawalpindi to Lahore, as leaders and public of other Pakistani regions don’t have that emotional attachment with the Kashmir dispute; and some even see Kashmir dispute as a source of many of their own problems faced in their provinces.

Recently I had an opportunity to meet some Pakistani nationalist leaders and we discussed politics of Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute. I was surprised to learn that they had very little interest in Kashmir. Their point of view is that it is because of this dispute that the military junta has managed to keep control over Pakistan and deprived people of Pakistan and especially people of smaller provinces their rights.

One such leader said, ‘Kashmir is not a problem of every one in Pakistan. We have our own problems, and we want to resolve problems of our people but because of this dispute our resources are diverted for military use. Of course this problem and resources it helps to generate and divert help some people, and it is these people who don’t want the issue to be resolved. As far as we are concerned you people can become independent. We have nothing to lose, but plenty to gain in long run. If Pakistan can survive after losing East Pakistan, I am sure we can survive without Kashmir which is not even part of Pakistan.’

This was music to my ears that some Pakistani leaders were supporting the concept of an independent Kashmir, and among them was a big name of Air Marshal ® Asghar Khan. I asked similar questions from Hasil Bizinjo, Secretary General of Pakistan National Party. He was also of the view that Kashmir is a problem of some Pakistanis, especially of those living in Punjab. He was a strong supporter of Kashmiri peoples right to independence. He thought an independent Kashmir could help to bring peace and stability in Kashmir and start new era of peace and economic development.

So in next round of talks a mechanism should be worked out to include Kashmiri leaders in the process of dialogue; and effort should be made to work out a formula that satisfies all parties to the dispute, and not only two governments. Pakistani officials wrongly assume that what satisfies Islamabad will also satisfy Kashmiris. If they persist with this illogical and unreasonable thinking, it will surely land Pakistan in deep problems in future.

Writer is a Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

This U-Turn has serious consequences

This U-Turn has serious consequences
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

We can disagree with their style of politics and ideology, if there is one, but credit is due to Muslim Conference in many ways. It has the honour of being the first political party of the State. It has honour of being the first to change its ideology and its name to National Conference, and than make a u-turn to revive the old Muslim Conference.

Its leadership continued with the old name of Muslim Conference and conducted their politics as a ‘B’ team of Muslim League, so these terms of ‘A’ and ‘B’ teams are not new and are not associated with the present struggle. In 1947, future of the State was not certain, even no one knew what would be the future of the Pakistan Movement, and if it succeeded what areas would form the new state of Pakistan.

The division of British India was accepted on 3rd June 1947, and it was after this date that people of Sub Continent found out that there would be a new state of Pakistan. But the Muslim Conference leadership had a press conference on 28th May in which it declared a change of ideology and supported an independent Kashmir. Muslim Conference acting President Choudhry Hameedullah made the following statement in a press conference held on 28 May 1947:

‘Accession to Pakistan will disturb Hindus while accession to India will disturb Muslims. Therefore, we have decided not to enter into any controversy either with India or Pakistan. The second thing we have decided is that we should try to acquire independence for the State. The third question now before us is what would be the position of the Maharaja? We have never been lacking in showing loyalty and respect for him and it is because of this attachment that we did not support the Quit Kashmir Movement although in one way it was a natural Movement. We, therefore, felt that we should try to find a solution which will maintain the position of the Maharaja Bahdur while at the same time, it should also satisfy the Praja. The best solution that we have found is that the Maharaja should become a constitutional King as is the position in many countries…… The fourth thing that we have decided is that we should a Constituent Assembly of our own to draft our constitution……

I have the support of all-important leaders of the Muslim Conference and Chaudri Ghulam Abbas Khan has himself expressed agreement with this proposal. A representative convention of the Muslim Conference will be called within a month where the proposal will be unanimously adopted. So, therefore, this solution should be considered the official policy of the Muslim Conference. Muslim League has not given this, nor we are presenting it to deceive the Hindus. We have arrived at this solution in all honesty and after taking into account of the local situation. The only connection that the Muslim League has with it is that the Muslim League’s past and present policy of non – intervention in Indian States has strengthened us. I would like to say in all honesty that we have had no talks in this connection with any leader or worker of the Muslim League. We do not want to get any instructions from the Muslim League and Hindus should also give up being led by the Congress. The best thing for us all is that the League and Congress should leave us undisturbed and we should give up both the parties. When we say we want to separate ourselves from Hindustan and Pakistan, we mean that we want to be friends with both of them. We would have political as well as economic relations with Pakistan and in the presence of Hindu ruling dynasty, we will also have pleasant relations with India.’

This policy of the Muslim Conference continued until 18th July 1947, and in support of this statement of acting President Choudhry Hameedullah, the Working Committee of the Muslim Conference on 18 July 1947, unanimously passed a resolution to support the independence of the State. On 18th July the Muslim Conference issued a statement calling its Convention on the next day, 19th July, and to every one’s surprise made a political somersault and passed a resolution contradicting its previous stand on the future of Kashmir. The new resolution stated:

‘After carefully considering the position, this Convention of the Muslim Conference has arrived at the conclusion that accession of the State to Pakistan is absolutely necessary in view of the geographic, economic, linguistic, cultural and religious considerations because Muslims constitute eighty percent of the State’s population, all major rivers of Pakistan have their source in the State and the inhabitants of the State are strongly connected with the people of Pakistan through religious, cultural and economic relations.’

One doesn’t have to be a genius to understand what happened to the leadership of the Muslim Conference and what forced it to change its stand on Kashmir. The Working Committee and its acting President, after careful consideration, passed a resolution to support the policy it adopted in the press conference, and unless there was some conspiracy or some pressure, it is inconceivable to even imagine that there could be a complete U – turn the next day.

In its long history the party has made many u-turns and what goes to the credit of its leadership is that they manage to survive each u-turn, and make most of it. It still has following and could be regarded as the most popular political party on this side of the LOC. Its leadership has political vision and has mastery of political tricks, and could foresee what might happen and tailor its policies accordingly.

This party could have done great service to the cause of Kashmir if the leadership was not too involved with personal interest, and subservient to the Pakistani establishment. There is nothing wrong to have love for Pakistan, nearly all Kashmiris have that; and we have love for Saudi Arabia and Iran as well, because they are Muslim countries and we have many things in common.

But our love for homeland comes first, it is natural, our beloved prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) also loved his homeland. I will think of Kashmiri interest first and than care for interest of Pakistan and other Muslim countries. And by loving my homeland and expressing it, I am not showing my animosity to any country, let alone Pakistan which is a Muslim country and our neighbour. Islam teaches us to be kind and friendly to neighbours, and this principle applies to neighbourly countries as well.

It is also a political and geographical compulsion that we must have friendly relationship with all our neighbours. But this relationship has to be on equal terms, I don’t have to be subservient to the establishments of Kashmir’s neighbours. The relationship must have some common agenda, mutual respect and shared values.

As noted above the Muslim Conference has made many u-turns, and I am not going to go into history of the u-turns made after the forced division of the State in 1947. The declared policy of the Muslim Conference was loyalty to the cause of Pakistan, ‘Kashmir Baney Ga Pakistan’. Whatever its value and real aim behind this slogan, it suited both Pakistan and the party, as it brought many benefits to them. During difficult times in relationship with Pakistani establishment, the Muslim Conference leadership indicated that they have other options open to them as well, but by and large they have served Pakistan well.

And in their service to the cause of Pakistan they have shown their loyalty to state of Pakistan and different governments, but they have surprised every one by declaring their loyalty to armed forces of Pakistan. In their recent oath taking ceremony in Birmingham they have taken oath to be loyal to Pakistan army. We all know that Pakistan army is going to play a leading role in the affairs of Pakistan for many years to come, but does it mean we need to take oath that we will be loyal to armed forces of Pakistan?

Pakistan army is not Pakistan, and there are other state apparatus as well, does it mean that people will have to take oath to other state apparatuses? And why is it necessary for those Kashmiris to take such oath who have decided to live in the United Kingdom and they have taken oath to be loyal to the British Crown.

Muslim Conference is the first Kashmiri political party to include this clause in its oath, and this change has inherent contradictions and could have far reaching consequences. This change of allegiance could also have implications for those Kashmiris who are settled in the United Kingdom, and have taken oath to be loyal to Britain. There is already enough tension and friction, and we the British Kashmiris could do without more division and sources of unrest.
Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir. Email: shabir@k4kashmir.com

The UN Charter promotes the right of all peoples to self determination.

The UN Charter promotes the right of all peoples to self determination.
Dr Shabir Choudhry

While addressing the UN Commission on Human Rights, Dr Shabir Choudhry said people of Kashmir are denied of their basic rights on both sides of the LOC, including right to determine their future.
He said the UN Charter promotes the right of all peoples to self determination, and this right is defined as ‘the ability of a people to collectively determine its political status and to pursue its own economic, social and cultural development’.
Dr Shabir Choudhry who is also Diplomatic Head of the JKLF said, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 of 1970 demands that “every state has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self – determination of peoples”. But it is unfortunate that some states, even though they are signatory to the UN Charter, deny indigenous people right to self - determination under international law. These states actively and explicitly deprive people of their basic human rights, and oppress and subjugate those who seek right of self - determination; and it should be of great concern to the UN and all organizations supporting human rights.
He said recognition of this right is particularly important if we want to create conditions under which individual human rights could be appropriately protected and promoted. Denial of right of self - determination is, in fact, denial of all other human rights because it is through this right people could give meaning to other political, social and cultural rights.
Commenting on the denial of rights to the Kashmiri people Dr Choudhry said, ‘The citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir are unfortunate people who have been denied of this basic human right - a right which is bestowed to every human being by nature, and which is supported by relevant UN resolutions. The State of Jammu and Kashmir was forcibly divided in 1947 before the people could exercise their right of self determination. To date the State is forcibly divided between India and Pakistan and people of Kashmir have had no opportunity to exercise this basic human right to determine their own future.
He said the UN Security Council Resolutions on Kashmir are very clear that no elections, whether fair or rigged, could substitute right of self- determination. However elections have an important role to play in a society. It is a process that could help people to elect their representatives who could work for the welfare of the people. Dr Shabir Choudhry who is known for his nationalist ideology said, it is unfortunate to note that when the case of Kashmir and its future was discussed in the UN Security Council, it was Pakistani government which suggested that the Kashmiri peoples right to determine their future should be limited to either acceding to Pakistan or India, hence depriving the people to enjoy and exercise full right of self determination, which is fountain of all other rights. And this right of Kashmiris was further curtailed by the Act 1974, which does not allow people to participate in elections if they differ with states ideology of acceding to Pakistan.
He further said the Kashmiri people could not exercise their right of self determination because both India and Pakistan failed to agree on issues related to demilitarization, but consequence of that is subjugation and oppression and forced division of the Kashmiri people. It is the Kashmiri families who have been separated by force for the past 56 years; and it is the Kashmiri people as a whole who have been deprived of basic human rights.
Dr Choudhry criticised the electoral process in Azad Kashmir and said, the elections in Azad Kashmir held in July 2001 were marked by complete apathy on the part of the international community in the mistaken belief that the Kashmir issue involves only denial of political rights by India. The leadership that has emerged in Azad Kashmir as a consequence therefore comprises only of those committed to making Kashmir a part of Pakistan. The majority of the people, who disagree with the stipulation that they should accept accession to Pakistan, are made to suffer in different ways, including denial of employment, government contracts and opportunities to undertake private enterprise.
He said people of Gilgit and Baltistan are the big losers in this struggle as they don’t even rights enjoyed by the people of Azad Kashmir. And leaders of Gilgit and Baltistan National Alliance are furious over the conditions under which they had to live. They are unanimous in their demand that they are not part of Pakistan and would like to, at least, get status enjoyed by the people of Azad Kashmir.
Dr Shabir Choudhry reminded the Commission that the people of Kashmir have the same rights and protection under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as those in other parts of the world. He further said that the UNCIP Resolution of 5th January 1949 protected Kashmiri peoples basic rights, including right to travel and participate in political process without any fear of intimidation.

The Real Issue in Kashmir

The Real Issue in Kashmir
Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Recently I wrote a series of articles on Kashmir and one article was on Pakistan’s ‘principled stand’ on Kashmir. After reading this article many people contacted me with different comments. Majority of the people appreciated the article and found new issues related to the Kashmir dispute. These are the issues which were not previously brought up by the Pakistani officials or highlighted by pro Pakistani Kashmiri leaders; and even not fully exploited by the pro independent camp.

Of course there were some who criticised me for raising these matters at this critical juncture. In view of these people we should focus our attention on criticising India and what they are doing in Kashmir; rather than bringing Pakistan’s role into equation and diverting from the ‘real issue’. When I asked him to elaborate what he meant by the ‘real issue’, he said: ‘Of course the real issue is to get rid of Hindu India…we want to end their domination in Kashmir’. Then he gave a detailed list of atrocities committed by the Indian forces in Kashmir, and stressed that we must help our Muslim Kashmiri brothers suffering because of the Indian imperialism.

I said let us assume for a moment that we have ended the Indian rule there, then what are we going to do. He said once we have achieved that goal then we would join Pakistan. ‘What about those Kashmiris who don’t want to join Pakistan’, I asked.
All Kashmiri Muslims want to join Pakistan and those who don’t want this, can go to hell and stay with their Hindu masters, he said angrily.

I tried to explain that not all Kashmiri Muslims wish to join Pakistan, and that Kashmir is multi religious and a motherland of many ethnic groups; and they surely don’t want to join Pakistan. I further said that we don’t want division of Kashmir on ethnic grounds, and one danger of division is that fire of communalism could engulf other parts of the Sub Continent. All Muslims and non- Muslims could live in peace and harmony in an independent Kashmir, and teach lesson of co existence and friendship to the rest of South Asia.

He didn’t like to hear what I said. An independent Kashmir could not survive, he said, and in any case there is no provision of an independent Kashmir in the UN Resolutions. ‘There is no provision of usurping Gilgit and Baltistan in the UN resolutions either’, I replied. ‘Also there is no provision in UN resolutions to keep the Kashmiri families divided, and kill and torture those who ask for freedom; and yet it has happened, and it continues to happen’. When India and Pakistan sincerely want to resolve the Kashmir dispute and have peace in the region, they will find a way to do it no matter what is or is not in the UN resolutions.

Of course we had disagreement on many aspects of the Kashmiri struggle, to me it was a struggle for national emancipation and that included all areas of the State; to him it was a struggle to get independence from India and joining Pakistan. To me India and Pakistan were both occupiers with territorial aims; and the fact that more human rights violations take place in the territory under India does not make territory under Pakistan less controversial or make it part of Pakistan.

People who live in a Kashmiri territory under Pakistan do not live in heaven, they are also subject to human rights violations, but these violations are different in nature. People of these areas have not taken arms against Pakistan and that is the main reason why there is less human rights violations on this side of the LOC. During this conversation he pointed out why is it that I don’t write about India and criticise atrocities there. I told him that it was a big lie, and propaganda of those who don’t like my ideology and my writings. Then I gave him details of my writings where I have criticised India for gross human rights violations in Kashmir; but at the same time I pointed out that I want to keep balance: criticise India where India is wrong but do not shy away to criticise Pakistan for her mistakes.

Apart from that there is another big difference, and people don’t seem to appreciate this. I write more about Pakistan to expose Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. The Indian policy on Kashmir is clear: they want to keep Kashmir no matter how many people die there and what is cost to India. In other words India is ‘enemy’ of those who want freedom from India; and once that is established then there is nothing more to write.

Pakistan on the other hand has many standards on Kashmir. Like India they want to keep the Kashmiri territory under their occupation; and get the rest of Kashmir. But they tell Kashmiri people that we are doing this for you…We are fighting to get you freedom….We are fighting in support of your right of self-determination etc. In other words Pakistan thinks it is in interest of the Kashmiri people to become part of Pakistan; and it is also in their interest not to ask for basic civil rights or even a right to vote in case of Gilgit and Baltistan.

We are asked not only to accept this but also to remain quiet and sing praises for Pakistan; and when we fail to do this then our ‘loyalty’ is in question, and we are criticised for being soft on India. In my view more time and effort needs to be spent on exposing unfriendly acts of a ‘friend’ rather than visible acts of an ‘enemy’; and in doing so if I have to pay a price than so be it.

I told him that real issue is the right of self- determination of the Kashmiri people, both India and Pakistan want to get the Kashmiri territory but they are not willing to concede the right of the people that they can have independence and sovereignty. In order to deny this right to the people of Kashmir both governments are using different methods and strategies, but the objective is same and that is to get Kashmir.

No matter how mildly you want to word it- call areas under Pakistan, Pakistani administered Kashmir, and call areas under India, occupied Kashmir, but the fact remains that in both parts Kashmiris don’t have a say; and it is will of New Delhi and Islamabad which prevails. India despite all the human rights violations and what they have done to Kashmir, is planning to hold elections in there; but we see no such signs that Islamabad will extend right of franchise to people of Gilgit and Baltistan.

If situation is that both countries have territorial aim in Kashmir, and welfare of the people is not on top of their agenda in Kashmir, then we need to learn from history and think as Kashmiris and fight for our rights. It would be unfortunate that if in 21st Century we still don’t understand what is freedom, and boast that we are fighting Pakistan’s war in Kashmir.
Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir.

The Kashmir Dispute: What might happen?

The Kashmir Dispute: What might happen?

Shabir Choudhry

Once again the Kashmir issue has become a focus of attention on international level. It is the success of the Kashmiri struggle that the issue is on the international political agenda. People in political and diplomatic circles seriously think that the issue has to be resolved if there is going to be any chance of peace and stability in that area.

India's claim on Kashmir is unrealistic and absurd to say the least. India claimed Kashmir on the basis of Maharaja's accession, which later proved to be illegal, and according to new claim by Professor Alaister Lamb, never existed; and the Indian Government forged the so called 'accession'. Whatever the legal status of the 'accession' it was 'provisional', and it had to be ratified by the Kashmiri people in fair and democratically held plebiscite.

India, Pakistan and the world community accepted the disputed nature of the Kashmir in the UN; and both India and Pakistan agreed that the Kashmiri people in a UN supervised plebiscite would determine the 'future status' of the Kashmir. The actual words used in the first Security Council's Resolution (13 August 1948) were the 'future status', apart from accession to either of the 'contesting countries', this can also mean an independent Kashmir, as it was confirmed by the UN later. This Resolution was accepted by India and Pakistan, but never implemented. Perhaps it was never accepted with the intention of implementing it.

On the request of Pakistan, in the second Resolution (5 January 1949) the words 'future status' were replaced with the 'accession' of the state with either India or Pakistan. Thus, from then onwards, the Kashmir dispute appeared to the world as a 'territorial dispute' between the two countries. Although the Kashmir Issue was not seen in its true perspective by the world community, as both India and Pakistan presented the case which suited best to their national interests, and Kashmiris were not allowed to present their own case; nevertheless both agreed that the state of Kashmir was disputed and that the people should decide its future.

In mid 1950s, when there was some stability that was needed to hold plebiscite, India changed her position on Kashmir and claimed that Kashmir was 'integral' part of India. The excuse India made was that since the government of Pakistan has entered in to treaties (SEATO and CENTO) with the United States and acquired some weapons the situation has now changed. It was completely illogical excuse. Purchasing of arms and defense treaties had nothing to do with the promise made to the Kashmiri people - and that was to allow them to determine their own future in completely impartial plebiscite.

India claimed that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly ratified the 'provisional accession'. This Assembly which ratified the 'accession' had 75 members and 73 of them were 'elected' unopposed, not because they were popular but because their opponents were not allowed to contest the elections. In any event the Security Council in a Resolution of 1957 clearly stated that this Assembly could not decide the future of the State as the (so called) Assembly's decision could not substitute an impartial plebiscite.

Throughout 1950s, India maintained that Kashmir was her 'integral part', and that the 'accession was final and irrevocable'. But the same Indian government, after the war with China, had six rounds of talks with Pakistan to find the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. During these long parleys which stretched over from 1962 to 1963, the Indian delegation was headed by Sardar Swaran Singh and the Pakistani delegation was headed by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The talks failed because both countries could not agree who should get what if Kashmir was to be divided between India and Pakistan. Once again the main party to the dispute, the Kashmiri people were not even consulted, never mind being part of the negotiations. Available evidence suggest that India was prepared to make some compromises on the territory under her occupation which she called her 'integral part' before the start of these parleys. This clearly tells that India believes that Kashmir is not her 'integral part', and that is to say legal and constitutional part. It also demonstrated that the final settlement on Kashmir is yet to be reached.

Important question which deserves serious consideration is that no country can promise to hold a plebiscite on its own territory to decide the future status of that area, if that country knows that the area concerned is its legal and constitutional part; or enters in to negotiations with a neighboring country to decide who will get what. Since India knew that Kashmir was not her legal and constitutional part, therefore, she was prepared to hold a plebiscite. When it was realised that the proposed plebiscite might not get the desired results, India rejected the idea of plebiscite and claimed Kashmir to be her 'integral part'. Later on when India realised that the Kashmiri people and the world community does not accept this so called 'accession' and 'ratification', then she decided to hold parleys with Pakistan to get whatever was possible to settle the Kashmir dispute.

Kashmir was again under discussion between the two contestants in Tashkent and Simla. All this is evidence that Kashmir is not integral part of any country; and that there could be no permanent settlement of the dispute until the Kashmiri people are taken in to confidence. Both India and Pakistan can only make temporary arrangements and the Kashmiri people DO NOT have to accept these arrangements as they have done in the past.

The Kashmiri people have given a very clear message to both India and Pakistan that they could not be allowed to play about with our future. Whatever may be the future status of Kashmir, the decision must be made by the people concerned. India and Pakistan and their puppets must not be allowed to decide the destiny of 13 million people.

It is understandable why both countries want either whole or retain a part of Kashmir, but it must be made clear to them that whatever their designs on Kashmir, the people will not like any decision imposed on them. Out of three widely talked about options about the future of Kashmir, accession to India is practically out, as people have seen the true face of Indian 'secularism', and have taken arms against Indian imperialist regime; and that practically leaves people with two options namely accession to Pakistan and an independent Kashmir. The latter option is increasingly becoming more popular in both parts of Kashmir. It is also practical and possibly acceptable to all parties to the dispute.

The concept of an independent Kashmir is not recent development, as some people like to say to confuse the people. Even people like Mohammed Ali Jinnah (Qaaid e Azam) and KH Khurshid supported the idea. Many people, especially the academics know, that the State of Jammu And Kashmir was independent between 15 August 1947 and 26 October 1947. From all logical, practical, ideological and for Kashmiri identity purposes, independent Kashmir is the only solution and it has widespread support, especially in the Valley. But if there has to be any other solution, the decision should be taken by the people of Kashmir, not imposed by a third party

The Kashmiri political parties, hitherto, have been unanimous about any kind of division of Kashmir. They all regard Kashmir as a one political entity and they insist that it should remain one. Whether Kashmir's future is linked with another country with some kind of accession or it REGAINS its independence, the State must remain as one entity. All the Kashmiri parties should work for this common objective despite their different ideological stands and political interests.

To achieve this objective, there must be a united platform of all Kashmiri parties. We took the initiative and called all the Kashmir political parties to form ALL Parties Kashmir (Demo)Committee. This meeting had a single item agenda: to have a big demonstration against India on her Independence Day. It was unfortunate to note that even on this occasion Amanullah Khan group of JKLF boycotted it. They refused to attend any meetings held to finalise this huge task of getting all the parties together and make arrangements for a big demonstration. And not only that, they by a press release announced their abstention. Anyhow all the parties, except Amanullah group of JKLF, participated in the demonstration, and it proved to be one of the most successful Kashmiri demonstration ever held against India in Britain.

Nevertheless it did show that the Kashmiri leadership cannot even unite on a simple issue like holding a demonstration. It must be noted that instructions to boycott the All Parties Kashmir (Demo) Committee came from Amanullah Khan himself. The main reason for this was his animosity to other JKLF group headed by Mohammed Younis and Shabir Choudhry who refused to accept his Stalinist approach in running the affairs of the party; and these people were the main characters behind the Demo committee. It is hoped that a new alliance of Kashmiri parties would be formed soon in England to work here more effectively and efficiently. It is also hoped that the Kashmiri parties in Azad Kashmir and in the Indian held Kashmir would also work out alliances in order to strengthen the freedom movement.

It must be realised that our first priority and loyalty should be with the cause of independence. Individuals, irrespective of intelligence and greatness, come and go. We must, therefore, be loyal to our cause, to our people and the movement; not individuals who for personal gains, megalomania or monomania can betray the cause and the movement. The Kashmiri people have been victims of this betrayal and cannot afford to have another Sheikh Abdullah in the movement. It is imperative to develop a common strategy with a collective leadership to lead the nation to its ultimate destination of independence.

It must be noted that many theories which could possibly provide solution to the Kashmir dispute have been floated. Not all of these theories fulfill our national aspirations. As expressed above the Kashmiri people are not interested in any plan that divides their homeland. The State is one political entity, and it must remain so. The people have not given these sacrifices for the division of Kashmir. The aim of this struggle is to unite the State of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed on 15 August 1947, and then decide what option best serves the interests of the Kashmiri people.

One widely talked about theory is that Kashmir should be divided not exactly on communal lines, but making this the criterion when deciding the share of India. It is proposed that all the non-Muslim areas of the State should go to India, and the Muslim areas currently under the Indian occupation should get some kind of independence. Pakistan, for her share, should get Gilgit and Baltistan, strategically very important area, and Azad Kashmir should also be joined with the other independent part of Kashmir. But this plan is strongly contested by powerful political figures in the Azad Kashmiri politics, as they fear that if Azad Kashmir becomes part of a bigger independent Kashmir, they would lose their political position. They will never be in a position to dominate politics as they have done in Azad Kashmir for the past four decades.

This makes people think that separate arrangements might have to be made for Azad Kashmir. This probably means that Azad Kashmir might retain her present position with some kind of constitutional arrangements with Pakistan. Does that mean there is a possibility of not one but two independent or semi independent states? This scenario is dreadful to say the least. We Kashmiri people will not accept balkanization of our motherland. We cannot allow individuals, groups or foreign parities to impose a partition on the Kashmiri people.

This brings to my last point. The division of Kashmir, in any shape or form, is not what the Kashmiri people want. But the question is what are we doing to avoid this. We have to consider very carefully the role of people in Azad Kashmir and other constituent parts of the state of Kashmir. If we are sincere in what we say about Kashmir being one political entity, about indivisibility of Kashmir and about Kashmiri people's right of self determination, then we have to show that we mean it.

At present, the actual struggle is going on in a small area, with other constituent parts of the State are not doing what is expected of them. It is their national duty to join the struggle for national emancipation. In Azad Kashmir, people are either busy with their businesses, paying little or no attention to what is going on in the Indian occupied Kashmir; or they are busy enhancing their groups or themselves by showing their association with those people who are fighting the Indian army of occupation. It is increasingly becoming clear that these politicians who boost their personal standing on the sacrifices offered by the people in the occupied areas, have little or no control over what goes on over there. But these people are by nature politicians and opportunists, and they pretend that they have control over the freedom movement in the occupied Kashmir. This is not true. Some of these leaders may not get elected in local council elections never mind leading the national movement or having control over the Kashmiri masses.

It is imperative that the other constituent parts of the State play their due role, and if they are unable to do this, for what ever reason, then they have no right to claim or even endeavor to dictate to those people who are in the field fighting forces of occupation. The leaders in Azad Kashmir cannot justifiably claim to represent those who, despite all the odds, are fighting very bravely. We cannot and must not, because of our inadequacies and petty interests, increase their misery, leave them in lurch or hold their progress towards independence.

Shabir Choudhry
General Secretary
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front

Thank you Jagmohan and Vajpayee

Thank you Jagmohan and Vajpayee
Shabir Choudhry, London
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Like any other struggle in life, the Kashmiri struggle for independence has experienced its ups and downs, but two events had negative and positive affects on the Kashmiri struggle. One was the role of Jagmohan as a Governor; and second is the present build up of the forces on the Line of Control.

No doubt majority of Kashmiris were unhappy with the status quo and wanted to determine their future by use of self - determination, but it was Jagmohan and his inhuman treatment that completely turned people of Kashmir against India and the Indian rule. It was his oppressive and brutal use of force that changed dislike of Kashmiris in to hatred and united them to fight against the Indian rule in Kashmir.

It is true people suffered immensely during his rule and they continue to suffer from multiple reasons. However, Jagmohan and his actions not only helped to unite the people but also helped to internationalise the Kashmir dispute, something we Kashmiris failed to accomplish for variety of reasons.

The Kashmiri struggle for independence continued at different paces in 1990s. At times it was perceived as if the struggle was taken over by ‘Guest Jihadis’, which changed complexion of the freedom struggle. This over shadow of the genuine struggle of the Kashmiri people was strongly resented by many sections of the Kashmiri society, and attempts were made to tilt the balance without much success.

Because of many factors the world community was losing interest in the matters of Kashmir, and as the struggle dragged on it immensely increased problems of the ordinary people, hence came the frustration of people who wrongly assumed that independence was around the corner. At a time, when because of various interconnected factors, people were becoming more and more frustrated, came a rescue in the form of nuclear explosions.

Indian nuclear explosion followed by the Pakistani retaliation brought new dimension to the Kashmir dispute and peace and stability of South Asia. Nuclear explosions, though not directly related to the Kashmir dispute, pushed up the issue on international agenda. Soon it was realised by the international community that they have to play a pro - active role in the affairs of South Asia, and help to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

India resisted all the international pressure to resolve the Kashmir dispute and strongly opposed all attempts of mediation; but the Indian intelligentsia finally realised that there is no military solution to the Kashmir problem. Despite all the oppression and human rights violations India could not crush militancy, and militants encouraged by changes in South Asia, resorted to more daring attacks on selected targets which also affected the morale of the armed forces.

After realising that there has to be a political solution, and that India and Pakistan has to live as ‘good neighbours’ to meet challenges of 21st century, Vajpayee made a daring visit to Lahore. It is believed that both Nawaz Sharif and Vajapayee made some important agreements including one on Kashmir. And those who didn’t want this understanding to manifest into agreements leading to resolution of contentious issues between India and Pakistan, opposed this, and according to some reports initiated the Kargil expedition to sabotage this process.

The Kargil adventure nearly brought both nuclear rivals to full- scale war which could have escalated to a nuclear clash, but the day was saved by the American intervention and hasty retreat by Pakistan. The Kargil sent the following messages to all those concerned with the security of South Asia that:
1. The root cause of tension and instability is the issue of Kashmir which had to be resolved;
2. And the issue has to be resolved peacefully either bilaterally or by some other means;
3. LOC has got some kind of ‘sanctity’ and that the international community would not appreciate its violation by either party;
4. Also it created a deep distrust between India and Pakistan; but
5. It brought India and America increasingly closer to each other.

I have always regarded the Kargil adventure as a ‘conspiracy’, and I am not alone in this. Some reports suggest that the Indian intelligence services were aware of coming of Kargil, then like American agencies in the case of Twin Towers, ‘failed to act’ on time. The Kargil was seen by many as a ‘Waterloo’ for the Kashmiri struggle for independence, as it was Kargil that has given some kind of ‘sanctity’ to the LOC; and increasingly people talk of some kind of solution of the Kashmir dispute along the LOC, which of course is contrary to the wishes of people of Kashmir.

However The Kargil adventure gave the Kashmir dispute unprecedented coverage in the world media, hence renewed calls for the resolution of the ‘core issue’ of Kashmir. Another victim of the Kargil was Nawaz Sharif, who was overthrown by his own hand picked man, General Pervaiz Musharaf. Musharaf is believed to have opposed the Lahore Declaration, but for past many months, he is desperately trying to pick up pieces, and is more than willing to be engaged in the process started by Sharif and Vajpayee. Time and again he has said that he is willing to meet Vajpayee and ‘talk at any time, any place and anywhere’.

Initiatives like Cease- fire and Agra Summit also provided appropriate media coverage to the Kashmir dispute but it was the army build up on LOC and along the international border that sent shock waves through out the world; and this in turn, has made Kashmir an international concern. Since this move and ‘eye ball to eye ball’ situation, Kashmir is constantly in news- it has become an international issue, which according to international community has to be resolved. Although as a result of this army build up we Kashmiris are suffering, but good thing is that we can see light at the end of tunnel. There was no way we Kashmiris could have pushed the issue of Kashmir so high up on the international agenda, India has done that for us; and we say thank you for this and hope that the Kashmir issue would be resolved by a process of dialogue between the parties concerned.

Writer is a Kashmiri leader based in London, and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir.

Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter

Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter
Shabir Choudhry
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Last year I wrote a series of articles criticising acts of senseless violence that resulted in loss of innocent human life. I tried to differentiate between violence and freedom struggle. I argued that acts of violence where innocent citizens become a clear target should not be covered under the noble name of Jihad, as teaching of Islam and rules of engagement in Jihad do not allow killing of innocent people.

At that time Jihadi forces were at peak and very few people dared to criticise them because of their onslaught and propaganda against such individuals. One might call it imprudence but I was one of those who spoke out against them, and as a result I was accused of being 'anti Jihad', anti Islam, 'anti movement' and 'pro India'. My crime was to oppose 'Islamisation' or 'Talibanisation' of the Kashmiri struggle for independence, as in my view, this changed the character of our freedom struggle and was not in the best interest of the freedom movement. Our struggle was for united and independent Kashmir where all Kashmiris irrespective of religion or social background could live in peace and harmony.

May be I said these things before the time and consequently I was severely criticised by Jihadi groups. Also there was some criticism on me within the JKLF as my articles were causing embarrassment in many quarters, and my friends advised me to keep low profile for sometime otherwise there could be some problems for me.

No doubt Allah is great, and truth always prevails. Tragic events of 11 September and subsequent international reaction has changed the attitude of the world to many things, especially towards use of religion to promote political agenda. This change is also reflected in writings of Pakistani writers. Imtiaz Alam, a known columnist of the News notes it like this: 'He (President Musharaf) have to be aware of not only extremists who are preparing for small mutinies and forming a joint front with the Taliban in the frontier regions, in particular, but also those Jihadis who have an international agenda and are not loyal to the cause of Kashmiris. Before we go to the UN with a clean chit in 90 days, and before India succeeds in converting the political issue of the right of self determination of the Kashmiris into "terrorism", we have some time in helping the Kashmiri resistance to isolate such foreign elements who want to defame their liberation movement by targeting civilians and resorting to individual terrorism'. (The News London, 10 October 2001)

I don't think he could have written the above before the 11 September. He is right the presence of non -Kashmiri militants is giving the impression to the world community that it is not a Kashmiri struggle; also it gives a propaganda stick in the hands of India that it is the outside interference that is creating problem in Kashmir. We have always endeavoured to make it a Kashmiri struggle, but due to intervention of forces beyond our control we could only do our limited best to project it as a Kashmiri struggle for independence.

Apart from that these Jihadis have a different agenda to that of the Kashmiri freedom loving people, whereas we want to determine our future and once that goal is achieved we can have friendly relations with both India and Pakistan; the Jihadis want to have their flag on Red Fort in New Delhi and subsequently conquer Washington and have a lunch in White House. And strange thing is that, in their view, route to New Delhi and Washington goes through Srinagar. In other words until their mission is accomplished we will have to put up with everything; and it was because of this I strongly opposed them and in return got all sorts of abuse.

Freedom Fighter

It is often said that one person's freedom fighter is other person's terrorist. There is some justification in that because people have different perspectives and different ways of looking at things. This debate has been going on for many decades, and it is unlikely to get consensus on this most controversial terminology. Although there is no agreed definition of a freedom fighter, but one can say that a freedom fighter does not wage a war on people. This rule is not only for reasons of morality, but also for strategic reasons - a freedom fighter has to establish goodwill and friendly relationship with the people, as he cannot survive without their sincere support.

The aim of the freedom fighter is to fight against colonial rule, oppression of the state and injustice, and his target must always be non-civilian. He tries to win confidence of the people and attempts to persuade them to support this fight against injustice and oppression. A terrorist on the other hand kills people indiscriminately to achieve his goal, whatever that may be. This policy or strategy of indiscriminate killing clearly distinguishes a terrorist from a freedom fighter. Because of his ruthless actions he alienates himself from the people, and people find no sympathy for him or his 'cause'.

Similarly some governments also resort to indiscriminate killings of ordinary people in order to inflict fear that they don't co-operate with the freedom fighters. But more than often this policy back fires as it further alginates the government, and people learn to hate and oppose the authorities, as it has happened in Kashmir. Respective governments in Kashmir were responsible for gross human rights violations, and there is ample evidence of it, and this has resulted in further alienation and more anger. Indian policy planners and officers of the para- military forces wrongly assumed that by their heavy handedness they would be able to control the situation. Killing of innocent civilians, crackdowns, custodial deaths and imprisonment without trial hurt people but it strengthened their resolve to fight for freedom.

New era

By now both India and Pakistan should realise that they have tried everything from full-scale wars, border clashes, Kargil expedition, Simla, Lahore Declaration and Agra, to settle the Kashmir dispute. The dispute is still there threatening peace and stability of the region once again. Events in Afghanistan have overshadowed other disputes temporarily but it must be remembered that Kashmir dispute and Palestine pose more threat to the world peace. There could be no peace without resolving these disputes amicably and according to wishes of the people.

Pakistan and India have clashed over everything since 1947, but strangely have agreed to keep the Kashmiri people away from the negotiating table, even though they know that many rounds of bilateral talks have not produced a solution to all parties to the dispute. In the past both have been in opposing camps, and where ever their representatives meet they clash with each other no matter what the occasion is. It is the first time in their troublesome history that both India and Pakistan are on the same side of the divide supporting the fight against 'international terrorism'. Despite being on the same side or in the same alliance both have wasted no opportunity to criticise each other. Even there have been some border clashes and serious danger is that it could escalate into a war between them adding new dimension to the problems of the region.

Both India and Pakistan need to realise by now that the international political environment has changed dramatically, and subsequently this resulted in new alignments and new alliances. In this changed environment 'international community has little or no tolerance for violence and does not subscribe to any policy that could possibly lead to disputes settled by use of force. It is therefore imperative that they learn from their past mistakes, carefully analyse the situation around them and find a way to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

Even before 11th September there was no military solution to the Kashmir dispute, and this is why for many years I have been encouraging the parties to resolve the dispute by a process of dialogue between all the parties to the dispute. It must be remembered that the Kashmir is not a simple law and order problem as assumed by some sections of the Indian establishment; nor it is a religious war or problem related to the Two Nations theory, as projected by the Pakistan and some organisations supported by her. It is an issue of Kashmiri peoples right of self-determination; it is they who should decide the future of this princely State. And any attempts to crush the freedom movement by use of force or to divide the State, would lead to more trouble in the region and possibly a war. In its editorial Kashmir Times advise the Indian government:
'New Delhi has not learnt any lesson from its past mistakes and is looking at the problem of terrorism or violence in Kashmir in isolation and purely as a law and order problem to be dealt with by using of maximum force and repressive measures. Such a policy has proved counter-productive in the past and the consequences of fighting militancy with use of excessive force in vacuum can be even more disastrous. That any kind of terrorism needs to be condemned and opposed the unleashing a kind of state terrorism is no answer to deal with individual or group terrorism. The violence in Kashmir is not the cause but consequence of the failure of New Delhi to solve the basic political problem of Kashmir. Stepping up military action without taking steps to find a solution to the basic Kashmir problem will only lead to further alienation of the people. Any kind of terrorism has to be eliminated but more important and crucial in fight against terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of the estranged people.' Kashmir Times, 13 October 2001.

Author is a JKLF leader and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs, London