Comparison of Altaf Hussain & Imran Khan- Who did what? The army prepared both. Neither is a democrat.
Tanveer Zaman Khan analyses the roles of these two leaders. Both were called agents. Altaf Hussain never attacked the offices of the army & agencies. https://youtu.be/C3sfI2M9vus
Kashmir Conflict, Peace, Security and Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Dr Shabir Choudhry
On the above topic, Dr Shabir Choudhry delivered the following speech at an international Conference held in the Boothroyd Room of the British Parliament.
In the name of the Almighty, I begin.
Honourable Members of Parliament, Lords, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, Salam and good afternoon to you all.
Mr Chairman
It is an honour and privilege to address this important conference on the Kashmir conflict—a conflict that has persisted for over seven decades and continues to pose a grave threat to regional peace, security, and the fundamental human rights of millions.
Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the United Kashmir People’s National Party (UKPNP), and to Richard Burgon MP for hosting this vital gathering in the heart of British democracy—the Palace of Westminster.
We are here not to dwell on the past with bitterness, but to reflect on how this prolonged conflict has robbed generations of their rights, their voice, and their dignity—and to advocate for a peaceful, just, and inclusive resolution.
The Background
The Kashmir conflict is one of the oldest unresolved disputes on the agenda of the United Nations. What began as a princely state’s troubled accession in 1947 has devolved into a nuclear flashpoint involving three powers—India, Pakistan, and China—and a fourth, often overlooked stakeholder: the people of Jammu & Kashmir, including Gilgit-Baltistan and so-called “Azad” Kashmir.
Successive wars, ceasefire violations, insurgencies, counter-insurgencies, and military occupations have turned this once-beautiful land into one of the most militarised zones on earth. And with each passing year, the human cost mounts.
Peace and Security: Whose Security?
Peace and security are often spoken of in diplomatic parlance, but we must ask, whose security are we protecting? Is it the security of states, or the security of the ordinary people who suffer on both sides of the divide?
The people of Jammu and Kashmir have endured decades of insecurity, not merely from cross-border skirmishes or terrorism, but from structural violence, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, restrictions on movement, censorship, and institutionalised impunity.
In Indian-administered Kashmir, particularly since the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, we have witnessed the erosion of autonomy, mass detentions, and the silencing of civil society and journalism. A communication blackout lasting months showed the world that in the digital age, entire populations can be rendered voiceless with the flip of a switch.
In Pakistan-administered areas—including so-called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan—democratic freedoms are also stifled. Political dissent is criminalised, local leaders who advocate for self-determination are harassed or imprisoned, and people are treated more as geopolitical pawns than citizens with rights and aspirations.
And in Chinese-controlled Aksai Chin, the story is even more opaque—an area militarised and closed, with minimal public scrutiny.
Human Rights: Not a Western Concept, but a Universal Principle
Some say human rights is a Western narrative imposed on non-Western contexts. I say: tell that to the mother who lost her son to a stray bullet. Tell that to the father whose daughter was raped in a fake encounter. Tell that to the youth who grows up under curfew, surveillance, and fear.
Human rights are not foreign concepts. They are as native to Kashmiris as the mountains and rivers of their homeland. These include:
1) The right to life and liberty,
2) The right to education and expression,
3) The right to political participation,
4) And most importantly, the right to determine one’s own future.
Let me be clear—there can be no peace without justice, and there can be no security without dignity.
The Missing Voice: The People of Jammu & Kashmir
One of the greatest tragedies of this conflict is that those most affected—the people of Jammu & Kashmir—have been consistently marginalised from dialogue.
Whether it is bilateral talks between India and Pakistan or multilateral forums, Kashmiris are often spoken about but rarely spoken to.
We must change that. Any sustainable solution must centre the voices of all regions—Jammu, Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, and so-called Azad Kashmir. It must include women, youth, minorities, and the diaspora.
A peace process that excludes Kashmiris is not a peace process. It can be called a gimmick or geopolitical negotiation. It is a joke to fool the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Role of the International Community
Today, I stand in the heart of British democracy—a country that has a historic role in the subcontinent and an ongoing responsibility to uphold the values it claims to cherish democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.
The international community, particularly the UK, must move beyond symbolic concern and take concrete steps:
1. Support Independent Investigations into human rights violations by all parties, be it Indian forces, Pakistani agencies, or non-state actors.
2. Facilitate an Inclusive Dialogue that includes all stakeholders, especially indigenous Kashmiri voices.
3. End the Culture of Impunity by holding states accountable under international law and conventions.
4. Empower Civil Society, media, and human rights defenders in all parts of Jammu & Kashmir.
A Way Forward: Principles for Peace
Let us not be trapped by the rigid frameworks of the past. We must imagine a new architecture for peace built on the following principles:
1. Demilitarisation: Reduce the presence of armed forces and allow civilian governance to take root.
2. Democratic Empowerment: Hold free, fair elections in all regions and allow political parties to function without intimidation.
3. Human Rights Mechanisms: Establish independent ombudsman bodies and allow access to the UN and international observers.
4. Economic and Cultural Integration: Let trade, travel, and tourism reconnect communities divided by artificial borders.
5. Transnational Dialogue: Encourage people-to-people contact between the divided regions of Jammu & Kashmir.
A Moral Appeal
Let us not forget, peace is not simply the absence of war. Peace is the presence of justice. Peace is the ability of a people to dream of a better tomorrow, without fear.
And so, I make this appeal not only as a citizen of the world, but as a human being: let us not allow another generation of Kashmiris to grow up in fear, silence, and hopelessness.
Let us be the generation that chose courage over comfort, justice over expediency, and humanity over hegemony.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the conflict in Jammu & Kashmir is not only a political dispute; it is a human tragedy that continues to unfold. But it is also an opportunity—a test of our commitment to the values we profess.
Let this conference be not just a moment, but a movement. Let it inspire policymakers, activists, academics, and ordinary citizens to demand a resolution that is just, inclusive, and sustainable.
Because the people of Jammu & Kashmir deserve nothing less.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Should Pakistan recognise Israel?
Dr Shabir Choudhry June 2003
President Mushharaf’s visit to Camp David has
started more than one controversy, and his alleged ‘sell out’ on Kashmir and on
other issues, including doing a deal on the recognition of Israel.
His invitation to Camp David was important and
will have a far-reaching impact on the politics of South Asia and the Middle
East. It is believed that President Musharraf, if he plays his cards correctly
and wisely, will play a major role in the years to come.
We people of Kashmir and people of Pakistan
might not like everything he is asked to do, and everything he has pledged to
do, but he and his close colleagues think they know better and that they are
doing everything in the best interest of Pakistan and Muslims.
As a writer and a student of history, with
strong feelings on the issue of Kashmir, I do not agree with many things he is
doing, especially related to Kashmir; nor I agree with the Kashmir policy of
any of his predecessors. But as far as his policy on the issue of Israel and
controlling and containing the threat of extremism and fanaticism is concerned,
he has my full backing.
Many people give in to emotional feelings when
they talk of Kashmir and Israel. And any decision clouded by emotional feelings
could have serious consequences; therefore, it is prudent for all concerned to
look at the ground realities and take decisions with political maturity and
demands of the 21st century in mind.
On the issue of recognition of Israel, I wrote the
following article about three years ago, and I think, under the present debate,
it still has some valid points; hence, I am presenting the article as it was
written at that time.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Careful study of relationships between various
countries indicates one solid rule in international relations:
A country’s foreign policy is determined by its national interest.
The above rule is applied everywhere in the
world, and this is why there are no permanent friends or foes in international
politics. Today’s friends could well be tomorrow’s adversaries.
When one analyses Pakistan’s foreign policy, it
becomes clear that Pakistan’s foreign policy does not follow the above
internationally recognised rule. One notes that Pakistan’s foreign policy is
too slow to change to meet the requirements of constantly changing world
politics, hence Pakistan’s national interest is compromised. This is because
Pakistan’s foreign policy is dominated by emotions, traditions, and too much
reliance on ‘friends’, not appreciating the above rule, that there are no
permanent friends in world politics.
The aim of this short article is not to analyse
the entire foreign policy of Pakistan but to explain that Pakistan needs to
make certain much-needed changes to its foreign policy. Nation states can
choose friends but cannot choose their neighbours. So, it is imperative to have
a friendly and cordial relationship with them. I don’t need to explain what
Pakistan has lost as a result of a bad relationship with India, Russia (USSR)
and Afghanistan. Pakistan must have good relations with its neighbours in order
to reap the full benefits.
Pakistan’s foreign policy is full of blunders, and
one such blunder is to win the animosity of Israel and, worse still, to
perpetuate it. And without doubt, Pakistan has lost more from this. Today’s
world politics is controlled and directed by international capitalism, and we
all know that Jews dominate all these institutions. Is it prudent to continue
this policy when Pakistan is at the mercy of these institutions? Some
statistics to support the above point:
· Pakistan relies very much on American support in every walk of life. There are 83 top brains who control and direct American political, social, economic and military policies, and 45 of them are Jews. More than half of the remaining 38 have direct influence over them. The remaining have indirect influence, or they could be cajoled to adopt a particular line.
· There are 600 multi-national companies, which control the International Capitalism. Jews own three hundred of these, whereas Jews control 420 of them. The remaining multi-nationals could be persuaded to take a specific line on certain matters.
Many would say Pakistan’s stand is a principled one- in accordance with the Islamic ideology. The fact is that Pakistan took this stand in support of Palestinians and Arabs who also opposed the emergence of Israel, and the plight of the Palestinians.
If the stand was against the unfair treatment and cruelty to Palestinians then why didn't Pakistan take a stand against Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon when they also butchered the Palestinians? The reason is that these countries were Muslim and ‘friendly’ to Pakistan. (In the case of Jordan, Pakistan helped to ‘butcher’ the Palestinians in 1970). An Islamic principle demands that Muslims who are suffering must be helped and supported, and Pakistan should have helped Palestinians, not the Jordanian government. If the Islamic principle was to be held, then Pakistan should have had a different policy towards America, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Iran, India, Afghanistan, Russia, etc.
If this principle is relaxed because
perpetrators are either Muslim or too powerful, it is not prudent to stand up
for this principle. Then why does Pakistan have to stand up for this principle
in support of Arabs and Palestinians when they themselves have abandoned it?
These countries have abandoned it because they think it is in their national
interest to do so. Egypt did that despite the plight of the other neighbours
and the Palestinians.
Pakistan supported them and continued to do so
even though it is not in the national interest to continue with this policy
anymore. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Arabs and the Palestinians
against Israel and won Israel’s animosity, and has lost considerably in every
walk of life. Pakistan had a similar situation with India – wars and war-like
situations throughout its short history. Have the Arabs and the Palestinians
reciprocated by supporting Pakistan wholeheartedly? Arabs and the Palestinians
are friendlier to India than Pakistan. India has better political and economic
relationships with them. It doesn’t even occur to them that Pakistan can also
provide the same or less same services currently provided by India.
Some Arabs and Palestinians have become friends
of Israel a long time ago, and Pakistanis who went out of their way to support
them appear to be ‘idiots’. They have adopted a foreign policy to suit their
national interests, and Pakistan continues to support the policy, which they
have abandoned and get the animosity of Israel. Is there any logic in that?
Moreover, Pakistan has a ‘principled’ stand on
Jammu and Kashmir. What these countries have done to support Pakistan on the Jammu
and Kashmir dispute.
1. They all have political, diplomatic and good
economic links with India.
2. At times, these countries pay lip service in
support of Pakistan without endangering their political, diplomatic and
economic interests. Is it not possible for Pakistan to learn from this?
What should Pakistan do
1. Support them, but at the same time have
diplomatic, trade and maybe military links with Israel, and see how Pakistani
interests can be protected and enhanced.
2. By doing this, Pakistan would benefit
immensely, at least Israeli opposition to Pakistan would be neutralised. And
this itself will go a long way to protect the Pakistani national interest
3. As it is clear, this act would not be in the
interest of the Pakistan government, but one should see what is in the long-term
interest of Pakistan, rather than the government.
4. By becoming friendly, Pakistan may have more
chances of influencing on the policy of Palestine and other issues.
No government in the past had the courage,
necessary control or the will to take such a decision. It seems that this
government has the courage and nerve to take unpopular decisions. It has full
control over the levers of power and can make the necessary decisions. If this
government, for whatever reason, did not take many much-needed decisions, then
it would be years before any other government could even dare to think about it.
The national interest of Pakistan demands that
the following two matters be resolved as soon as possible:
· Resolution of the Kashmir dispute, and
· Recognition of Israel
The writer is the Chairman of the JKLF Diplomatic
Committee, and author of many books and booklets on Kashmir.
--
Governor General Mohammad Ali Jinnah of Pakistan to President Truman 1
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V
501.BB Palestine/12–947: Telegram
undated
At this hour when the Muslim world has received a terrible shock owing to the most unfortunate decision of the United Nations Organization to enforce partition of Palestine, I would like to address to you, Mr. President, this personal appeal.
2. The decision is ultra vires of the United Nations charter and basically wrong and invalid in law.
3. Morally it is untenable. Political, historically, geographically and practically it would be impossible to enforce partition against the united resistance of the Arabs who have the full sympathy and support of over three hundred million Mussalmans and many non-Muslim countries and not only those who voted against UNO decision.
4. In the long run it will and must fail. The very people for whose benefit this decision is taken—the Jews, who have already suffered terribly from Nazi persecution—will I greatly fear, suffer most if this unjust course is pursued. Moreover the decision presents a great danger to world peace.
5. May I therefore, at this eleventh hour, appeal to you and through you to the great and powerful American nation, which has always stood for justice, to uphold the rights of the Arab race. The Government and the people of America can yet save this dangerous situation by giving a correct lead and thus avoid the gravest consequences and repercussions.
6. May I, Mr. President, with your permission, release this telegram to the press.
1. Transmitted to the Department by the Chargé in Pakistan in telegram 198 December 9, 1 p. m., with this introduction: “In letter dated December 8, Secretary Foreign Affairs has requested me transmit following message from Governor General Jinnah to President Truman and asks Department deliver copy Ambassador Ispahani his information (verbatim text):”.↩
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1947v05/d909
