Dr Shabir Choudhry's blog

Kashmir, Pakistan and the Empowerment of the People, by Khurshid Khan

2012-01-21T16:52:00.000-08:00

Kashmir, Pakistan and the Empowerment of the People, by Khurshid Khan

Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 7:21pm

If we exclusively see POK, I see no leadership at all. How can POK have any credible leadership in the absence of any freedom of choice for the people? All AK governments are either an extension or installed and implanted by the politics and establishment in Islamabad. We have reached a level of bankruptcy in Pakistan due to our Kashmir policy and misplaced priorities.

We do not need a movement in POK; in fact, we need to have a movement in Pakistan which must explain to people why they are in this political and economic bankruptcy.

Invasion of Kashmir after partition divided the state and put Pakistan on a course to disintegration on the same day. Pakistan was a very poor new born country and it needed to put all its resources in health education and infrastructure building. Instead we were hijacked by vested interests of minority feudal elite rulers and we sank our resources in building a huge military complex.

India had China in mind but we created an enemy in India and started sinking our meagre resources to compete with India only in Arms Race. The result was big military complex created with borrowed money and internal resources spent by the corrupt rich and elite establishment. Poor people were left with "FAKAT WADA E HOOR".

We lost half of our country but did not learn anything.....instead of fixing our priorities, abandoning a policy of hypocrisy and deceit, we again embarked on a biggest lie of being born again MUSLIMS and created a business out of fake Jihad, where our military failed we tried to exploit the youth of the nation to win a proxy war for us from India.

Kashmir issue was again exploited to keep the budget and brain washing the youth, to be cannon fodder. After becoming a nuclear power, it was expected by the poor nation to get some dividends....but very cunningly, the establishment and corrupt rulers invented a perpetual enemy of war on terror.................with an open end policy of begging and spending but making sure not to admit our mistake and alter the course. Today we are nuclear power but a bankrupt nation at the mercy of others without any sovereignty to defend.

It is about time that we open our eyes and start with fixing our Kashmir policy from where this whole saga started. First we should educate the people about the reality of Kashmir which was not a part of India or Pakistan, nor it was in any agreement to be a part of India or Pakistan. This assumption is based upon the misplaced propaganda that Kashmir was suppose to be included in the newly created states but somehow India did not let us have it.

Reality is different…..Kashmir was an independent state ruled by a Hindu Raja and India and Pakistan under the partition act was to do nothing at the time. According to the British India partition act 1947, India, Pakistan and Princely states were three entities, given equal freedom from British rule and it was people of the Princely states who were suppose to decide if at all....where would they go and pre eminently staying independent was the first option.

We invaded Kashmir with the help of tribes (which I admire for many other reasons) and gave an excuse to the Maharaja to invite Indian forces in Kashmir. The rest is history. The second mistake in my view was made after we had UNO resolutions when we did not give any real autonomy to the POK and in fact created a ghetto for the people with a section officer in charge with real powers in Islamabad.

The Act of 1974 document leaves practically no powers with the President or Prime minister of AZAD KASHMIR. The rulers in POK were the twins of the rulers in Pakistan who have ruled for the last 60 plus years talking about liberating Kashmir as a tool to keep people engaged and distracted. Chanting the mantra of “Kashmir bunay ga Pakistan” yet asking the whole world to help secure the rights of self determination of Kashmiri people is the biggest contradiction in itself and no moral grounds to stand on. These were the same visionaries in POK, who were complacent in having invaded the state and were instrumental in its division.

Today the same lot talks about reunification under any terms. We have many missed opportunities of the past 63 years but I think once again, in this new world order where most wars would be fought for food water and economic survival in the future……Pakistan as a nation has an opportunity and an obligation to its people to revise its moral stand on Kashmir, by giving a complete autonomy barring few areas to the people of POK. People should be allowed to free and fair elections, a complete freedom of expression and choice to elect the representative assembly and thereafter an ability to help negotiate an honorable reunification with IOK.

This will help Pakistan to become an honest broker and with a moral high ground to provide the political and moral support for Kashmiri people in their just struggle for self rule. Pakistan has had no development done in POK in the last 63 years, probably due to the fear of separation but once a representative government is allowed in AZAD Kashmir, it will help develop the area and will increase its relationship in economic terms with Pakistan and an eventual economic integration.

This whole exercise will help Pakistan free the economic resources it is spending today maintain conventional forces to compete with India and will be able to spend that resource on EDUCATION, HEALTH and infrastructure to establish and promote badly needed economic and business environment. Tribalism can only reduce with education and sincerity of the purpose. People are unaware of the purpose; in recent pools only 6% of the people in AZAD Kashmir were aware of any talks between India and Pakistan. We want to liberate Kashmir with jalsas, long speeches and lots of "DAWATS".

We need to build a just society, free of corruption, equality and opportunities for all. There is no one who is restricting us to be honest and sincere to our society. We need independence from poverty, illiteracy and corrupt and corruption before we can claim to be ready for an independent country.........it should be an eventual goal not a pre requisite for a better society.

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle, interview of Dr Shabir Choudhry with Current news

2012-01-19T13:44:00.000-08:00

JKLF played into ISI hands Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle, interview of Dr Shabir Choudhry with Current News.
http://currentnews.in/2011/11/22/jklf-played-into-isi-hands-kashmir-was-never-a-muslim-struggle/
Born in Nakker Shamali in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) Dr Shabir Choudhry has been in the UK since 1966 and holds dual nationality. He regularly takes part in the UN Human Rights (Commission) and has addressed many conferences and seminars opposing violence and highlighting the Kashmir cause. He has 40 books and booklets on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle to his credit. Throughout his life he has worked for the cause of Kashmir as a JKLF founder-member since its inception in 1977. Due to differences with top leaders of the JKLF he parted ways and formed the Kashmir National Party (KNP). He spoke with RC GANJOO on a host of issues:

Current News: You were an active member of JKLF but what forced you to launch the KNP in London.

Shabir Choudhry: JKLF was formed in Birmingham, England in 1977, and I was among its founders. The JKLF believed in a united and independent Jammu and Kashmir free from both countries, and of course from China as well. The JKLF head office was shifted from Britain to Muzaffrabad when Amanullah Khan was expelled from Britain in 1987. Perhaps that was the first serious tactical mistake we made, and I take responsibility for that as I forcefully advocated this change. The late Afzal Jatalvi and I were senior office bearers at that time and we both agreed that it was in the best interest of the party because we feared action against the JKLF in Britain as a result of Rawinder Mahtare’s (Indian diplomat in Britain) kidnapping and subsequent killing.

The JKLF believed in non communal politics — religion to us was a personal matter. We strongly believed in equality for all citizens, rule of law, democracy and liberal ideals; and to us both India and Pakistan were occupiers, hence equally bad as far as imperialism and occupation was concerned. Our struggle was against both.

But when Amanullah Khan was expelled from Britain he decided to take help from one occupier (Pakistan) to fight against the other occupier (India). With that secret deal of Amanullah Khan and the ISI began a gradual shift in JKLF policy as the party was used as a vehicle to promote a proxy war. The struggle for independence or right of self determination was transformed into a ‘Jihad’ against Hindu rule or Hindus in which minorities were targeted. Cinemas, beauty parlours, tourists, religious festivals (Amarnath Yatra) were targeted. All this was against Islamic teaching, but unfortunately it happened, and the JKLF leadership unfortunately either remained quiet or became part of this communal game.

From then onwards it became a Muslim struggle and not a Kashmiri struggle and the JKLF group while still wearing a secular hat became part of this game.

Amanullah Khan also realised that he was used to advance a Pakistani interest, but he is a stubborn man with dictatorial attitude. He with the support of the ISI managed to keep his stature and his JKLF group functioning. Anyone who dared to challenge him was expelled from the party on charges of working for either the ISI or R&AW. The reality, however, is that he is the one who closely worked with the ISI and continues to do so. My friends and I have been fighting establishment policies on Kashmir and their stooges since 1992. We sincerely worked hard to unite the factions of the JKLF and correct the wrongs. I have no hesitation in acknowledging our failure; the JKLF senior leadership with the help of the ISI won and we lost in our attempt to unite the JKLF.

In 1995 when Yasin Malik and Amanullah Khan fell out we thought maybe Yasin Malik will be better than Amanullah Khan and supported him. But he proved to be worse. When we realised that the top leadership of JKLF had abandoned the ideology of Maqbool Butt, we decided to say good bye to the JKLF and formed Kashmir National Party to advance the cause of a united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

CN: Now the two factions of JKLF, one headed by Ammanullah Khan and the other by Yaseen Malik have joined hands. What could be the politics behind their merger?

Shabir Choudhry: Unity of like minded people with a common agenda is must to advance a common agenda; but that unity must be based on certain principles and there must be sincerity. In my opinion it is not unity of JKLF groups, as two individuals met and without taking any senior leaders in to confidence announced this unity.

Still people are questioning the real motives behind this unity. If it was a JKLF unity then the question is why other JKLF groups were left out. Even in the final declaration prepared by the working group of both Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik, only urged Rauf Kashmiri to abandon his group and join them; but they completely ignored the Aftab Group and Bitta Karate or Farooq Dar Group.

CN: What prompted you to observe 22 October as a black day in London?

Shabir Choudhry: Pakistan and pro-Pakistan political parties want people of Jammu and Kashmir to observe 27 October as a Black Day because it was on this date Indian troops landed in Kashmir. Under the influence of Pakistani propaganda and wrong history that has been taught to people, we all observed 27 October as a Black Day, and some still do. However, with time we realised that Black Day should be observed on 22 October, because it was on this date Pakistani sponsored tribesmen attacked the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir and killed, raped and looted innocent people of Kashmir, especially non Muslims.

It must be noted that Indian troops came to Kashmir on a request of the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir and after a treaty (provisional accession); but Pakistan sent in their warriors to capture Kashmir by violating a treaty (Standstill Agreement) with the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir after lapse of paramountcy became an independent ruler; it was Pakistan which unleashed an unprovoked attack on Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja requested help from India when he realised that his forces were unable to save his country and his subjects from this savage attack and subsequent killing, raping, kidnapping and looting. In other words, if there was no tribal attack we could still have been an independent country and what happened on 27 October is a by product of events that started on 22 October and which have changed the course of our history. So to us the root cause to our past and present problems is 22 October and we should all observe this as a Black Day.

CN: POK and Gilgit-Baltistan are reeling under the authoritarian rule of Pakistan. How long will the people of these areas have to suffer?

Shabir Choudhry: It is true the people of POK and Gilgit Baltistan are manipulated intimidated, oppressed and deprived of their fundamental rights. It is unfortunate that I don’t have any good news for the people of these regions.

However, the facts are totally different and the people on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir have better living standards and economic development. Unless people of PoK and Gilgit Baltistan realise that they are occupied and denied of fundamental rights there can never be change on this side of the divide. Furthermore, they need to understand that our struggle is on the Pakistani side of the divide; and those who tell us to fight against Indian occupation only want to focus attention on the Valley. We are occupied by Pakistan and our struggle should be against the country that occupies us; and those who are occupied by India they can struggle over there according to their situation. However, we must not become tools in hands of agencies who want to advance their own agenda.

CN: Do you foresee a sinister game being hatched for Pok-GB regions where China’s presence is there in guise of development activity with the permission of Pakistan?

Shabir Choudhry: I have said this many times that policy makers of Pakistan want to make China part of the Kashmir dispute and in this regard some so-called Kashmiri leaders and political activists are also working hard. Till very recently China was not a party to this dispute even though China also occupies some territory of Jammu and Kashmir – some of this territory was occupied in 1962 Sino-India war; and some territory was gifted to China by Pakistan in 1963 to link both parts.
However, as Pakistan is getting weaker and more unstable and occupied in the civil war and war on terrorism, policy makers of Islamabad feel they need extra help on the issue of Kashmir to counter Indian hegemony.

Whereas I have no problem with China helping Pakistan with different development projects in Pakistan, I have serious concern with the presence of the Chinese army and other civilian and technical staff on my territory – Gilgit Baltistan and PoK. Both Pakistan and China under cover of different projects are looting and plundering our resources, as contracts and large areas are leased out to China for exploration without any knowledge and agreement of local administration and to the detriment of our interest. Furthermore, the presence of the Chinese army on our territory will only exacerbate the situation and attract challenges from those who also have interest in the region. What that means is that our territory could become a battle ground for competing military strategic and economic interests of very powerful countries of the world.

It must be understood that China is not part of South Asia and it will be wrong to drag China into the affairs of South Asia as it could prove disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and the entire region.

CN: Will Taliban ever get neutralized by Pakistan in a joint operation with Afghanistan?

Shabir Choudhry: The issue of Taliban and their politics is directly related to the mindset of the Pakistani establishment. In my opinion, those forces which promote communalism and regard these “jihadi” outfits and Taliban as strategic assets are very powerful in Pakistan and as long as they call the shots and determine foreign policy and other issues related to security and stability of Pakistan, I am afraid not much is going to change. Pakistan has to go through a transition – rather a blood bath, if ever it is going to put things right and live in peace and harmony with itself and with its neighbours.

Muhammad Sarwar - True Pakistani Ambassador

2012-01-18T15:04:00.001-08:00

Muhammad Sarwar - True Pakistani Ambassador
Dr Shabir Choudhry 8 January 2012

Mohammed Aslam, Chief Editor of ‘Liberty International’ asked me many times to write a short piece on Muhammad Sarwar to appreciate his remarkable contribution to journalism; and what he has done to enhance the image of Pakistan in Britain and Europe. In his view Muhammad Sarwar is a true soldier of Pakistan who wants to see a stable, democratic and prosper Pakistan that can make positive contribution in world affairs; and help to eradicate culture of violence, extremism, communalism and hatred.

I agree with him, Muhammad Sarwar is a man with a mission. Despite ill health and meagre resources he works more than fourteen hours a day to accomplish his mission. His mission is to promote and protect interest of Pakistan and Islam; and this task is extremely difficult because there are powerful internal and external forces working against Pakistan and Islam.

Muhammad Sarwar is from the biggest and most disturbed city of Pakistan – Karachi, which is also economic backbone of Pakistan. After completing Masters from the Karachi University he joined famous Urdu daily ‘Nawa e Waqt’; and soon made his presence felt in the journalist community. Because of his skills, dedication and hard work more than one news paper wanted to benefit from his talent, but he chose to become News Editor of daily ‘Masawaat’.

Owners of the biggest media empire Jang Group of Newspapers do not like his rival papers to pose challenge to his dominance; and Muhammad Sarwar’s talent, public relations skills and news making abilities were becoming a major threat to his empire. So very wisely they decided to employ him and use his talent to advance their agenda. Muhammad Sarwar turned down very lucrative offer, but persistent efforts eventually won him over and he was requested to become a News Editor of Jang London.

This is where I first met Muhammad Sarwar. He was the News Editor of most popular and effective Urdu daily paper, and I went to see him in his London office. I was Secretary General of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front at that time; and because the Kashmir dispute was not commercialised at that time we always had problem in getting appropriate media coverage for our activities.

I found Muhammad Sarwar polite, friendly and accommodating. He spoke softly but chose his words carefully. He assured me that he would provide appropriate media coverage to our political activities. However, he cautioned me to ensure that we did not do anything against Pakistan, because his loyalty was with Pakistan and not Jammu and Kashmir. I said to him that we were well wishers of Pakistan and would not do anything against state of Pakistan; and added that we wanted help and support of Pakistani brothers.

Muhammad Sarwar honoured his words and provided us and other Kashmiri political activists appropriate coverage in his paper. This service he continues to do to date, despite competing interests and indomitable pressure from various powerful groups. The Kashmiri groups in Britain and Europe and the Kashmir cause has benefited from abilities, skills and the services of Muhammad Sarwar; but we people of Jammu and Kashmir have not been able to reciprocate, or at least, appreciate his services rendered in promotion of the Kashmir cause.

As a News Editor of the Jang London, he enhanced its reputation, improved quality of news and made his readers better informed. A number of challenges were made by powerful rival papers but none could compete effectively. After taking the Jang London to new heights, Muhammad Sarwar said good -bye to Jang and undertook a new project of starting the first electronic media known as TV Asia; and became its Director Current Affairs.

When TV Asia was up and running as a successful business enterprise he decided to return to print media, and became Chief Editor and Publisher of ‘Nation’. Nation, as a newspaper has provided extremely valuable service to the Asian community living in Britain. As a patriot Pakistani and a true Ambassador of Pakistan he advanced interest of Pakistan in places where it mattered.

Apart from that he has made strenuous efforts to promote culture of peace, harmony, toleration and coexistence among different ethnic communities living in Britain. He sincerely served all ethnic minorities, and encouraged them to live in Britain in peace and harmony; and respect law of the land by making positive contribution to the British society.

Not only he provides space to different religious sects and promotes Islam positively; he also provides space to those who want to advance cause of liberal, democratic and secular ideals. He positively advanced the cause of people of Jammu and Kashmir; and very boldly said Kashmir belongs to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and only they are entitled to decide its future.

Furthermore he said, apart from Kashmiris, people of Pakistan and India are also suffering because of the Kashmir dispute; and it is only appropriate that it should be resolved according to the wishes of the people that there can be peace and friendship between India and Pakistan.

When it was considered treacherous to present view point of India on the issue of Kashmir, or publish views of pro Indian Kashmiris he had courage to publish their views despite strong opposition and criticism. His view was that there are three parties to the Kashmir dispute, namely India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and he wanted his readers to know all three view points and make informed judgements.

Muhammad Sarwar has excellent public relations skills and his networking is second to none. He has very big circle of friends in all walks of social and political life. People in field of journalism highly regard his courage, skills, intellect and dedication; but there are some powerful people who want to end his journalistic career by forcing him to close down ‘Nation’, which he has nourished like his baby.

Despite all tactics and pressures of his opponents he has, on his own and without any financial support, survived in this field with honour and pride for so long; and without having any scandals to his paper or his name. He is not only regarded as a leading Asian journalist; but also admired as a true thinker, analyst and scholar. In many public meetings and conferences, especially meetings of political nature he is invited as a key note speaker that people can benefit from his wisdom and experience.

Mohammed Aslam, Chief Editor of ‘Liberty International’ commented: ‘Muhammad Sarwar is a journalistic genius. He is the biggest, most efficient and influential Asian journalist in Britain. He is a true Ambassador of Kashmir and Pakistan; and has done far more than Pakistani diplomats stationed in Britain have done for Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute.’

In conclusion I may add that Muhammad Sarwar can be a true soldier of Pakistan, and he may be a true Ambassador of Pakistan as well. I can agree that he is a sincere and dedicated man and would not compromise on his principles. I can also agree that he may be a genius in his field; but he must understand that lone warriors do not win wars. He needs to build a team and an institution that others can also make some contribution to his cause.
Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

CONFESSIONS OF A PAKISTANI TERRORIST

2012-01-16T04:56:00.002-08:00

CONFESSIONS OF A PAKISTANI TERRORIST

How many have been killed? Weren’t over the ground worker supporting terrorist like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6xqf_a7d8

About K4Kashmir

Pakistan: ‘Free Kashmir’ Far From Free | Human Rights Watch

2012-01-16T04:56:00.001-08:00

Pakistan: ‘Free Kashmir’ Far From Free | Human Rights Watch
www.hrw.org

‎(Islamabad) - In Azad Kashmir, a region largely closed to international scrutiny until a devastating earthquake hit last year, the Pakistani government represses democratic freedoms, muzzles the press and practices routine torture, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/20/pakistan-free-kashmir-far-free

CAT IS OUT OF BAG- JKLF (r) for implementation of UN resolution

2012-01-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

CAT IS OUT OF BAG-
JKLF (r) for implementation of UN resolution
South Asian News Agency (SANA) ⋅ January 7, 2012 ⋅ Share/Save
SRINAGAR (SANA): Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front ( R), at a meeting held with its chairman Farooq Ahmad Dar alias Bita Karatey in chair, urged the United Nations Security Council to take effective steps for the implementation of its January 5, 1949 resolution.
Addressing the meeting, Karatey said, “The international community has resolved almost all the international issues but the Kashmir issue is pending its resolution despite the UNO has passed several resolutions on it.”
He said the UN Resolutions provided the best solution to Kashmir issue. “So its implementation is imperative for resolving Kashmir issue which is the stumbling block in the relations between India and Pakistan and it has the potential to trigger a nuclear
http://www.sananews.net/english/2012/01/jklf-r-for-implementation-of-un-resolution/

JAMMU KASHMIR LIBERATION FRONT (JKLF) SOLD TO ISI BY AMMAN-U-LLAH KHAN

2012-01-05T13:20:00.000-08:00

JAMMU KASHMIR LIBERATION FRONT (JKLF) SOLD TO ISI BY AMMAN-U-LLAH KHAN
Dr Sajid Chairman Kashmir Canada Freedom Forum

https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/134a42c36705ef4d
One could surprise to see such comments from a person like me who stood all years long to defend JKLF and Amman sb,but when things get to a point where you cannot give even the benefit of doubt to leadership actions, then ,this is better to call a spade a spade.Amman sb fell pray to ISI tactices in 1990 leading to the ist blood drawn from JKLF cadre.In 1996 the present ISI sponsored chairman Mr Malik ,collaborated with RAW to get himself out from behind the bars,and JKLF witnessed another division among its ranks.But over the period of years Mr Malik succeffully developed ties with ISI and helped them promoting their agenda under the guise of national liberation and is now, ISI darling from last few years.
I wrote earlier when MR Fai,ISI agent in USA got exposed. that ISI will try to find other alternates,and infact she did,when ISI approached Ammanullah khan to bring Mr Malik on board to give him not only more weight but, to slaughter, all those elements within the ranks of JKLF who challage both India and Pakistan in the same tune and don,t look towards Dehli or Islamabad for personal aggrandizement.

What Mr Fai was doing in USA is not a secret.So could I ask Mr Malik or Amman sb
1-Is JKLF is struggling for accession to Pakistan?
2-Is this ok to be on ISI pay roll at the cost of your idealogy?
3-Why should not, Abdul Qayom khan, Chaudary Ghulam Abbas and Atique khan should be national heros for JKLF,because they are doing the same what Mr FAi was doing ,I mean struggling for accesion of Kashmir to Pakistan.

So here is the difference between the approach and idealogy of Mr Malik ,Mr Amman and the rest of nationalist forces in Kashmir
1- these two people are calling Mr Fai a hero,where as we nationalist consider him an agent of an occupational force.
2-these two people are extremely valley centric that is why neither Amman sb made any concrete progress in Gilgit Baltistan nor Mr Malik did any thing in Ladakh or Jammu.
3-neither Amman sb speaks agaist injustices in GB and AK nor Malik speaks agaist Pakistani injustices in AK or GB.
Dr Sajid
Chairman Kashmir Canada Freedom Forum

Kashmir profile, BBC

2012-01-04T16:29:00.000-08:00

Kashmir profile, BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11693674

Continue reading the main story
Kashmir Flashpoint

Voices of fury
Viewpoint: ‘Killing the truth’
Desperate housewives
Back to frontline
The former princely state of Kashmir has been partitioned between India and Pakistan since 1947, to the satisfaction neither of the two countries nor the Kashmiris themselves.

Failure to agree on the status of the territory by diplomatic means has brought India and Pakistan to war on a number of occasions, and ignitied an insurgency that shows no signs of abating.

Partition

When India and Pakistan gained independence from British rule in 1947, the various princely rulers were able to choose which state to join.

The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was the Hindu head of a majority Muslim state sandwiched between the two countries, and could not decide. He signed an interim “standstill” agreement to maintain transport and other services with Pakistan.

In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh’s delaying tactics.The Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance.

India’s governor-general, Lord Mountbatten, believed peace would best be served by Kashmir’s joining India on a temporary basis, pending a vote on its ultimate status. Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession that month, ceding control over foreign and defence policy to India.

The mountains of Kashmir, scene of a violent territorial dispute
Indian troops took two-thirds of the territory, and Pakistan seized the northern remainder. China occupied eastern parts of the state in the 1950s.

Dispute

Whether the Instrument of Accession or the entry of Indian troops came first remains a major source of dispute between India and Pakistan. India insists that Hari Singh signed first, thereby legitimising the presence of their troops. Pakistan is adamant that the Maharaja could not have signed before the troops arrived, and that he and India had therefore ignored the “standstill” agreement with Pakistan.

Kashmir is renowned as a source for the fine wool known as cashmere
Pakistan demands a referendum to decide the status of Kashmir, while Delhi argues that, by voting in successive Indian state and national elections, Kashmiris have confirmed their accesson to India. Pakistan cites numerous UN resolutions in favour of a UN-run referendum, while India says the Simla Agreement of 1972 binds the two countries to solve the problem on a state-to-state basis.

There has been no significant movement from these positions in decades. In addition, some Kashmiris seek a third option – independence – which neither India nor Pakistan is prepared to contemplate.

Line of Control

The two countries fought wars over Kashmir in 1947-48 and 1965. They formalised the original ceasefire line as the Line of Control in the Simla Agreement, but this did not prevent further clashes in 1999 on the Siachen Glacier, which is beyond the Line of Control. India and Pakistan came close to war again in 2002.

Continue reading the main story
Jammu and Kashmir

Status: State of India
Area: 222,236 sq km (85,806 sq miles)
Population: 10.1 million
Continue reading the main story
Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Status: Autonomous territory of Pakistan
Area: 13,297 sq km (5,134 sq miles)
Population: 4.5 million
Continue reading the main story
Gilgit-Baltistan

Status: Autonomous territory of Pakistan
Area: 72,496 sq km (27,990 sq miles)
Population: 1.8 million
Furthermore an Islamist-led insurgency broke out in 1989 and remains significant. India gave the army additional authority to end the insurgency under the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Pro-Pakistan and pro-independence public protests erupted in the Kashmir Valley in the summer of 2010, and clashes with Indian security forces left more than 100 people dead.

Given that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, the stakes in the dispute are high.

A thaw in relations after 2002, which saw some road and rail communications into Pakistan reopened, ended abruptly with the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. India blamed Pakistani and Kashmiri Islamists, in particular the Lashkar-e-Toiba group, for the attacks. Talks between the two countries on improving ties across the Kashmiri Line of Control did however resume in 2010.

Division

The population of historic Kashmir is divided into about 10 million people in Indian-administrated Jammu and Kashmir and 4.5 million in Pakistani-run Azad Kashmir. There are a further 1.8 million people in the Gilgit-Baltistan autonomous territory, which Pakistan created from northern Kashmir and the two small princely states of Hunza and Nagar in 1970.

The government of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has often been led by the National Conference, a pro-Indian party led by the Abdullah political dynasty. Pakistan runs Azad Jammu and Kashmir as a self-governing state, in which the Muslim Conference has played a prominent role for decades.

Dal Lake Srinagar, once a popular tourist spot
The National Conference moved from an almost pro-independence stance in the 1950s to accepting the status of a union state within India, albeit with more autonomy than other states.

Jammu and Kashmir is diverse in religion and culture. It consists of the heavily-populated and overwhelmingly Muslim Kashmir Valley, the mainly Hindu Jammu district, and Ladakh, which has a roughly even number of Buddhists and Shia Muslims.

The Hindus of Jammu and the Ladakhis back India in the dispute, although there is a campaign in the Leh District of Ladakh to be upgraded into a separate union territory in order to reflect its predominantly Buddhist identity. India gave the two districts of Ladakh some additional autonomy within Jammu and Kashmir in 1995.

Kashmir’s economy is predominantly agrarian. The important tourism sector in Indian-administered Kashmir was hard-hit by the post-1989 insurgency, but has seen some recovery since 2009.

Kashmir want freedom from Pakistan

2012-01-04T15:45:00.000-08:00

Kashmir want freedom from Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g6EuCgwMQA

Kashmiri struggle and traitors, Dr Shabir Choudhry

2012-01-03T08:37:00.000-08:00

Kashmiri struggle and traitors
Dr Shabir Choudhry 03 January 2012

Traitor is someone who knowingly and deliberately involves in actions that are detrimental to interests of his/her nation, a tribe or a community. In other words, a traitor commits acts of treason by betraying. This betrayal or treachery does not have to be for the sake of monetary gains, as people do it for different reasons. Some do it for money; others do it for ideological or religious reasons. Some may do it for political gains and social status; and some may do it to take revenge from some perceived injustice to his/her family or tribe or for being let down.

In contemporary history of Jammu and Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah was the first leader to be called a ‘traitor’, fact, however, is that he was a great leader, and pursued pro Kashmir policies, which were not appreciated by rulers of Pakistan. He was a Kashmiri leader and promoted pro Kashmir policies. He did not want Jammu and Kashmir to become either part of Pakistan or India. He wanted Jammu and Kashmir to become independent, detached from India and Pakistan that they can have separate existence and promote their history and culture.

Rulers of Pakistan did not want Jammu and Kashmir to become independent. Despite Standstill Agreement with Kashmir they blocked food supply to Jammu and Kashmir and on 22 October 1947 managed a naked tribal aggression against Kashmir and killed innocent people, raped women and looted citizens of Kashmir.

The forces of Jammu and Kashmir were unable to defend this aggression; and dream of Sheikh Abdullah and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir to remain independent was shattered. Fearing capture of Srinagar – summer capital and the main city of the State, the Maharaja fled to Jammu – the winter capital and requested India for help. India also wanted Jammu and Kashmir to become part of India; and this naked aggression provided India with an opportunity to gain accession of the State with India.

The Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir had no choice but to accede to India in order to seek military help and save his state and citizens. This accession was provisional in nature and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and to date we had no opportunity to express our view on this matter.

Sheikh Abdullah, on this occasion, decided to side with the Maharajah and people of Jammu and Kashmir; and fought those who came to occupy his motherland. He was, no doubt, pro independent and not pro India, but when he was insulted by Mohammed Ali Jinnah fourth time in October 1947, he had made up his mind that he would not support State’s accession to Pakistan. However, the situation imposed on him and on Kashmir by Pakistan’s unprovoked attack, forced Sheikh Abdullah to support this ‘provisional accession’.

The Pakistani rulers failed to capture Kashmir and held Sheikh Abdullah and India responsible for this; and it was at that time they called Sheikh Abdullah a ‘traitor’; and many people under propaganda of Pakistan viewed him in that light. However, the situation changed when the same Sheikh Abdullah showed signs of rebellion and was paving way for an independent Jammu and Kashmir, he was sent to jail by India; and at that time Pakistani government forgetting what they called him in past, promoted Sheikh Abdullah as a ‘Lion of Kashmir’.

The point to be remembered here is that it was our Muslim brothers and neighbouring Pakistan that attacked us on 22 October 1947 once we became independent after lapse of the British Paramountcy on 15 October 1947; and it was the rulers of Pakistan who gave a title of a ‘traitor’ to a towering Kashmiri leader of Jammu and Kashmir. Furthermore, it was this attack that forcibly divided our country, hence our miseries on both sides of the divided line since 1947.

Since that date our so called ‘advocate’ and ‘liberators’ issued many fatwas (edicts) telling us who is a ‘Kashmiri traitor’ and who is a ‘Kashmir patriot’; and while doing this ‘great service’ to the people of Jammu and Kashmir they applied a simple criteria: a Kashmiri who was loyal to Pakistan was a patriot; and those who earnestly opposed accession to Pakistan were declared ‘anti Pakistan’ and ‘traitors’. This policy has not changed since that date.

With passage of time Jammu and Kashmir became hunting ground for secret agencies of both India and Pakistan where people were oppressed and intimidated for holding pro Kashmir views; and some were labelled as ‘traitors’ by respective governments. Many leaders and political activists of Jammu and Kashmir do not openly express their views because of fear that they will be declared ‘anti Pakistan’ and ‘Indian agent’. It is ironic that those who work against interests of Jammu and Kashmir and promote Pakistani interests are not considered traitors; if anything they proudly promote a Pakistani agenda and call themselves ‘patriots’.

In the past this task of labelling ‘traitor’ or ‘agent’ was assigned to the secret agencies; but now this task, by and large, has been taken over by people of Jammu and Kashmir and especially people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Leaders and political activists of the Valley can promote pro Pakistan policy or even division of Jammu and Kashmir, and both of these positions are against genuine interests of Jammu and Kashmir, yet they are considered patriots and no one from the Valley call them ‘traitors’.

But if leaders and political activists of Pakistani Administered Kashmir oppose accession to India, oppose accession to Pakistan and promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir that caters for all its citizens irrespective of their religious or ethnic background they are labelled as ‘traitors’ by Pakistani secret agencies, and by some people with tunnel vision in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in the Indian Administered Kashmir.

This labelling of each other as a ‘traitor’ and an ‘agent’ has made the task of dividing and governing us easier for India and Pakistan; and weaken our struggle so much that despite so many sacrifices there is no light at the end of tunnel. New Year has started, and many have wished Happy New Year, but I cannot see any happiness coming our way; if anything, I can see more trouble and misery descending on South Asia.

Seeds of extremism, communalism, hatred and violence sowed to destroy and unstable enemies of Pakistan have torn the Pakistani society apart. Extremism, communalism and violence which was, at one time, exported in holy name of Jihad has made Pakistan a battleground for competing interests and militant groups, each calling the other ‘Kaffir’ and in some cases enemy of Islam and Pakistan.

We Kashmiris protest that Pakistan has stabbed our struggle for independence and have been instrumental in division of our homeland that has brought misery and oppression on both sides of the divide. But what can you expect from Pakistani rulers and establishment? Those who have destroyed Jinnah’s Pakistan; and those who kill, oppress and torture their own people cannot be expected to be nice to us.

In a country where political culture is such that President, Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Army Chief are accused of being ‘traitors’ and ‘agents’ of other countries and working against integrity and sovereignty of the State; and where every leader is perceived as corrupt and working against national interests what can you expect from them? This political culture has filtered down to various parts of divided Jammu and Kashmir; and people of Jammu and Kashmir have made task of secret agencies of India and Pakistan easier because now we call each other ‘traitor’ and ‘agent’ of one country or the other.

This trend of labelling each other with titles of a ‘traitor’ and an ‘agent’ has further divided and weakened the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and people who are divided are easy to control and oppress. If we are to make progress and achieve our most cherished goal of independence then we have to carefully analyse the situation and see what went wrong. We are occupied by more than one country. True, militarily we cannot fight them all, but we must not be promoting agenda of those who occupy us; and say that one is an occupier and the other is not.

We must remember that Jammu and Kashmir is a multi religious and multi ethnic State; and the Kashmir dispute is not religious in nature. Kashmiri people on the Pakistani side of the divide cannot practically and logically fight to liberate the people on the other side of the divide; and they cannot come to liberate us or people of Gilgit Baltistan. Whether we like it or not, the struggle has to be done by the local people where they are occupied; and without fear of being called a ‘traitor’.

We can only be traitors if we are working to divide the State of Jammu and Kashmir, either in name of religion or some ideology. Our prime responsibility is to promote a Kashmiri interest; and if that clashes with the perceived national interest of those who occupy us then that should not be our problem. If we defend a Kashmiri interest and promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir then we are Kashmiri patriots and not agents of any country; and those who view us like that could well be agents of those who occupy us.
Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

Horrible truth about Pakistan, Dr Asrar Ahmed

2011-12-31T17:15:00.000-08:00

Horrible truth about Pakistan, Dr Asrar Ahmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vX3a8JaCzgI#!

Change has taken place, Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-12-28T17:34:00.000-08:00

Change has taken place
Dr Shabir Choudhry 28 December 2011

Imran Khan is admired by millions in Pakistan and around the globe because of his cricket talent and charm. He is the man who won Pakistan first ever Cricket World Cup, built first cancer hospital in name of his deceased mother; and achieved other goals in welfare work.

As a cricketer, a fund raiser and a social worker he was very successful. He then decided to become a politician that he can change plight of people by eradicating political ills of Pakistan; but he soon realised that politics was different to managing 10 cricket players in the field.

Despite his charisma and much propagated image of being honest and man of principle he badly failed to make a mark on politics of Pakistan. People liked his ideas and admired his struggle, but did not vote for him. Apart from that he showed his immaturity in field of politics by sometimes supporting wrong people in hope of getting appropriate rewards; or by taking on big players in politics and then abandoning his fight against them, as he did with Altaf Hussain.

Imran Khan was also known for his principled stand in matters of cricket, for example no allegation of match fixing. Also up till recently, he was hailed as a man who does not compromise on principles and who is ‘Mr clean’.

But all this has changed over the past few months; and many people question what kind of politics Imran Khan wishes to promote, as he is apparently making too many compromises. His critics point out that he might not have fixed cricket matches, but he has learnt how to ‘fix a public meeting’; and how to bend his political principles and still claim that he stands for a change.

At one time Imran Khan was deadly against MQM and it leader Altaf Hussain; and held him responsible for nearly all the ills of Karachi. He thundered in various public meetings and press conferences and boasted that he was going to London to present evidence to the British police that they could expel him from London.

MQM and on other hand, also used their power and influence and did not allow him to enter Karachi, a city which people claimed was controlled by the MQM. Now both MQM and Imran Khan’s party are glove and hand; and Imran Khan has managed to hold one of the biggest public meetings in Karachi, a city where he was not allowed to enter. Imran Khan’s critics say this was result of a compromise – ‘fixing of a public meeting’. In return, Imran Khan did not say anything against the MQM.

Altaf Hussain, whom Imran Khan regarded as a political enemy and enemy of peace and stability in Karachi, was the first person to congratulate him on holding a successful public meeting. So one can see a change has already taken place. Mohammad Ali Mahar, in his article, ‘Imran Khan: tsunami or hot air balloon’ published in Daily Times Pakistan on 28 December 2011, wrote: ‘The establishment now needed a new horse to put its saddle on. However, they wanted someone who could take the MQM along, for they did not want to shoot the limping, but still useful, horse as yet’.
Apart from that Imran Khan, despite his hard work and incorruptible image, wandered in political wilderness for the past fifteen years. He held rallies and public meetings on issues that really affected people, but he could not muster more than 4-5 thousands people. Then what happened over the past few months that print and electronic media are presenting Imran Khan as a ‘messiah’?

After the Lahore public meeting, Imran Khan is perceived as a serious contender for power; and impression is being created that the proverbial bird of power - Huma, is going to sit on Imran Khan’s head, hence the race of all opportunists to Imran Khan’s PTI. As noted above, rightly or wrongly, change has taken place; and the following support this view:

• Imran Khan, like a lion used to roar up and down the country against American policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, for past many months there is a change in his attitude and tone, hence the change – no more rallies against America and no harsh words;

• He used to speak in support of Taliban and their issues; and now he is tight lipped about that;

• Also he used to speak about heavy handedness in FATA and Balochistan, and for past some months he is quiet on issues related to these areas as all is rosy there; whereas fact is that situation is getting from bad to worse there;

• He boasted to promote transparent politics and refused to accept in his party those who had bad or unsatisfactory record; but for past few months, every one is welcome provided they declare their existing assets (no matter how they accumulated those assets) and are in a position to win seats;

• He claims to end VIP culture, but finds it appropriate to fly in a private plane himself and live in a ‘palace’ in Bani Gala (Islamabad), which occupies many acres of land;

• In his Karachi public meeting, his old and sincere colleagues from modest backgrounds were sidelined; and visible were those who belonged to established political families and had jumped the bandwagon in the past few weeks;

• He supported the Musharaf dictatorship, but when he realised that there was nothing there for him, he started opposing him; and vehemently criticised his policies, especially related to America. Despite that he finds it appropriate to welcome Foreign Minister of that era (who must have had considerable role in foreign policy) with open arms;

• Similarly, Imran Khan strongly criticises Zardari government on corruption and various other issues, including relations with America. Mahmood Shah Qureshi was the Foreign Minister, who must shoulder some responsibilities for policies of that time (he was so close to America and wholeheartedly defended American policies that some in Pakistan questioned if he was a Foreign Minister of America or Pakistan.
• Imran Khan had no problem in accepting him and hailed his joining PTI as a big wicket. But the question is if Mr Qureshi or others were ‘bad’ in PPP or Q League, then what tonic Imran Khan has used to ‘purify’ them that they are now acceptable; and are fit to be part of a team which, according to Imran Khan, will bring major changes in Pakistan.

• Imran Khan supported Kashmiri peoples right of self determination, but his recent statements demonstrate that he regards Gilgit Baltistan as part of Pakistan. Furthermore, he has alleged to have referred to militants as terrorists.

Many more things could be added to the above list, but this is sufficient to show that the change has taken place, and that change, unfortunately, is in the policies of the Captain, who after years of political wilderness has finally realised that he has to change and make him acceptable for the post of the Chief Executive of Pakistan.

Even ordinary people of Pakistan understand this much that no one can come to power in Pakistan without patronage of the establishment; and without making him/her acceptable to Washington and few other capitals. So with help, guidance and support of experts and king makers in the establishment the Captain has ensued his journey to power. He knows he is not getting younger; and if he fails to make it this time, he would probably be among ‘old guard’ next time, and might not have the same attraction for the younger and energetic electorate.

A Million dollar question is will he make it? In my considered opinion, despite the establishment’s patronage, help and guidance he will not sweep the polls as he anticipates. Establishment, in my opinion, has also matured and would not like a clear
winner. They have realised that the two party system has advantages and disadvantages. This time they would like to have a hung parliament with three parties holding majority of the seats with no clear winner. In any case, establishment likes to bet on more than one horse; and Imran Khan should know this.

However, Imran Khan’s apparent popularity has made some positive changes too. People are coming to public meetings; and it has forced leaders of the both big parties to pay more attention to their workers and leaders. It may even force them to come to some arrangements on certain seats to keep the Captain and his big boys out of the race.
Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

Memogate who is next to go and what is at stake? Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-12-26T10:34:00.001-08:00

Memogate who is next to go and what is at stake?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 26 December 2011

When memo scandal was named as a ‘memogate’, it was clear that it was not an ordinary scandal. This scandal was called ‘memogate’ because of Watergate scandal in America which led to down fall of the then President of America, Richard Nixon. The memogate scandal has all the required ingredients to leave a lasting mark on history of Bhutto’s Pakistan (Jinnah’s Pakistan could not survive the experiments and split in to two with imprisonment of more than Pakistan army in December 1971).

When the memogate scandal became public, the government foolishly tried to cover it up, as nothing had happened; but people cognizant with the Pakistani politics knew that heads will role over this issue. Even when it became a storm the government still failed to fully understand its severity. They failed to understand that real rulers of Pakistan have made up their minds; and won’t settle with some cosmetic changes – head of Hussain Haqqani was insufficient to settle the matter.

Furthermore, like Zardari, Haqqani is also a fighter; and would not go down quietly. He came from America on the assurance that he will be safe in Pakistan. Not only he lost his job, but he is also treated by some as a ‘traitor’ and an ‘agent’, although nothing has been proved against him in any court of law. If he cannot save his skin, he will surely spill the beans; and that is known to his friend Asif Ali Zardari as well.

The government also failed to understand that this country was established in name of Muslims; but not to advance cause of Islam or for the welfare of its citizens. The creation of Pakistan resulted in division of the Muslims of South Asia; and that weakened them and not empowered them. The country was established to serve interests of certain classes of people and certain countries; and they are doing that at the cost of national interest of Pakistan and interest of the people.

In this unfortunate country, known as an Islamic Republic of Pakistan, there is very little Islam and no democracy; however, people are fooled in name of democracy and Islam. Whether we like it or not, there was no democracy in the Muslim League, hence no democracy was passed on to the country and the society. The country was run and controlled by people with undemocratic attitudes, and gradually power shifted to the British trained bureaucracy, which served their masters to the best of their ability.

Corruption, hypocrisy and nepotism were systematically practised in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and conspiracies against people and the country were never sincerely investigated. East Pakistan was not lost in one day. There is a long history behind it; and it started with the order that Bengalis, although being in a majority, had to learn Urdu, as it was declared a national language without any consultation or any assembly decision.

There is a long history and tradition in Pakistan to oppress people, deprive them of fundamental rights; and then accuse the victims of being ‘anti Pakistan’, ‘agent’ and ‘traitor’. Same was done to the people of East Pakistan. They were victims of injustice and yet they were accused of treason. Apart from the Bengalis other sub nationalities of Pakistan are also oppressed and deprived of fundamental rights; and just like Bengalis they are labelled as ‘traitors’.

Real rulers of Pakistan are very clever and have mastered the art of governance and manipulation. They know how to use people in name of religion and democracy. They hate real democracy and accountability. Also they hate peace in Pakistan and in the region, and to advance their agenda they train people in name of jihad and send them to neighbouring countries, a fact that has been acknowledged by retired army officers.

Whether it is a murder of Liaquat Ali Khan, Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case, Ager Tala Conspiracy Case, Ojery Explosions Case, loss of East Pakistan, General Zia Ul Haq’s death, or Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, full facts of these events will never be known to the people, but all these events have left a lasting impact on Pakistan. Memogate, unlike some other events, is before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and in the coming days we may know some more facts about the case.

However, one may ask, is knowing of more facts about this case is sufficient? Will that save democracy in Pakistan? Will that help Pakistan to resolve its electricity, gas, economic and other acute problems? Will that help Pakistan to establish peace in Balochistan, FATA and others areas of Pakistan? Will that help Pakistan to end trust deficit with America and its neighbours?

Answer to all the above is no. Memogate was not planned to achieve any of the above; if anything, it was meant to destabilise Pakistan. Whoever is behind this conspiracy planned it meticulously, and executed it very efficiently to keep the pot boiling that it could generate more heat and interest. It became so hot that President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Supreme Commander of Pakistani forces had to flee the country under pretext of ‘illness.’ He came back after some assurances from those who were guarantors to the deal which installed the PPP government.

But this is not an end to this drama; at least, this is not what is on the script. Army has made it a matter of pride and honour. If they give in, not only they will lose face, but it will be a beginning of a long journey on a slippery ground which will surely take away its powers, which they have enjoyed for decades and which they desperately want to keep even if that means the country loses many other things.

The fight is on. It is not only contest between the army and the government; there are other players in it too. Supreme Court has a big role in all this. Some government officials, including the President are trying their level best to provoke the Supreme Court for some action. Judiciary is doing its best to avoid it, as they don’t want to appear to become a party in this political game. The government is also face to face with the top brass of the army on memogate and on some other issues. This government has badly failed to deliver and is looking for a political martyrdom that it can go to people and play victim or use the Sindh Card.

Whatever the desire of the army, situation is not suitable for a military takeover, because unlike on the previous occasions this time all opposition parties, especially Nawaz League are totally against this. And despite the pressure, Zaradri is not ready to relinquish his powers. So what is the way forward? Whether they accept it or not, the PPP government wants a clash, as it suits them. They have a strategy in place, as to what to do in case they are booted out. However, direct military take over does not suit the army no matter how desperately they want to get rid of the Zardari government.

While some institutions of Pakistan have collapsed or on the verge of collapsing, army, judiciary and the army on a course to clash with no one ready to back down, Imran Khan talks of brining tsunami to Pakistan. Tsunami, wherever it has come, has only brought trouble and misery for the people; I wonder why it would be different for Pakistan. What this means is that Pakistan and the people of this unfortunate country are heading for a big disaster in 2012.

Roots of the present crises could be traced back to Abbotabad fiasco. It was a set back for the Pakistan army that consumes lion’s share of the Pakistan’s budget; but the civilian government called it a great victory. One wonders, victory for whom?

Memogate is fully loaded. It has potential to cause chaos, destabilise and even destroy Pakistan; and the Pakistani establishment and politicians also have the same ability. It is a deadly combination. If all those directly or indirectly associated with this scandal think rationally, act rationally and don’t consider their ego bigger and more important than Pakistan then they can diffuse this bomb. However, if the past history is anything to go by then one can say that they will look after their interest and plunge the country in another crisis in which many head will role. It will result in more instability, and bloodshed and even break up of Pakistan. May Allah swt help and guide us all.

Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

Thought provoking views by a true Nationalist no one in pakistan including I Khan can bring revolution unless MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT is confined in it

2011-12-25T14:17:00.000-08:00

Thought provoking views by a true Nationalist no one in pakistan including I Khan can bring revolution unless MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT is confined in its limits.

Sardar Attaullah Mengal Exclusive Interview on Dawn News – 25th Dec 2011
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/12/25/sardar-attaullah-mengal-exclusive-interview-on-dawn-news-25th-dec-2011/

Kashmiri people should decide, By Gyan Basnet

2011-12-19T17:22:00.000-08:00

Kashmiri people should decide, By Gyan Basnet

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ML20Df01.html

The territorial debate over Jammu and Kashmir has been a serious international problem for more than 60 years: it has caused relations between India and Pakistan to become extremely strained. The continued hostility between these two countries over the territory is a real threat to world peace and security, especially in the South Asian region.

The debate has already resulted in several wars with heavy loss of human life. The UN Security Council has repeatedly warned of the continuing danger, and it recognizes that the long promised

Dilbert

plebiscite is essential for the inhabitants of the disputed territory to choose their own future. It is still not clear whether Kashmir should be a part of India, or Pakistan, or both, or whether it should be an independent territory.

Three conflicts and many more diplomatic tensions have already resulted from events in Kashmir and, since both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, the need to find a solution to the dispute has become immeasurably more urgent.

Today serious questions must be asked regarding the welfare of the Kashmiris, whose lifestyle has been shattered by the continuing dispute. As sufferers through no fault of their own, do they not deserve the right to choose their own future? Should Kashmir not be treated as a disputed territory belonging to nobody but the people of Kashmir? Where are our moral values nowadays? Are “democracy”, the “human right to self-determination”, and “fundamental freedoms” nothing more than just a hollow talking points? If they are not, why do we not see these values practically applied in this very instance?

Roots of the debate In 1947 India won its independence from Britain. The majority Indian National Congress had wanted a unified, secular, multi-ethnic and democratic state: the All-Indian Muslim League had demanded a “two nations” solution catering separately for Hindus and Muslims. The result of preliminary elections in 1946 had in effect confirmed the existence of two nations, and the Indian Independence Act divided former British-ruled India into two independent dominions of India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947.

At the time of independence India’s 562 princely states, of which Jammu and Kashmir was one of the foremost, were given the option of acceding to either India or Pakistan. For most the decision was simple and based on geographic and religious considerations.

However, the Maharajah of Kashmir was initially undecided. He was himself a Hindu like most inhabitants of Jammu, but overall in Jammu and Kashmir 77% of the population was Muslim. A small Pakistani invasion of Kashmir was sufficient for the Maharajah to make a decision, and on October 26, 1947, Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India.

There followed a brisk war between India and Pakistan on Kashmiri territory before the United Nations stepped in and drew a ceasefire line down the middle of the old state. Pakistan disputed India’s claim to Kashmir insisting that the accession to India had been against the wishes of the people of Kashmir.

In 1948, India brought the issue to the UN Security Council, which on April 21 noted “with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of free and fair plebiscite”. The UN Security Council called on India and Pakistan to create the proper conditions for such a plebiscite.

On August 13, 1948, the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani forces and for Kashmir’s accession to be determined through a fair and free plebiscite. Mr Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, accepted in principle, but no plebiscite materialized. Instead, Delhi attempted to solidify its position in Indian-controlled Kashmir and made no attempt to comply with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. At the same time Pakistan firmly positioned its forces facing Indian troops along the ceasefire line.

In July 1949 India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement establishing a revised cease-fire line. As a result, on March 30, 1951, the UN Security Council decided that its Military Observer Group would supervise the ceasefire. India and Pakistan were, however, unable to agree on conditions for a plebiscite. The Security Council called again for one in Kashmir in 1951 and yet again in 1957, but conditions were still not conducive.

At the end of 1971, fighting broke out again between the two countries over Kashmir and was ended by the Shimla Agreement specifying that the parties would determine the future of Kashmir at a later date. Today the occupation of Kashmir by India continues with its deployment of over seven hundred thousand military personal.

Granting free choice
The scope of any right to self-determination has traditionally had two aspects – external and internal. The external right to self-determination enables a people to decide its status in the world and to be free from any foreign interference that might affect that status. The internal right to self-determination gives a people an effective voice in reaching the decisions that impact on the political, economic, social and cultural conditions that directly affect their lives.

Through a form of external self-determination many African and Asian countries successfully achieved decolonisation during the second half of the twentieth century. However, it was internal self-determination that enabled the people of Kosovo and East Timor to decide their own destiny and self-governance. Since self-determination is the component of human rights that grants free choice and equality to peoples, it must be allowed to play a vital role in determining the future for the people of the Kashmir.

Theirs is disputed territory, and the only way to solve the conflict is to grant them an opportunity to decide their own destiny. Plebiscites or referendums are the legal mechanisms most widely used to enact effect self-determination, and a plebiscite would be the appropriate means of solving the Kashmir dispute.

The right to self-determination is part of customary international law that imposes binding obligations on all nation states. It establishes a positive right for suppressed peoples eventually to experience and enjoy the full range of human rights.

The Kashmiri people’s entitlement to self-determination as an inherent and fundamental human right is already guaranteed by international legal instruments and precedents. Kashmir has a definable territory with a history of independence or self-governance, a distinct culture, and the will and capability to restore self-governance and reliance. In fact, as a long established princely state, Kashmir’s territory has been defined for hundreds of years with an equally long history of self-governance.

This situation did not change during the period of British colonial rule. The Kashmiri people should be granted the right to self-determination on the grounds that their territory is disputed, that they are a suppressed people, that they have a long history of self-governance, and that they have the support of the international community as needed.

There can be little doubt that international law and practice support the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination, and the international action taken in East Timor provides a relevant precedent. The international legal status of Kashmir is uncertain, as was that of East Timor. Moreover the Security Council has already determined that the people of Kashmir should exercise their right of self-determination as it also did in East Timor.

However, if these two similarities provide insufficient legal justification and precedent for international action in support of the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination, then other grounds recognized in East Timor – the fact that the East Timorese had experienced huge human-rights violations and were unrepresented in the existing state – undoubtedly have parallels in Kashmir.

The action taken, therefore, in East Timor should be repeated in Kashmir. To guarantee the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination through a plebiscite would certainly stabilize the political unrest in the region and end the Indian occupation of Kashmir.

The future actions
Today Pakistan argues that India ignored the UN resolution calling for a plebiscite. India retorts that Pakistan never withdrew its forces from Kashmir pursuant to the resolution requirement and that the Shimla Agreement negated the 1949 UN Commission for India/ Pakistan resolution.

If the Kashmiri people are not allowed to decide their own future, this crisis will continue, and the inherent dangers will increase. Abandoning any permanent claim to Kashmir may be difficult for India, but it is a very necessary first step.

Genuine negotiation, backed by international pressure, is therefore essential to achieve a final settlement. The Kashmiris have now suffered Indian occupation for almost 60 years during which time the occupation forces have been known to commit human-rights atrocities comparable with more renowned trouble spots around the world. A solution to the Kashmir problem is therefore long overdue, and the world community needs to urgently help bring peace to this war-torn region and its people.

Rejection of self-determination in the case of Kashmir can only prolong a conflict that could have severe international consequences. Two South Asian neighbors are locked in a major arms race: both have nuclear weapons and could use them if the dispute is not resolved.

To avoid such a grave crisis, a concerted political effort is urgently required to find a viable solution. That solution must involve both sovereign nations together with the Kashmiri people and their representatives in the international community. A four-way choice should be put to the people of Jammu and Kashmir – accession to India, accession to Pakistan, independence, or a power-sharing agreement.

The Kashmiris’ right to self-determination is morally and legally justified: if ignored ‘Kashmir will remain a flashpoint of global concern in a militarized and nuclear subcontinent.’ A free and fair plebiscite demands all-round political commitment and withdrawal of the armed forces of both sides.

Animosity would undoubtedly remain, but only after the players allow and accept the Kashmiri people’s decision on self determination, can there be hope for the potential of peaceful relationships on the sub-continent.
Dr Gyan Basnet who holds a PhD and an LLM degree in International Human Rights law at Lancaster University, UK is a researcher in International Human Rights Law and an Advocate in the Supreme Court of Nepal.

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online’s regular contributors.

When will people of Kashmir learn? Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-12-13T16:14:00.001-08:00

When will people of Kashmir learn?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 December 2011

‘Myth’ is that people of Kashmir are very intelligent, freedom loving and tolerant. I know some people will get upset by my opening sentence; but no matter how many people get upset by this, I will call it a myth until it is proven to be true.

People who are intelligent and freedom loving do not remain occupied and oppressed for so long. People who are tolerant do not invite foreigners to attack their country and request new rulers from outside the boundaries of Kashmir; and do not become so intolerant that minorities feel unsafe in their homes and people feel frightened to express their views.

People with tunnel vision, twisted mind and loyalties outside the boundaries of Kashmir fabricate history and tell us that our slavery started with occupation of the Sikhs, as Sikhs were non Muslims and they ended Afghan (Muslim) rule in Kashmir. However, true sons of soil know, although Afghans and Mughals were Muslims, but they were also occupiers and they brutally oppressed people of Kashmir. Apart from that they did not go there to advance cause of Islam, as Kashmir was already a Muslim country; and perhaps better Muslims than Mughals who invaded Kashmir in 1586.

After the Sikh rule Maharaja Gulab Singh established State of Jammu and Kashmir which unlike other Princely States enjoyed greater autonomy - short of complete independence as the British were responsible for defence. After the end of the British Raj in India, the British Paramountcy or whatever pacts the Maharajah had with the British came to an end; and Jammu and Kashmir emerged as an independent State on 15 August 1947.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir concluded a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan and also offered India to have a Standstill Agreement. India wanted to discuss this matter further, but on 22 October 1947, in violation of the Standstill Agreement Pakistan launched a tribal attack on Jammu and Kashmir. This unprovoked and naked aggression resulted in death of thousands of innocent men women and children; and the Maharajah fearing fall of his summer capital Srinagar, asked India for help.

This help was only made available when the Maharajah signed an Instrument of Accession which was provisionally accepted and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian army reached Srinagar on the morning of 27 October and started fighting the raiders. This resulted in the first Kashmir war between India and Pakistan, in which people of Jammu and Kashmir suffered immensely and the State was forcibly divided between the two countries; and once again we lost our independence.

Important point to note here is that we lost our independence in 1586 because our stronger Muslim neighbour of the time – Akbar the Great invaded our country. After centuries of slavery, exploitation and oppression we achieved our independence on 15 October 1947. This time again, we were attacked by a stronger Muslim country – Pakistan, which resulted in ‘Provisional accession’ with India and eventual forced division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

This is not to suggest that India did not want to make Kashmir part of India, however, fact remains it was Pakistan which violated the Standstill Agreement and attacked our country and trampled our integrity and independence. In other words entry of Pakistani troops in to Jammu and Kashmir territory was against the wishes of the Kashmiri Ruler; and entry of Indian troops was on the request of the Ruler. No doubt the Indian troops have gone far beyond the terms of the treaty and are responsible for human rights abuses; but we must not twist facts to justify the initial aggression, which is source of our miseries since 22 October 1947.

Instead of blaming the aggressor for heinous crimes committed against innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir, ‘intelligent’ people of Kashmir were persuaded in name of religion to glorify the aggressor. It is unfortunate that even now in 2012, ‘intelligent’ people of Jammu and Kashmir cannot differentiate between a friend and a foe. Despite enormous ‘sacrifices’, death and destruction they are not sure what they want, as some want accession to Pakistan, some want accession to India, some want independence; and some are happy with the status quo as this serves their interests.

If there was only one occupier then we could have achieved independence a long time ago. Similarly, if Jammu and Kashmir was not multi religion and multi ethnic then it would have been easy to decide our future. Those who advocate Islamic state forget that there are followers of other faiths in Kashmir; and even within Islam there are many sects negating each other, so we cannot have practically advance religious solution unless we want create more chaos and divide the State on religious lines.

Leaving out options of becoming independent and joining India, let us see what option of joining Pakistan has to offer people of Jammu and Kashmir. First it will divide the State on religious lines, as Buddhists of Ladakh and Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu province would not like to join Pakistan, as their interests would not be protected there; and plight of non Muslims in Pakistan is a big deterrent to them.

People of Jammu and Kashmir, especially Muslims, living on the Indian side of the divide need to think that Gilgit Baltistan is directly ruled by Pakistan since 1947; and if the Pakistani rule was anything near to be being good then people of that region would not say that they are occupied and ruled by draconian laws without rights to fundamental rights. Similarly people of so called Azad Kashmir are not happy with what Pakistani government and secret agencies do to exploit and oppress them.

Leaving that aside, now let us see what Pakistan is in view of Pakistani people: Col Riaz Jafri, who was the Principal Staff Officer to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs), wrote in article, ‘Fall of Dacca’:

'Not only, that the Bengalis were treated as unequals, but it is also a fact that they were the major revenue earner for Pakistan....... The highest in authority were guilty of being too greedy, power hungry and selfish. Unfortunately we all treated East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan’s body – 54 percent of the population. As power barons of the Federal government mostly hailed from West Pakistan they never shared the power willingly or happily with their Bengali brethren.' Source - http://k4kashmir.com/?p=6294

Bakhtiar Qayyum, who served the Pakistani establishment at a senior level for 30 years, writes:

‘Pakistan is passing through a very critical stage of its existence. Voices are coming from all directions that this country is very soon going to collapse. Terrorism, Talibanisation, crumbling economy and the deteriorating law and order situation are just the few indicators telling of the bleak situation….Societies and countries built on hatred cannot sustain for long. Only those which have live and brotherhood in their foundations last for ever.’ Source: Liberty International, November 2011, page 8

MURTAZA RAZVI, staff member of famous English daily ‘Dawn’, writes: Given our internal rifts, political, religious, sectarian, government-military related heartburns, bad governance and with foreign policy in a shambles, Pakistan is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. … Who needs external enemies when we have become self-sufficient in creating armies of enemies from within, most with a divine mission to wage jihad on one another, or running over our borders in utter desperation to raise a spectre of horror in our neighbourhood? Any news emanating from Islamabad on the global grid is expected to be bad news or ‘news of the weird’ at the very least. All this while we have a tireless ability to put out more and more of the same variety and then cry ourselves hoarse about our tumbling image abroad.’ Source: Dawn, 9 December 2011

Asian Human Right Commission writes: ‘During the year, in Karachi, capital of Sindh alone, 1800 persons were killed and political parties from ruling coalition were involved in ethnic target killings. The minister of interior says that during two years 3938 people were killed in Karachi city. In Balochistan during the year disappearances by the plain clothed persons continued and more than 100 persons were disappeared. Around 100 missing persons were extra judicially killed and the family members of the victims claim that these persons were abducted by law enforcement agencies.’ Source: http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport/2011/AHRC-SPR-008-2011/view.

These are only few examples of the situation, and I am sure some people can come up with similar things about India; but that is not the issue here. What we, as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir State, have to see is what is best for us. There are problems joining India and there are problems joining Pakistan. As intelligent human beings we should determine our priorities and care for our interests and not interests of our neighbours, be it in name of religion or democracy. We must not allow our neighbours and their agents to fool us anymore and opt for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

When will people of Kashmir learn? Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-12-13T16:14:00.000-08:00

When will people of Kashmir learn?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 December 2011

‘Myth’ is that people of Kashmir are very intelligent, freedom loving and tolerant. I know some people will get upset by my opening sentence; but no matter how many people get upset by this, I will call it a myth until it is proven to be true.

People who are intelligent and freedom loving do not remain occupied and oppressed for so long. People who are tolerant do not invite foreigners to attack their country and request new rulers from outside the boundaries of Kashmir; and do not become so intolerant that minorities feel unsafe in their homes and people feel frightened to express their views.

People with tunnel vision, twisted mind and loyalties outside the boundaries of Kashmir fabricate history and tell us that our slavery started with occupation of the Sikhs, as Sikhs were non Muslims and they ended Afghan (Muslim) rule in Kashmir. However, true sons of soil know, although Afghans and Mughals were Muslims, but they were also occupiers and they brutally oppressed people of Kashmir. Apart from that they did not go there to advance cause of Islam, as Kashmir was already a Muslim country; and perhaps better Muslims than Mughals who invaded Kashmir in 1586.

After the Sikh rule Maharaja Gulab Singh established State of Jammu and Kashmir which unlike other Princely States enjoyed greater autonomy - short of complete independence as the British were responsible for defence. After the end of the British Raj in India, the British Paramountcy or whatever pacts the Maharajah had with the British came to an end; and Jammu and Kashmir emerged as an independent State on 15 August 1947.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir concluded a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan and also offered India to have a Standstill Agreement. India wanted to discuss this matter further, but on 22 October 1947, in violation of the Standstill Agreement Pakistan launched a tribal attack on Jammu and Kashmir. This unprovoked and naked aggression resulted in death of thousands of innocent men women and children; and the Maharajah fearing fall of his summer capital Srinagar, asked India for help.

This help was only made available when the Maharajah signed an Instrument of Accession which was provisionally accepted and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian army reached Srinagar on the morning of 27 October and started fighting the raiders. This resulted in the first Kashmir war between India and Pakistan, in which people of Jammu and Kashmir suffered immensely and the State was forcibly divided between the two countries; and once again we lost our independence.

Important point to note here is that we lost our independence in 1586 because our stronger Muslim neighbour of the time – Akbar the Great invaded our country. After centuries of slavery, exploitation and oppression we achieved our independence on 15 October 1947. This time again, we were attacked by a stronger Muslim country – Pakistan, which resulted in ‘Provisional accession’ with India and eventual forced division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

This is not to suggest that India did not want to make Kashmir part of India, however, fact remains it was Pakistan which violated the Standstill Agreement and attacked our country and trampled our integrity and independence. In other words entry of Pakistani troops in to Jammu and Kashmir territory was against the wishes of the Kashmiri Ruler; and entry of Indian troops was on the request of the Ruler. No doubt the Indian troops have gone far beyond the terms of the treaty and are responsible for human rights abuses; but we must not twist facts to justify the initial aggression, which is source of our miseries since 22 October 1947.

Instead of blaming the aggressor for heinous crimes committed against innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir, ‘intelligent’ people of Kashmir were persuaded in name of religion to glorify the aggressor. It is unfortunate that even now in 2012, ‘intelligent’ people of Jammu and Kashmir cannot differentiate between a friend and a foe. Despite enormous ‘sacrifices’, death and destruction they are not sure what they want, as some want accession to Pakistan, some want accession to India, some want independence; and some are happy with the status quo as this serves their interests.

If there was only one occupier then we could have achieved independence a long time ago. Similarly, if Jammu and Kashmir was not multi religion and multi ethnic then it would have been easy to decide our future. Those who advocate Islamic state forget that there are followers of other faiths in Kashmir; and even within Islam there are many sects negating each other, so we cannot have practically advance religious solution unless we want create more chaos and divide the State on religious lines.

Leaving out options of becoming independent and joining India, let us see what option of joining Pakistan has to offer people of Jammu and Kashmir. First it will divide the State on religious lines, as Buddhists of Ladakh and Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu province would not like to join Pakistan, as their interests would not be protected there; and plight of non Muslims in Pakistan is a big deterrent to them.

People of Jammu and Kashmir, especially Muslims, living on the Indian side of the divide need to think that Gilgit Baltistan is directly ruled by Pakistan since 1947; and if the Pakistani rule was anything near to be being good then people of that region would not say that they are occupied and ruled by draconian laws without rights to fundamental rights. Similarly people of so called Azad Kashmir are not happy with what Pakistani government and secret agencies do to exploit and oppress them.

Leaving that aside, now let us see what Pakistan is in view of Pakistani people: Col Riaz Jafri, who was the Principal Staff Officer to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs), wrote in article, ‘Fall of Dacca’:

'Not only, that the Bengalis were treated as unequals, but it is also a fact that they were the major revenue earner for Pakistan....... The highest in authority were guilty of being too greedy, power hungry and selfish. Unfortunately we all treated East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan’s body – 54 percent of the population. As power barons of the Federal government mostly hailed from West Pakistan they never shared the power willingly or happily with their Bengali brethren.' Source - http://k4kashmir.com/?p=6294

Bakhtiar Qayyum, who served the Pakistani establishment at a senior level for 30 years, writes:

‘Pakistan is passing through a very critical stage of its existence. Voices are coming from all directions that this country is very soon going to collapse. Terrorism, Talibanisation, crumbling economy and the deteriorating law and order situation are just the few indicators telling of the bleak situation….Societies and countries built on hatred cannot sustain for long. Only those which have live and brotherhood in their foundations last for ever.’ Source: Liberty International, November 2011, page 8

Empowering Azad Kashmir, Javaid Hayat

2011-12-13T09:41:00.000-08:00

Empowering Azad Kashmir

South Asian News Agency (SANA) ⋅ December 13, 2011 ⋅

Share/Save

Javaid Hayat

Nation-states are recognized by the international community as sovereign states as per the ‘Westphalian sovereignty’ concept. Notwithstanding, there are political entities on the world map, which are mostly driven by conflict or crisis and disputed or tangibly controlled by external powers. The Azad state of Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) is one of them. Defining AJK in a legal and constitutional context under United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions on Kashmir and in international relations remain a dilemma. At the time of the formation of the Republic of Azad Kashmir on 24 October, which intended a transition from autocracy to democracy, the provisional government of Azad Kashmir made a declaration that “The new government represents the united will of Jammu and Kashmir State. The provisional government entertains sentiments of the utmost friendliness and goodwill towards its neighbouring dominions of India and Pakistan and hopes that both the dominions will sympathise with the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their efforts to exercise their birth right of political freedom. The provisional government is further anxious to safeguard the identity of Jammu and Kashmir as a political entity”.
In present context, it is difficult to define the status of the ‘Azad State of Jammu & Kashmir’. It is not a sovereign state as it looks from the outset as it has a president, a prime minister, flag and national anthem and Supreme Court that shows a symbolic statehood. Despite this, however, it lacks sovereignty and empirically possesses limited statehood. Sovereignty is generally defined as recognition of the claim by a state to exercise supreme authority over a clearly defined territory and declaration of recognition from the international community, which is not the case with this territory. However, it can be considered a non-recognized quasi-state, a sui generis, a territory with disputed and fragile statehood, a de facto and a splinted protectorate of two neighboring powers, a demarked entity with multi-ethnic, religious and political identities alongside the Line of Control (LoC). Azad state of Jammu & Kashmir is sharing sovereignty with nation-state of Pakistan but it is not constitutionally part of Pakistan. It is neither a province nor an agency of Pakistan but has a government of its own, even though it is protected, administratively controlled and economically dependent on Pakistan.
Talking about legitimate political and constitutional rights of the people of AJK is not a new phenomenon rather since for the several decades these issues were raised by the nationalist forces of AJK but it got momentum when a former prime minister of AJK Raja Farooq Haider, who belongs to the ideology of state accession with Pakistan, spoke up and demanded for redefining the political and constitutional relationship between Muzaffarabad and Islamabad. The political and constitutional relationship between the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and government of Pakistan is a complex rather ambiguous, power- sharing system based on Interim Act 1974. The political leadership of Azad Kashmir has a ‘history of surrender’ since the establishment of so called ‘Azad State of Jammu & Kashmir’ in 1947. Despite the independence declaration of October 24th 1947 through which a new ‘revolutionary’ government was formed and claimed to be legal heir or successor of dethroned Maharaja Hari Singh, it surrendered the sovereignty while signing the Karachi agreement in 1949. Critics says, the government announcements of the 24th of October 1947 (and the 4th of October prior to that) were error-prone by design, disruptive, non-consultative, opportunistic and took the Kashmiri nation away from a genuine transition from autocracy to democracy (Shakshi Raaj to Awaami Raaj).
The power-sharing mechanism between AJK and government of Pakistan was initially based on the Karachi agreement (1949) and currently under interim constitution Act 1974. A detailed study of this ambiguous relationship has clearly indicates a ‘systematic and organized hypocrisy’ as Kashmir council holds exclusive powers over the AJK government and AJK assembly. The Azad Kashmir assembly, which is an elected forum, is only responsible for dealing with day to day affairs in given legal setup. The aim of establishing of Kashmir council was building bridge between AJK and the federation of Pakistan to overcome legal ambiguity and smooth functioning of governance issues in the territory of Azad Kashmir. However, since its inception it has failed to perform for the purpose it was made for rather it become a source of contention between the parties. All powers and responsibilities that usually should lie with an elected government for economic prosperity, transparency and other inevitable challenges regarding governance are given to AJK council, which is by default headed by the prime minister of Pakistan, who is neither elected by the people of Azad Kashmir nor accountable to the any institution or judiciary of AJK.
The ‘carrot and stick’ policy adopted by the federation of Pakistan through the Kashmir council is not only creating resentment and sense of marginalization, but depriving the people of AJK their legitimate rights. In my personal encounters with many political leaders, civil society activists, legislatures, academics, bureaucrats and journalists most of them have acknowledged growing political resentment and sense of deprivation among the people of AJK. Moreover, many indicated that this is not only because of ongoing conflict of Kashmir since several decades but due to the lack of political will and vision of leadership of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Despite of having reservations and fear, the overwhelming majority of political forces of AJK have agreed and admitted, if not publically but at personal level, the need to revisit and redefine the current imbalanced relationship under Act 1974 but question always arises who will tie the bell on cat’s neck? Besides many of nationalists parties, the outspoken Raja Farooq Haider and Sardar Khalid Ibrahim have always criticized negative and unnecessary role by the Center and Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and its associated agencies into making and breaking approach for having their own ‘friendly- driven puppets’ in order to run this territory of Azad Kashmir. During his nine month premiership Raja Farooq Haider had opened a Pandora box while addressing to media and public proceedings regarding the rights of the people of AJK particularly on ownership and royalty rights from Mangla dam and Nehlum Jehlum hydroelectric project.
Democratic norms and practices are pre-requisites for peace building and good governance. It is agreed by many scholars that participatory governance is required because traditional ‘representative’ democracy has failed to meet with emerging challenges of people’s participation into decision-making and accountability factor particularly in disputed territories and conflict zones. Given the current controlled democratic governance structure in Azad Kashmir under Act 1974, which tides hands of AJK assembly to exercise its limited powers, whereas the Kashmir council retains exclusive financial and legislative powers, seems impossible to form a participatory governance structure.

The role of civil society is always been crucial for strengthening democracy and empowering the governance for social development that unfortunately AJK has been lacking from many decades. However, some significant interventions have been made by the civil society that includes local media and civil society organizations of AJK. For example, a blogger, writer and civil society activist Tanveer Ahmed, who heads Kashmir civil society forum and Kashmir One Secretariat, have successfully conducted many advocacy sessions and raised awareness on citizen participation and good governance in AJK. A non-governmental forum called Center for Peace and Development Reforms (CPDR) has taken a lead and proposed an appraisal for political and constitutional empowerment of AJK and Gilgit Baltistan. A former Chief Justice Supreme Court of AJK Manzoor Hussain Gillani, who heads The Association for the Rights of People of Jammu and Kashmir (ARJK), has been vocal for streamlining the current confused relationship of Azad Kashmir with government of Pakistan. In his views, all subjects and powers, which parliament of Pakistan delegated to the provinces after 18th and 19th amendments, those all need to be given to AJK assembly and AJK government by amending the Constitution of Pakistan. He argue that this must not negatively affect the Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir conflict and AJK must be treated like other provinces of Pakistan in terms of giving rights and voice into the decision-making forums of Pakistan but should not be declared as province. Many of political heads of AJK don’t share this view and criticize by arguing that such would be harmful for the Kashmir case at the international level. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of opinion leaders are in favor of restoring Act 1970, which provides quantum of autonomy with some necessary amendments, such as an interim arrangement until the final settlement of the Kashmir conflict.
It seems obvious that a new social and legal contract is required as the current political, administrative, and judicial structure in AJK based on interim Act 1974 is unworkable, non-progressive and non-accountable. The political forces of AJK should come up with solid and workable proposals for wide-reaching autonomy for AJK. They must understand that political and economic empowerment drives from constitution for which a political will and struggle is essential that unfortunately is lacking in current political leadership of Azad Kashmir. Moreover, the policy-making authorities sitting in Islamabad must realize that depriving the people of AJK from their legitimate rights and treating them as second class citizens, even though after 18th and 19th amendments in Pakistan, would fuel pubic sentiments for a violent struggle. The government of Pakistan must understand that rights of the people of AJK cannot be held hostage because of the Kashmir conflict at large. Given the conflict-centric approach and the Kashmir conflict, whose destiny yet to be decided; only a wide-reaching autonomy could help to address the legitimate rights of the people of this region and empower its governance structure.

The writer is currently a PhD candidate at Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie University, Berlin and Georg Zundel scholar at Berghof Conflict Research, an international think-tank based in Germany. He can be reached at jadee012@gmail.com

__._,_.___

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

2011-12-12T04:24:00.002-08:00

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

GHULAM Nabi Fai, the director of the Kashmiri American Council, last week pleaded guilty to secretly receiving $4m from the ISI to lobby for Kashmiri independence in Washington.

He explained to a Washington court that his actions were not sinister, and that he was simply trying to work towards a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute. While New Delhi has welcomed the prosecution, the Pakistani public has been largely sympathetic, hailing Fai’s dedication to a noble cause and championing the work of the KAC.

The contrasting reactions to Fai’s transgressions are a good reminder of how divisive the Kashmir issue remains, even among liberal Pakistanis and Indians who otherwise favour normalisation of the bilateral relationship. I had an opportunity to see this divisiveness in action a few weeks ago at the Frontline Club in London. A panel discussion titled ‘Kashmir: South Asia’s Palestine?’ brought together journalists, writers and an academic to reflect on the dispute and prospects for future resolution.

Rarely have I attended such an impassioned event. Mirza Waheed, author of The Collaborator and former BBC journalist, represented the Kashmiri point of view and talked eloquently about the appalling human rights situation in the valley and the Indian government’s brutal, and therefore counterproductive, response to peaceful demonstrations in Kashmir last year. He warned that the situation in the valley had reached a turning point: if steps towards resolving the dispute keeping Kashmiri desires in account were not taken, a return to militancy was possible, or even likely.

Ashis Ray, a Times of India journalist, challenged Waheed’s depiction of Indian excesses and took issue with the use of the word ‘occupation’ to describe Indian presence in Kashmir. Ray also pointed to numerous elections in the valley as a sign that Kashmiris had elected to participate in a democratic India and thus enjoyed a political voice via the ballot box. In a
gasp-inducing moment, he dismissed the deaths of peaceful Kashmiri protesters as ‘collateral damage’. Between these diametrically opposed views lay the perspectives of other panelists, Al Jazeera correspondent Imran Khan, former Times reporter Subhash Chopra and SOAS lecturer Lawrence Sáez.

It was evident through the discussion that one person’s truth was another person’s myth; one’s experience, another’s propaganda. Participants were unable to agree on historical timelines, the voter turnout at particular elections, the frequency of rape of Kashmiri women, and almost everything else. Disputations over the most basic facts — for example, the number of Indian troops present in the valley — seemed surreal among a panel of journalists and writers affiliated with reputed international publications.

The he-said, she-said tenor of the discussion re-emphasised just how well-entrenched state-created narratives about the Kashmir issue are on both sides. Honed over the decades, these narratives have replaced history and fact with emotive symbolism that serves the interests of the concerned state. On the Pakistani side, the story of grave injustices being committed against Muslims by a non-Muslim colonial state is an echo of Pakistan’s own creation story that helps validate the past and bolster the country’s Muslim identity. Across the border, the integration of a Muslim-majority state into a post-Partition India helps reaffirm the success of pluralistic democracy.

More importantly, on both sides of the border, the Kashmir issue helps rally publics around armies, justifies excessive defence expenditure and allows governments to portray themselves as the good guys as opposed to the rival militants/oppressors, depending which side of the Line of Control you’re on.

In this context, the panel’s response to one question from the audience surprised me. When a young woman asked what role Pakistani and Indian civil society can play to help facilitate a resolution to the Kashmir dispute, all the discussants mumbled responses about the first responsibility lying with armies, governments, international arbitrators, Kashmiri political parties and, of course, Kashmiris themselves.

On this point, I disagree. Civil society in both Pakistan and India can play an integral role by helping debunk, refine and update ingrained state narratives. As the Frontline Club panel demonstrated, a coherent, productive conversation about Kashmir is almost impossible because each side’s talking points are in direct opposition to the other’s. Ironically, these talking points have been formulated with little regard for history or the actual experience of the Kashmiri people.

Civil society actors can address this rhetorical anomaly by raising simple questions in order to re-articulate old narratives in light of present Kashmiri desires. In an age of online social networking, wiki-media and other interactive platforms, there’s no excuse for publics not to communicate and develop nuanced and multifaceted — rather than contradictory — interpretations. By circulating in cyberspace and independent media, these fresher narratives can start to re-centre foreign policy. A grass-roots approach to changing the thinking on Kashmir could be more effective in the long-term than Fai’s high-level politicking.

More importantly, civil society actors can add the most important missing element to the equation: the Kashmiri voice. As Waheed stressed in his comments, Kashmiris are starting to document their own version of events — in novels, memoirs, verse, blog posts, tweets, radio shows and more. It is incumbent on Pakistani and Indian publics to consume, translate and debate output from the valley so as to better align national narratives with the actual experience and desires of Kashmiris.

By acknowledging and amplifying the Kashmiri perspective in the South Asian public sphere, civil society can help reconfigure the dispute as a trilateral, rather than bilateral affair. After all, any successful resolution to the Kashmir dispute requires three parties to negotiate together: Pakistan, India and Kashmir as the principal party. To get to that point, all stakeholders will have to learn how to talk to — rather than at — each other.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/12/the-debate-on-kashmir.html

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

2011-12-12T04:24:00.001-08:00

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

GHULAM Nabi Fai, the director of the Kashmiri American Council, last week pleaded guilty to secretly receiving $4m from the ISI to lobby for Kashmiri independence in Washington.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com

Zardari will return in a style, Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-12-12T04:18:00.000-08:00

Zardari will return in a style

Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 December 2011

Last week it appeared that Asif Zaradri, President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Supreme Commander of armed forces was on the run to save his life, not because he was under attack by some enemy country, but because he feared that institutions of his own country will take some action against him and might put him behind the bars.

Asif Zardari very mysteriously left the country for Dubai under pretext of ‘ill health’. His ruling party and all Presidential staff looked unprepared for this sudden departure and were in shambles. They were contradicting each other as to what was wrong with their leader and the President, and failed to provide satisfactory replies. They looked part of a team that suffered a defeat and did not know what justification to provide to their supporters.

Whereas this news created chaos in Pakistan; it also unnerved many outside the country as well because Pakistan - a nuclear country with unstable government is an important partner in war against terrorism. However, relations between Pakistan and the United States deteriorated over the months due to conflicting interests and continued violation of Pakistani territorial integrity; and it looked that both were heading for some kind of armed conflict.

No doubt Azif Zardari was under extreme pressure over the past few weeks, and that exacerbated his health. Tension and political pressure gave him sleep less nights, no doubt, but doctors in Pakistan were quite capable of treating him in Pakistan, so why fly out to another country. Did he not trust the Pakistani doctors, or he thought some unforeseen powers might harm him even when he was treated. It looks he wanted to leave the country under cover of the illness. If he was seriously ill, flying out to another country could only add to his health problems. No sane doctor will advise a patient with heart attack or stroke to take three hours flight to another country, as that has its own dangers.

It appears that the ‘treatment’ which Asif Zardari’s ailing political health and declining political fortunes required was not available in Pakistan. Power brokers or ‘specialists’ who can provide power booster to Azif Zardari and save his Presidency hold surgeries in Dubai. He had to travel to Dubai, even if that meant taking some risks; and tell them nature of threat to his Presidency and Peoples Party government.

There are five important people with power and influence in Pakistan, namely General Kiani who has a power base in Rawalpindi, Nawaz Sharif with a power base in Punjab, Imran Khan with a power base in Aab Para, Chief Justice with a power base in Supreme Court and Asif Zaradri with a power base in UAE.

Prime Minister Gilani, though legally a Chief Executive of Pakistan, has a limited role as he derives his powers from Zardari House. His main task is not to govern the country for benefit of the people, but to provide support to Zardari and company and cover all the marks and tracks leading to Zardari and Bhutto family. Of course he was given a free hand to make whatever he can for himself and his family.

Anyhow Asif Zardari made it to Dubai, and once again became focus of attention around the globe. Among conflicting news about his health it was learnt that he was recovering well - why not, specialists knew what to do; and within few days his team back home was in a position to boast that Asif Zaradri is not among those who run away in fear of his life.

It is presumed that he told the specialists that he has done everything he promised to do, and has, in fact, done some extra bits to demonstrate his worth and ability. In return he was assured that there would be no military intervention, and no other action to dethrone him, at least for five years. He must have told them that instead of getting some bonus for his performance, and for doing extra bits, he was being forced out of office. He must have told them that his down - fall will have very serious repercussions on war on terrorism; and could bring havoc to the entire region.

Peoples Party government and Asif Zardari’s other colleagues and friends have recovered from the shock of his sudden departure to Dubai. They now feel confident that despite serious cases against them in the Supreme Court, Memogate, Salalabad attacks by NATO, Abbotabad fiasco and with many other things there is no immediate threat to their government or at least to their President.

Many members of the Pakistani establishment and some opposition leaders believe that Zardari was the man behind the Memogate; and in their view this is treason. Critics believe he is against the army and the ISI; and by hook or crook wants to bring them under his control. However some analysts question why the army would want him out when he does exactly what he is told.

In any case, even if he was behind many alleged ‘crimes’, can he be removed legally. There could be no impeachment of the President, as the required numbers are not there in the Parliament. He is not the kind of person who would resign as a result of political and other pressures. One can dislike him or hate him, but credit goes to him that he is a fighter and shrewd manipulator with strong nerves.

Of course, the Supreme Court can take some action which could end his rule. But the question is, won’t that give the most corrupt and unpopular government a justification to go to the people and create chaos in the country, even leading to some kind of civil war by playing the Sindh card.

This kind of action could be unpopular even among some lawyers and some sections of the establishment, which could further divide already embittered and deeply divided society. Some sane voices are saying that we have tolerated worst kind of corruption and maladministration in the past four years, can’t we wait another 5-6 months as the government will be forced to hold elections after the Senate elections in March 2012.

In view of some it is better to get rid of the government as soon as possible, especially before the Senate elections, as that would strengthen their political position in the Upper House no matter what the outcome is of the next general elections. The other view is that it would be unwise to make a political martyr when his government is unpopular and has failed to deliver to the people and will not be in a position to win the next general elections which they will have to hold after March Senate elections.

In my view Asif Zardari knows what is at stake – he knows what life is like in Pakistani jails. Even when he is fully ‘fit’ and despite assurances and power boosters he will play safe; and won’t go to the President House until he gets a green signal which could take a few more weeks. Important events are unfolding in Pakistan in the form of Supreme Court cases, NRO, Memogate investigation and Abbotabad Commission report; and he is not a fool to rush to Pakistan when the exit route is not assured.

It will be safe for him to stay in Dubai, take rest, plan his next move by closely observing the situation and start his offensive while resting in Dubai. His team and government have recovered from the initial shock, and are getting its act together. They have great experience in fighting legal cases and delaying the final outcome especially when the going is not favourable. They have also mastered the art of making deals with various stake holders. They also know how to win public support and play ‘victim’, all they need is some assurance from President Zardari that is physically still sound and plans to come back.

In view of the above, in my opinion, Asif Zardari is out of danger and he will return to Pakistan in a style; and possibly with more power and influence. His return and increased power and influence will weather the political storm; and will help him to plan his second tenure as a President.

View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

Fall of Dacca by Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

2011-12-12T04:17:00.000-08:00

Fall of Dacca

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

December 16 comes every year to haunt the nation, particularly those few remaining who were witness to the debacle. I had the misfortune to be one. On this day the Quaid’s Pakistan, which was considered an epitome of ‘Divided we Stand’, was actually divided by breaking loose all bonds of unity between the two wings. That day the largest Muslim army suffered the ignominious humiliation of the greatest defeat. This was the darkest day of our national history that stunned everyone. How did it happen? Equipped with the hindsight knowledge, I will try to reconstruct some of the sad saga.

In early July 1971 I was posted to East Pakistan as the Principal Staff Officer (GSO-1) to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs). In my such capacity I was more or less responsible for the Civil Administration of the Province and had the opportunity of seeing the events unfolding themselves from the vantage viewpoint of the Governor House, Dacca – the then epicentre of the entire activity in East Pakistan. I had also access to the events of the past buried in the files which kept popping up randomly during my daily official work there. This all presented me with a fairly clear picture of all that was happening there and why.

If I am asked who to blame for the debacle I would say that we were all – from the common man in the street to the highest person in the office, equally responsible for it. The common man for committing the sin of keeping himself ignorant of the under currents simmering there ever since that fateful 19^th day of March 1948 when Quaid raising his admonishing finger to the Bengali students at the Dacca University convocation had warned them that Urdu will be the only official state language of Pakistan, and not trying to assess the anguish caused to the Bengalis and take measures to bring any rapprochement. The highest in authority were guilty of being too greedy, power hungry and selfish. Unfortunately we all treated East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan’s body – 54 percent of the population. As power barons of the Federal government mostly hailed from West Pakistan they never shared the power willingly or happily with their Bengali brethren. Imagine, the Bengalis though in majority going jubilant in 1956 when Suhrawardy got them ‘parity’ (equal treatment) with the West Pakistanis! Ever heard of a majority people thanking obligingly the minority people for treating them equal?! We did it again in 1971. The minority pronouncing the majority unpatriotic, traitor and secessionist! Minority forcing the majority to leave the country whose foundations they had laid in 1906! Not only, that the Bengalis were treated as unequals, but it is also a fact that they were the major revenue earner for Pakistan, mainly through the export of their Golden Fibre to Manchester and Dundee jute mills in the UK. They bore the major financial burden of Pakistan and happily too for more than 15 years and until 1962 the cash flow was from East Pakistan to West Pakistan. Thereafter, after an equilibrium of about two years the process revers ed but not that heavily. Bengalis had, therefore, every reason to be chary of and chagrin with the sala Punzabis. (every West Pakistani was a Punjabi to them). Though the Bengalis proved themselves to be equally, if not more, patriotic than the West Pakistanis during the 65 war with India, yet the state of mutual confidence between the two left more to be desired. By 1971 the relations deteriorated further and irreversibly. The last straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back was Bhutto’s rejection of 1970 election results which had given Shaikh Mujib ur Rehman’s Awami League a clear cut majority to form the government at the centre. ZAB’s one after the other statements like “we will break the legs of anyone going to Dacca to attend the NA session there”, “Udhar tum idhar hum” and “I would rather be a top dog of half of Pakistan than be an underdog of full Pakistan” left little doubt in the minds of Mujib and company who opted for the Civil Disobedience in the province. Their provincial autonomy stance kept becoming harder by the day and all negotiations between them and the West Pakistani leaders and the Federal government led by Gen.Yahya himself failed. The civil disobedience had transformed itself into an outright mutiny and to quell it the army struck on the night of 25^th March 1971, starting an internecine guerrilla war between the military and Mukti Bahini lasting for 8 long months. On 21^st November 1971 – Eid Day – the Indians launched a fully fledged armed attack on East Pakistan which lasted for 26 days of intense fighting by the Pakistan army under extremely adverse conditions of (1) being badly out-numbered in men and material – 3 Indian Corps’ against one and that too lame, under-strength and ill equipped, no tanks, very little artillery – only the infantry and a battalion of Engineers, (2) hostility of the local populace – no army can fight without the support of the civilians, but here what to talk of the support the civil populace was totally hostile, supporting the Indians by providing them with the crucial intelligence needed by them, (3) poor communications and logistics – no reinforcements or arms and equipment could be supplied from West Pakistan. India had stopped the over flights since February 70 after the clever and clandestine planting of Ganga episode, (4) lack of air cover – the only squadron of the F-86s that we had could not operate as the runway of the only military airport Kurmi Tola had been rendered out of operation by the Indians bombing it incessantly. If anything, under such impossible conditions, it goes to the credit of the army that it could fight for over nine months in East Pakistan.

In the second half of the year 1971 those in power – both civil and military – seemed to be suffering from a stupor and behaving like silent spectators waiting helplessly for the catastrophe to fall. I distinctly remember Major General A Rahim Khan – later Secretary General Defence, while addressing a batch of newly posted two dozen Lt Cols and Majors to East Pakistan saying on or around 11 July 1971 “Gentlemen, the entire administration of the province had collapsed. I have made it stand but only on its knees. Now it will be for you to make it stand and stand it erect.” Having said that the General went on to add, “I have given my word to the Chief (Gen. Yahya) to give me three months for the task, and if I cannot do it, he can — (I murmured under my lip, hang me!) he can – replace me”. I was shocked that the general had equated the stakes simply to his being replaced! There would be nothing in three months to replace him for !! On another occasion Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi – alias Tiger Niazi – the GOC Eastern Command as late as in October 71, before the start of a special briefing to the visiting high powered army team from the GHQ on the latest military situation in East Pakistan, advised his senior staff officers not to depress the visiting generals from the GHQ by giving them the dismal military picture of East Pakistan or ask them for more troops. He quipped, “gentlemen, if they send us more troops – more the merrier, but if they don’t – lesser the better”. With the result that the operational military map on the board showed more of ‘Green’ pins all over the area than the ‘Red’ pins depicting the area under Mukti Bahini control. Whereas the map should have been clustered with the Red pins. The GHQ team returned satisfied about all being hunky-dory in East Pakistan. Similar ‘Sab Achha’ reports kept ema nating from various sectors and parts of East Pakistan to West Pakistan, till the water passed over the head. But by then it was too late for any political solution that the likes of Gen. Farman were advocating from the beginning but being too junior in the army hierarchy were not given due importance. To a few others it was a case of misplaced egoistic valour – not to be dubbed as having been ‘chickened out’ in the army parlance. The true information was not only denied to the common man in West Pakistan but even to those at the helm also.

Handling of the East Pakistan issue at the International level, too, was a fiasco on our part. Not that we did not mobilise any world opinion in our favour, we on the contrary rather alienated them mostly. On the other hand Indira undertook a whirlwind tour of 19 countries in October 1971 propagating the imaginary atrocities against the Bengalis and particularly the Hindus of East Pakistan and yet assuring each one of them that India had no intentions of aggression. Ironically, while she was convincing and canvassing the world powers, her army’s Eastern Command was giving the final touches to the Attack Plan in Fort William at the eastern bank of river Hoogli, Calcutta. Whereas in our case despite Nixon’s more or less ordering Kissinger to ‘do some thing’ their 7^th Fleet just passed by the Bay of Bengal without even radioing the customary courtesy good will message or tooting its horns thrice the Navy style. I am personally witn ess to the Chinese repeated enquiries as to what could they do for us, after we had established am emergency radio link with them? But all that we could get from the stupor struck President’s Secretariat at Rawalpindi was, “Just wait, please”. Hopes from the sincere Chinese friends were so high that when the Indian para troopers chuted down over Narain Ganj every one waived them jubilantly taking them to be Chinese coming to our aid! Our Eastern Command had a morbid fear of the Indians capturing a piece of land and passing it on to the Muktis to plant a flag there and declare it to be the Bangla Desh. The Indians would recognise it instantly thus giving birth to Bangla Desh. Consequently the troops were spread in a thin line all along the border that weakened the defence all over. There was no depth, no reserves, no second lines. There was enemy (Indians) in the front and enemy at the back (Muktis).They never realised that it was not the l oss of any territory but the fall of the capital of a country that mattered. It had to be the Warsaw, the Paris, the Moscow, the Berlin and in our case Dacca that until captured the country would not fall. If they had only concentrated all the troops in Dacca, made a fortress out of it and held it for months, which they could do, the East Pakistan story would have been different today. Agreed, the Bangla Desh would have still come into being but instead of taking birth in battle field it would have come into being on a negotiating table. Negotiations by the world powers and probably the UNO itself and Pakistan would not have had to suffer the ignominy of the defeat.

End:

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

30, Werstridge-1

Rawalpindi46000

Tel: (051) 5158 033

Statement of Dr Fai in the Alexandria Court House, Virginia) Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

2011-12-08T00:27:00.001-08:00

Statement of Dr Fai in the Alexandria Court House, Virginia) Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

Posted by K4Kashmir on December 8, 2011 in Kashmir | 0 CommentEdit

Statement of Dr Fai in the Alexandria Court House, Virginia)

Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

Dr. Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai

Washington, D.C.

December 7, 2011

(The statement was issued at the Alexandria Court House, Virginia)

The Kashmir issue is simply this: the people of a large territory which is not part of any existing sovereign state were assured by the entire international community represented by the United States that they would be enabled to decide their future by a free vote. Until now, this assurance has not been honored.

I, as an American of Kashmiri origin am profoundly grateful to the Administration for upholding the position of principle which the United States has sustained throughout the existence of the contentious issue relating to the status of Kashmir. When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States championed the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be determined by the will of the people of the territory and that their wishes must be ascertained through an impartial plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United Nations. The U.S. was a principle sponsor of the resolution # 47 which was adopted by the Security Council on April 21, 1948 and which was based on that unchallenged principle. It was also upheld equally by both India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was brought before the Security Council in 1948. The commitment of the U.S. was indicated by a personal appeal made by President Harry Truman that differences over demilitarization be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator, a distinguished American war hero: Admiral Chester Nimitz.

It was most gratifying for Kashmiri American community when President George W. Bush (Republican) said on February 22, 2006 that the United States supports a solution of Kashmir dispute acceptable not only to India and Pakistan but also to “citizens of Kashmir.” It was equally gratifying for us when President Barack Obama said on October 30, 2008, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.’

Today, Kashmir is a living proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (independence) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering which has not been exacted from any other people of the South Asian subcontinent. Compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process.

The scale of the popular backing for Kashmiri resistance can be judged from the established fact that virtually all the citizenry of Srinagar (Capital city of Kashmir) – men, women and children – came out multiple times on the streets to lodge a non-violent protest against the continuance of alien occupation. The fact that they presented petitions at the office of the United Nations Military Observers Group shows the essentially peaceful nature of the aims of the uprising and its trust in justice under international law. At times the number of people in these peaceful processions exceeded 1 million. India has tried to portray the uprising as the work of terrorists or fanatics. Terrorists do not compose an entire population, including women and children; fanatics do not look to the United Nations to achieve pacific, and rational settlement.

That is a most poignant truth. But even more bitterly ironical is the contrast between the complex and decades-long agony the Kashmir issue has caused to Kashmiris, to Pakistan and to India itself and the simple, rational measures that would be needed for its solution. No sleight of hand is required, no subtle concepts are to be deployed, and no ingenious deal needs to be struck between an Indian and a Pakistani leader with the endorsement of the more pliable Kashmiri figures. The time for subterfuges is gone. All that is needed is going back — yes, going back — to the point of agreement which historically existed beyond doubt between India and Pakistan and jointly resolving to retrieve it with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time.

That point of agreement was one of inescapable principle- — that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

Between India’s insistence that a settlement must be “within the four corners of the Indian constitution” and Pakistan’s demand that it must be based on the international agreement embodied in the UN Security Council resolutions, there cannot be a meeting point which the two governments can find by themselves. Neither can disentangle itself from the massive under growth of the dispute. There needs to be a third way which neither admits nor challenges any claim or proposition on the question of sovereignty over Kashmir nor on the desirability or otherwise of the partition or reunification of the State. Both these questions need to be set aside if the dispute is to be put on the road to a settlement.

There is nothing in the United Nations plan that is incompatible with pluralism. We do not wish to foreclose any of the three possible options for the people: independence, accession to Pakistan or accession to India. We refuse to believe that fairness is an impractical proposition.

Its object should be not to answer what is the correct or best solution of the Kashmir problem but how that solution can be arrived at. In other words, it should by itself neither promote nor preclude any rational settlement of the dispute, be it accession to India or Pakistan or independence. Rather than seek to impose a settlement on Kashmir, it should engage the peoples of each region of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir to work out a settlement themselves without any external constraint.

I am equally proud of Kashmiri pluralism. The term fundamentalism is quite inapplicable to Kashmiri society. One of the proud distinctions of Kashmir has been the sustained tradition of tolerance, amity, good will and friendship between the members of different religious and cultural communities. It has a long tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism and fundamentalism. Kashmir conflict was never a fight between Hindus and Muslims. It was never a struggle between theocracy and secularism. It has always been about the destiny and future of 17 million people of Kashmir, be they Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists.

The Policy Of

The Kashmiri American Council

After the uprising in Kashmir in 1989, a group of Kashmiri Americans established the Kashmiri American Council (KAC) in Washington in 1990. The primary objective of KAC was simply to raise the consciousness of the international community toward the issue of Kashmir; and to seek the understanding of the United States to help achieve the right of self-determination which was guaranteed to the people of Kashmir under the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The U.S. has, since the adoption of the UN resolutions in 1948, always held the position that Kashmir is a disputed territory; that it is not an integral part of either India or Pakistan; and that India and Pakistan should resolve the issue, taking into account the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir. Therefore, there was no need to influence U.S. foreign policy which has always been consistent with the goals of the Kashmiri people. However, we felt that there was a need to educate and encourage policy makers to take concrete steps to help achieve this goal.

Who I Represent

Kashmiri American Council and I have always tried to represent the sentiments of the people of Kashmir, irrespective of the religious background and cultural affiliations. Sometimes it meant to state the hard facts which people in the halls of power in New Delhi or Islamabad might not always find agreeable. But unfortunately facts are facts and ignoring them would not have done justice not only to people of Kashmir but to the people of both India and Pakistan. This fact can be understood from an article of mine which was published in Washington Times on January 18, 2004, when I was analyzing various possibilities that could lead us to a just settlement of Kashmiri issue. I wrote, under the title, “The taproot of South Asian turbulence,” (an article particularly harsh to the sensitivities of both the Indian government and the government of Pakistan.) “Finding a solution to the stalemate over self-determination in Kashmir, however, is vastly more complex than articulating the problem. Some in India profit from Kashmir’s tumults. They appeal to extreme Hindu nationalists who insist on Muslim inferiority and envision India as an expanding sun in the South Asian universe. Likewise, some in Pakistan gain by keeping Kashmir unresolved. It distracts attention from Pakistan’s enormous domestic faults, and provides indigenous militants with an outlet unthreatening to [its own] government.”

Had it been true that I was being dictated by someone from New Delhi or Islamabad, then it would not have been easy for me to publish my article in Boston Globe on January 5, 2002, “Kashmir Rights Cannot Be Denied,” I wrote, “There are suggestions in some quarters that the United Nations should broker a deal on Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Kashmiris wish to stress that their land is not real estate that can be parceled out between two [non-resident] disputants but the home of nation with a history far more compact and coherent than India’s and far longer than Pakistan’s. No settlement of their status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of self-determination and erases the so-called line of control, which is in reality the line of conflict. ”

Likewise it would not have been easy to question the involvement of India and Pakistan in the talks to resolve the Kashmir issue. I wrote in The Quarterly Magazine About the Developing World published by the National Peace Corps Association in its August through October 1998 issue, Volume 11, number 4, entitled “Colony Kashmir, a Voice for independence.” I said, “I wish to emphasize the point that as the dispute involves three parties– India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir — who are the most directly affected. Any attempt to strike a deal between two without the association of the third, will fail to yield a credible settlement. The contemporary history of South Asia is abundantly clear that bilateral efforts have never met with success.”

In that same article, I also stated, “but we believe that India and Pakistan cannot by themselves reach a settlement over Kashmir without associating the genuine Kashmiri leadership–All Parties Hurriyet Conference–with the negotiations. It would be performing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.”

My approach has been consistent and there was absolutely no reason for me to do otherwise, and that is to inform the world powers that India and Pakistan by themselves are not able to resolve the issue of Kashmir. They have tried over decades but failed. That’s why in an article called “The New Clinton Doctrine” which I published in July 1997, I wrote: “But the Kashmir problem should not be viewed as a territorial dispute between these two countries. The reality is that it is first and foremost a problem that involves the life and future of the thirteen million people of Kashmir– a people with a historical identity, a distinct individuality and the same aspirations for freedom as that of any other people on earth.”
The most important constituency which we have to address is not United States, not Pakistan, not elsewhere, but India itself. Meeting with Indian officials was fundamental to my strategy in communicating with New Delhi to find the means by which we as Kashmiri Americans could contribute to peace in that part of the world and in resolving the crisis in Kashmir. During the past twenty years, I along with Ambassador Yusuf Buch, former Senior Advisor to the United Nations Secretary General and late Dr. Ayub Thuker, President, World Kashmir Freedom Movement, have met with various Indian Cabinet Ministers, belonging to the administrations of Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, Prime Minister Atel Behari Vajpayee and current Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. And during the past eleven years, I also met with four different officials at the Indian embassy who succeeded each other periodically and introduced me to the new incoming official before leaving for a new post.

It has always been my habit to keep the channel of communication open to the Indian embassy. I have met with the officials of Indian embassy in Washington since 1999, sometimes monthly, sometimes bi-monthly. From March 2006 onward we met monthly and at times twice a month. Whenever we had a seminar or a conference on Kashmir I would invite the Indian ambassador to speak. I had a habit of exchanging information and establishing the details in advance with an official of the embassy, and then a final copy of the invitation for the ambassador would be given to the official, whom I usually met at a public cafeteria. An Indian official called me either on July 18 or July 19, 2011, the day I was arrested. He left a voicemail that we must meet, which I heard ten days later after my release.

I have made personal mistakes that I deeply regret and I feel great sorrow for that, but I have never compromised our goals of independence and self-determination for the Kashmiri people and our commitment to peaceful negotiations between India, Pakistan and the leadership of the Kashmiri people. My own passion for the plight of Kashmir is clearly nothing unique. As a child of Kashmir, born and raised in this environment myself, I am just one of the hundreds of thousands of youth who, through no fault or choice of their own, have become directly or indirectly involved and deeply and passionately motivated to do something positive for their country, however insignificant in the context of global affairs, to make a difference. A country can be destroyed but a nation cannot be defeated. Our own independence from this tyranny is the song in our heart, the poetry on our lips, and the vision that solidly unites us. It is the bedrock of our determination to continue unrelentingly to seek justice and truth for the people of Kashmir, despite our seeming powerlessness in the face of this occupation. Our hope is in our unity, in our love for one another as a people, as a nation, and as a divine spirit that pervades our history as a people with a unique cultural identity regardless of race, religion or creed, and our lasting belief that we cannot be denied our birth right to self-determination.

Conclusion

Win-win solutions are further important because they safeguard against prospective bitterness or humiliation that are the fuel of new conflict. If one party to a solution feels exploited or unfairly treated, then national sentiments to undo the settlement will naturally swell. We must not belittle, embarrass, or humiliate any party. Every participant should be treated with dignity and humanity. Charity, not the triumphal, should be the earmark of the negotiating enterprise. Also, we should not sacrifice the good on the altar of the perfect. Compromises are the staple of conflict resolution. To achieve some good is worthwhile even though not all good is achieved.

gnfai2003@yahoo.com

New book of Dr Shabir Choudhry, ‘Azad Kashmir And Gilgit Baltistan’ is published. Details are as follows:

2011-12-07T16:37:00.001-08:00

New book of Dr Shabir Choudhry, ‘Azad Kashmir And Gilgit Baltistan’ is published. Details are as follows:

Azad Kashmir And Gilgit Baltistan

Bitter Realities About Situation In Pakistani Occupied Kashmir

LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2011-12-02)

ISBN-13: 978-3-8465-1495-5

ISBN-10: 3846514950

EAN: 9783846514955

Book language: English

https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/azad-kashmir-and-gilgit-baltistan/isbn/978-3-8465-1495-5

Blurb/Shorttext:

Pakistani ruling elite have been very clever as they managed to camouflage their imperial designs in the holy name of Islam, and presented themselves as ‘friends’ and ‘liberators’ of Kashmiris. They presented the Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination as a struggle between Hinduism and Islam. Of course, majority of Muslims fell in to this trap; however, with time they are beginning to understand the game plan of Islamabad. Majority of them now know that the struggle is political in nature; and name of religion was used to divide the people of Jammu and Kashmir and exacerbate already complicated situation. Pakistani policy makers and their secret agencies with use of stick and carrot policy manipulated people in believing that India was the aggressor and in occupation of Muslim Kashmir; and that areas under Pakistan were ‘azad’ – independent. Reality, however, was totally different.

Publishing house:

LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing

Website:

http://www.lap-publishing.com/

By (author) Shabir Choudhry

Number of pages: 304

Published at: 2011-12-02

Category: State and political administration studies

Price: 79.00 €

Keywords: Azad Kashmir, Kashmir Dispute, Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistani occupied Kashmir

Predictions of Molana Azad on future of Pakistan

2011-11-27T11:33:00.000-08:00

Predictions of Molana Azad on future of Pakistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOZbvwnjLnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jn6h6Ek6ZQ&feature=related

Lord Nazir Ahmed and issue of Kashmiri nationality, Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-11-26T20:32:00.001-08:00

Lord Nazir Ahmed and issue of Kashmiri nationality

Dr Shabir Choudhry 26 November 2011

Lord Nazir Ahmed knows how to stay in news. There are other Kashmiri and Pakistani Members of the British Parliament, but very rarely they make headlines. Lord Nazir Ahmed, on the other hand is always in news, especially in Kashmiri and Pakistani media.

This time he is in news because of his help to a PPP ‘rebel’ Dr Zulfiqar Mirza; and Azad Kashmiri Cabinets resolution that strongly criticised his conduct, and threatened him to revoke his Kashmiri nationality.

Lord Nazir Ahmed and I belong to same region and have had friendly relations, but we don’t see eye to eye on many issues. I don’t like his politics; and he hates my political ideology and activities I conduct to promote pro peace and pro Kashmir policies. Despite our different views and different political paths we are both Kashmiris and we have one vote each. Whether it is vote in local elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir or vote in future plebiscite to decide future status of Jammu and Kashmir, my vote will be just as good as his vote.

Both Lord Nazir Ahmed and I hold dual nationality – we are British and citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. Whereas the British citizenship can be revoked in certain cases by the British Sovereign, or by the British government on behalf of the sovereign; but the Kashmiri citizenship cannot be revoked by any government, be it Jammu and Kashmir government or Azad Kashmir government.

The Azad Kashmiri Cabinet passed a resolution stating that: ‘Lord Nazir Ahmed is “a despicable person” and the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has the right to take legal action against him, the AJK cabinet declared in a unanimous resolution when it met in Muzaffarabad late on Thursday.’

http://tribune.com.pk/story/297875/cabinet-session-ajk-govt-can-take-legal-action-against-lord-nazir/

Critics say Lord Nazir Ahmed is a Member of the British House of Lords, but it looks that Pakistani politics is closer to his heart; and he spends more time with Pakistani leaders and issues related to Pakistan than the British politics. He is a good speaker and courageously speaks on different issues; and do not hesitate to raise controversial issues. Lord Nazir Ahmed has helped former Sindh Home Minister Dr Zulfiqar Mirza in his ‘crusade’ against MQM and its Chief Altaf Hussain who lives in London and controls politics of Pakistan and Karachi from here.

This policy of Lord Nazir Ahmed is not only loathed by the MQM leaders and stalwarts; but also fiercely opposed by the Pakistani government, as they fear that activities of Dr Zulfiqar Mirza could annoy the MQM to the extent that they could once again walk out of the coalition making the unstable PPP government more vulnerable. President Asif Ali Zardari is more powerful than the Prime Minister of Pakistan even though it is a Parliamentary form of government, and Yousaf Raza Gilani is the Chief Executive, but he has no control or influence over a Member of the British Parliament, especially when he has become a ‘rebel’.

But Asif Ali Zardari had a few cards up his sleeve, and he thought he can try to discipline Lord Nazir Ahmed through his puppets in Azad Kashmir. The puppet Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir also belongs to the same area as Lord Nazir Ahmed; and also belongs to the same tribe and they know each other well. It was expected that both leaders will work closely to promote issues related to common good; but unfortunately under pressure from Zardari government Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir opened fire on Lord Nazir Ahmed, hoping to intimidate him by passing a resolution against him and by calling him a quomi mujram – national criminal, as if he has committed a serious crime or committed treachery.

The puppet Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir and its Cabinet, apart from threatening Lord Nazir Ahmed to revoke his Kashmiri nationality has also declared to confiscate his property in Azad Kashmir. The Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir knows his role is to safeguard interests of Pakistan; but perhaps he forgets that he is controlled by four Pakistani lent officers appointed by Pakistan and he is not even in a position to make any major appointments or promote certain officers in Azad Kashmir.

He should read Act 74 again and see for himself that Azad Kashmir government has no control over 55 important subjects, and that includes laws concerning: Nationality, citizenship and naturalisation, migration from or into Azad Jammu and Kashmir, admission into, and immigration and expulsion from AJK including in relation there to the regulation of the movements in AJK;

Furthermore, Kashmiri citizenship was not granted to Lord Nazir Ahmed by any puppet government. He is a Kashmiri by birth, and no one can take that away from him. Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir did us a great service by defining the State Subject laws. State Subject Definition Notification dated the 20th April, 1927, states:

‘That all emigrants from the Jammu and Kashmir State to foreign territories shall be considered State Subjects and also the descendants of these emigrants born abroad for two generations. Provided that, these nationals of the Jammu and Kashmir State shall not be entitled to claim the internal rights granted to subjects of this State by the laws, unless they fulfil the conditions laid down by those laws and rules for the specific purposes mentioned therein.’

This State Subject Notification was issued by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir; and the State of Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity at that time. According to this Notification all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir State (people of present Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan, Ladakh, Kashmir and Jammu) are lawful citizens of Kashmir; and because the former State is forcibly divided, no one part of the former State can revoke that Notification, or change legal status of citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, especially when they are not independent themselves and are subject to control and rule of neighbours of Jammu and Kashmir.

Lord Nazir Ahmed has very rightly said that no one can revoke his Kashmiri nationality; and that no one can stop him going to his motherland. Furthermore, no one can legally take over his property. I know Lord Nazir Ahmed is a fighter; and I am sure he will fight back and defeat these puppets of Zardari government who want to deprive him of his Kashmiri identity, and may be his property.

If these puppets can illegally revoke Kashmiri nationality of Lord Nazir Ahmed and deprive him of his property, then it will open a flood gate and corrupt officials will do same to millions of other citizens of Jammu and Kashmir living in Britain, Europe and America and confiscate their properties by revoking their Kashmiri nationality or blackmail them by giving them a threat of revoking their Kashmiri nationality.

We can all find reasons to oppose Lord Nazir Ahmed; but in this fight we must support him because it is not only his fight it is our fight, as any changes to the State Subject Notification of 1927 will have far reaching consequences for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. I suggest that Lord Nazir Ahmed should pack his bags and travel to Azad Kashmir to challenge these puppets on their home ground; and I am willing to travel with him and support him. Of course I will pay for my own expenses.

View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

AJK Cabinet decision against Lord Nazir

2011-11-25T09:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.sadaechanar.com/detail.php?category=taza&id=1

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle

2011-11-24T03:25:00.001-08:00

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle http://currentnews.in/2011/11/22/jklf-played-into-isi-hands-kashmir-was-never-a-muslim-struggle/

Born in Nakker Shamali in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) Dr Shabir Choudhry has been in the UK since 1966 and holds dual nationality. He regularly takes part in the UN Human Rights (Commission) and has addressed many conferences and seminars opposing violence and highlighting the Kashmir cause. He has 25 books and booklets on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle to his credit. Throughout his life he has worked for the cause of Kashmir as a JKLF founder-member since its inception in 1977. Due to differences with top leaders of the JKLF he parted ways and formed the Kashmir National Party (KNP). He spoke with RC GANJOO on a host of issues:

Current: You were an active member of JKLF but what forced you to launch the KNP in London.

Shabir Choudhry: JKLF was formed in Birmingham, England in 1977, and I was among its founders. The JKLF believed in a united and independent Jammu and Kashmir free from both countries, and of course from China as well. The JKLF head office was shifted from Britain to Muzaffrabad when Amanullah Khan was expelled from Britain in 1987. Perhaps that was the first serious tactical mistake we made, and I take responsibility for that as I forcefully advocated this change. The late Afzal Jatalvi and I were senior office bearers at that time and we both agreed that it was in the best interest of the party because we feared action against the JKLF in Britain as a result of Rawinder Mahtre’s (Indian diplomat in Britain) kidnapping and subsequent killing.

The JKLF believed in non communal politics — religion to us was a personal matter. We strongly believed in equality for all citizens, rule of law, democracy and liberal ideals; and to us both India and Pakistan were occupiers, hence equally bad as far as imperialism and occupation was concerned. Our struggle was against both.

But when Amanullah Khan was expelled from Britain he decided to take help from one occupier (Pakistan) to fight against the other occupier (India). With that secret deal of Amanullah Khan and the ISI began a gradual shift in JKLF policy as the party was used as a vehicle to promote a proxy war. The struggle for independence or right of self determination was transformed into a ‘Jihad’ against Hindu rule or Hindus in which minorities were targeted. Cinemas, beauty parlours, tourists, religious festivals (Amarnath Yatra) were targeted. All this was against Islamic teaching, but unfortunately it happened, and the JKLF leadership unfortunately either remained quiet or became part of this communal game.

From then onwards it became a Muslim struggle and not a Kashmiri struggle and the JKLF group while still wearing a secular hat became part of this game.

Amanullah Khan also realised that he was used to advance a Pakistani interest, but he is a stubborn man who is dictatorial. He with the support of the ISI managed to keep his stature and his JKLF group functioning. Anyone who dared to challenge him was expelled from the party on charges of working for either the ISI or R&AW. The reality, however, is that he is the one who closely worked with the ISI and continues to do so. My friends and I have been fighting establishment policies on Kashmir and their stooges since 1992. We sincerely worked hard to unite the factions of the JKLF and correct the wrongs. I have no hesitation in acknowledging our failure; the JKLF senior leadership with the help of the ISI won and we lost in our attempt to unite the JKLF.

In 1995 when Yasin Malik and Amanullah Khan fell out we thought maybe Yasin Malik will be better than Amanullah Khan and supported him. But he proved to be worse. When we realised that the top leadership of JKLF had abandoned the ideology of Maqbool Butt, we decided to say good bye to the JKLF and formed Kashmir National Party to advance the cause of a united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Now the two factions of JKLF, one headed by Ammanullah Khan and the other by Yaseen Malik have joined hands. What could be the politics behind their merger?

Shabir Choudhry: Unity of like minded people with a common agenda is must to advance and common agenda; but that unity must be based on certain principles and there must be sincerity. In my opinion it is not unity of JKLF groups, as two individuals met and without taking any senior leaders in to confidence announced this unity.

Still people are questioning the real motives behind this unity. If it was a JKLF unity then the question is why other JKLF groups were left out. Even in the final declaration prepared by the working group of both J Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik, only urged Rauf Kashmiri to abandon his group and join them; but they completely ignored the Aftab Group and Bitta Karate or Farooq Dar Group.

What prompted you to observe 22 October as a black day in London?

Shabir Choudhry: Pakistan and pro-Pakistan political parties want people of Jammu and Kashmir to observe 27 October as a Black Day because it was on this date Indian troops landed in Kashmir. Under the influence of Pakistani propaganda and wrong history that has been taught to people, we all observed 27 October as a Black Day, and some still do. However, with time we realised that Black Day should be observed on 22 October, because it was on this date Pakistani sponsored tribesmen attacked the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir and killed, raped and looted innocent people of Kashmir, especially non Muslims.

It must be noted that Indian troops came to Kashmir on a request of the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir and after a treaty (provisional accession); but Pakistan sent in their warriors to capture Kashmir by violating a treaty (Standstill Agreement) with the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir after lapse of paramountcy became an independent ruler; it was Pakistan which unleashed an unprovoked attack on Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja requested help from India when he realised that his forces were unable to save his country and his subjects from this savage attack and subsequent killing, raping, kidnapping and looting. In other words, if there was no tribal attack we could still have been an independent country and what happened on 27 October is a by product of events that started on 22 October and which have changed the course of our history. So to us the root cause to our past and present problems is 22 October and we should all observe this as a Black Day.

POK and Gilgit-Baltistan are reeling under the authoritarian rule of Pakistan. How long will the people of these areas have to suffer?

Shabir Choudhry: It is true the people of POK and Gilgit Baltistan are manipulated intimidated, oppressed and deprived of their fundamental rights. It is unfortunate I don’t have any good news for the people of these regions.

However, the facts are totally different and the people on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir have better living standards and economic development. Unless people of PoK and Gilgit Baltistan realise that they are occupied and denied of fundamental rights there can never be change on this side of the divide. Furthermore, they need to understand that our struggle is against the Pakistani side of the divide; and those who tell us to fight against Indian occupation only want to focus attention on the Valley. We are occupied by Pakistan and our struggle should be against the country that occupies us; and those who are occupy by India they can struggle over there according to their situation. However, we must not become tools in hands of agencies who want to advance their own agenda.

Do you foresee a sinister game being hatched for Pok-GB regions where China’s presence is there in guise of development activity with the permission of Pakistan?

Shabir Choudhry: I have said this many times that policy makers of Pakistan want to make China part of the Kashmir dispute and in this regard some so-called Kashmiri leaders and political activists are also working hard. Till very recently China was not a party to this dispute even though China also occupies some territory of Jammu and Kashmir – some of this territory was occupied in 1962 Sino-India war; and some territory was gifted to China by Pakistan in 1963 to link both parts.

However, as Pakistan is getting weaker and more unstable and occupied in the civil war and war on terrorism, policy makers of Islamabad feel they need extra help on the issue of Kashmir to counter Indian hegemony.

Whereas I have no problem with China helping Pakistan with different development projects in Pakistan, I have serious concern with the presence of the Chinese army and other civilian and technical staff on my territory – Gilgit Baltistan and PoK. Both Pakistan and China under cover of different projects are looting and plundering our resources, as contracts and large areas are leased out to China for exploration without any knowledge and agreement of local administration and to the detriment of our interest. Further, the presence of the Chinese army on our territory will only exacerbate the situation and attract challenges from those who also have interest in the region. What that means is that our territory could become a battle ground for competing military strategic and economic interests of very powerful countries of the world.

It must be understood that China is not part of South Asia and it will be wrong to drag China into the affairs of South Asia as it could prove disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and the entire region.

Will Taliban ever get neutralized by Pakistan in a joint operation with Afghanistan?

Shabir Choudhry: The issue of Taliban and their politics is directly related to the mindset of the Pakistani establishment. In my opinion, those forces which promote communalism and regard these “jihadi” outfits and Taliban as strategic assets are very powerful in Pakistan and as long as they call the shots and determine foreign policy and other issues related to security and stability of Pakistan, I am afraid not much is going to change. Pakistan has to go through a transition – rather a blood bath, if ever it is going to put things right and live in peace and harmony with itself and with its neighbours.

Memogate’s Mansoor Ijaz arranged a meeting of Yasin Malik with RAW, Iftikhar Gilani

2011-11-22T16:05:00.000-08:00

Memogate’s Mansoor Ijaz was once an NDA guest, Iftikhar Gilani

The Pakistani-American businessman played a key role in facilitating talks between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir dispute

Iftikhar Gilani

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ws211111Pakistan.asp

Soon after lush green meadows started reappearing from beneath the melting snow, the Indian Army and the paramilitary forces had begun relentless search operations and a crackdown in north Kashmir’s Kupwara district in the spring of 2000.

Reason—the military intelligence (MI) sleuths from across the LoC had informed that Abdul Majeed Dar, chief operational commander of the only formidable Kashmiiri militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) was missing from its headquarters in Muzaffarabad. According to intelligence inputs gathered by the MI and some other agencies, Dar was last seen travelling towards a border village to sneak into Indian territory. The air was already thick with rumours about his movements and meetings with the top brass of HM.

Little did they know that external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) had a major scoop up its sleeve. In a successful operation, they had airlifted Dar to Srinagar via Karachi, Dubai and Delhi in May 2000, to enable him to announce a unilateral ceasefire. And the man, who negotiated and mediated the short-lived truce, was believed to be Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani American businessman, now at the centre of controversy, nicknamed ‘Memogate’, that is taking a toll on the civilian government of Pakistan President Asif Zardari in Islamabad.

Later, Ijaz was also involved in brokering a Kashmir solution between India and Pakistan in 2000 and 2001, as an unofficial interlocutor, it was claimed, for then United States President Bill Clinton.

Though India opposes any third party mediation on Kashmir, the then National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee accorded Ijaz a status that befits only high-profile emissaries and, at least, on two occasions he visited Delhi on special “out-of-passport” visa, with full secrecy of his identity and itinerary. Ijaz made half a dozen trips to India and Pakistan at that time to arbitrate the Kashmir dispute.

In an interaction with the media at a hotel in the outskirts of Delhi, he denied acting on behalf of the US government but claimed that he was drawn to the Kashmir problem because “oppressed people have no capacity to speak for themselves and stop violations that occur against them in the name of religion or politics or money.”

Ijaz, a nuclear physicist and a New York-based investment banker as also a member of the influential US Think Tank Council on Foreign Relations, had given contours of his efforts in an interview to Pakistani daily The News International on 25 December, 2001, seven months before the Agra summit between Vajpayee and President Musharraf Pervez failed, dashing the initiatives he had taken. He described the HM ceasefire as “a momentous event in the tumultuous history of the Kashmir valley,” which opened a door to search for an earnest resolution of the conflict.

Recalling his visit to Delhi, Ijaz heaped praise on Chandar D Sahay, then point-man on Kashmir in the RAW, (he later became its chief). Sahay, he believed, was the key man who made India’s hawks understand that peace in Kashmir meant giving the Kashmiris a stake—economic, moral, emotional— in the success of their choice to remain with India or become a semi-autonomous region.

“In my hotel suite in New Delhi in November 2000, I brought Sahay and a prominent Kashmiri activist, Yasin Malik, together after nearly a year of painstaking negotiations following the military coup in Pakistan,” he claimed. Maintaining that Malik had taken unprecedented risks in dealing with Sahay secretly, Ijaz claimed having persuaded even the toughest Kashmiri loyalist, Syed Geelani, to not oppose progress towards permanent peace.

Ijaz revealed that Khalid Khawaja, a former ISI official, who had piloted Osama bin Laden’s aircraft in Afghanistan during the Afghan resistance, had also taken unprecedented risks in bringing him in contact with Syed Salahuddin, the chief of HM and also allowed him to hand-carry his written messages back to President Clinton at the time. Khawaja was murdered by Taliban militants in April 2010.

In his interview with The News International, Ijaz had claimed: “The process of empowering both civilian and militant Kashmiri voices remains the central objective of our efforts at present because a strong Kashmir provides Pakistan and India with face-saving exit strategies.”

Ijaz also spoke of a mid-January 2001 meeting of political and militant leaders in Islamabad to set a common agenda for talks with New Delhi and take General Musharraf into confidence about the merits and rationale for the talks. “There will also be a clear effort made to deal with the so-called mercenary problem whether or not to allow non-indigenous Pakistani-backed insurgents a seat at the peace table. Once the internal agenda is agreed upon and the various Kashmiri parties are united on a message and a delegation, Indo-Kashmiri dialogue can begin,” said he.

Ijaz also referred to ground ceasefire modalities and a possible Musharraf-Vajpayee summit and said in that interview that “the Kashmiris will be free to suggest Pakistan’s inclusion either partially or wholly in political dialogue aimed at a permanent solution. Delhi understands this as a condition for beginning talks with the Kashmiris.”

Stressing that “Pakistan is a party to the (Kashmir) dispute, Ijaz had gone on to affirm: “But General Musharraf is rapidly, flexibly and correctly adapting the Pakistani position to the reality that Islamabad’s pursuit of Jihad-based resistance in Kashmir has not worked.

As head of state rather than just head of the army, his responsibility to the larger interests of the Pakistani people go far beyond the narrow pursuit of an ideological war that is decimating an innocent population while deeply scarring the image and vitality of Pakistan as a nation.

“That is why General Musharraf is wisely preparing the people of Pakistan for a policy of maximum flexibility in its negotiating stance. By doing so, he accommodates growing Kashmiri willpower to test India’s sincerity for peace and resolution while maintaining a firm bottom line that protects Pakistan’s security interests.”

Ijaz’s ‘Mission Kashmir’ did not take toll on the Vajpayee government for allowing a mediator against India’s declared policy as he always maintained a low profile unlike an article he wrote for a British paper last month to strengthen President Zardari’s stance, which boomeranged. He narrated how he felt threatened from encroachments by Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani.

If he is to be believed then Zardari had sought him out, after the US Navy Seal raid to extract Osama bin Laden from Abbottabad in May, to convey its insecurity to Admiral Mike Mullen, the then Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff and avowed “friend” of General Kayani to fend off a possible coup. Ijaz reportedly drafted and dispatched a secret “memo” portraying the Pakistani military as being part of the problem rather than the solution to America’s dilemma in Afghanistan.

Once the “memogate” became public, Ijaz tried to prove his credibility by revealing all, even though he may no longer be sought by anyone any longer as a credible and confidential interlocutor. It is because of his reveal-all mess that the Pakistan military has turned its guns on Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington. Running afoul of Musharraf in 2002 for his critical newspaper columns in Urdu and English, Haqqani had fled to the US where he wrote his seminal book on the unholy historical nexus between the mosque and military in Pakistan. Since he was appointed ambassador to Washington in 2008, the Pakistan military has since embarked upon a campaign to defame him, he reasoned.

Iftikhar Gilani is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com

US state department removes India-Pakistan maps

2011-11-22T13:46:00.000-08:00

US state department removes India-Pakistan maps

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15831768

The US state department says it has removed what it called "inaccurate" maps of India and Pakistan from its website.

The maps failed to show the divided territory of Kashmir as a disputed region, Indian media reports say.

India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Kashmir and both countries claim the region in its entirety.

Most maps depict Kashmir as a disputed region provisionally split into areas under Indian and Pakistani control.

"We have taken the map [of India] off the website. It did contain some inaccuracies which were associated with the boundaries of some geographic features," state department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters on Monday.

"We will put up the new map when we acquire one that we are confident is accurate," she said.

Highly sensitive

The move comes after Delhi reportedly raised objections with the US that the India map ignored India's claim on Kashmir while the corresponding map of Pakistan showed Pakistani-controlled Kashmir as part of Pakistan without acknowledging its disputed status, according to Indian media reports.

The disputed border between India and China in the Aksai Chin region in the north, however, did reportedly acknowledge an Indian claim.

"The government has consistently rejected incorrect depiction of India's borders on maps used by the US government," the Indian ministry of external affairs said.

Earlier in November, China's ambassador to India became involved in a heated exchange with an Indian journalist at a business function over a map that showed parts of India within China's border.

The map showed the state of Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh in China and a disputed part of Kashmir as Pakistani territory.

Correspondents say the depiction of the disputed borders between India, Pakistan and China are highly sensitive and potentially incendiary issues in the region.

Extremism, Pakistan Foreign policy and international response Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-11-22T10:52:00.001-08:00

Extremism, Pakistan Foreign policy and international response

Dr Shabir Choudhry 22 November 2011

I know many Pakistanis will not like this, but the fact is that they are fighting a monster which their government and secret agencies worked hard to create; and sad aspect of this fight is that despite more than 35 thousand deaths and loss of billions in business and property, some sections of the Pakistani society continue to support the monster which is destroying them and threatening very foundations of the Pakistan State.

True, extremism is not confined to Pakistan, but where else would you find so much support for it among different state organs, officials and groups representing different sections of the society. Sad thing is that for many years it was perceived as a state policy to nourish those groups and individuals who promoted violence, terrorism and extremist views in name of religion; and anyone who oppose this or even question the rationale of this policy is considered as unpatriotic and subject to severe punishment.

What pains us more is that despite so much suffering and partnership in war on terrorism, one can see the continuation of that policy in different forms and shapes. And instead of taking concrete actions to put things right, policy appears to be still denials and allegations against those who point fingers at this disastrous policy, by calling them anti Pakistan and anti Islam etc.

A columnist of BBC Urdu, Aamer Ahmed Khan in his investigative report said, in last forty years twenty five extremist groups emerged in Pakistan; and most of them had some kind of official patronage. Up till 1971, extremist groups which had official support had nationalistic approach, as they were there to support a fight against India; but after defeat in a war against India in 1971 all this changed. Pakistani establishment created religious groups who would, as none state actors fight Pakistan’s wars and advance Pakistani policies, as it happened in Jammu and Kashmir, India and Afghanistan.

Religious extremism and intolerance has increased in Pakistan; and through these extremist groups have influenced societies in India, Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan. These fanatics and extremists groups have become so strong that, at times, they even show their arrogance to those who created them and despite all the pressure still support them. Result of this policy is that forces which promote liberal and democratic ideals are retreating, as they don’t want to confront a trigger happy religious fanatic, who like Mumtaz Qadari, can kill anyone in hope of getting Heaven and many women of Haven as a reward.

Mumtaz Qadari killed Governor of Punjab, a man he was supposed to protect even at the cost of his life, but despite this premeditated murder which he committed by breaching his oath and by using a gun which was given to him to protect the Governor. He is hailed as a hero for killing the Governor in some sections of the Pakistani society. What surprised many was that Mumtaz Qadari was not a hero of illiterate or religious fanatics, among his ‘fans’ are lawyers who are supposed to uphold rule of law and promote equality and justice.

Arshad Mahmood, a columnist and a writer, in his article published in Viewpoint (http://www.viewpointonline.net/peace-as-last-priority.html) asserted:

‘Our state has policy always focused on “keeping the Kashmir issue alive and to see India bleeding.” As we kept playing the dirty politics to the disadvantage of the Kashmiris, Kashmir was not liberated nor will it ever be in this fashion. However, the dirty game transformed Pakistan’s security establishment into the most powerful and the most prosperous institution of the country. Pakistan kept bleeding as a result of thoughtless military adventurism against India. The economy, the society and all dreams of a progressive state died down and institutions devastated. Preparing militarily and providing equipment to religious fanatics to be used against neighbouring countries proved suicidal. During the past 30 years, our state remained an active partner in the destruction of Afghanistan, after obtaining dollars from the US. Our establishment got finances to create Taliban and is now asking for money to destroy them. Presently we are viewed as mercenaries in the whole world. Our state is still caught in the rigmarole of good and bad Taliban…..’

‘On the other hand the militants and their supporters have become so powerful that the state has surrendered before them. All sects have taken up arms against each other and all minorities are living in fear, while the state is but a silent spectator and the political leadership follows a policy of opportunism. The government is only interested in affairs of the state on a daily basis. It does not have the will and the capacity to take critical decisions, while the deep state obstructs them to function effectively.’

This policy, despite criticism and opposition from various countries continued; and situation is getting worse with international patience running out. America, which was also a partner in creating such extremist groups in fight against Communism find itself at the receiving end now; and accuse Pakistan for its failures in Afghanistan. Situation in Afghanistan is getting from bad to worse for the Americans and the NATO; and they cannot see any honourable way out of this quagmire.

Americans cannot have the desired outcome without the help and support of Pakistan; however, both countries despite being partners in the war against terrorism have divergent views and interests on the final outcome of the conflict in Afghanistan. Pakistan is Afghanistan’s neighbour and both countries, despite love and hate relationship have to live in the same region. America is thousands of miles away from this region, but as the saying goes – America is a neighbour of every country because of its international role and ambitions to control and dominate policies of other countries.

Tension, or more precisely low intensity war between Pakistani establishment and the American security agencies is increasing; and some kind of showdown is not ruled out in near future. Apart from other serious areas of conflict, there is apparently serious dispute over role and future of Haqqani network. America wants Pakistan army to take tough action against the Haqqani network, as they did against other militant groups in Swat and some parts of FATA. The Haqqani network is among the best, and is very effective against the NATO and the Americans in Afghanistan; and they have never harmed interest of Pakistan.

Many experts believe that among others, the Haqqani network is very valuable strategic asset of the Pakistan army, which has never harmed interest of Pakistan; and that is why despite so much pressure from the Americans the Pakistan army is not prepared to take any action against them. But NATO and America are losing patience, as they continually suffer and losing lives in Afghanistan; and some believe these military actions could not have been achieved without some logistic support of Pakistani secret agencies.

The NATO, Americans and others who oppose Pakistani sponsored interference in Afghanistan and oppose Talibanisation of the society find it difficult to understand why Pakistan army cannot take any military action against Haqqani network when they are conducting military operations against their own people in Balochistan. According to the interior ministry’s Crisis Management Cell, Pakistan army has spent Rs 900 million in military operations to put an end to rising violence in Balochistan.

English ‘Daily Times’ of Pakistan in its editorial ‘Baloch blood on our hands’ on 21 Nov 11, wrote: ‘This is astonishing considering that the money is being spent on the same forces that the Baloch people hold responsible for their miseries. A military operation is going on in the province and the ‘kill and dump’ policy being pursued by the military and its intelligence agencies is no secret. … Killing innocent Baloch whose only fault is to ask for their basic and just rights is criminal. Thousands of Baloch are missing. Tortured and bullet-riddled bodies of Baloch missing persons are found every other day in the province. Under these circumstances, pursuing a repressive policy is not just the height of injustice but also a threat to the country’s unity. The military made the same mistake in East Pakistan. Instead of learning from past mistakes, our military keeps making new and more senseless mistakes.’

Situation is getting from bad to worse in all respects – relationship with America, control of militant groups, internal stability, relationship with Afghanistan and economic stability; and some American commentators and politicians are openly advocating tough policy against Pakistan. Those who are at the helm of affairs in Pakistan need to realise seriousness of threats Pakistan is facing and take immediate actions to put things right. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA employee and Advisor to President Obama on South Asia, wrote:

‘Ironically, many of its terror groups have long – standing ties with the Pakistan army and its intelligence services, making Pakistan both patron and a victim of the Frankenstein it helped to create, which may eventually destroy it.’

View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

Indian Muslims feel secure under secularism, by Farooq Suleria

2011-11-13T17:41:00.001-08:00

Indian Muslims feel secure under secularism, by Farooq Suleria

http://www.viewpointonline.net/indian-muslims-feel-secure-under-secularism.html

Leaders like General Musharraf, patronized the Taliban as many did before him (Benazir Bhutto for one) without bothering to analyse the consequences it would have for secular thought and the nation

“Secularism is not about lifestyle, it is about ideology and thought. Some of the most liberal souls in South Asia have practiced the worst kind of fundamentalist politics, using their positions to sow the seeds of conservative thought,” says Seema Mustafa. A leading Indian journalist, peace activist and public intellectual, Seema Mustafa also contributes for Viewpoint. In an interview, she discusses different aspects of secularism in the Muslim world. Read on:

Why has secularism not taken root in the Muslim world? If Islam and secularism are incompatible?

Islam and secularism are totally compatible, as is any religion practiced in its true sense. Syria, Libya and Iraq earlier did try to develop as secular states keeping religion out of politics. Last month I was in Syria and in a long conversation, the Grand Mufti in Damascus made it very clear that there was no room for religion in politics, that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood were unacceptable so long as they insisted on mixing the two, and that the secular character of the Syrian state would not be compromised.

I strongly believe that secularism has not taken root in parts of the Muslim world—I hesitate to club all countries together----because it is always easier for rulers, Dynastic or otherwise, to use religion to consolidate nations. The powerful appeal and threat that defines the use of religion in politics is used to mesmerize and subdue the populace in a manner that eventually becomes autocratic, repressive and brutal. Unfortunately even the leaders professing secularism in the Arab countries have not remained immune from autocratic rule, and have used force to suppress opinion and dissent.

In Turkey, Tunis, and Bangladesh where secularism was granted a constitutional status, we have seen the growth of Islamists of various hue. In Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen where left captured power, hardcore radical Islamist forces have come to dominate the polity. What explains these secularist failures?

I am not going into specifics as there are details peculiar to each of these countries you have mentioned. But speaking generally, secularism has to absorb, modify, interact, convince. And this has to be done through persuasion and not force. Unfortunately in some countries force has been used instead of persuasion and that always allows fundamentalists to gain ground.

Also, Opposition in the Muslim countries to largely secular regimes has used religion to consolidate its support base, as it is easier (as we have seen in South Asia) to mobilize on grounds of religion than on the basis of a concrete, comprehensive alternative agenda. This also suits the agenda of countries like Saudi Arabia, proxies at best for US hegemony.

Many Muslim leaders considered secular were in fact repressive dictators. Can we have secularism and tyranny simultaneously? Isn’t it the case that secularism is and should be a by-product of democratic revolutions?

Yes of course. Secularism ideally should be a by-product of democratic revolutions but then this world is far from ideal. In my view it is great to see many leaders adopt the secular mantle, despite the dissent within. Theirs has not been an easy path to follow and yet they did keep fundamentalism at bay while in power. Unfortunately unbridled power and dynastic rule creates repression, that has not been effectively challenged in the region. It must be pointed that often governments in so-called democratic and secular nations have been repressive and guilty of human rights violations. And if the US and Nato had not intervened the secular states would have found it easier, in the long term, to get rid of dictators than the repressive, religious regimes.

Secularists in Pakistan keep painting Jinnah as a secular leader mere because he did not dine, wine and dress like conservatives. Even Gen. Musharraf was ‘hailed’ in certain liberal discourses as secularist owing to his ‘liberal’ ways of life. Can somebody be a secular while practicing confessional politics like Jinnah or Musharraf who was not conservative in his social outlook but patronizing Taliban, and was a dictator?

Secularism is not about lifestyle, it is about ideology and thought. Some of the most liberal souls in South Asia have practiced the worst kind of fundamentalist politics, using their positions to sow the seeds of conservative thought. Instead of striking out with an aggressively secular agenda they find it easier to compromise with the extremists in their land, encouraging and in many cases even nurturing them. Leaders like General Musharraf, patronized the Taliban as many did before him (Benazir Bhutto for one) without bothering to analyse the consequences it would have for secular thought and the nation.

In India, Islamist forces find refuge in secularism. But in Pakistan, Islamists have issued fatwas against secularism. Similarly, large sections of diasporic Muslims living with rights guaranteed by secularist polity, want their respective countries to go Islamic. What explains this conflicting attitude?

Ignorance, and an unquestioning belief that religion can be the balm for all ills. This is because nations have not developed, and the people have been led to believe by the political class that religion can answer all the problems of non-governance. In India the Muslims are in a minority and feel secure with the secular doctrine and Constitution that gives them complete protection. In Pakistan for instance the Muslims are in an overwhelming majority and instead of using secularism to move forward, often give in to the appeal of religiosity.

What should be done to foreground the secularist ideas in the Muslim world and occlude the hegemony of anti-secularist discourses?

Difficult question as a great deal has to be done but there is no uniform solution. What holds good for Pakistan is certainly not the way to go in Yemen, or Syria or any other country for that matter. There is a certain uniqueness that has to be respected along with a general resolve that secularism is the only way for true justice and peace.

Farooq Sulehria is working with Stockholm-based Weekly Internationalen (www.internationalen.se). Before joining Internationalen, he worked for one year,2006-07 at daily The News, Rawalpindi. Also, in Pakistan, he has worked with Lahore-based dailies, The Nation, The Frontier Post and Pakistan. He has MA in Mass Communication from Punjab University, Lahore. He also contributes for Znet and various left publications in Europe and Australia.

Deliberately distorting secularism, by Arshad Mahmood

2011-11-13T16:37:00.000-08:00

Deliberately distorting secularism, by Arshad Mahmood

http://www.viewpointonline.net/distorting-secularism.html

In the “Qaumi English Urdu Dictionary” published by “The National Language Authority” a state-run institution, the term “secularism” has been translated as “Ladeeniat.”

It appears quite intriguing as to why the term ‘secularism’ was translated as “Ladeeniat” after the creation of Pakistan and by whom. Perhaps those who invented the Urdu equivalent wanted to transform Pakistan into an Islamist/Jihadist state. Dominating sections of Urdu-speaking Mohajirs were the forerunners of this intellectual feat. They considered themselves educated vis-à-vis the original inhabitants of the lands which constituted Pakistan. For them Punjabis, Bengalis, Sindhis, Balochs and Pakhtoons were all ill-mannered, less educated and least patriotic. They came to Pakistan following the footsteps of Liaqat Ali Khan as if they had conquered Pakistan.

To take charge of the administration and get hold of the resources, it was imperative to delink the locals’ natural affinity with the soil to which they belonged. Hence abstract and artificial crutches were invented to install national unity. One language and one religion were declared as the foundations of national cohesion. To achieve this end, the so-called educated Mohajir class, feudal lords and civil/military bureaucracy joined hands.

In theory and in practice it was not possible to convert Pakistan into an Islamist state until the term secularism was metamorphosed with repulsive connotations. In the “Qaumi English Urdu Dictionary” published by “The National Language Authority” a state-run institution, the term “secularism” has been translated as “Ladeeninat.”On the basis of such distortions, rampant in our texts, the Urdu press has associated the term “Secularism” with being anti-religious and atheistic. Despite such a glaring intellectual dishonesty of far-reaching consequences the editor of the book Dr. Jamil Jalibi, himself a Mohajir, wrote in its preface: “This National Urdu-English dictionary of ours fulfills all requirements of the present age and encompasses meanings of words both ancient and most modern.”

This is a stark example of “linguistic deceit” perpetrated by our scholars of which we as a nation have been a victim. The act of distorting the meaningof the term triumphed and its fallout proliferated.

To be honest, secularism is neither the opposition nor the negation of religion. On the contrary it acknowledges every human beings’ right to adhere to his or her religious belief. It also promotes mutual respect for all faith-based systems. In simple words it says, let me practice what my faith says and feel free to practice what your faith demands. And let us not question each other’s faith. Consequently in matters of state and society, faith systems cannot be held controversial. Whose faith is right and who is in the wrong cannot be decided objectively. The only impact of such a debate is friction and violence in the society. Civilized cultures,therefore, have found a way out. “Respect each other’s faith” as it is purely a personal matter and has nothing to do with logic and reasoning. We generally hold on to our beliefs first and then invent arguments in support thereof. This is precisely the reason why nobody wins in religious debates. So much blood has been shed in human history in the name of religion, yet people hold on to their beliefs. However, people do embrace other religions due to personal or historical reasons; particularly when the “invaded” convert to the faith exercised by the invaders. In some cases conversions are also forced upon in our holy land particularly in Sindh province, by hook or by crook.

As humans matured intellectually and adopted scientific means to achieve economic self-sufficiency, a new social contract and a different value system came into being with the core value of “live and let live.” The new value system also regarded religion and faith as one’s personal matter and nobody was granted the right to force anybody or target someone else’s faith. It also advocated that matters of this world be handled rationally in accordance with the spirit of the times. Jingoism and militancy in the name of religion was considered an uncivilized and inhuman act causing nothing but large scale bloodshed.

And if we believe that Muslims in a majority maybe allowed exercising the right to target minorities, the same practice should also be granted to all those nations where Muslims are in a minority. Nonetheless the authoritarian Muslims stick to a strange logic. They demand every conceivable right for themselves but are never prepared to sanction the same privileges to followers of other religions. This is sheer fascism.

The fact remains that in today’s civilized world the Muslims cannot have the cake and eat it too, especially when they are completely dependent on the “non-believers.” Today’s world is a global village where Muslims are in a minority while followers of other religions constitute the majority, andany one-sided act of violence against the technologically superior nations is nothing but madness.

It is unfortunate that matters of faith can only be decided through application of violence and armed conflict. They have nothing to do with logic and reasoning. A war fought for the sake of one’s faith has no substance and leads to nothing but mutual death and destruction. The common man must understand that all previous wars in history,ironically,were fought for economic and political dominance in the name of faith.

By rejecting secularism the majority of Muslims have become part of an unending conflict with the West. Pakistan, known to be a country where Muslims constitute more than 95% of the population is now-a-days desperately vying for internal peace. Most sects and sub-sects are engaged in a tug of war firmly holding thebelief that their faith is the true faith.

The aim of life is to live and not to kill and get killed. Secularism ensures mutual coexistence, peace and a civilized way of life. The earlier the Muslims learn this basic principle the better it is for them and their future generations.

Arshad Mahmood is a columnist,freelance writer and a social activist.

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance? Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-11-12T15:47:00.001-08:00

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 November 2011

Islam teaches peace, tolerance and coexistence; but it is unfortunate that our religion is perceived as violent and intolerant. We Muslims are mainly responsible for this false perception. Followers of other religions do not read what is written in Qur’an and Hadees; they see what we Muslims do and practise and that is how they create negative images of Islam.

It is unfortunate that most of negative things in society – lies, deception, fraud, fake medicines, drugs, violence, terrorism, extremism, kidnapping, rapes, forced marriages, sham marriages, bad manners – in short all kinds of evils are directly or indirectly associated with Muslims. This is not to suggest that only Muslims commit these crimes, however, most of these evils are found in Muslim societies; and in some European countries crime rate among Muslims is on rise, especially in Muslims from South Asia.

On the last Eid, a few days ago, I went to a local grocery store which is owned and run by a Hindu family. This family is very friendly, well behaved and respect us all. As soon as I walked in, a young employee greeted me, “Uncle, Eid Mubark”. I said thank you with a smile and walked towards the counter. Owner of the store said, “Bahi Sahib, Eid mubark to you and your family”, and offered me some chocolates which he put in a tray and was offering to all his customers, and especially Muslims. I thanked him and took one chocolate.

He also congratulates me at the start of our holy month of Ramadan and on Eid that follows the fasting month. Like us Muslims, Hindus also celebrate their religious festivals; but according to teaching of some ‘Muslim scholars’ we Muslims must not say ‘happy Divali’ to Hindus, as it is a sin. Their teaching further states that we Muslims cannot say ‘Happy Christmas’ to Christians and share happiness with non Muslims on their religious days.

Rationale of this philosophy, according to this school of thought is that if I say happy Divali to a Hindu, it means I have accepted religious significance of this religious day. I don’t agree with this interpretation. When a Hindu says happy Eid mubark to me or another Muslim he is not accepting that there is one Allah and Prophet Mohammed PBUH is the last Messenger. Similarly when I say happy Divali to a Hindu neighbour I DO NOT accept Hindu religion or acknowledge religious significance of Divali, which according to Hindu religion is a celebration of happiness.

Because of this distorted interpretation of Islam and its influence, I sincerely and deeliberately avoid sharing happiness with non Muslims on their religious days, even though I feel embarrassed when they very passionately wish me Eid Mubark and offer me sweets on my religious day. I avoid meeting my Hindu and Sikh neighbours on day of their festivals that I don’t have to wish them happiness and become a ‘sinner’. However, a day after their festival I ask them if they enjoyed their festival, as to me that is not as same as wishing them happiness and not a sin.

Deep inside I feel this behaviour and preaching is wrong, as it depicts us Muslims as unsocial and people with bad manners. Furthermore, it encourages segregation and alienation of Muslims from the rest of human beings living in same town and who are part of the same society. Messenger of Allah, on the other hand said: Best among you are those with best manners. And has taught us to respect followers of other religions and promote peace and harmony.

If a non Muslim wishes me happy Eid, he demonstrates his good manners and shares my happiness. As a Muslim and good human being, I should reciprocate this by demonstrating better manners; or at minimum, express same kind of manners. But by not wishing them happiness what am I demonstrating? Am I not saying that we Muslims are not social and do not appreciate norms of civil society? Are we not saying that we Muslims believe in segregation; and we are not equipped with skills to live in peace and harmony with people of other faiths? Are we not saying that our religion and culture is ‘vulnerable’ and could be influenced by other religions and as a result we promote segregation to protect our religion and our youths?

This attitude of ‘segregation’ generates misunderstandings and hatred; and Islam DOES NOT approve that. Islam promotes peace, tolerance and co existence; and strongly opposes division and divergence in society. In fact, it is clearly stated that creating conflicts and divisions in families and society is work of satan.

I acknowledge that I have not any research on this topic, which I normally do before writing on any controversial topic, hence my knowledge on this topic is not complete; and I am willing to learn and make appropriate changes to my views, if a learned person can enlighten me and others.

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

To view my other articles see visit: www.k4kashmir.com

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance? Dr Shabir Choudhry

2011-11-12T15:47:00.000-08:00

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 November 2011

It is unfortunate that most of negative things in society – lies, deception, fraud, fake medicines, drugs, violence, terrorism, extremism, kidnapping, rapes, forced marriages, sham marriages, bad manners – in short all kinds of evils are directly or indirectly associated with Muslims. This is not to suggest that only Muslims commit these crimes, however, most of these evils are found in Muslim societies; and in some European countries crime rate in Muslims is on rise, especially in Muslims from South Asia.

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

To view my other articles see visit: www.k4kashmir.com

Dr Shabir Choudhry's blog

Kashmir, Pakistan and the Empowerment of the People, by Khurshid Khan

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle, interview of Dr Shabir Choudhry with Current news

Muhammad Sarwar - True Pakistani Ambassador

CONFESSIONS OF A PAKISTANI TERRORIST

Pakistan: ‘Free Kashmir’ Far From Free | Human Rights Watch

CAT IS OUT OF BAG- JKLF (r) for implementation of UN resolution

JAMMU KASHMIR LIBERATION FRONT (JKLF) SOLD TO ISI BY AMMAN-U-LLAH KHAN

Kashmir profile, BBC

Kashmir want freedom from Pakistan

Kashmiri struggle and traitors, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Horrible truth about Pakistan, Dr Asrar Ahmed

Change has taken place, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Memogate who is next to go and what is at stake? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Thought provoking views by a true Nationalist no one in pakistan including I Khan can bring revolution unless MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT is confined in it

Kashmiri people should decide, By Gyan Basnet

When will people of Kashmir learn? Dr Shabir Choudhry

When will people of Kashmir learn?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 December 2011

‘Myth’ is that people of Kashmir are very intelligent, freedom loving and tolerant. I know some people will get upset by my opening sentence; but no matter how many people get upset by this, I will call it a myth until it is proven to be true.

Leaving that aside, now let us see what Pakistan is in view of Pakistani people: Col Riaz Jafri, who was the Principal Staff Officer to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs), wrote in article, ‘Fall of Dacca’:

Bakhtiar Qayyum, who served the Pakistani establishment at a senior level for 30 years, writes:

When will people of Kashmir learn? Dr Shabir Choudhry

When will people of Kashmir learn?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 December 2011

‘Myth’ is that people of Kashmir are very intelligent, freedom loving and tolerant. I know some people will get upset by my opening sentence; but no matter how many people get upset by this, I will call it a myth until it is proven to be true.

Leaving that aside, now let us see what Pakistan is in view of Pakistani people: Col Riaz Jafri, who was the Principal Staff Officer to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs), wrote in article, ‘Fall of Dacca’:

Bakhtiar Qayyum, who served the Pakistani establishment at a senior level for 30 years, writes:

Empowering Azad Kashmir, Javaid Hayat

Empowering Azad Kashmir

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

GHULAM Nabi Fai, the director of the Kashmiri American Council, last week pleaded guilty to secretly receiving $4m from the ISI to lobby for Kashmiri independence in Washington.

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

The debate on Kashmir, Huma Yusuf

GHULAM Nabi Fai, the director of the Kashmiri American Council, last week pleaded guilty to secretly receiving $4m from the ISI to lobby for Kashmiri independence in Washington.

Zardari will return in a style, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Fall of Dacca by Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

Statement of Dr Fai in the Alexandria Court House, Virginia) Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

Statement of Dr Fai in the Alexandria Court House, Virginia) Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

New book of Dr Shabir Choudhry, ‘Azad Kashmir And Gilgit Baltistan’ is published. Details are as follows:

Bitter Realities About Situation In Pakistani Occupied Kashmir

Predictions of Molana Azad on future of Pakistan

Lord Nazir Ahmed and issue of Kashmiri nationality, Dr Shabir Choudhry

AJK Cabinet decision against Lord Nazir

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle http://currentnews.in/2011/11/22/jklf-played-into-isi-hands-kashmir-was-never-a-muslim-struggle/

Memogate’s Mansoor Ijaz arranged a meeting of Yasin Malik with RAW, Iftikhar Gilani

US state department removes India-Pakistan maps

US state department removes India-Pakistan maps

Related Stories

Extremism, Pakistan Foreign policy and international response Dr Shabir Choudhry

Indian Muslims feel secure under secularism, by Farooq Suleria

Indian Muslims feel secure under secularism, by Farooq Suleria

http://www.viewpointonline.net/indian-muslims-feel-secure-under-secularism.html

Deliberately distorting secularism, by Arshad Mahmood

Deliberately distorting secularism, by Arshad Mahmood

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance? Dr Shabir Choudhry