Jihad against the Pakistani oppression will continue. Mountbatten made Pakistan a party to the dispute.
The matter was between India and Jammu and Kashmir, and the people. We promote the flag that was the state’s flag before the illegal Pakistani attack on 22 October.
Important
Soon, an emergency could be declared in Azad Kashmir, followed by a massive oppression. After that, part two of the Washington Pact, agreed among Trump, Modi and Imran Khan, would be implemented.
Prime Minister Modi terminated the status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019. Ladakh was separated from Jammu and Kashmir, and both regions were declared Union territories. Articles 370 and 35A were abrogated.
Pakistan did not do anything apart from issuing a statement.
It is believed that Pakistan now has to the same and declare Azad Kashmir a Federally Administered territory.
The Action Committee DOES NOT advance terrorism. Aspirations of the people must be respected.
The Pakistani elite must learn from past mistakes. We don’t want more bloodshed. Collaborators must express their loyalty to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
UKPNP Condemns the Killing of Shahzaib Habib and Injury of Umar Nazir, Calls for Independent Investigation and Protection of Democratic Rights. Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri
Is the Action Committee on the right track? The biggest problem is the absence of an airport. 12 seats, who will benefit, Pakistan or India?
JKLF Zoom Conference. Which country was supposed to withdraw troops first? Out of 5 regions, in 4 there is no support, but it is still a national movement. My party is UKPNP.
https://youtu.be/Cx_3h1TbgB8You Know He Has Been to Delhi
Shabir Choudhry, London.
True Kashmiri nationalists have never been in the good books of the Pakistani establishment. As a Kashmiri nationalist who, since my teenage days, has strongly opposed Kashmir’s accession to either India or Pakistan and consistently advocated the concept of a united and independent Kashmir, I could never expect to enjoy official favour. I have no regrets about this, because sincere adherence to this ideology was never likely to win support from those who regard it as being “against their national interest.”
Not all members of the Pakistani establishment are necessarily sincere in safeguarding Pakistan’s national interests, but I can honestly say that I have pursued the cause of an independent Kashmir with complete sincerity and dedication. This ideology has always remained very close to my heart.
My foremost responsibility is loyalty to my organisation, my ideology, and the Kashmiri nation. I am under no obligation to serve the national interests of either India or Pakistan, nor to follow their dictates. For maintaining this independent position, I have paid a price in many different forms throughout my political life.
Unlike many politicians, I have always believed in calling a spade a spade. Whenever I have had an opportunity to speak on Kashmir and explain the ideology of the JKLF, I have tried to remain clear, focused, and unequivocal. My message does not change according to the venue or audience, and that has often annoyed certain people.
Apart from advocating and lobbying for an independent Kashmir, I have also strongly criticised both India and Pakistan for their respective policies and actions in Kashmir. I have done so honestly and sincerely, both verbally and in writing. Naturally, this irritated many people on both sides. Verbal criticism has its importance, but written criticism carries greater weight and leaves a lasting record. Someone once remarked that I was “bold and foolish” in my written criticism, and perhaps that is why I ended up making a few more enemies.
A well-wisher once told me about a private gathering of Pakistanis and Kashmiris in London where Kashmir was under discussion. During the conversation, my articles and criticism of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy also became a topic of debate. A senior official from the Pakistan High Commission was present, and in an attempt to impress him, someone began criticising the JKLF and me in particular.
However, among those present was a person with moral courage and a clear conscience. In the presence of the official, he defended both the JKLF and my right to express my views. According to the account given to me, he said:
“We may criticise the JKLF and disagree with its ideology, but the fact remains that this way of thinking is gaining popularity, not only among Kashmiris but internationally as well. As far as Shabir Choudhry is concerned, I know he criticises Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, but in my opinion, much of what he says makes sense. We may dislike it, but his criticism is based on historical facts, and he has every right to express himself.”
Encouraged by this intervention, others also joined the discussion and made favourable comments about the independent school of thought. Realising that the debate might generate sympathy for the cause of an independent Kashmir, the official decided to take control of the conversation. He said:
“We are not against the JKLF or any other organisation which believes in independence. Like any other Kashmiri party, they have the right to hold their views. However, what we cannot accept is anti-Pakistan slogans and open hostility towards Pakistan. We have information that many senior pro-independence leaders are anti-Pakistan and are actively pursuing the Indian agenda. The things they say and do divert attention away from what is happening in Indian-occupied Kashmir. As far as Shabir Choudhry is concerned, we know his agenda. Why wouldn’t he write such things? You know he has been to Delhi.”
With that one remark, accompanied by a knowing smile, the entire atmosphere changed. People began discussing Indian actions in Kashmir, conspiracies against Pakistan, and other related matters. The focus shifted completely. I often think that had I been present there, I would certainly have challenged these allegations directly.
Another example illustrates how determined some people within the establishment were to discredit pro-independence Kashmiri voices.
One day, I went to my local barber in London for a haircut. He knew me well, and we would normally discuss politics and current affairs while he worked. On that particular day, however, he appeared uneasy and unusually quiet. After finishing the haircut, he hesitantly asked me to step outside because he wanted to ask something privately.
Once outside, he asked:
“Choudhry Sahib, have you been to New Delhi?”
When I asked why he wanted to know, he narrated a story very similar to the one described above. The only difference was that no official from the High Commission had been present at that gathering. Nevertheless, we all know that there are always people willing to embellish stories and spread rumours to promote a particular narrative.
I replied to the barber that our position had always been clear and unambiguous. We had the courage and moral conviction to say the same thing in London, Islamabad, and New Delhi. Yes, I had visited New Delhi in November 2000 to participate in a Peace Conference that formed part of Track Two diplomacy. The conference was jointly organised by the Islamabad-based Institute of Regional Studies and the Indian NGO International Centre for Peace Initiatives.
It was not a secret gathering. Before travelling, I discussed the matter with my colleagues in the JKLF and consulted friends outside the organisation as well. I even issued a press statement before my departure. I also discussed the contents of my speech with colleagues beforehand.
Looking back, I remain convinced that attending the conference was the correct decision. From Delhi, I travelled to Srinagar, and that visit proved to be an eye-opener in many ways, as it allowed me to hear directly from people living under those circumstances and to understand the situation first-hand.
Copies of my written speech were available in Delhi, Srinagar, and London. Anyone interested could read exactly what I had said.
I often wonder why there was so much uproar over my visit to Delhi. I was certainly not the only person to visit India. Every year, thousands of Pakistanis travel there for business, tourism, or to visit relatives. Pakistani diplomats served there for years. Journalists, artists, lawyers, and academics regularly visited each other’s countries without having their loyalty questioned.
Yet a one-week visit by a Kashmiri nationalist became a matter of controversy, despite my long record of sincere and consistent work for the Kashmiri freedom struggle. It was as if I had somehow “sold Kashmir” merely by attending a conference.
Those who make such allegations fail to understand that in this age of global communication, no one needs to travel to New Delhi to make secret deals. India and Pakistan maintain embassies and diplomatic missions across the world. If anyone genuinely wished to strike a deal, there are countless opportunities available elsewhere.
It is an open secret that some people travelled to places like Geneva or even the United States to negotiate political arrangements or secure personal advantages. Yet those individuals often escaped scrutiny, while people who refused to follow official lines became easy scapegoats.
For far too long, innocent Kashmiris and Pakistanis have been misled by propaganda, suspicion, and character assassination. This culture of labelling and defaming political opponents must come to an end. The participants of the Delhi Conference deserved honest political debate, not smear campaigns and manufactured accusations.
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
