Horrible truth about Pakistan, Dr Asrar Ahmed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vX3a8JaCzgI#!
My blog provides alternative view on Kashmir dispute and politics of South Asia, especially India Pakistan relations. It aims to educate people that they can make informed judgements.
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
Change has taken place, Dr Shabir Choudhry
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
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
Monday, 26 December 2011
Memogate who is next to go and what is at stake? Dr Shabir Choudhry
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
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
Sunday, 25 December 2011
Thought provoking views by a true Nationalist no one in pakistan including I Khan can bring revolution unless MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT is confined in it
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/
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/
Monday, 19 December 2011
Kashmiri people should decide, By Gyan Basnet
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.
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.
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
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.
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
The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan India India 22 October 1947 , in violation of the Standstill Agreement Pakistan launched a tribal attack on Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar India
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 Srinagar Kashmir war between India Pakistan Jammu and Kashmir
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 India Jammu and Kashmir
This is not to suggest that India Kashmir part of India Pakistan Jammu and Kashmir 22 October 1947 .
Instead of blaming the aggressor for heinous crimes committed against innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir 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
If there was only one occupier then we could have achieved independence a long time ago. Similarly, if Jammu and Kashmir 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 Pakistan Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan Pakistan
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 East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan 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 Liberty
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,
Asian Human Right Commission writes: ‘During the year, in
These are only few examples of the situation, and I am sure some people can come up with similar things about
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
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
The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan India India 22 October 1947 , in violation of the Standstill Agreement Pakistan launched a tribal attack on Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar India
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 Srinagar Kashmir war between India Pakistan Jammu and Kashmir
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 India Jammu and Kashmir
This is not to suggest that India Kashmir part of India Pakistan Jammu and Kashmir 22 October 1947 .
Instead of blaming the aggressor for heinous crimes committed against innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir 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
If there was only one occupier then we could have achieved independence a long time ago. Similarly, if Jammu and Kashmir 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 Pakistan Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan Pakistan
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 East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan 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 Liberty
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,
Asian Human Right Commission writes: ‘During the year, in
These are only few examples of the situation, and I am sure some people can come up with similar things about
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