Is
it struggle for independence, terrorism or a proxy war?
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Dec 2008
One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist, we
were told. There is very thin line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist,
yet we used to support Kashmiri armed struggle as we sincerely thought it was a
genuine struggle for freedom of our homeland. As we got more information and
established our independent sources of information about what was going on in
name of Kashmiri ‘freedom struggle’ or ‘Jihad’ we started opposing it, and that
was 5/6 years before the tragic events of 9/11 which changed many things
including any distinction between armed struggle and freedom fight.
Kashmiri struggle in a view of ‘nationalist Kashmiris’ is a
struggle to get national independence for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but
this should not be done in name of any religion as Kashmir dispute is not a
religious in nature. Furthermore, in view of nationalist Kashmiris religion is
a personal matter of citizens in which state has no role to play. State of
Jammu and Kashmir is a multi national, multi religious and multi culture and we
all must have same rights and privileges as citizens of Jammu and Kashmiris.
It must be pointed out here that when the term of ‘Kashmiri
struggle’ is used it signifies the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir and
struggle of all people who were part of the State on 15th August
1947. I understand recently people of other regions, especially Jammu and
Gilgit and Baltistan are expressing their strong resentment against this and
don’t want to be called Kashmiris; although they agree that they are part of
the State, hence still part of the dispute.
Is it
Jihad?
Jihad is a very noble concept of Islam and it has two possible
definitions. Jihad could be defined as a fight or struggle for one’s rights,
which can involve use of arms, especially if the struggle is against a foreign
occupier. But this kind of jihad is of less significance, as Prophet Mohammed
PBUH, while returning from a battle field declared that: "We have
returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the
soul)." (BBC
- Religion & Ethics - Jihad: The internal Jihad". Retrieved on 2007-01-09).
This ‘greater jihad’ is an inner struggle of each man against
vice, passion and ignorance, and takes a form of spiritual struggle. This
Jihad is directed against satan’s inducements. Jihad is a
struggle for any cause for the betterment of the humanity whether it is violent
or not, religious or non religious. A Pakistani scholar and Professor Fazlur
Rehman Malik defines the term to describe the struggle to establish "just,
moral and social order", which could be to fight for rights of minorities
or to struggle for economic development in a country.
There are four major categories of
jihad: Jihad against one's own self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue
(Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of
the sword (Jihad as-sayf). Firestone, Rueven (1999). Jihad:
The Origin of Holy War in Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN
019-5125800. pg.
17.
The
‘lesser jihad’ is defined as a holy war against infidels and infidel countries,
aiming at spreading Islam. This kind of jihad is described in both the Qur’an
and in the hadiths; and there is a clear guidance on this kind of Jihad and why
it was made obligatory. This Jihad could be offensive or defensive and is a
duty for every Muslim community, but not necessarily for every individual. The
one who dies in the battle against the infidels or against forces of
occupation, becomes a martyr, a shaheed, and is guaranteed a place in Paradise
as well as certain privileges there.
Some
of directions or guidance for this kind of Jihad was permitted when the Muslims
were persecuted and oppressed by the rulers of Makka. Even after the migration
of the Prophet Mohammed PBUH to Madina, there were still some Muslims there
who were still oppressed because of their faith, and Surah 4, verse 75 is
referring to this fact:
‘And why
should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are
ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our
Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us
from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help’!
(Abdullah Yusuf Ali)
Islamic jurisprudence has clearly regulated terms and
conditions of this kind of jihad. According to this surah 2, verse 190 was revealed:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do
not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
Such rules include not killing women, children and
non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas. Some
scholars stress that this Jihad is essentially a defensive warfare aimed at
protecting Muslims and Islam. ‘Jihad of the sword’ will always include weapons,
but the aim must be to protect people
whether Muslims or non Muslims from persecution and oppression.
Some people
wrongly associate Jihad with violence and killings or threat to peace and
security. Jihad is not a war or violence. For wars and killings holy Qur’an use
the term Qital. Allah says:
“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm
and compact wall.”
This means
that Jihad has much broader
application and encompasses many aspects of human life; and ‘qital’ is the
final stage in that struggle. But one has to satisfy certain
pre-requisites before embarking on this phase of the struggle; and some people
call this jihad offensive in nature. But this kind of Jihad must be declared by the
state and no group is entitled to declare this jihad, as it is a serious matter
and could result in death of many people, animals, crops, trees and destruction
of property and assets. Such a serious matter could not be left to adventurism
or romanticism of some ideologues or fanatics as it could lead to war, civil
war and unrest.
It was because of this defintion and problems associated
with individual groups declaring jihad that Maulana Abu Ala Mohdoodi, founder
of Jamat e Islami and famous scholar declared jihad in Kashmir as
‘illegitimate’ and wrong. Jamat e Islami after him had changed its stance and
has become more like a commerical and mercenary organisation willing to take on
different tasks provided they are appropriately rewarded for them.
In view of the
above definition and explaination one has to see what is going on in name of
Jihad or freedom struggle on the Indian side of the Jammu and Kashmir. First of
all this jihad is declared by individual groups, and some of them have
transformed the Kashmiri struggle in to a commercial enterprise. That
declaration of Jihad is similar to Jihad being carried out in FATA and various
parts of Pakistan, which is strongly opposed and contested by the government of
Pakistan and many scholars in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Islamic Jurisprudence of offensive or defensive jihad
clearly state that no innocent or civilian should be killed. It is very clearly
explained that not even trees and crops should be destrroyed, and what we
witness in Jammu and Kashmir is clearly against the teaching of Islam. In Jammu
and Kashmir we have witnessed time and again that the so called Jihadi groups
and Mujahideen have delibeerately targetted civilians, women, children and old.
They have killed and tortured members of minority groups in name of Jihad and
Islam which is to defame Islam and change fundamental character of the Kashmiri
struggle.
To us Kashmiri
nationalists, it was a struggle for our right of self determination, and aim
was to establish a democratic and non religious state in united and independent
Jammu and Kashmir. To these Jihadi groups which converged from various parts of
the world to carry out Jihad, it was an Islamic mission to establish Islam in
Jammu and Kashmir; and after accomplishing this mission proceed to New Delhi
and else where. In other words there is no end to their struggle or Jihad and
it continues until there are no none Muslims on the planet of earth. Of course
these jihadis were handsomely rewarded for their services in form of
priviledges, power and money.
Is it
Terrorism?
There is
no agreed definition of terrorism but the term is used to describe
violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by
groups or persons for political or ideological goals. The majority of
definitions in use are written or proposed by government agencies who deal with
various kinds of violence and terrorism, and that ultimately result in bias to
exclude governments from such definitions. Furthermore certain actions are
termed as ‘terrorism’ even though it does not not result in violence or
casualties, for example, the Terrorism Act 2000 include the disruption of a
computer system but no violence is intended or results.
Some definitions legitimate use of
violence by civilians against an invader or forces of occupation; but other
definitions call all kinds of violent resistance as terrorism. Mosst people
define terrorism which involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of
creating fear to the intended victims and others in the community. This
application of ‘fear’ distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and
guerrilla warfare. Terrorism aims to achieve political or other goals, when
direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social
scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak"
and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest".
The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy
intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment
of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being
terrorised."
Webster's New International Dictionary defines
terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized;
specif.: a/ The system of the Reign of Terror. b/ A mode of governing, or of
opposing government, by intimidation. c/ Any policy of intimidation. The
definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition)
begins:
The Council of the European Union adopted a framework on combating
terrorism on 13 June 2002 (2002/475/JHA), reads:
Having
regard to the Treaty establishing the European Union,
and in particular Article 29,
Article 31(e) and Article 34(2)(b)
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from
the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the
European Parliament (2),
Whereas:
(1) ‘The European Union is founded
on the universal values of human dignity, liberty, equality and solidarity,
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is based on the principle
of democracy and the principle of the rule of law, principles which are common
to the Member States.
(2) Terrorism constitutes one of the
most serious violations of those principles. The La Gomera Declaration adopted
at the informal Council meeting on 14 October 1995 affirmed that terrorism
constitutes a threat to democracy, to the free exercise of human rights and to
economic and social development.’
In an interview to Bret Stephens for Wall Street
Journal, Asif Zardari, President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has given new
definition to the on going militancy in Jammu and Kashmir. The previous
incumbent of the President House in Pakistan despite his opposition to
terrorism and his participation in war against terrorism would only went as far
as calling people fighting against India as ‘militants’. Asif Zaedari has made
a big leap and has called them ‘terrorists.’ Apart from that he has called APHC
leaders, who were hailed as freedom fighters, beacons of the Kashmiri struggle
and as ‘heroes’ by previous government officials, ‘terrorists’ as well. This is
a big change.
Apart from the few, non of these leaders have
actually taken part in any form of militancy, and perhaps he has called them
‘terrorists’ because they either don’t denounce militancy in Jammu and Kashmir,
or one way or the other are supporting it or have supported it in the past. It
is normal practise of Pakistani politicians that when they are in hot water due
to something they have said they generally say they were ‘mis quoted’; and it
is quite possible that Asif Zaedari might do the same.
Also he has very boldly claimed that "India has never been a threat to
Pakistan". This view has been recently expressed by some Pakistani writers
that it is always Pakistan who has picked up fights with India resulting in
catastrophic wars and defeats for Pakistan, even its dismemberment in 1971.
Asif Zardari’s statement is perceived as an indirect support for this claim.
Proxy
war - a war
instigated by a major power that does not itself participate. It is a war
that results when two powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each
other directly.
In
its fight against terrorism the USA has declared its emphasis on a policy which
stands on two pillars: first, “promoting freedom, justice, and human
dignity—working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend
prosperity through free and fair trade.” The second is “confronting the
challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies,”
The USA's Department of Defence issued a directive in 1996 and
provided a new definition of terrorism in order to bring under its ambit acts
directed against civilians as well as security forces:" Unlawful use or
threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property, with the
intention of coercing or intimidating governments or societies, often for
political or ideological purposes."
International
(or Transnational ) Terrorism. Terrorism has become a ‘ trade ’ for some and it is no
longer confined to boundaries of any one country. Terrorists have complex
international network and terrorism transcends national boundaries. Its
planning can take in one country and its execution could be in other countries
thousands of miles away. This kind of terrorism attracts wider publicity and
help terrorists to promote their demands and cause.
In order to combat this kind of terrorism a sincere and concerted
international effort is required.
Terrorism experts define the following kinds of terrorism:
Non-State Supported
Terrorism.
Terrorist groups which are highly organised with their own finance and
logistics; and good command and control system. They, by and large, operate
autonomously without receiving any significant support from any Government.
State-Directed Terrorism. This class of terrorist
groups operate as agents of a Government, act as a proxy to a government to
advance interest or cause of that government or a cause which is mutually
beneficial. They receive substantial intelligence, logistical, and operational
support from the sponsoring Government.
State-Supported
Terrorism.
This class of terrorist groups have somewhat independent existence with their
own resources and their own agenda; but at times they receive help, support and
guidance from one or more Governments.
It
is widely believed that ‘terrorist organizations do not exist in a vacuum’ - they
heavily rely on states who provide them all the necessary support, and in fight
against terrorism it is imperative that these states could be pressurised to
stop their support for terrorists.
Fight
against terrorists is not easy, because it is not possible to win or defeat
those fanatics who are willing to die for their cause, whether that cause is
justified or not. Phenomenon of Suicide bombers is not new, as they have been
around in many cultures and religions for ages. It is believed that these
fanatics burning with revenge or ideological fervour could not be influenced
through reasoning or incentives.
Indian claim is that Pakistan launched the proxy war in the name
of "Operation Topac". The entire scheme was formulated by former
military dictator of Pakistan, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq. According to well-known
journalist and author, Altaf Gowhar, Pakistan's proxy war is amended version of
"Operation Gibralter" and is based on the suggestions of Chou-En-Lai
and has been named as "Operation Topac". The "Operation
Topac" type prolonged campaign used to be carried out during the hey-day of
imperialism. The Soviet Union too had adopted a similar plan.
The
Indian officials claim that the Operation Topac had four main aims:
1.
Giving
training to Kashmiri youths in the handling of sophisticated weapons.
2.
To destabilize and discourage the state administration.
3.
To make the Kashmir Valley a Hinduless Muslim area.
4.
To prepare Kashmiri Muslims for
"Jehad".
This
strategy aimed to ensure that:
·
A
large number of Indian forces (more than half million) are kept bogged down in
Kashmir;
·
It
will result in fatigue, resentment, causalities among civilians and men in
uniform;
·
In other words ‘keep India bleeding’,
economically and militarily;
·
It also ensures that the Indian forces will
take causalities and in frustration react to kill and torture militants, suspected
militants and their supporters;
·
It
will surely result in human rights violations which will result in more
alienation and anger against India;
·
It
will keep fanatics engaged in Jammu and Kashmir, and probably get them killed,
hence keep them away from cities and towns of Pakistani and Pakistani
Administer Kashmir;
·
It
will provide Pakistan and Kashmiris with a propaganda stick to beat India at
national and international level.
·
It
will motivate other extremists both Hindu and Muslims to organise in groups and
clash with each other, creating further tension and chaos.
And
this tension, frustration and alienation of Muslims in India will help to
create divisions inside the Indian society; hence provide justification for the
Two Nations Theory and Partition of India in 1947. I am sure one can add more
things to this list.
Many
critics believe that with the above objectives Pakistan wanted to promote
national interest; certainly this is how government India view these
objectives. By and large majority of Kashmiris at the beginning believed that
they were fighting to liberate their country; and many still think that they
are fighting war of liberation. And they think their target should be India and
not Pakistan, even though they acknowledge that Pakistan is also controlling or
occupying some parts of the State. This includes pro Pakistan Kashmiris and
some so called nationalists who speak of an independent Kashmir but their
policies are designed to promote Pakistani national interest.
Because
of the topic and the explanation it required the preface has already become too
long; but I cannot end this without expressing my deep gratitude to most
respected Baroness Emma Nicholson, who has honoured me by writing an
introduction to this book.
Baroness Emma Nicholson has
championed cause of democracy, fundamental rights for all and rule of law; and
has done a great service to people of State of Jammu and Kashmir by authoring
highly valuable and comprehensive report,
‘Kashmir: present situation and
future prospects’, which was adopted by the European Parliament in May 2007.
In the report Baroness Emma
Nicholson made an important distinction between right of self determination and
right of accession. What Pakistani governments have been promoting over the
past decades was not a right of self determination but a right of accession,
giving people of Jammu and Kashmir a choice to accede to either India or
Pakistan
Baroness Emma Nicholson has
kindly commended my efforts to advance the cause of Kashmir in the following
words: ‘Dr Choudry has worked tirelessly for nearly thirty years promoting
peace, stability, human rights and democracy in the region. He has become a leading authority on the
Kashmiri struggle’…
To get this compliment from a
person of her stature is like receiving a medal in recognition of my work on
Kashmir; and I am grateful to her for kindness.
Writer is a Spokesman 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
