The Bitter Truth of Kashmir, Interview of Dr Shabir
Choudhry
July 2008
All rights reserved.
Booklet : The
bitter truth of Kashmir.
Interview: Dr.Shabir
Choudhry.
Interviewer: Sumera
Rashi (July 2008)
Translator: Syed
Amjad Gardazi
Publication: July
2010.
Published by
Institute of Kashmir Affairs London
The bitter truth of Kashmir
Many
journalists, writers, authors, researchers and scholars from various countries
contact me for interviews or to get my views on certain aspect of Kashmiri
struggle, terrorism or Indo Pak relations. Some times I ask them to send me
questions and I write replies in my own time.
Last
year a Kashmiri student Sumera Reshi came to London to study a course in
international journalism with special emphasis on insurgency in 21st
Century and reporting from a conflict zone. As most of this interview was done
in writing, and I have a copy of it, I am producing this for the benefit of
readers with permission of Sumera Reshi.
Q1. Could
you please brief me about what happened in 1988, which led to first local
uprising in Kashmir?
Answer:
Roots of
that uprising could be traced back to many years of mismanagement,
maladministration and proxy politics by New Delhi. Turning point was rigged
elections of 1987. People finally realised that they cannot have rights or
positive changes by ballot. This frustration and anger was visible in the
Kashmiri youths. At that time war or ‘Jihad’ in Afghanistan was coming to an
end which could have made thousands of people ‘redundant’. These people were
not employable in the sense of real employment, as the only skill they had was
to use gun in guerrilla warfare and kill and destroy. A skill hardly useful for
peace time and development or political stability. The authorities in
Islamabad, who managed this ‘jihad’ in Afghanistan, were seriously concerned as
these jihadi warriors could have created problems for the Pakistani society, so
they had to find some thing for these jihadi warriors to keep them occupied.
1. Also
keep in mind that Pakistani government always suspected India, perceived as
arch enemy, and was worried that India might attack Pakistan, especially when
Rajiev Gandhi was Prime Minister of India, so they wanted to ‘engage India’ and
‘keep India bleeding’ that she cannot consider any military adventure against
Pakistan.
2. Apart
from that Islamabad wanted to take revenge from India for 1971 defeat; and take
revenge from Kashmiris for not ‘helping’ them in war of 1965 and in 1947.
3. But
there is another aspect to this. In 1987 Amanullah Khan, Chair of JKLF was
expelled from the UK because of alleged anti state activities. He felt very
disappointed and frustrated, and envisaged no future for himself, as not many
people like to abandon life style of Britain and live in Pakistan. Frustrated
and demoralised Amanullah Khan became easy prey of ISI, elite secret agency of
Pakistan which masterminded the ‘Jihad’ in Afghanistan. They offered him a deal
which was previously rejected by a representative panel of senior leaders of
the JKLF, as it was not in favour of the party, the movement and the Kashmiri
nation.
3. The
JKLF delegation which met senior ISI personnel consisted of five senior leaders
of the JKLF, namely late Sardar Rashid Hasrat, Dr Farooq Haider, Hashim
Qureshi, Aslam Mirza and Zubair Ansari who was Secretary General at the time of
this meeting. Zubair Ansari told this writer that during the course of this
meeting he bluntly told the officers that: ‘you are looking for sacrificial
lambs (qurbani ke bakray) to target India and advance the interest of
Pakistan’. He further said: ‘let me make it clear to you that we will not be
part of your proxy war in which people of Jammu and Kashmir will suffer and it
will not help our national struggle’.
4. Other
members of the delegation, notably Hashim Qureshi was also very forceful in
rejecting this deal. But to Amanullah Khan it was an opportunity of life time
and he grabbed it with both hands, hence the JKLF provided raw material which
was to be used in this ‘proxy war’ to advance Pakistan’s national interest.
5. What
you got to remember is at that time there was no JKLF in Indian side of Jammu
and Kashmir. Yasin Malik, Javed Mir, Ashfaq Wani, Hamid Sheikh and some others
were asked to come to Muzaffarabad for training. The result of this training
was the first violent action carried out by the JKLF on 31st July
1988.
Q2.
What was the ideology of JKLF – its core agenda since inception, and how it
changed over time?
Answer.
1. JKLF
was formed in Birmingham, England in 1977. It believed in united and
independent Jammu and Kashmir free from both countries, of course from China as
well.
2. The
JKLF Head Office was in Britain, but when Amanullah Khan was expelled in 1987,
we transferred the JKLF Head Office to Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Perhaps
that was the first serious tactical mistake we made, and I take responsibility
for that as I forcefully advocated this change. Late Afzal Jatalvi and I were
senior office bearers at that time, and we both agreed that it was in the best
interest of the Party because we feared some action against the JKLF in Britain
as a result of Mahtare Rawinder (Indian diplomat in Britain) kidnapping and
subsequent killing in Britain.
3. JKLF
believed in non communal politics- religion to us was a personal matter and
state should have no role in it. We strongly believed in equality for all
citizens, rule of law, democracy and liberal ideals.
4. To
us both India and Pakistan were occupiers, hence equally bad as far as
imperialism and occupation was concerned. Our struggle was against both.
5. But
when Amanullah Khan was expelled from Britain and he had Head Office in
Muzaffarabad, he decided to take help from one occupier (Pakistan) to fight
against the other occupier (India). With that deal of JKLF and ISI began a gradual
shift in the JKLF policy as the party was used as a vehicle to promote a proxy
war. The JKLF officially still adhered to the old policy, but gradually walked
in to the trap and was forced to support communalism, regionalism and terrorism
against innocent people, which opened wounds of the partition of India. In
Kashmir policy of religious hatred and intolerance was unleashed where non
Muslims were targeted and the struggle was presented as a Muslim struggle.
6. Struggle
for independence or right of self determination was transformed in to a ‘Jihad’
against Hindu rule or Hindus in which minorities were targeted. Cinemas, beauty
parlours, tourists, religious festivals (Amar Nath Yatra) of other religions
etc were targeted, not to mention targeting of other political views, even if
held by Muslims. All this was against Islamic teaching, but unfortunately it
happened, and the JKLF leadership unfortunately either remained quiet or became
part of this communal game. From then onwards it became a Muslim struggle and
not a Kashmiri struggle; and the JKLF groups while still wearing a secular hat
became part of this game for various reasons.
7. Workers
and lower to middle ranking leadership of the JKLF groups still sincerely
believe that they are advancing the cause of an independent Kashmir. They
wrongly think that the JKLF is still advancing policy of secularism and liberal
democracy.
8. Those
who sponsored this campaign of terror and gun culture in Kashmir brought in
Jihadi warriors from other countries which changed the fundamental character of
the struggle. It was no longer a Kashmiri struggle- it became part of the
Islamic fundamentalism which provided a big propaganda stick in hands of India
and Europe.
9. It
is interesting to note that those who sponsored this campaign of terror or
religious fanaticism had cinemas, beauty parlours, tourists etc in their own
country but encouraged these extremists to target people who were using these
services in Jammu and Kashmir. Aim was to promote religious hatred, intolerance,
regionalism and communalism, and widen divisions among Kashmiris. They were
successful in this. Freedom or independence of Jammu and Kashmir was never
their aim, their hidden agenda was to ‘keep India engaged’ and ‘keep India
bleeding’, and they were successful in that.
10. A
senior government official who I know very well advised me in 1992 that I
should do something else and make a career as there was nothing in this
struggle of Kashmir. He said that I was talented and educated person and should
not squander my time in this, as Kashmir will not get independence because
those who planned this struggle never envisaged that. They only wanted to
engage India. He said, he told them not to start it in Kashmir as Muslims will
become target of Indian wrath, and that it was ok to do it in Punjab, Asam,
Nagaland etc, but he was vetoed out.
11. I
did not believe him as I thought he was just trying to discourage me; after all
he was ISI man, and wanted to deprive the movement of my skills and talent. But
by 1995/6, I was convinced that he was correct, and that we Kashmiris were
taken for a ride by Pak agencies - they used us Kashmiris to keep the wolf away
from their door. But it was too late.
12. Amanullah
Khan also realised this that he was used to advance a Pakistani interest, but
he is stubborn man who believes in dictatorship in the organisation and strong
hold on all institutions of the party with trusted and ‘yes man’ kind of people
holding various ceremonial positions. He with support of ISI managed to keep his
stature and his JKLF group. Some critics believe that one of his tasks is to
ensure that the JKLF remains divided; and that all nationalists are divided
too. Anyone who dared to challenge him was expelled from the party on charges
of working for either ISI or RAW. Reality however is that he is the one who
closely worked with ISI and continues to do so.
13. Apart
from that not all matters were under his control, as someone else called the
shots. But being a stubborn man who was led to believe by flatterers that he is
like Chairman Mao and infallible, he didn’t want to accept his mistakes or even
abandon what he thought was a struggle. He thought once we get Kashmir
internationalised perhaps we will get help from other countries and Pakistani
influence could be neutralised, but he didn’t realise that the world has
changed since 1970s. Mentally he is still living in 1970s. He failed to
appreciate changes going on in the international politics, that the world DOES
NOT help those who become proxy of other countries and promote agenda of a
neighbouring country.
14. Pakistan
has very strong hold on media and all aspects of life in Pakistani Administered
Kashmir, and majority of people tend to believe what is presented to them as
they have no other source of information. Anti India feelings are embedded in
minds of people right from child hood; and the establishment regularly devise
policies to intimidate people and fear of being called an ‘India agent’
disciplines rebel members and people at large.
15. But
then there are dedicated and equally stubborn people like me who damn care what
label is attached with their names - they fight their corner when they know
they are right whether they win or lose. My friends and I have been fighting
establishment policies on Kashmir and their stooges since 1992. We sincerely
worked hard to unite factions of the JKLF, and correct wrongs in the JKLF. I
have no hesitation in acknowledging our failure.
16. In
1995 when Yasin Malik and Amanullah Khan had power struggle and the JKLF once
again suffered split, we thought may be Yasin Malik will be little better than
Amanulla Khan and supported him. We thought we will be able to correct wrongs
of the JKLF and put the JKLF and its ideology back on track. Alas he proved
worse. This is another topic and needs a lot of time.
17. When
we realised that the top leadership of JKLF groups have abandoned ideology of
Maqbool Butt, and that they are incorrigible, we decided to say good bye to the
JKLF and formed Kashmir National Party to advance the cause of united and
independent Jammu and Kashmir.
Q3. Could you please tell me about various
pressure groups in Kashmir which are quite vocal in present times?
Answer:
1. There
are too many small groups in Jammu and Kashmir. These leaders and their followers
won’t like it, but in my view most of these groups have one agenda: to ensure
that the status quo continues. They want
to ensure that there is no resolution to the Kashmir dispute; and people
continue to suffer that they can continue their politics in their name and
enjoy wealth, and power.
2. Many
of these leaders are either on pay role of India or Pakistan, and dance on tune
played by them. It is amazing that some of them have managed to woo agencies of
both countries and they blow hot and cold air in same breath.
3. APHC
is an alliance and has some hold on pro Pakistan or anti India people. It is in
two groups and until recently both groups were accusing each other for being
anti movement.
4. Jammat
E Islami is very vocal and active, but does not have mass following. It
manipulates people in name of religion, and has some following in some quarters
and across the border in Pakistan.
5. Mir
Waiz has some limited following in his traditional area and being a Mir Waiz
and darling of Pakistan and India has some value in Kashmir politics.
6. JKLF
is in groups and Yasin Malik has upper hand in the Valley. He is also wearing
nationalist hat with Gandhian vest and pyjama of communalism when he wants to
use it. When it suits Kashmiri nationalists they yell: ‘Kashmir ki shinakht aur
Islam ki pehchaan khateray main hai – meaning identity of Kashmir and Islam is
in danger’.
7. Then
there are militant groups or Jihadi out fits and they are pursuing their own
agenda or to be more precise agenda of ISI. They are part of Mutahida Jihad
Council which is based in Muzaffarabad and is controlled and financed by
Pakistan. So one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that they
will only pursue a policy dictated to them by those who control them. At
present main groups are Jashe E Mohammed, Lashkar e Taiba and Hizb Ul
Mujahideen. The last one is a Kashmiri group the other two are Pakistani
militant groups who have close contacts with other militant or terrorist
groups.
8. Whether
you agree with me or not, in my opinion, National Conference still has mass
following. This is the party with grass roots support, and especially Omar
Abdullah is very down to earth man. Other parties like PDP and Congress also
have considerable following, but I am concerned that due communalisation of
Kashmiri polity, Hindu extremist parties like BJP could benefit.
9. There
are so many parties and if I start writing about each party then I will end up
writing a booklet.
Q5. What narratives are dominant in Kashmir
politics?
Answer:
1. There
are many important features concurrently present in Jammu and Kashmir. People
of Jammu and Kashmir are proud of their history, culture and traditions of
tolerance and co existence; but unfortunately over the years extremism is
spreading and one can say that it is a by product of gun culture and militancy.
Imported gun and subsequent gun culture has torn apart fabrics of Kashmiri
culture and society. Use of this gun was
followed by the use of other guns, hence enormous suffering of the people,
which has not stopped to date.
2. Apart
from that division in name of region, ethnicity and religion are widened. There
is lack of understanding and confidence. It appears that each region has its
own political and social agenda, and they try to out manoeuvre each other
instead of cooperating and supporting each other. It is frightening that some
parties are using name of religion to advance their agenda which will further
divide people and strengthen those who play communal card. All those who
believe in liberal democracy and members of civil society have to unite and
oppose forces of communalism and hatred.
Q6. Where is Kashmir heading to in present times
and do you think we have enough leadership to project Kashmir cause at
international platform?
Answer.
1. To
boost morale of people or to give them hope one can say that azadi or
independence is around the corner, but in my view people have right to know the
true situation. They have been deceived by the leadership for far too long.
2. When
it was widely believed that the Kashmir dispute will be resolved by 2007, even
at that time I said it was not possible. In my opinion Kashmir situation will remain like this for some time to come.
There is no solution in sight, and despite so many sacrifices we are back to
square one, mainly because the Kashmiri leadership was not sincere and was more
interested in promoting a Pakistani interest or play a religious card.
3. Militancy
will continue for some time to come. It might be a surprise to some but in my
view, militancy; especially low level militancy suits armed personnel of both
countries, and all those associated with it or all those who transformed the
struggle in to lucrative business.
4. In
my view Pakistan will get deeper in to trouble and might end up in three countries
which of course will have great impact on Jammu and Kashmir and this struggle.
It is possible when Pakistan gets deeper in trouble and might end up having
another military clash on both Western and Eastern borders, India might take
over parts of the State under Pakistan at present. It is also possible that
Punjab (new Pakistan) will manage to hold on to Pakistani Administered Kashmir
and Gilgit and Baltistan.
5. While
considering future of Jammu and Kashmir and aspiring for united and independent
Kashmir we also need to realise that we no longer have a national leader like
Sheikh Abdullah. The lot we have consist of local, regional and religious
leaders, with limited vision and they seriously lack sincerity and most of them
are puppets of either India or Pakistan.
6. I
have no doubt in my mind that the Kashmir dispute is a strong one and Kashmiri
Diaspora have an important role in prompting cause of Kashmir, but we need to
differentiate a Kashmiri interest from that of India and Pakistan.
7. It
is unfortunate that world at large don’t see the Kashmir separate from India
and Pakistan problem. Despite all the sacrifices the people of Jammu and
Kashmir have given, it is still perceived as a bilateral dispute which has to
be resolved by the two countries. We are in this fix because: Pakistan made it
a territorial dispute, it also suited India, and we Kashmiris failed to promote
a Kashmiri cause and appeared to be only proxies of India or Pakistan.
8. Anyhow
in my view Kashmir will be united one day. We might not get full sovereignty
with right to have our own army and F16 fighters, but we will win independence
with right to trade and make agreements with other countries. Question we need
to ask ourselves is do we need to have army and F16’s or we can do with local
police to keep law and order? In any case who are we going to fight with army
and F 16’s? Army will prove to be a white elephant for Kashmiris and we cannot
afford to have this white elephant.
Q7. What are your views on other militant groups
in Kashmir? Do you agree with their ideology?
Answer.
1. I
strongly disagree with their ideology and tactics. These groups are promoting
violence, terrorism and extremism which are against fundamental character of
the Kashmiri society and culture. They are fighting this ‘war’ or ‘jihad’ in
name of Islam; hence they are making Kashmir dispute a religious one. In our
view Kashmir dispute is not religious in nature. It is a political matter which
has to be resolved through a process of dialogue by all the parties concerned
and not by use of violence and by taking terrorist actions against religious
and political opponents.
2. Apart
from these militant groups there are groups who could be called ‘proxies of
Pakistan’, who want the state to join Pakistan because of religious
affiliations and not because it is better for the people or the state.
3. I
strongly believe that these groups for the sake of unity, territorial integrity
and better future of the State should abandon divisive and pro Pakistan
policies, and promote pro people and pro Kashmir policies. They should support
the political process while not abandoning the right of self determination.
India on the other hand should change its policy on Kashmir and must realise
that the demand of right of self determination could not be crushed by force;
and must promote a new policy that can bring peace and stability.
Q8. How important is the role of Pakistan in
projecting Kashmir cause to the Western world?
Answer.
1. Role
of Pakistan in the Kashmiri struggle needs a detailed reply. I have written
books on this. In my opinion, which is shared by Kashmiri nationalists and many
neutral scholars, respective Pakistani governments have messed up the Kashmir
dispute, because of lack of proper understanding the dispute, lack of proper
vision and selfish attitude. A brief details are as follows:
2. Nehru asked Mohammed Ali Jinnah that
people of Princely States should be allowed to decide future of Princely
States. Mohammed Ali Jinnah refused this, and emphasised that the ‘Rulers’ should
decide future of their states. Mohammed Ali Jinnah must have thought that this
way he will be able to get Jammu and Kashmir as Maharajah Hari Singh and Pundit
Kak, Prime Minister of Kashmir were in his confidence. He never got on well
with Sheikh Abdullah, most popular leader of Kashmir, and if a right to decide
was vested with the people Mohammed Ali Jinnah could have lost out.
3. With this policy Mohammed Ali Jinnah
aimed to get States of Hyderabad and Junagarrh as well. Both of these States
had Muslim Rulers, but majority of population in both states were non Muslim.
Rulers of both States were in his contact, and were not willing to accede to
India; but if a right to decide was vested in the public then of course
decision would have gone against Pakistan.
4. Irrespective of Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s
sermons on democracy and human rights, when it came to the crunch he supported
autocratic rulers. He didn’t want people of the Princely States to take
decision with regard to their future. He felt more comfortable with autocratic
and unelected rulers.
5. At one time Pakistan was offered to
take Kashmir and keep hands off Hyderabad and Junagarrh. The Pakistani
government of the time refused to accept this, as they wanted to get all three
States, but due to wrong policies and lack of appropriate planning they lost
all of them.
6. Mohammed Ali Jinnah refused to talk to
Sheikh Abdullah, most prominent leader of Kashmir, and insulted him at a
crucial time of partition. Sheikh Abdullah secretly travelled to Lahore in
second week of August 1947, to discuss and formulate some common strategy on
future of Jammu and Kashmir, but Mohammed Ali Jinnah blatantly refused to meet
him by saying ‘why should I meet him when Kashmir is already in my pocket’.
7. Despite this insult Sheikh Abdullah
sent two representatives to Lahore that they can talk to Mohammed Ali Jinnah.
These leaders were never given a chance to meet Mohammed Ali Jinnah – they were
still in Lahore waiting for a meeting when on 21st October 1947, Pakistani government
managed a tribal invasion with disastrous consequences. We people of Jammu and
Kashmir are still suffering as a result of that illogical and brutal invasion.
8. Tribesmen invaded Barmullah on 24th
October, and celebrated this victory for three days by dancing, pillaging and
raping Kashmiri women (To them they were non Muslims; to me they were human
beings and Kashmiris). They could have taken over Srinagar within hours as
there was no defence of any kind as Maharaja’s army had deserted. Perhaps to
these tribesmen and their leaders dancing, looting and raping was more
important; and when they eventually decided to proceed to Srinagar, the Indian
army had landed on morning of 27th October 1947.
9. Initially Kashmir was registered as a
‘Kashmir problem’ in
the
UN, clearly showing that the matter related to Jammu and Kashmir. It was
government of Pakistan which got it changed to ‘India and Pakistan problem’,
hence making it a territorial dispute, to which world powers were hesitant to
take sides; but at that time were eager to support right of self determination
and oppose imperialism.
10. The first UNCIP Resolution (13 August
1948) had inbuilt option of an independent Kashmir, which reads as follows: The Government of India and the Government
of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people…
11. The phrase ‘future status’ of the state,
implied accession to Pakistan, accession to India or an independent Kashmir. It
was Pakistan and not India, which got it changed in the second UNCIP Resolution
of 5th January 1949 to the following: ‘The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to
India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and
impartial plebiscite;’
12. The purpose of this change was to ensure
that ‘Kashmir dispute’ remains a territorial dispute; and that people of Jammu
and Kashmir must not get independence. In other words for policy makers of
Pakistan, it was acceptable if in a referendum Kashmir goes to India, but not
acceptable if Kashmiris were to become independent.
13. The outcome of a referendum could have
gone against Pakistan, especially when Sheikh Abdullah was at the helm of
affairs in Jammu and Kashmir, and Indian army was also present there. It is
precisely why Pakistan did not honour conditions of the resolution and refused
to withdraw her forces from AJK and Gilgit and Baltistan.
14. Pakistan as early as 1950 agreed to
divide Kashmir; and had many rounds of talks afterwards to get maximum area of
Jammu and Kashmir, which means Pakistani rulers had no interest in right of
self determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. To them safety, welfare
and prosperity of people of Jammu and Kashmir was not priority; they were more
interested in territory, strategic security, water and other resources of Jammu
and Kashmir.
15. Once we have established what Pakistani
game plan on Kashmir is then we can see how well they have done to project the
Kashmir dispute. When ever they project Kashmir dispute or take any action on
Kashmir, be it diplomatic or political manoeuvring, some kind of war or a proxy
war the planners always have Pakistani interest in mind, whether they achieve
that or not it is a different matter.
16. Some critics argue that Pakistanis are
not even concerned with interest of their own country, so why should we
criticise them for not doing enough for Kashmiris. That is not a valid excuse.
It is true they don’t have a proper system in place to discuss, plan and
execute policies with sincerity and dedication, but that is not fault of
Kashmiris. They are responsible for the mess they have created for their own
country and neighbours including Jammu and Kashmir.
17. Role of Pakistan is crucial in matters
related to Jammu and Kashmir. It is because of their de - facto control of
Jammu and Kashmir territory, and enormous influence which result in many
problems in Jammu and Kashmir. It is because of their direct and indirect
involvement which has helped to keep the Kashmir pot boiling; hence we see the
present shape of the Kashmir dispute.
18. Kashmir was not the only Princely State
to have rough deal at the time of Partition, but today we don’t even hear about
their plight; but Kashmir dispute is still perceived as most dangerous spot on
earth; and that is mainly due to the Pakistani involvement in this matter.
People of Pakistan have also suffered due to the Kashmir dispute in many ways;
and I believe Pakistan’s consent is crucial to any final settlement on Kashmir.
Q9. What
are prospects of Kashmir in a longer run is there any possible solution to
Kashmir conflict?
Answer:
1. Unlike
claims of some people, Kashmir dispute is very complex one; and we Kashmiris
further complicated it by wrong strategies. The struggle was presented as a
struggle to join Pakistan and not to get independence. And the final straw was
making it a religious struggle - a Jihad, which in view of some has no end- if
it ends in one area, it could continue in another area or in some other form.
This not only divided the people of Jammu and Kashmir and alienated the
minorities of Kashmir, but also deprived us of international support which was
vital for success of our struggle.
2. But
despite all the odds and conspiracies against our struggle for right of self
determination, I believe this forced division will end, and one day we will get
united and get some kind of independence.
3. That
unification and independence could have some role for India and Pakistan,
perhaps this assurance from them that no country will invade the State in
future. They can also have some more input in the form of common currency,
trade or provide this facility that people of Jammu and Kashmir have more than
one nationality.
4. But
I cannot envisage any solution of Jammu and Kashmir in near future. In any case
we have to change our strategy and abandon use of gun; and make it a Kashmiri
struggle rather than a Muslim struggle.
Q10. Do
you believe that the conflict in Kashmir is an act of terrorism as claimed by
India?
Answer:
1. First
we have to define what is terrorism? Genuine freedom fighters do not aim to
kill innocent civilians just because they belong to different religion or
region. They do not engage the armed forces in populated areas. And if we
impartially look at what has happened in Jammu and Kashmir in name of jihad or
struggle, we note that innocent people were deliberately targeted; and that
cannot be tolerated or justified by civil society. These acts of violence could
only be called terrorism.
2. Any
impartial research will tell you that thousands of people were killed in cross
firing which is generally initiated by militants in highly populated areas.
Also thousands of people were killed and injured because most of the bombs
thrown by militants landed in populated areas or bus stops killing and injuring
innocent citizens.
3. India
like any other government will call it terrorism and propagate against it. But
bad elements among militants also helped the government propaganda machinery by
committing acts of terrorism, and in some cases targeting members of
minorities. Furthermore they called it a ‘jihad’ and tried to justify their
wrong actions by misquoting verses of holy Qur’an and Hadees of Prophet
Mohammed (peace be upon him).
4. In
my view we have a genuine struggle in Jammu and Kashmir, and that should not be
projected as a religious struggle against Hindus or any other religion. Our
struggle is political in nature. We want unification and independence of the
State; and our struggle should be against all those countries who occupy us,
and not against one country and again in name of Islam.
5.
Apart from that, tragic events of 9/11 have changed many things in the world,
and that includes any distinction there was between freedom struggle and
terrorism. The world community led by the United States is not willing to
accept any violence in name of jihad or freedom struggle. It is because of this
pressure that the government of Pakistan announced that they will not allow any
territory under its control to be used for acts of terrorism, implying that
previously it was used for this purpose. END
Dr Shabir Choudhry
July 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment