Karachi Pact and Gilgit and Baltistan
Dr Shabir Choudhry 28 April 2006
Fifty seven years ago an agreement with the name of Karachi Pact was signed which established Pakistani hegemony over the vast areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. It is claimed that this pact which paved way for Pakistani imperialism in these areas was signed between rulers of Pakistan and leaders of Muslim Conference.
Facts, however, do not support this contention. According to this claim the document was signed by Nawab Mushtaq Gurmani, a Pakistani Minister without Portfolio, and President of ‘Azad Kashmir’ Sardar Ibrahim Khan and Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, who were leaders of Muslim Conference which was widely seen as mouth piece of Pakistan.
This political party, ever since its revival in 1940, has very sincerely looked after the interest of Muslim League and Pakistan. History of this party and history of Jammu and Kashmir clearly tells us that when it is confronted with a choice between looking after the interest of the Kashmiri people and the interest of Pakistan, it has always taken a decision in favor of the later.
Even before India was partitioned, to become sovereign states of Pakistan and India, they started struggle to get Jammu and Kashmir; and in view of some, started a ‘fight’ to defeat each other. That fight despite fall of Dhaka and despite wars and truces, still continues. And, that in view of some analysts is the root cause of tension between Pakistan and India, and Jammu and Kashmir dispute is a manifestation of that ‘struggle’ or that ‘fight’.
The result of that fight was a cease- fire- line which came in to being on 1st January 1949 and de-facto division of the State between the both countries. It must be noted that areas of Gilgit and Baltistan were only returned to the Maharaja government two weeks before the partition of India, and the Maharaja government was not able to fully establish its decree because of the somewhat mysterious role of the Gilgit Scouts.
Everyone acknowledge the great strategic importance of these areas and that is why they were leased by the British from the Maharaja government. In principle they were returned to the Maharaja, and Brigadier Gansara Singh was sent as a Governor to take control of these areas, but he was unable to assert his authority because of the influence of the Gilgit Scouts and presence of the British officers who advised him to be cautious as situation was uncertain.
Brigadier Gansara was there as a Governor of the Maharaja government, which showed that these areas were part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani view is that once these areas were ‘liberated’ they acceded to Pakistan, but do not offer any evidence in support of this. And moreover respective governments of Pakistan agree at the international level that these areas are part of Jammu and Kashmir (for example in UN resolutions).
If as Pakistan now claims that accession took place soon after the ‘liberation’ of these areas, then technically they had become a part of Pakistan; then question arises why make them part of the Kashmir dispute and plebiscite which could have gone against Pakistan. The fact is that no accession took place. One may ask who signed on behalf of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan, and who signed on behalf of Pakistan and where is the document- instrument of accession?
All facts of this tragic story could not be presented in one article, however it is important to say that those ‘powers’ who were behind the partition of India were also behind the crises in Gilgit and Balatistan. And story in summary is as follows.
The British Raj in India ended on 15th August 1947, and Brigadier Gansara Singh reached Gilgit to take control of these areas on 1st of August. The power at that time was with the British and Gilgit Scouts who were established and controlled by them. Brigadier Gansara Singh was accepted as a Governor but was not allowed to assert his control; rather he was advised to be cautious and wait until situation is stable.
So between 15th August 1947 and until the ‘liberation’ (in 1st week of November) a status quo was maintained, and one wonders why? Brigadier Gansara Singh with two companies of the Maharaja army stayed there until that time, and did not make any attempt to takeover or assert his authority even after the end of the British Raj.
In other words during all this period there were two centers of power: Brigadier Gansara Singh and the Gilgit Scouts who, even at that time were commanded by the British. It is they who advised him to wait until situation is stable.
The fact, however, is that their concern was not the ‘stability’, but future of these areas. They wanted to see which way the Maharaja goes- was he going to opt for India, Pakistan or was he going to become independent. As future of these areas were crucial to the British and the American interest, because of the Soviet Union and Communist China being neighbours, they wanted to ensure that these areas don’t get in to ‘wrong hands’.
They managed to keep the ‘status quo’ in these areas by cautioning the legally appointed governor to wait and not to assert his authority; and once they realised that the Maharaja because of tribal invasion had no choice but to acceded with India, they made a move and Gilgit Scouts came in to action. Gilgit Scouts was the British creation, and they had complete control over them. As noted above, even at that time Scouts were commanded by the British Officers, and there was no question of them ‘rebelling’ against orders of their commanders and seize control of the administration by arresting the Governor.
One wonders why this ‘liberation’ was manoeuvred. Maharaja, forced by circumstances, ‘acceded’ to India on 26th October 1947 and Indian forces landed at the Srinagar airport the next morning. The accession was provisional, but it was for whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and as Gilgit and Baltistan was also part of the State, hence it should have gone under control of India.
Those who were calling shots at that time in South Asia looked at the developments anxiously. They had to see how their interests could be best safeguarded. If these areas go under the control of ‘socialist’ Nehru, who had clear left tendencies, would he allow them to use these areas against Soviet Union and China?
Answer was no. A democratic and visionary leader like Nehru would not have allowed this interference; but it was possible in ‘Islamic, feudal and undemocratic’ Pakistan, which they knew Pakistan would become, as they had their ‘own men’ in corridors of power.
They could not afford to remain as spectators, so after a few days of observation they realised that India had stabilised its position in the capital, Srinagar, and was repulsing the raiders back where they came from. They wanted to have access to these areas to keep ‘an eye’ on the activities of communist menace, and for that wanted to ensure that these areas were in ‘safe hands’.
The mission was accomplished without much problem. The Maharaja’s army in Gilgit and Baltistan consisted of two armed companies-one was Muslim and the other Sikh. Apart from the Gilgit Scouts this Muslim company also changed side and took active part in the ‘liberation’. And after this ‘liberation’ these areas were handed over to Pakistan; and to date they are in ‘safe hands’- under direct occupation of Pakistan, where people of the area do not enjoy basic human rights.
To strengthen Pakistani hold over these areas, and make them more ‘safe’ Muslim Conference leaders were used, hence the Karachi Pact came in to being in April 1949. This Pact, in view of many nationalist Kashmiris, is like Treaty of Amritsar- a black document which has legalized subjugation and oppression of the innocent people.
Pakistani governments make two contradictory claims about these areas:
A/ These areas acceded to Pakistan soon after the ‘liberation’. If that is true then why it was part of the UN resolutions which were passed after this ‘liberation’?
B/ Pakistan took over control of these areas as a result of the Karachi Pact, again this was ‘signed’ after the ‘liberation’.
Both of these claims contradict each other. But there is another twist in the story. Sardar Ibrahim Khan, on more than one occasion claimed that he did not sign this document, if that is true, and we have no reason to doubt his statement, especially made towards the end of his political and natural life. So the question is who signed it if he didn’t?
There is another very important question. Even if he did sign it, one may question what right did he have to sign it? He was appointed a ‘President’ of Azad Kashmir by Pakistani authorities, not by people; and areas of Gilgit and Baltistan were separated from this administrative set up.
Muslim Conference in its entire history, even when Jammu and Kashmir was united, never had any branch or any member in these areas. They had no following of any kind in these areas, and then question is how on earth they can sign away rights and future of people spread over in more than 28 thousand sq miles? How can you give or ‘gift’ something which you don’t own? How can you delegate a right or power which you don’t have?
Answer is simple. A conspiracy was hatched by those who wanted to ensure that these areas stay in ‘safe hands’; and it is because of this policy that despite all the upheavals and turns and twists they are still occupied, oppressed, and to large extent, ignored by the world because they are in ‘safe hands’, and it serves their purpose.
Writer is a Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF, Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs and author of many books on Kashmir. He could be reached at: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Accountability is must in public life
Accountability is must in public life
Dr Shabir Choudhry 16 April 2006
"Hold yourselves accountable before you are held accountable", said Umar Ibnul Khattab, more than fourteen hundred years ago. There will never be another Umar. He was, by any one’s standard, a great administrator, a great ruler and a great God fearing Muslim.
He set up great examples in administration and accountability. Because he was honest and God fearing person himself he established a system which was fair and simple; and even encouraged those to challenge rulers to get their rights who were poor and disadvantaged people in the society. They did not fear any intimidation or reprisals and that is why they even dared to question the Caliph himself in public.
Muslim rulers of that time were honest and they set up a system which was fair. There was no corruption or nepotism of any kind in Muslim societies of that time; and now Muslim societies are perceived to be the most corrupt and dishonest in the world.
All kinds of dishonesty, fraud and malpractices are associated with Muslims; and we cannot escape the responsibility by saying that it is propaganda of Jews, Hindus and other non- Muslims. It is not a good practice to always shift the blame and accuse other for our blunders. We have to accept that there are serious faults in the systems we have set up, these systems are not democratic in nature; and do not encourage transparency and accountability.
In fact these systems are deliberately designed to perpetuate the rule of elite, which generally breeds more corruption, nepotism, unaccountability and make people and nations hostage to the interest of foreign powers. And to support that out of date, anti people, and anti democratic system, a political culture is established that those who demand changes or criticise rulers are perceived as ‘agents’ of foreign powers.
Unfortunately we have closed doors to accountability and transparency and discourage discussion and analysis. Criticism on leaders is perceived as crime and treachery. Most Muslim societies have no political parties, and those which have some political parties are encouraged to build them around the cult of a leader rather than any principle or ideology. These political parties clearly lack democracy and tolerance; and leaders will not allow any independent or different thinking within the party, as is the practice in the political parties in Pluralistic Societies.
Pakistan became independent in 1947- ‘liberated’ as some people like to say. In reality it has never been independent or liberated, and some other countries which were liberated after Pakistan are far ahead of Pakistan. Has anyone wondered why? It is no good blaming outside conspiracies or foreign hand - all conspiracies had roots in Pakistan.
Pakistanis have a reputation of being emotional people, and that reputation has been systematically strengthened by inciting religious sentiments; and by using good offices of religious leaders. And on each such occasion Pakistan’s image suffered seriously and in some cases it cost Pakistan enormous amount in money as well.
I might end up upsetting some Pakistani friends when I say this. Some of Pakistan’s problems are directly related to its founder and the Party which he presided. That party was controlled and dominated by feudal landlord and aristocrats who provided funds for the political events. Of course aristocrats don’t encourage liberal and democratic values, if anything; they hold back the progress in order to enjoy power and influence.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah himself was a liberal minded person, but I am not sure if he encouraged democracy and liberal thinking within the Muslim League. Unlike Muslim League the Indian National Congress had well established democratic system, of course they also had rich people with them who supported them financially but they were not strong enough to hold back the progress of the party.
The result is before us. A party which had well established democratic system passed that system on and established a democratic system in India. The other party did not have such a system or even desire to pass on anything like this.
The party which believed in democracy and plural society abolished landed aristocracy and rule of Rajas and Nawabs, as their powers and influence was deemed to be obstacle as it had potential to hold back the progress of democratic and liberal society.
The other party, especially after the death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, under strong influence of landed aristocracy, strengthened their own position and held back progress towards democracy and pro people policies. Pakistan and even its neighbours still suffer for that policy. There is no democracy, no transparency and no accountability, and landed aristocracy and military elite have joined hands to rule the country and the society.
India could be criticised for other things, and I have to do that as well otherwise I will be accused of being ‘pro India’ for praising a good thing of an ‘enemy’; but India stands with pride in the comity of nations as the biggest democracy in the world. They have set up a system that encourages Multi National Companies to invest in India; and it motivates other countries to issue visas to Indian professionals.
A system of government or corruption what Pakistan had, it ‘honestly’ and ‘sincerely’ transferred that in Azad Kashmir, area under its indirect control; and we can say that a system of government in Azad Kashmir is not much different to that of Pakistan. India on other hand has been less than ‘honest’ in this, they have developed a democratic and somewhat transparent system inside India proper, and despite claims to Jammu and Kashmir encouraged a system of politics which is known as ‘proxy politics’ and full of corruption.
Tolerance is a major ingredient in a system of democratic government, and we people of Jammu and Kashmir have rich history and culture of tolerance. We must endeavour to reunite the State of Jammu and Kashmir and set up a system which suits our requirements, and which encourages transparency and accountability.
If we fail to reunite our homeland and set up a system of accountability and transparency then I fear we might not have our name among those nations who are there to stay and prosper. In my opinion it is still not too late, we Kashmiris can still resolve our differences that are encouraged and exaggerated by those who occupy us; and the best way forward is to acknowledge our past shortfalls, and make a new start with sincerity.
It will surely help us if we hold ourselves accountable before our conscience, and encourage a system of check and balance in political parties. And inside parties we must strengthen a democratic system rather than individuals, because individuals, no matter how talented and sincere could make wrong decisions- which could prove disastrous for the parties and movement.
Writer is a Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF, Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs and author of many books on Kashmir. He could be reached at: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 16 April 2006
"Hold yourselves accountable before you are held accountable", said Umar Ibnul Khattab, more than fourteen hundred years ago. There will never be another Umar. He was, by any one’s standard, a great administrator, a great ruler and a great God fearing Muslim.
He set up great examples in administration and accountability. Because he was honest and God fearing person himself he established a system which was fair and simple; and even encouraged those to challenge rulers to get their rights who were poor and disadvantaged people in the society. They did not fear any intimidation or reprisals and that is why they even dared to question the Caliph himself in public.
Muslim rulers of that time were honest and they set up a system which was fair. There was no corruption or nepotism of any kind in Muslim societies of that time; and now Muslim societies are perceived to be the most corrupt and dishonest in the world.
All kinds of dishonesty, fraud and malpractices are associated with Muslims; and we cannot escape the responsibility by saying that it is propaganda of Jews, Hindus and other non- Muslims. It is not a good practice to always shift the blame and accuse other for our blunders. We have to accept that there are serious faults in the systems we have set up, these systems are not democratic in nature; and do not encourage transparency and accountability.
In fact these systems are deliberately designed to perpetuate the rule of elite, which generally breeds more corruption, nepotism, unaccountability and make people and nations hostage to the interest of foreign powers. And to support that out of date, anti people, and anti democratic system, a political culture is established that those who demand changes or criticise rulers are perceived as ‘agents’ of foreign powers.
Unfortunately we have closed doors to accountability and transparency and discourage discussion and analysis. Criticism on leaders is perceived as crime and treachery. Most Muslim societies have no political parties, and those which have some political parties are encouraged to build them around the cult of a leader rather than any principle or ideology. These political parties clearly lack democracy and tolerance; and leaders will not allow any independent or different thinking within the party, as is the practice in the political parties in Pluralistic Societies.
Pakistan became independent in 1947- ‘liberated’ as some people like to say. In reality it has never been independent or liberated, and some other countries which were liberated after Pakistan are far ahead of Pakistan. Has anyone wondered why? It is no good blaming outside conspiracies or foreign hand - all conspiracies had roots in Pakistan.
Pakistanis have a reputation of being emotional people, and that reputation has been systematically strengthened by inciting religious sentiments; and by using good offices of religious leaders. And on each such occasion Pakistan’s image suffered seriously and in some cases it cost Pakistan enormous amount in money as well.
I might end up upsetting some Pakistani friends when I say this. Some of Pakistan’s problems are directly related to its founder and the Party which he presided. That party was controlled and dominated by feudal landlord and aristocrats who provided funds for the political events. Of course aristocrats don’t encourage liberal and democratic values, if anything; they hold back the progress in order to enjoy power and influence.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah himself was a liberal minded person, but I am not sure if he encouraged democracy and liberal thinking within the Muslim League. Unlike Muslim League the Indian National Congress had well established democratic system, of course they also had rich people with them who supported them financially but they were not strong enough to hold back the progress of the party.
The result is before us. A party which had well established democratic system passed that system on and established a democratic system in India. The other party did not have such a system or even desire to pass on anything like this.
The party which believed in democracy and plural society abolished landed aristocracy and rule of Rajas and Nawabs, as their powers and influence was deemed to be obstacle as it had potential to hold back the progress of democratic and liberal society.
The other party, especially after the death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, under strong influence of landed aristocracy, strengthened their own position and held back progress towards democracy and pro people policies. Pakistan and even its neighbours still suffer for that policy. There is no democracy, no transparency and no accountability, and landed aristocracy and military elite have joined hands to rule the country and the society.
India could be criticised for other things, and I have to do that as well otherwise I will be accused of being ‘pro India’ for praising a good thing of an ‘enemy’; but India stands with pride in the comity of nations as the biggest democracy in the world. They have set up a system that encourages Multi National Companies to invest in India; and it motivates other countries to issue visas to Indian professionals.
A system of government or corruption what Pakistan had, it ‘honestly’ and ‘sincerely’ transferred that in Azad Kashmir, area under its indirect control; and we can say that a system of government in Azad Kashmir is not much different to that of Pakistan. India on other hand has been less than ‘honest’ in this, they have developed a democratic and somewhat transparent system inside India proper, and despite claims to Jammu and Kashmir encouraged a system of politics which is known as ‘proxy politics’ and full of corruption.
Tolerance is a major ingredient in a system of democratic government, and we people of Jammu and Kashmir have rich history and culture of tolerance. We must endeavour to reunite the State of Jammu and Kashmir and set up a system which suits our requirements, and which encourages transparency and accountability.
If we fail to reunite our homeland and set up a system of accountability and transparency then I fear we might not have our name among those nations who are there to stay and prosper. In my opinion it is still not too late, we Kashmiris can still resolve our differences that are encouraged and exaggerated by those who occupy us; and the best way forward is to acknowledge our past shortfalls, and make a new start with sincerity.
It will surely help us if we hold ourselves accountable before our conscience, and encourage a system of check and balance in political parties. And inside parties we must strengthen a democratic system rather than individuals, because individuals, no matter how talented and sincere could make wrong decisions- which could prove disastrous for the parties and movement.
Writer is a Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF, Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs and author of many books on Kashmir. He could be reached at: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Preface to If not self - determination than what?
Preface
If not self - determination than what?
A lot has happened to the Kashmir dispute and the Kashmiris in the past few years. Deadly earthquake has devastated lives of millions of Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC, adding to miseries and suffering of the people. How unfortunate that despite tens of millions of local and international help victims of the earthquake are still suffering out there in the camps in this harsh winter.
Apart from this the Kashmiri struggle and our inherent right of self -determination has witnessed some twists and turns. Pakistani government, which has been telling people of Jammu and Kashmir that they have only one interest, and that is to ensure that people of Jammu and Kashmir get their right of self- determination, has finally made a u turn. It is not the first u - turn made by Pakistan and surely it won’t be the last, as those at the helm of affairs have understood that each u – turn brings rewards.
True Kashmiri nationalists, however, always thought that Pakistani governments are not sincere with this claim and that they had more interest in territorial gains and resources of the State. And it is because of this policy that they ensured that the people of Kashmir only get a limited right to choose between India and Pakistan and not complete independence. Readers might remember that this right was limited on the request of Pakistan in the second UNCIP Resolution of 5 January 1949.
Because of total control over media and docile and subservient attitude of many Kashmiri leaders ordinary people of Jammu and Kashmir are not fully aware of true intentions of the Pakistani governments. Pakistan had tremendous influence on minds and hearts of Kashmiris, and despite anti independence policies of Islamabad they continued to think that Pakistan was sincere with their cause.
They always thought of some excuse to exonerate Pakistan of its responsibilities and blunders. General Musharaf has introduced a concept of self - rule and joint management - categorically stating that Kashmiris couldn’t become independent. Furthermore that Kashmiris have to accept division of the State, hence accepting Indian hegemony on that side of the LOC.
Even after this clarification pro pocket Kashmiris who have always acted as stooges of Islamabad have tried to defend Pakistan’s this policy. And to add insult to pride of true nationalist Kashmiris or to insult the concept of right of self determination some so called ‘nationalist’ leaders have also joined the band wagon in hope of getting rewards in their old age.
Until yesterday, Kashmir was issue of right of self- determination, unfinished agenda of partition of India, core issue, jugular vein, and must part of Pakistan and its survival. Now political somersault by Islamabad means all that is history. Pakistani policy makers had to come out of ‘fantasy world’ and deal with politics of real world.
Although some sections of the establishment still don’t want to leave that comfortable and self-pleasing world, close associates of General Musharaf soon realised that geopolitical realities have changed which require new strategy. Now State of Jammu and Kashmir, according to him is just not a core issue and just one of issues that needed to be resolved on principle of give and take. Kashmiris have no right to become independent, as Kashmir dispute, according to new thinking, is not issue of right of self - determination. If it is not issue of right of self - determination than what is it; and why it took so long to reach this conclusion?
Pakistani governments have in the past paid lip service to their version of self - determination but in practise, formulated such policies that treated the Kashmir dispute as a territorial one. And in line with this thinking they have at last openly suggested to divide the former princely state between them (Pakistani governments have many times in the past agreed to division of the state, but the proposed division could not take place due to disagreement on the area).
Pakistani government knew what they wanted to do, and for a change they planned it in advance and instructed their stooges to start preparing ground for self - rule. By the money and resources provided by Pakistan a conference was arranged in Washington in which for the first time the concept of self determination was opposed and it was not even part of the resolutions. It was in the same conference that some Kashmiri stooges of Islamabad said that concept of self determination is ‘out dated’ and that we have to look for new and’ forward looking’ concept of self rule.
Although I strongly disagree with General Musharaf’s prescription for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, I, however, thank him for being honest and candid with his views. He has put his cards on the table and has clearly signalled that he wants to decide on behalf of the Kashmiri people and will keep them out of the peace process.
It is possible that once both India and Pakistan have agreed what they want to do with Kashmir, they will take on board some pro Pakistan and pro India leaders from both sides of the divide. They might ask likes of Sardar Qayyum, Sardar Sikander Ayat, Barrister Sultan Mahmood, Mufti Sayeed, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Omar Abdullah for their comments. They might even ask some pseudo nationalist leaders to join this to give it a representative character; and then ask both assemblies to rubber stamp the decision.
So friends, colleagues and freedom loving people of Jammu and Kashmir, ball is in our court. India and Pakistan have very clearly spelled out their policies and intentions. They want to deprive us of unification and independence. They don’t regard us as a nation, and believe that we don’t deserve to be independent; we don’t deserve to enjoy fruits of freedom and dignity. The best they can offer us is a self- rule, and hegemonic dominance and reliance by India and Pakistan.
Then the question is have we been fighting for a self- rule, division of the State or independence? India declared its Kashmir policy a long time ago, and despite that was willing to settle for a division. Pakistan on the other hand had no clear policy on Kashmir, as they claimed to support the right of self – determination of Kashmiri people, but pursued such policies which clearly showed that Pakistan is interested in territory and resources of the State.
If they had to settle for a division then why cause so much destruction and misery. Because of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy not only we Kashmiris have suffered but people of Pakistan and South Asia have also suffered. If division was what they wanted then why not accept it when it was offered in 1950s? Why not accept it during Bhutto - Swaran Singh talks in 1963? Why not accept it after misadventure of 1965? Why not accept it after defeat of 1971? Why not accept it after Siachin was taken over and it was declared unimportant barren land? Why not accept it when India was desperate for a solution in early 1990s, and Indian Prime Minister said ‘sky was the limit’? Why not accept it when Indian Prime Minister Vajapaee Sahib travelled to Lahore? Why there had to be Kargil and killing and destruction of so many innocent people? Instead of accepting either 100 slaps or eat 100 onions, why do we have to adopt a policy where we end up taking both?
Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is exposed but despite that majority of people of Jammu and Kashmir have soft corner for Pakistan, and that perhaps is because of religious affiliation and massive propaganda that Pakistan is a ‘friend’ and ‘big brother’ of the Kashmiris. Of course wrong policies of New Delhi have also played an important role in this; and majority of Kashmiris see India as a ‘villain’ in Kashmir.
What if this division had taken place before the present ‘uprising’ of 1989, and subsequent human rights violations committed by Indian Para military forces had not taken place? How then people of Jammu and Kashmir might have viewed India and Pakistan? To ordinary Kashmiris who are not brainwashed by propaganda, would have perceived both countries as ‘land grabbers’ who had imperialist designs in Jammu and Kashmir.
Whether it is fault of India, Pakistan or the Kashmiri leaders the fact is that people of Jammu and Kashmir have paid very heavy price since 1947. Tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost, millions uprooted from their homes, billions of pounds worth property destroyed and thousands of women dishonoured; and still there is no light at the end of the tunnel. People of Jammu and Kashmir are still forcibly divided; and the Kashmir dispute is managed, manipulated and negotiated by India and Pakistan with Kashmiri leaders still far away from the negotiating table as they were in 1947.
Despite all the above, there is one ‘positive outcome’ for Pakistani policy makers, and that is that Kashmiris still perceive India as a ‘villain’, and Pakistan as a ‘friend’ and ‘big brother’. Now that ‘friend’ and ‘big brother’ has spelled out its Kashmir policy in unambiguous manner, we freedom - loving people of Jammu and Kashmir need to formulate our policy, which must be pro Kashmir and not pro neighbours.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
I5 January 2007
If not self - determination than what?
A lot has happened to the Kashmir dispute and the Kashmiris in the past few years. Deadly earthquake has devastated lives of millions of Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC, adding to miseries and suffering of the people. How unfortunate that despite tens of millions of local and international help victims of the earthquake are still suffering out there in the camps in this harsh winter.
Apart from this the Kashmiri struggle and our inherent right of self -determination has witnessed some twists and turns. Pakistani government, which has been telling people of Jammu and Kashmir that they have only one interest, and that is to ensure that people of Jammu and Kashmir get their right of self- determination, has finally made a u turn. It is not the first u - turn made by Pakistan and surely it won’t be the last, as those at the helm of affairs have understood that each u – turn brings rewards.
True Kashmiri nationalists, however, always thought that Pakistani governments are not sincere with this claim and that they had more interest in territorial gains and resources of the State. And it is because of this policy that they ensured that the people of Kashmir only get a limited right to choose between India and Pakistan and not complete independence. Readers might remember that this right was limited on the request of Pakistan in the second UNCIP Resolution of 5 January 1949.
Because of total control over media and docile and subservient attitude of many Kashmiri leaders ordinary people of Jammu and Kashmir are not fully aware of true intentions of the Pakistani governments. Pakistan had tremendous influence on minds and hearts of Kashmiris, and despite anti independence policies of Islamabad they continued to think that Pakistan was sincere with their cause.
They always thought of some excuse to exonerate Pakistan of its responsibilities and blunders. General Musharaf has introduced a concept of self - rule and joint management - categorically stating that Kashmiris couldn’t become independent. Furthermore that Kashmiris have to accept division of the State, hence accepting Indian hegemony on that side of the LOC.
Even after this clarification pro pocket Kashmiris who have always acted as stooges of Islamabad have tried to defend Pakistan’s this policy. And to add insult to pride of true nationalist Kashmiris or to insult the concept of right of self determination some so called ‘nationalist’ leaders have also joined the band wagon in hope of getting rewards in their old age.
Until yesterday, Kashmir was issue of right of self- determination, unfinished agenda of partition of India, core issue, jugular vein, and must part of Pakistan and its survival. Now political somersault by Islamabad means all that is history. Pakistani policy makers had to come out of ‘fantasy world’ and deal with politics of real world.
Although some sections of the establishment still don’t want to leave that comfortable and self-pleasing world, close associates of General Musharaf soon realised that geopolitical realities have changed which require new strategy. Now State of Jammu and Kashmir, according to him is just not a core issue and just one of issues that needed to be resolved on principle of give and take. Kashmiris have no right to become independent, as Kashmir dispute, according to new thinking, is not issue of right of self - determination. If it is not issue of right of self - determination than what is it; and why it took so long to reach this conclusion?
Pakistani governments have in the past paid lip service to their version of self - determination but in practise, formulated such policies that treated the Kashmir dispute as a territorial one. And in line with this thinking they have at last openly suggested to divide the former princely state between them (Pakistani governments have many times in the past agreed to division of the state, but the proposed division could not take place due to disagreement on the area).
Pakistani government knew what they wanted to do, and for a change they planned it in advance and instructed their stooges to start preparing ground for self - rule. By the money and resources provided by Pakistan a conference was arranged in Washington in which for the first time the concept of self determination was opposed and it was not even part of the resolutions. It was in the same conference that some Kashmiri stooges of Islamabad said that concept of self determination is ‘out dated’ and that we have to look for new and’ forward looking’ concept of self rule.
Although I strongly disagree with General Musharaf’s prescription for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, I, however, thank him for being honest and candid with his views. He has put his cards on the table and has clearly signalled that he wants to decide on behalf of the Kashmiri people and will keep them out of the peace process.
It is possible that once both India and Pakistan have agreed what they want to do with Kashmir, they will take on board some pro Pakistan and pro India leaders from both sides of the divide. They might ask likes of Sardar Qayyum, Sardar Sikander Ayat, Barrister Sultan Mahmood, Mufti Sayeed, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Omar Abdullah for their comments. They might even ask some pseudo nationalist leaders to join this to give it a representative character; and then ask both assemblies to rubber stamp the decision.
So friends, colleagues and freedom loving people of Jammu and Kashmir, ball is in our court. India and Pakistan have very clearly spelled out their policies and intentions. They want to deprive us of unification and independence. They don’t regard us as a nation, and believe that we don’t deserve to be independent; we don’t deserve to enjoy fruits of freedom and dignity. The best they can offer us is a self- rule, and hegemonic dominance and reliance by India and Pakistan.
Then the question is have we been fighting for a self- rule, division of the State or independence? India declared its Kashmir policy a long time ago, and despite that was willing to settle for a division. Pakistan on the other hand had no clear policy on Kashmir, as they claimed to support the right of self – determination of Kashmiri people, but pursued such policies which clearly showed that Pakistan is interested in territory and resources of the State.
If they had to settle for a division then why cause so much destruction and misery. Because of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy not only we Kashmiris have suffered but people of Pakistan and South Asia have also suffered. If division was what they wanted then why not accept it when it was offered in 1950s? Why not accept it during Bhutto - Swaran Singh talks in 1963? Why not accept it after misadventure of 1965? Why not accept it after defeat of 1971? Why not accept it after Siachin was taken over and it was declared unimportant barren land? Why not accept it when India was desperate for a solution in early 1990s, and Indian Prime Minister said ‘sky was the limit’? Why not accept it when Indian Prime Minister Vajapaee Sahib travelled to Lahore? Why there had to be Kargil and killing and destruction of so many innocent people? Instead of accepting either 100 slaps or eat 100 onions, why do we have to adopt a policy where we end up taking both?
Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is exposed but despite that majority of people of Jammu and Kashmir have soft corner for Pakistan, and that perhaps is because of religious affiliation and massive propaganda that Pakistan is a ‘friend’ and ‘big brother’ of the Kashmiris. Of course wrong policies of New Delhi have also played an important role in this; and majority of Kashmiris see India as a ‘villain’ in Kashmir.
What if this division had taken place before the present ‘uprising’ of 1989, and subsequent human rights violations committed by Indian Para military forces had not taken place? How then people of Jammu and Kashmir might have viewed India and Pakistan? To ordinary Kashmiris who are not brainwashed by propaganda, would have perceived both countries as ‘land grabbers’ who had imperialist designs in Jammu and Kashmir.
Whether it is fault of India, Pakistan or the Kashmiri leaders the fact is that people of Jammu and Kashmir have paid very heavy price since 1947. Tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost, millions uprooted from their homes, billions of pounds worth property destroyed and thousands of women dishonoured; and still there is no light at the end of the tunnel. People of Jammu and Kashmir are still forcibly divided; and the Kashmir dispute is managed, manipulated and negotiated by India and Pakistan with Kashmiri leaders still far away from the negotiating table as they were in 1947.
Despite all the above, there is one ‘positive outcome’ for Pakistani policy makers, and that is that Kashmiris still perceive India as a ‘villain’, and Pakistan as a ‘friend’ and ‘big brother’. Now that ‘friend’ and ‘big brother’ has spelled out its Kashmir policy in unambiguous manner, we freedom - loving people of Jammu and Kashmir need to formulate our policy, which must be pro Kashmir and not pro neighbours.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
I5 January 2007
Monday, 2 June 2008
JKLF hunger strike in London
JKLF hunger strike in London
London 24th May, 2000On the day when JKLF Chairman Yasin Malik and senior colleagues from APHC went on hunger strike in Srinagar in protest of the extra judicial killings of Kashmiris by the Indian forces, leaders of JKLF UK also sat on a hunger strike at the Indian High Commission in London in solidarity.
Hunger strikers include from London Shabir Choudhry JKLF President with senior colleagues Majid Thramboo and Mohammed Najib(London), Asim Mirza, Abass Butt(Watford), Liaquat Choudhry and Ishaq Mughal(Luton). Most of whome intend to make the sitting last till 6 pm Thursday.
The hunger strikers outside the Indian High Commission in London can be contacted on telephone 07941295327.JKLF activists in Srinagar, Azad Kashmir, USA, Europe and UK today expressed solidarity with there leader Yasin Malik and expressed the hope that his timely action would highlight the plight of the Kashmiri prisoners in Indian Jails and the relatives of the victims of the Indian atrocities across the state of Jammu-Kashmir.
The Indian High Commission in London has remained open in view of the hunger strikers demands and heavy police is present at the scene. JKLF hunger strikers intend to break there fast at 6pm. More Kashmiris are expected to join them in the morning.Meanwhile members of JKLF in Azad Kashmir and the J&K Youth Alliance held a picket at the Indian mission in Islamabad and presented a protest petition.EndSagir AhmedPublicity Secretary ---JKLF-UK-EUROPEP. O. BOX 55BRADFORD, BD3 8YFUnited Kingdomhttp://www.geocities.com/jklf_uk_europeWWW.JKLF.COM
London 24th May, 2000On the day when JKLF Chairman Yasin Malik and senior colleagues from APHC went on hunger strike in Srinagar in protest of the extra judicial killings of Kashmiris by the Indian forces, leaders of JKLF UK also sat on a hunger strike at the Indian High Commission in London in solidarity.
Hunger strikers include from London Shabir Choudhry JKLF President with senior colleagues Majid Thramboo and Mohammed Najib(London), Asim Mirza, Abass Butt(Watford), Liaquat Choudhry and Ishaq Mughal(Luton). Most of whome intend to make the sitting last till 6 pm Thursday.
The hunger strikers outside the Indian High Commission in London can be contacted on telephone 07941295327.JKLF activists in Srinagar, Azad Kashmir, USA, Europe and UK today expressed solidarity with there leader Yasin Malik and expressed the hope that his timely action would highlight the plight of the Kashmiri prisoners in Indian Jails and the relatives of the victims of the Indian atrocities across the state of Jammu-Kashmir.
The Indian High Commission in London has remained open in view of the hunger strikers demands and heavy police is present at the scene. JKLF hunger strikers intend to break there fast at 6pm. More Kashmiris are expected to join them in the morning.Meanwhile members of JKLF in Azad Kashmir and the J&K Youth Alliance held a picket at the Indian mission in Islamabad and presented a protest petition.EndSagir AhmedPublicity Secretary ---JKLF-UK-EUROPEP. O. BOX 55BRADFORD, BD3 8YFUnited Kingdomhttp://www.geocities.com/jklf_uk_europeWWW.JKLF.COM
APHC is not a representative of Kashmiris, asserts JKLF
APHC is not a representative of Kashmiris, asserts JKLF
London: Leaders and senior members of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) for the UK and Europe seemed full of the praise which the US Department had showered on J&K Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. A four-member delegation led by the JKLF President Abbas Butt had recently gone to Washington and met US State Department officials.
While briefing the media about the outcome of the visit, Butt said: "They are pleased with the role of Mufti Mohammad Syed in providing the healing touch." The Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of the JKLF's UK and Europe unit, Dr Shabir Choudhry added:
"The US has no 'road map' for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The dispute has to be resolved by the concerned parties. However, as a friend America is prepared to play its supportive and advisory role." They also averred that the US agreed with them that the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was not a representative of the Kashmir people and it lacked the "vision" and "a programme" to tackle the situation.
They said they had two-rounds of discussions with the representatives of the State Department, first at the State Department headquarters and later at a hotel. Butt and Choudhry said the consensus was that use of the military was not an option at all for resolving the Kashmir issue. "The dispute has to be resolved through a process of dialogue." The leaders maintained their old line that while trying to find a solution, views of the Kashmiri people must be ascertained, at least before reaching a final settlement of the dispute.
"Violence and extremism has to be opposed as it is not the way forward," the State Department officials told the JKLF delegation. Crucially, the JKLF was invited to send a delegation to Washington in between the official visits of the Indian Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani and the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Butt stressed that the Kashmir dispute could not be be resolved just by holding bilateral talks as it was not a territorial dispute.
"People of Kashmir are the principal party to this long standing dispute, and they should have the final say on the future status of the State. In any case, history of bilateralism between the two proves that they have not been able to make progress, and it is also because of this that the people of Kashmir must be involved in the peace process," Butt pointed out that J&K is a multi-religious and multi-ethnic political unit, and must remain as such. People should have the right to live and practice their beliefs without any fear or intimidation. "Any attempt to change this character of the State could result in more problems and violence in Kashmir and spill over to India and Pakistan."
On the issue of representation, Choudhry said: "We acknowledge practical difficulties in ascertaining the views of the Kashmiri people, and even to decide who will represent them.” But it is clear that the APHC is not a representative of the Kashmir people. They have miserably failed to win trust of minorities, or expand into Jammu, Ladakh, (Pakistan-Occupied) Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan and even failed to win minds and hearts of the people of Valley."
The JKLF leaders said there should be a bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar and between Mirpur and Jammu. They also suggested free travel facilities to Kashmiris from Jammu to places in PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan, of course both ways. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_293653,00430005.htm
SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version.
London: Leaders and senior members of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) for the UK and Europe seemed full of the praise which the US Department had showered on J&K Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. A four-member delegation led by the JKLF President Abbas Butt had recently gone to Washington and met US State Department officials.
While briefing the media about the outcome of the visit, Butt said: "They are pleased with the role of Mufti Mohammad Syed in providing the healing touch." The Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of the JKLF's UK and Europe unit, Dr Shabir Choudhry added:
"The US has no 'road map' for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. The dispute has to be resolved by the concerned parties. However, as a friend America is prepared to play its supportive and advisory role." They also averred that the US agreed with them that the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was not a representative of the Kashmir people and it lacked the "vision" and "a programme" to tackle the situation.
They said they had two-rounds of discussions with the representatives of the State Department, first at the State Department headquarters and later at a hotel. Butt and Choudhry said the consensus was that use of the military was not an option at all for resolving the Kashmir issue. "The dispute has to be resolved through a process of dialogue." The leaders maintained their old line that while trying to find a solution, views of the Kashmiri people must be ascertained, at least before reaching a final settlement of the dispute.
"Violence and extremism has to be opposed as it is not the way forward," the State Department officials told the JKLF delegation. Crucially, the JKLF was invited to send a delegation to Washington in between the official visits of the Indian Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani and the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Butt stressed that the Kashmir dispute could not be be resolved just by holding bilateral talks as it was not a territorial dispute.
"People of Kashmir are the principal party to this long standing dispute, and they should have the final say on the future status of the State. In any case, history of bilateralism between the two proves that they have not been able to make progress, and it is also because of this that the people of Kashmir must be involved in the peace process," Butt pointed out that J&K is a multi-religious and multi-ethnic political unit, and must remain as such. People should have the right to live and practice their beliefs without any fear or intimidation. "Any attempt to change this character of the State could result in more problems and violence in Kashmir and spill over to India and Pakistan."
On the issue of representation, Choudhry said: "We acknowledge practical difficulties in ascertaining the views of the Kashmiri people, and even to decide who will represent them.” But it is clear that the APHC is not a representative of the Kashmir people. They have miserably failed to win trust of minorities, or expand into Jammu, Ladakh, (Pakistan-Occupied) Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan and even failed to win minds and hearts of the people of Valley."
The JKLF leaders said there should be a bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar and between Mirpur and Jammu. They also suggested free travel facilities to Kashmiris from Jammu to places in PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan, of course both ways. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_293653,00430005.htm
SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version.
Written submission made to Henry Stimson Centre
Written submission made to Henry Stimson Centre
Written submission made to Henry Stimson Centre by delegation of JKLF UK & Europe in a meeting held on 17th June 2003 in Washington DC.
Delegation members:
1. Mr Abbas Butt, President of JKLF UK & Europe
2. Mr Zubair Ul Haq Ansari, Secretary General JKLF
3. Councillor Masoom Ansari, Treasurer
4. Dr Shabir Choudhry, Chairman Diplomatic Committee
It is pleasure to note that the Stimson Centre has taken keen interest in affairs of South Asia, and have played a proactive role in finding acceptable solution of the Kashmir dispute.
We feel that American Think Tanks like Henry Stimson Centre could take a lead role in encouraging and helping the parties to over come difficulties. Whereas we appreciate their role, we want to emphasis these basic facts which should be taken in to consideration:
· The entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, and a higher degree of violence and human rights violations in one region does not make it more disputed than other regions;
· Violence and use of force will not lead to any permanent resolution of the dispute;
· Religious fanaticism, extremism and communalism must be opposed as they only exacerbate the situation; and no solution could be found when there is culture of fear and armed personnel are dominating the civil society of Kashmir.
· Emphasis must be on a process of dialogue to find a permanent solution, and continuation of this process;
· It must be clear that no solution could be imposed on the people of Kashmir; therefore any solution must be according to aspirations of the people of Kashmir.
We appreciate the role of the USA and the American Think Tanks like Stimson Centre, who fully support a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute that there can be peace and stability in South Asia, but at the same time we urge that America has to play some kind of role, be it behind the scenes, as overt mediation is not acceptable to India and Pakistan.
We believe the American role (be it that of a facilitator) and influence is imperative to ensure that the both India and Pakistan:
· Create environment conducive to start a process of dialogue;
· Continue the process of dialogue and do not give up as a result of some kind of serious incident which could be managed by those who don’t want peace in the region;
· Involve the people of Jammu and Kashmir in to either tripartite or triangular process of dialogue;
· Work out a mechanism based on justice and fair play to ‘elect’ a Kashmiri leadership who could help in the resolution of the dispute.
We further emphasis that whereas both India and Pakistan have every right to resolve their bilateral issues, Kashmir dispute must not be resolved bilaterally as it is not a territorial dispute. People of Kashmir are the principal party to this long standing dispute, and they should have the final say on the future status of the State. In any case, history of bilateralism between the two proves that they have note been able to make progress; and it is also because of this that the people of Kashmir must be involved in the peace process.
State is multi religious and multi ethnic political unit
The State of Jammu and Kashmir is multi religious and multi ethnic political unit, and must remain as such where people have right to live and practice their beliefs without any fear intimidation. Any attempt to change this character of the State could result in more problems and violence not only in Kashmir but it could spill over to India and Pakistan. So it is imperative that the State remains as a one political unit otherwise the genie of communalism will take over the events and bring more hatred and destruction in the entire region.
Issue over representation
We acknowledge practical difficulties in ascertaining the views of the Kashmiri people, and even to decide who will represent them; but it is clear that the APHC is not a representative of the Kashmiri people. They have miserably failed:
· To win trust of minorities;
· Expand in to Jammu;
· Expand in to Ladakh
· Expand in to Azad Kashmir
· Expand in to Gilgit and Baltistan and
· Even failed to win minds and hearts of the people of Valley
They had a free hand in playing a lead role in matters of the State for past 8/9 years, and to prove that they have vision and a programme for the future status of the State; and that they are well wishers of all citizens of the State, and have ability to represent people of all shades and opinion.
The history of past decade shows that they had no programme and no vision, and they were happier in promoting their personal agendas and implementing the agenda of those who were comfortably sitting outside the borders of the State. As a result we saw rise of communalism and hatred during these years which brought more destruction and very severely damaged the fabrics of Kashmiri society which took pride in its culture and practice of tolerance.
Also they have failed to talk about interest of all Kashmiri regions, especially about rights of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. This proves that either they had no care for them and perhaps did not regard them as Kashmiri regions; or they decided to remain quiet because of fear that the supply of ‘goods’ will stop from across the border.
The fact that they ‘exported’ leaders from the Valley to take posts in the so called APHC Azad Kashmir Chapter proves that it is a Valley based organisation; and its prime aim is to protect interest of the Valley. If it was a representative of all Kashmiris, and wanted to demonstrate that then they could have asked some Kashmiri leaders in Azad Kashmir to take these positions. And if they wanted to reflect non communal character of the organisation they could have sent a non Muslim Kashmiri leader/s to Azad Kashmir to take one or more posts.
In view of this the APHC DOESNOT passes the test of representation, and must not be allowed to play with sentiments of the people. While selecting/electing the representatives of the Kashmiri people, at best, they should be allowed to accompany other leaders of the Valley who also have claim over representation in the valley.
Another point which needs to be taken in to consideration on this topic is that those Kashmiris who have already have decided that their future is either with India or Pakistan DONOT need any representation on the negotiating table, because their views could be represented by respective delegations of India and Pakistan.
Apart from APHC there are other Kashmiri alliances who claim to be well wishers of the Kashmiri people, and they speak of rights of all Kashmiri regions; and above all they are non communal in character.
Use of violence
We strongly believe that violence generates more violence and this could exacerbate the situation rather than resolving it. Therefore no party to the dispute should attempt to impose a decision by use of force; or use force to achieve political gains.
We also believe that the Kashmir dispute is a political problem and not a religious one as some leaders try to project. Furthermore, although India and Pakistan are parties to the dispute because of their de-facto control of the Kashmiri territory, however the Kashmir dispute basically concerns the people of Kashmir who have to determine their future status; and because of this there is no role for non Kashmiris to be there in any form or shape.
Intra Kashmir dialogue and understanding between regions
The State of Jammu Kashmir which consists of the Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, had a proud history of tolerance and coexistence. Unfortunately fabrics of this old and rich culture of tolerance and brotherhood has been seriously damaged by forced division and segregation; and continued violence, at times targeting ethnic groups and religious sects, has resulted in misunderstandings and some kind of hatred among the Kashmiri regions and ethnic groups.
In the view of the above it is suggested that appropriate steps should be taken to rehabilitate those who have been uprooted by the trouble in the State, and opportunities are provided that people of different regions and various ethnic groups meet each other and build bridges of understanding. We therefore suggest:
· If a bus can travel from Pakistan to India, between two hostile countries, why can’t there be a bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar and between Mirpur and Jammu;
· Similarly why not people of each region be allowed to travel to other regions that people could develop ties of friendship and understanding, for example, people and leaders of Azad Kashmir visit Gilgit and Baltistan and vice versa, and people and leaders of Gilgit and Baltistan doing same in Ladakh;
· Why can’t parliamentarians of Azad Kashmir visit Srinagar and vice versa;
· If India and Pakistan, despite animosity with each other can develop trade links, then why not people of Kashmir be allowed to trade with each other.
· This process could eventually lead us to Intra Kashmir dialogue where people of Kashmir could sit down and formulate a policy about the future status of the State.
We all understand that the Kashmir dispute is not a simple one and it could not be resolved in one step, and there have to be a number of small steps leading to the final solution. It is therefore imperative that the both India and Pakistan, of course the militants and the Kashmiri people take appropriate steps to create conducive atmosphere in which a dialogue can take place. End
.
Written submission made to Henry Stimson Centre by delegation of JKLF UK & Europe in a meeting held on 17th June 2003 in Washington DC.
Delegation members:
1. Mr Abbas Butt, President of JKLF UK & Europe
2. Mr Zubair Ul Haq Ansari, Secretary General JKLF
3. Councillor Masoom Ansari, Treasurer
4. Dr Shabir Choudhry, Chairman Diplomatic Committee
It is pleasure to note that the Stimson Centre has taken keen interest in affairs of South Asia, and have played a proactive role in finding acceptable solution of the Kashmir dispute.
We feel that American Think Tanks like Henry Stimson Centre could take a lead role in encouraging and helping the parties to over come difficulties. Whereas we appreciate their role, we want to emphasis these basic facts which should be taken in to consideration:
· The entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, and a higher degree of violence and human rights violations in one region does not make it more disputed than other regions;
· Violence and use of force will not lead to any permanent resolution of the dispute;
· Religious fanaticism, extremism and communalism must be opposed as they only exacerbate the situation; and no solution could be found when there is culture of fear and armed personnel are dominating the civil society of Kashmir.
· Emphasis must be on a process of dialogue to find a permanent solution, and continuation of this process;
· It must be clear that no solution could be imposed on the people of Kashmir; therefore any solution must be according to aspirations of the people of Kashmir.
We appreciate the role of the USA and the American Think Tanks like Stimson Centre, who fully support a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute that there can be peace and stability in South Asia, but at the same time we urge that America has to play some kind of role, be it behind the scenes, as overt mediation is not acceptable to India and Pakistan.
We believe the American role (be it that of a facilitator) and influence is imperative to ensure that the both India and Pakistan:
· Create environment conducive to start a process of dialogue;
· Continue the process of dialogue and do not give up as a result of some kind of serious incident which could be managed by those who don’t want peace in the region;
· Involve the people of Jammu and Kashmir in to either tripartite or triangular process of dialogue;
· Work out a mechanism based on justice and fair play to ‘elect’ a Kashmiri leadership who could help in the resolution of the dispute.
We further emphasis that whereas both India and Pakistan have every right to resolve their bilateral issues, Kashmir dispute must not be resolved bilaterally as it is not a territorial dispute. People of Kashmir are the principal party to this long standing dispute, and they should have the final say on the future status of the State. In any case, history of bilateralism between the two proves that they have note been able to make progress; and it is also because of this that the people of Kashmir must be involved in the peace process.
State is multi religious and multi ethnic political unit
The State of Jammu and Kashmir is multi religious and multi ethnic political unit, and must remain as such where people have right to live and practice their beliefs without any fear intimidation. Any attempt to change this character of the State could result in more problems and violence not only in Kashmir but it could spill over to India and Pakistan. So it is imperative that the State remains as a one political unit otherwise the genie of communalism will take over the events and bring more hatred and destruction in the entire region.
Issue over representation
We acknowledge practical difficulties in ascertaining the views of the Kashmiri people, and even to decide who will represent them; but it is clear that the APHC is not a representative of the Kashmiri people. They have miserably failed:
· To win trust of minorities;
· Expand in to Jammu;
· Expand in to Ladakh
· Expand in to Azad Kashmir
· Expand in to Gilgit and Baltistan and
· Even failed to win minds and hearts of the people of Valley
They had a free hand in playing a lead role in matters of the State for past 8/9 years, and to prove that they have vision and a programme for the future status of the State; and that they are well wishers of all citizens of the State, and have ability to represent people of all shades and opinion.
The history of past decade shows that they had no programme and no vision, and they were happier in promoting their personal agendas and implementing the agenda of those who were comfortably sitting outside the borders of the State. As a result we saw rise of communalism and hatred during these years which brought more destruction and very severely damaged the fabrics of Kashmiri society which took pride in its culture and practice of tolerance.
Also they have failed to talk about interest of all Kashmiri regions, especially about rights of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. This proves that either they had no care for them and perhaps did not regard them as Kashmiri regions; or they decided to remain quiet because of fear that the supply of ‘goods’ will stop from across the border.
The fact that they ‘exported’ leaders from the Valley to take posts in the so called APHC Azad Kashmir Chapter proves that it is a Valley based organisation; and its prime aim is to protect interest of the Valley. If it was a representative of all Kashmiris, and wanted to demonstrate that then they could have asked some Kashmiri leaders in Azad Kashmir to take these positions. And if they wanted to reflect non communal character of the organisation they could have sent a non Muslim Kashmiri leader/s to Azad Kashmir to take one or more posts.
In view of this the APHC DOESNOT passes the test of representation, and must not be allowed to play with sentiments of the people. While selecting/electing the representatives of the Kashmiri people, at best, they should be allowed to accompany other leaders of the Valley who also have claim over representation in the valley.
Another point which needs to be taken in to consideration on this topic is that those Kashmiris who have already have decided that their future is either with India or Pakistan DONOT need any representation on the negotiating table, because their views could be represented by respective delegations of India and Pakistan.
Apart from APHC there are other Kashmiri alliances who claim to be well wishers of the Kashmiri people, and they speak of rights of all Kashmiri regions; and above all they are non communal in character.
Use of violence
We strongly believe that violence generates more violence and this could exacerbate the situation rather than resolving it. Therefore no party to the dispute should attempt to impose a decision by use of force; or use force to achieve political gains.
We also believe that the Kashmir dispute is a political problem and not a religious one as some leaders try to project. Furthermore, although India and Pakistan are parties to the dispute because of their de-facto control of the Kashmiri territory, however the Kashmir dispute basically concerns the people of Kashmir who have to determine their future status; and because of this there is no role for non Kashmiris to be there in any form or shape.
Intra Kashmir dialogue and understanding between regions
The State of Jammu Kashmir which consists of the Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, had a proud history of tolerance and coexistence. Unfortunately fabrics of this old and rich culture of tolerance and brotherhood has been seriously damaged by forced division and segregation; and continued violence, at times targeting ethnic groups and religious sects, has resulted in misunderstandings and some kind of hatred among the Kashmiri regions and ethnic groups.
In the view of the above it is suggested that appropriate steps should be taken to rehabilitate those who have been uprooted by the trouble in the State, and opportunities are provided that people of different regions and various ethnic groups meet each other and build bridges of understanding. We therefore suggest:
· If a bus can travel from Pakistan to India, between two hostile countries, why can’t there be a bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar and between Mirpur and Jammu;
· Similarly why not people of each region be allowed to travel to other regions that people could develop ties of friendship and understanding, for example, people and leaders of Azad Kashmir visit Gilgit and Baltistan and vice versa, and people and leaders of Gilgit and Baltistan doing same in Ladakh;
· Why can’t parliamentarians of Azad Kashmir visit Srinagar and vice versa;
· If India and Pakistan, despite animosity with each other can develop trade links, then why not people of Kashmir be allowed to trade with each other.
· This process could eventually lead us to Intra Kashmir dialogue where people of Kashmir could sit down and formulate a policy about the future status of the State.
We all understand that the Kashmir dispute is not a simple one and it could not be resolved in one step, and there have to be a number of small steps leading to the final solution. It is therefore imperative that the both India and Pakistan, of course the militants and the Kashmiri people take appropriate steps to create conducive atmosphere in which a dialogue can take place. End
.
Pakistan has no right to speak on behalf of Kashmiris.
Pakistan has no right to speak on behalf of Kashmiris.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
On behalf of JKLF I welcome India and Pakistan’s determination to resolve all disputes including the Kashmir dispute through "sustained and serious" dialogue. I also welcome Pakistani Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Masood Khan’s statement in which he speaks against extremism which ‘generates hatred and is opposed to diversity’; and that his commitment was to establish a society which has ‘moderation and peace’.
But I strongly protest against his statement in which he said, "What satisfies Islamabad will ultimately satisfy the Kashmiris". Dr Choudhry said what satisfies Islamabad does not always satisfies even Pakistanis of Sind, Balochistan and Frontier, how could it satisfies us Kashmiris who are not legally and constitutionally part of Pakistan.
We have not appointed Pakistan to represent Kashmiris as an advocate. Pakistan is a party to the dispute by its de facto position in Kashmir, and as a party to the dispute Pakistan could only speak and protect its own interests; and cannot speak on behalf of third party because of conflict of interest.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said, it is only logical that Pakistan will protect its own interests on the negotiation table, and interest of the Kashmiri people will be secondary to Pakistani officials; and it is because of this we demand that we must have a seat on the negotiating table that we can present our case and fight our corner to preserve Kashmiryat and Kashmiri interests.
JKLF leader said we are the main party to the dispute, and it is the people of Kashmir who have suffered for the past 57 years. This suffering must come to an end, as people could not continue to suffer indefinitely.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said, we have been let down by every one- India and Pakistan let us down because it was in their national interest to either get all of Kashmir or get maximum territory with little care for the people of Kashmir. Important members of the International Community also let us down in order to safeguard their strategic and national interests; but worse was the let down by the Kashmiri leadership. For their petty personal interests and self aggrandisement, they let us down in 1940s, and unfortunately this process has continued till today; and now some leaders have made the Kashmir struggle in to a commercial enterprise.
JKLF leader said people of Kashmir deserve peace and honour. It is not ordained that they have to be forcibly separated and deprived of their basic human rights. In order to have self respect and dignity we need freedom, peace, political and economic stability. We cannot achieve above goals if there is constant threat of war and culture of violence and fear prevails.
We have to create conditions under which the process of dialogue could continue and people could express their will without fear of intimidation. Violence generates more violence and is not right method to bring peace and harmony in the region. END
Dr Shabir Choudhry
On behalf of JKLF I welcome India and Pakistan’s determination to resolve all disputes including the Kashmir dispute through "sustained and serious" dialogue. I also welcome Pakistani Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Masood Khan’s statement in which he speaks against extremism which ‘generates hatred and is opposed to diversity’; and that his commitment was to establish a society which has ‘moderation and peace’.
But I strongly protest against his statement in which he said, "What satisfies Islamabad will ultimately satisfy the Kashmiris". Dr Choudhry said what satisfies Islamabad does not always satisfies even Pakistanis of Sind, Balochistan and Frontier, how could it satisfies us Kashmiris who are not legally and constitutionally part of Pakistan.
We have not appointed Pakistan to represent Kashmiris as an advocate. Pakistan is a party to the dispute by its de facto position in Kashmir, and as a party to the dispute Pakistan could only speak and protect its own interests; and cannot speak on behalf of third party because of conflict of interest.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said, it is only logical that Pakistan will protect its own interests on the negotiation table, and interest of the Kashmiri people will be secondary to Pakistani officials; and it is because of this we demand that we must have a seat on the negotiating table that we can present our case and fight our corner to preserve Kashmiryat and Kashmiri interests.
JKLF leader said we are the main party to the dispute, and it is the people of Kashmir who have suffered for the past 57 years. This suffering must come to an end, as people could not continue to suffer indefinitely.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said, we have been let down by every one- India and Pakistan let us down because it was in their national interest to either get all of Kashmir or get maximum territory with little care for the people of Kashmir. Important members of the International Community also let us down in order to safeguard their strategic and national interests; but worse was the let down by the Kashmiri leadership. For their petty personal interests and self aggrandisement, they let us down in 1940s, and unfortunately this process has continued till today; and now some leaders have made the Kashmir struggle in to a commercial enterprise.
JKLF leader said people of Kashmir deserve peace and honour. It is not ordained that they have to be forcibly separated and deprived of their basic human rights. In order to have self respect and dignity we need freedom, peace, political and economic stability. We cannot achieve above goals if there is constant threat of war and culture of violence and fear prevails.
We have to create conditions under which the process of dialogue could continue and people could express their will without fear of intimidation. Violence generates more violence and is not right method to bring peace and harmony in the region. END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)