Right of self determination and ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’
Dr Shabir Choudhry 12 October 2008.
What a change? What a U turn? Those who were until recently selling General Musharaf’s four point agenda on Kashmir leading to division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have made another somersault and have brought out a new ‘commodity’ wrapped skilfully in cover of right of self determination.
Right of self determination is a fundamental human right and is highly respected in all societies, especially in the West. Many countries and agencies use this noble concept of self determination to further their national and personal interests. Some business minded people have transformed the Kashmiri struggle in to a lucrative business, and they have ability to sell anything.
They have mastered the art of salesmanship, and have successfully sold Kashmir issue for generations. When it suited them they advocated the status quo, when militancy was popular, it was sold as a ‘Jihad’. When popularity of militancy declined they became advocates of peace and human rights. When General Musharaf, as a President of Pakistan proposed a division of Kashmir in a form of ‘self rule’, they advocated that ‘self rule’ was more ‘advanced’ and ‘forward looking’ concept than right of self determination.
Now that General Musharaf is no longer calling shots and his four point agenda is abandoned, policy makers in Islamabad thought of promoting right of accession under disguise of self determination. They approached their tried and tested ally based in Chandni Chowk of Rawalpindi, who successfully accomplished many missions for them in the past.
As a result of that understanding a declaration was made with regard to ‘right of self determination’. This so called nationalist leader who is not regarded as such by any nationalist party of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan, and is out of step with all parties who promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir is still ‘blue eye boy’ of Pakistani agencies.
He seems to be more at home with pro Pakistan parties and that is why he never felt need to consult or talk to any of the nationalist parties. He under directions of his mentors had meetings with pro Pakistan parties and declared right of self determination day on 14th October.
Their foot soldiers and employees in Europe were also issued directions to hold some function to promote their brand of ‘right of self determination’ that it ‘coincide with the right of self-determination day called by their mentors in Islamabad, hence some people in a close room meting set up an ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’ in name of Kashmiri Diaspora.
Interestingly these promoters of right of self determination felt no need to take in to confidence anyone from Jammu, Ladakh, All Parties Nationalist Alliance - alliance of nationalist parties of Azad Kashmir of Gilgit and Baltistan, or GABNA alliance of parties in Gilgit and Baltistan, Kashmiri alliances among Kashmiri Diaspora and popular parties in the Valley; and yet they have nerve to claim that they are representing the majority view. It clearly looked that their aim was to promote a Muslim interest – a right of self determination for Muslims to divide people of Jammu and Kashmir on religious lines.
Dr Nazir Gilani, a prominent human rights activist and Secretary General of JKCHR- only Kashmiri party with a special consultative status with the UN, was also among those who were not invited to this so called meeting in which this so called ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’ was set up. A Kashmiri channel – KBC is sincerely trying to educate people and doing its best to help Kashmiri Diaspora to forge some kind of unity; and Shams Rehman is playing a leading role in this regard.
Shams Rehman had a special TV programme for this purpose, and when he pressed these promoters of new right of ‘self determination’, why they did not take other Kashmiris on board to promote unity and right of self determination, one man who receives a salary from a centre set up by Pakistani agencies said: We have called all people who believe in right of self determination, but we will not invite those who are ‘hashia bardaar of India’ and that he ‘will expose these people’. The term ‘Hashia bardaar of India’ is abusive and derogative, and is not used by self respecting people – one can translate it as a ‘member of an Indian lobby or agent of India’.
This man was a school teacher before the start of militancy and since that time has changed many platforms which helped him to run his kitchen. His mentors could not promote him adequately with a title of school teacher so they gave him a new title of a ‘Professor’; and exported him from Islamabad to London with hefty salary. Perhaps this guy does not know that his language was divisive and full of hatred; and he could be clearly in violation of British laws. The British authorities don’t look kindly at those who spread communalism and hatred, and advocate such policies which can shatter peace and harmony of the British society.
After pressure from the KBC team and other political parties they hurriedly issued some invitations. On Saturday 11th October I checked with some active nationalist parties in UK and I was astonished to find out that they did not receive any invitation, and this so called seminar is taking place on 14th October. Active participant in this campaign is Amanulalh Khan’s JKLF which is not regarded as a nationalist party by nationalists of Jammu and Kashmir, and like Muslim Conference their role is to protect and promote interest of Islamabad from their respective platforms.
According to the rational expressed by this employee of Islamabad all those who were not invited in the so called original meeting or there after are ‘Hashia bardaar of India’ – agents of India?
It would be pertinent to ask some questions from these champions of ‘right of self determination’:
Who called this meeting of representatives of Kashmiri Diaspora to set up an ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’?
What criteria, if any, were used to extend invitations?
When and where this meeting was held and who were present?
Names associated with this enterprise also belong to political parties; and those parties also have a policy on Kashmir, does it mean that they are disappointed with the policy or stand of their parent parties that they felt obliged to set up a new platform?
Apart from that these people are also associated with pro Pakistan alliance known as Rabta Committee or Coordination Committee, does it mean that this platform is no longer capable to advance the cause of self determination?
I am sure one could add more questions to this list. It is becoming evidently clear that this new campaign is a new trade mark for those with commercial interest in the Kashmiri struggle. It is not their imitative, just like militancy was not their initiative. Previously they were agents of a ‘proxy war’ and sold it as a ‘jihad’; and it looks that in place of that now they will be part of this ‘proxy politics’, controlled and directed from Islamabad.
My humble request is to find another business or another job, and do not sell right of accession to Pakistan wrapped up in a beautiful cover of right of self determination. And please do not use name of Kashmiri Diaspora to further your political and commercial interests.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Sunday, 12 October 2008
Thursday, 9 October 2008
So they are terrorists now?
So they are terrorists now?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 8 October 2008
When a head of state makes a statement it is regarded as an official policy of the country; and now it is official that Kashmiri struggle is ‘terrorism’ and all those associated with it, including leaders of APHC are ‘terrorists’, claims President of Islamic republic of Pakistan, Asif Zardari.
It is different matter that Pakistani establishment has hitherto projected leaders of the APHC as ‘holy cows’ which must not be criticised or opposed; if anything they must be respected and followed. Asif Zardari might have had his reasons and compulsions when giving this very bold interview to very prestigious newspaper Wall Street Journal.
But compulsions and requirements of powerful military and ISI which is known as state within state could be different from that of Asif Zardari; and it remains to be seen if they will accept this doctrine or will continue their old policies of supporting, training and promoting ‘jihad’ and militancy. It is not secret anymore that it was their considered policy to ‘keep India bleeding’ and to ‘keep India engaged’ or bogged down in Jammu and Kashmir; and that time it was perceived as in the best interest of Pakistan.
Nations best interests do change with time, but question is since when Pakistan has become a nation? Where and when they have discussed and reached a consensus that so and so policy is in the best national interest? There have always been forces within Pakistan competing against each other and undermining national interest. Policy of ‘adhocism’ always prevailed there with no system of check and balance or any kind of accountability or transparency.
My colleagues and I were fiercely attacked and a malicious campaign against us was launched with help of Pakistani agencies some years ago because we refused to accept the APHC as representative of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and demanded politics of accountability and transparency. We criticised role of these leaders and not only refused to follow them but questioned about their sincerity, legitimacy and action plan for the Kashmiri struggle.
This vicious campaign was initiated against us because we challenged those who were puppets of the Pakistani establishment and were protecting and advancing ‘interest’ of Pakistani establishment. We stood our ground and claimed that the policy of communalising Kashmiri polity with violence, hatred and extremism will ultimately hurt people of Jammu and Kashmir; and might destabilise the Pakistani society as well.
When bombs were exploding outside the borders of Pakistan it was promoted as a ‘Jihad’ by Pakistani establishment and media because they were behind all this; and mosques and their imams and other Islamic organisations were urged to preach this ‘jihad’ and recruit people for waging it outside borders of Pakistan. For this ‘noble cause of jihad’ millions of dollars were spent and huge network was established.
We opposed this kind of ‘Jihad’ because it was a ‘proxy war’ of Pakistan presented to people of Jammu and Kashmir and the world at large as a Kashmiri struggle; also because it immensely increased suffering and problems of the people and unleashed forces of communalism, terrorism, extremism and hatred.
Asif Zardari has turned decades of Pakistani policy on its head; and it sent shock waves not only to the Pakistani establishment but also in many quarters around the world. It also shocked some Kashmiris as they still thought Pakistan was sincere with the cause of Kashmir; and in frustration and anger they burnt effigy of Asif Zardari.
Apart from the above U turn, he boldly claimed that "India has never been a threat to Pakistan". That statement in practise means that it is always Pakistani military which initiated wars with India and caused death and destruction of thousands of people in wars of 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999 and not to mention proxy wars. Similar views have been expressed by some Pakistani writers, and Asif Zardari’s statement is supporting that view point, no matter if Pakistan’s strong establishment and military likes it or not.
In line with tradition of Pakistani politics the Pakistani government and members of establishment tried to limit the damage by saying that Zardari Sahib didn’t say that. But the fact is he did say it and no one is taking explanations of Ms Shery Rehman seriously. If he really has not said it then why doesn’t he sue Wall Street Journal? It is clear that he won’t because he has no legs to stand. He knows that the interviews of this kind are recorded and could be produced in the court.
Also Asif Zardari stunned everyone by acknowledging that the USA has permission to attack and kill militants and terrorists inside Pakistan. Of course with every strike more and more civilian are killed and maimed. Previously all government leaders were yelling that they will not allow any country to attack Pakistan or undermine its sovereignty. One wonders where they stand after this revelation. Either there was total lack of coordination, consultation and understanding among different branches of the government and rulers, or they were issuing these statements for public consumption knowing full well that they were wrong and didn’t mean anything.
However crucial question for people of Jammu and Kashmir is can they rely on Pakistan anymore? A government or rulers who feel no shame in killing their own people with F16 fighters, helicopter gun - ships, tanks and bombs even in holy month of Ramadan, will they spare us Kashmiris when and if we demanded and took certain measure that we want Pakistan to leave from Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. One has to remember that despite virtual collapse of system because of militancy in 1990, killings, destruction and human rights abuse on the Indian side of the divide the authorities there did not use tanks or jet fighters to eliminate militants.
Moreover a government or rulers who give permission to foreign powers to violate Pakistani sovereignty, cross over to Pakistani territory and use their lethal weapons to kill people and destroy their properties, can we trust these rulers? Killing militants or Terrorists is one thing, but killing of innocent people men, women and children who are generally killed in these attacks cannot be condoned; and it is not proper to cover all these atrocities under the umbrella of ‘collateral damage’.
One can agree that extremists and terrorists are threat to every civilised society, but there must be unity of thought and action on this. You cannot pick and choose in this matter, and say that one kind of terrorism is justified because it furthers ‘our national interest’ or strategic policy; and the other kind of terrorism is wrong as it hurts us and directly challenges ‘our national interest’, writ of government and strategic policy.
If violence and terrorism is wrong in Pakistan then it is also wrong in Jammu and Kashmir, and appropriate measures need to be taken in order to stop and contain terrorism. Government of Pakistan and its agencies must abandon its old policies and stop supporting those who have been actively and deliberately promoting violence in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere.
Also government of India and Pakistan must not give undue importance to those who took part in violence and have been promoting it for so many years, as that is tantamount to rewarding their past violent or ‘terrorist actions’. Both governments stop human rights abuse in their respective parts of the State and support those forces who believe in non military solution of the Kashmir dispute; those forces who promote liberal and democratic politics and rule of law.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 8 October 2008
When a head of state makes a statement it is regarded as an official policy of the country; and now it is official that Kashmiri struggle is ‘terrorism’ and all those associated with it, including leaders of APHC are ‘terrorists’, claims President of Islamic republic of Pakistan, Asif Zardari.
It is different matter that Pakistani establishment has hitherto projected leaders of the APHC as ‘holy cows’ which must not be criticised or opposed; if anything they must be respected and followed. Asif Zardari might have had his reasons and compulsions when giving this very bold interview to very prestigious newspaper Wall Street Journal.
But compulsions and requirements of powerful military and ISI which is known as state within state could be different from that of Asif Zardari; and it remains to be seen if they will accept this doctrine or will continue their old policies of supporting, training and promoting ‘jihad’ and militancy. It is not secret anymore that it was their considered policy to ‘keep India bleeding’ and to ‘keep India engaged’ or bogged down in Jammu and Kashmir; and that time it was perceived as in the best interest of Pakistan.
Nations best interests do change with time, but question is since when Pakistan has become a nation? Where and when they have discussed and reached a consensus that so and so policy is in the best national interest? There have always been forces within Pakistan competing against each other and undermining national interest. Policy of ‘adhocism’ always prevailed there with no system of check and balance or any kind of accountability or transparency.
My colleagues and I were fiercely attacked and a malicious campaign against us was launched with help of Pakistani agencies some years ago because we refused to accept the APHC as representative of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and demanded politics of accountability and transparency. We criticised role of these leaders and not only refused to follow them but questioned about their sincerity, legitimacy and action plan for the Kashmiri struggle.
This vicious campaign was initiated against us because we challenged those who were puppets of the Pakistani establishment and were protecting and advancing ‘interest’ of Pakistani establishment. We stood our ground and claimed that the policy of communalising Kashmiri polity with violence, hatred and extremism will ultimately hurt people of Jammu and Kashmir; and might destabilise the Pakistani society as well.
When bombs were exploding outside the borders of Pakistan it was promoted as a ‘Jihad’ by Pakistani establishment and media because they were behind all this; and mosques and their imams and other Islamic organisations were urged to preach this ‘jihad’ and recruit people for waging it outside borders of Pakistan. For this ‘noble cause of jihad’ millions of dollars were spent and huge network was established.
We opposed this kind of ‘Jihad’ because it was a ‘proxy war’ of Pakistan presented to people of Jammu and Kashmir and the world at large as a Kashmiri struggle; also because it immensely increased suffering and problems of the people and unleashed forces of communalism, terrorism, extremism and hatred.
Asif Zardari has turned decades of Pakistani policy on its head; and it sent shock waves not only to the Pakistani establishment but also in many quarters around the world. It also shocked some Kashmiris as they still thought Pakistan was sincere with the cause of Kashmir; and in frustration and anger they burnt effigy of Asif Zardari.
Apart from the above U turn, he boldly claimed that "India has never been a threat to Pakistan". That statement in practise means that it is always Pakistani military which initiated wars with India and caused death and destruction of thousands of people in wars of 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999 and not to mention proxy wars. Similar views have been expressed by some Pakistani writers, and Asif Zardari’s statement is supporting that view point, no matter if Pakistan’s strong establishment and military likes it or not.
In line with tradition of Pakistani politics the Pakistani government and members of establishment tried to limit the damage by saying that Zardari Sahib didn’t say that. But the fact is he did say it and no one is taking explanations of Ms Shery Rehman seriously. If he really has not said it then why doesn’t he sue Wall Street Journal? It is clear that he won’t because he has no legs to stand. He knows that the interviews of this kind are recorded and could be produced in the court.
Also Asif Zardari stunned everyone by acknowledging that the USA has permission to attack and kill militants and terrorists inside Pakistan. Of course with every strike more and more civilian are killed and maimed. Previously all government leaders were yelling that they will not allow any country to attack Pakistan or undermine its sovereignty. One wonders where they stand after this revelation. Either there was total lack of coordination, consultation and understanding among different branches of the government and rulers, or they were issuing these statements for public consumption knowing full well that they were wrong and didn’t mean anything.
However crucial question for people of Jammu and Kashmir is can they rely on Pakistan anymore? A government or rulers who feel no shame in killing their own people with F16 fighters, helicopter gun - ships, tanks and bombs even in holy month of Ramadan, will they spare us Kashmiris when and if we demanded and took certain measure that we want Pakistan to leave from Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. One has to remember that despite virtual collapse of system because of militancy in 1990, killings, destruction and human rights abuse on the Indian side of the divide the authorities there did not use tanks or jet fighters to eliminate militants.
Moreover a government or rulers who give permission to foreign powers to violate Pakistani sovereignty, cross over to Pakistani territory and use their lethal weapons to kill people and destroy their properties, can we trust these rulers? Killing militants or Terrorists is one thing, but killing of innocent people men, women and children who are generally killed in these attacks cannot be condoned; and it is not proper to cover all these atrocities under the umbrella of ‘collateral damage’.
One can agree that extremists and terrorists are threat to every civilised society, but there must be unity of thought and action on this. You cannot pick and choose in this matter, and say that one kind of terrorism is justified because it furthers ‘our national interest’ or strategic policy; and the other kind of terrorism is wrong as it hurts us and directly challenges ‘our national interest’, writ of government and strategic policy.
If violence and terrorism is wrong in Pakistan then it is also wrong in Jammu and Kashmir, and appropriate measures need to be taken in order to stop and contain terrorism. Government of Pakistan and its agencies must abandon its old policies and stop supporting those who have been actively and deliberately promoting violence in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere.
Also government of India and Pakistan must not give undue importance to those who took part in violence and have been promoting it for so many years, as that is tantamount to rewarding their past violent or ‘terrorist actions’. Both governments stop human rights abuse in their respective parts of the State and support those forces who believe in non military solution of the Kashmir dispute; those forces who promote liberal and democratic politics and rule of law.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Speech of Dr Shabir Choudhry in a conference in Geneva 23 September 2008.
Speech of Dr Shabir Choudhry in a conference in Geneva 23 September 2008.
Mr President, friends and colleagues aslamo alaykam
I am grateful to Dr Charles Graves and Interfaith International for organising this important conference at a time when a lot is happening in South Asia. Terrorist activities in both India and Pakistan are on increase with alarm bells ringing in many quarters around the world. The Kashmiri struggle which many thought had seen its peak and was now seen under control has once again made headlines, and people call this new wave of protest a Kashmiri intifada.
The topic of this conference is “Kashmir Issue, Terrorism and Human Rights”; and some speakers have spoken on the topic before me. Violence and terrorism are not new to human society; in fact, they are as old as human civilisation. But it is only after 9/11 that world opinion has dramatically changed against terrorism. If there was no 9/11 we might have seen Pakistan, the US and some other countries, in one way or the other still supporting terrorist groups in various parts of the world.
Today people associate terrorism with Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, in other words Alqaeeda and Taliban. One wonders who are God fathers of Osama and Mullah Omar and their groups. Who supported and promoted Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. When it suited both America and Pakistan they presented them as heroes and real mujahideen fighting the Russians. But when these Mujaheedens trained and armed by these countries decided not to play their game any more and wished to promote more jihad and militancy they were branded as bad boys.
Taliban is taken as a fundamentalist or a terrorist, but at one time it meant students who studied Islamic studies in religious schools. No religious school in Pakistan had skills and weapons to teach students in modern warfare or how to use tanks and heavy military equipment. Of course this was done by the Pakistan army and that is why a Pakistani Home Minister of the People Party government once said, ‘Taliban are our boys’.
These ‘boys’ were trained to accomplish a mission in Afghanistan and that was to control the volatile region that Pakistan can have a ‘strategic depth’- a name given to the policy of westward expansion by the Pakistan army in order to counter India. This could have given Pakistan a significant influence over Afghanistan and central Asia (not to mention Kashmir).
America also had interest in this if the Taliban were to provide stability in Afghanistan. Central Asian countries of Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan natural gas reserves of more than 236 trillion cubic feet. American oil companies wanted to build a pipeline that would transport oil from Central Asia through Afghanistan and ending at the Makran coast in Pakistan. The Wall Street Journal of 23 May 1997 declared and I quote: "the main interests of American and other economic elites is making Afghanistan a prime trans- shipment route for the exporting of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources……like them or not….the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history". Unquote
Taliban could not bring about much needed stability in Afghanistan, but Pakistan and the US succeeded in creating their own Frankenstein which did not hesitate to attack its creators. Pakistan with help and support of the US created a terrorist infrastructure to fight the Russians; and after their withdrawal from Afghanistan the US walked away as for them mission was accomplished. But ambitious and religiously motivated Pakistani agencies continued to use these ‘terrorist nurseries’ to support and promote violence to advance what they conceived as a Pakistani interest with the US turning their eyes other way.
This policy might have helped Pakistani agencies to advance their political and strategic agenda for some time but they didn’t realise that one day it will back fire. I personally spoke to senior Pakistani officials in mid 1990s, and requested them to abandon their policy of bringing jihadi warriors from other countries in Kashmir, as their presence was damaging our cause and changing the fundamental character of Kashmiri struggle. I also told them that one day they will have to pay heavy price for promoting politics of communalism, extremism and hatred, but they did not listen, and accused me of being anti Pakistan, anti jihad, anti Islam and pro India.
Where ever there is terrorism or armed struggle it surely has more than one impact on society: it seriously damages local economy and frightens investors and tourists. Victims are generally ordinary people and it gives excuse to both militants and armed forces to violate human rights; and above all it creates a class of people who make this has a business. These merchants of blood ensure that violence and terrorism continue and that they keep on getting rewards from this human tragedy.
General Musharaf is rightly accused of many wrong doings. His policies like policies of General Zia ul Haq will prove to be disastrous for Pakistan. He is also accused of playing double in the war on terrorism. His proposals on Kashmir were designed to divide Kashmir on religious lines, but the peace process, confidence building measure, and cease fire along the LOC have provided some relief to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially those living near the line of control.
His proposals on Kashmir were disliked and opposed by true nationalists and by all those who regarded the state as one political entity; but those who have commercialised the Kashmiri struggle saw an opportunity to make some more money and tried to sell this idea to the people, hence stand exposed in front of people. I hope that after general Musharaf his proposals on division of the State will be discarded and people of Kashmir will not allow these merchants to use the Kashmir dispute to further their commercial interests.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly divided since 1947, and human rights violations take place on both sides of the divide. It is natural wherever there is armed rebellion human rights abuse takes place; hence we witnessed human rights abuse on the Indian side of the divide committed by both state and non state actors. Whether human rights abuse is committed by militants or the people in uniform, generally victims are innocent people.
Every state has main responsibility of protecting life, honour and property of citizens, and the Maharaja of Kashmir’s provisional accession was based on this assumption that once he accedes to India the above pledge would be honoured. But what we see is that life, honour and property is not safe in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact in many cases they were targeted to punish people who had opposing political views. If the State actors are not personally responsible for these acts of violence perpetrated against civilians the state is still accountable as it is endowed with duty to protect life, liberty, honour and property of the people.
It must be pointed out here that State of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India was provisional and had to be ratified by the people. It is unfortunate that people of Jammu and Kashmir never had an opportunity to exercise their right to determine future of the State; and this is mainly because of competing interests of both India and Pakistan. However over the past years there have been some positive steps taken by both India and Pakistan to ease tension on borders and to create conducive environment to strengthen social, cultural and economic ties.
While appreciating these confidence building measures, I emphasis that more needs to be done and both countries need to take more Kashmir specific measures. They need to understand that war, militancy or proxy war is not sensible or viable option, and past experience and history is witness to this. Also it must be understood that politics of communalism, extremism and hatred might help their policy to make some immediate gains but in long run it will back fire and result in more violence and terrorism, so forces which preach violence and communalism must be controlled.
Apart from that it must be understood that Status quo is not an option either. Status quo means not only denial of right of self determination to the Kashmiri people which is the root cause of the problem, but also it means the continuation of the problem with commercial, political and strategic interest of many groups, which often result in killings, torture and violations of the fundamental human rights. Furthermore it means that both countries remain hostage to the Kashmir dispute and hold their progress and continue to spend huge resources to compete with each other, hence depriving their people of social advancement.
Also status quo means that because of acrimony, animosity and unending conflict between Pakistan and India, the region will remain unstable and world will remain under the threat of nuclear horror. Therefore a peaceful settlement of the dispute is the only option. Dialogue is the only way forward, but in this dialogue the main party to the dispute people of Jammu and Kashmir must also be present.
It must not be the case that India and Pakistan decide something on Kashmir and then impose that on us, as people will not accept it. This was even voiced by President of Pakistani Administered Kashmir Raja Zulqarnain Khan when he was asked on18 June 2007, about a claim of Pakistani foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri that Pakistan and India have almost reached an accord over the Kashmir dispute. Raja Zulqarnain Khan said and I quote: ‘Pakistan’s Foreign Office had neither taken him into confidence nor briefed him about negotiations with India since his assuming office last year. AJK president warned the Pakistani leadership that any agreement with India without the involvement of the Kashmiri people would not be acceptable.’ Unquote. If pro Pakistan leaders are not prepared to accept this kind of attitude and solution then one can imagine the response of other Kashmiris.
A survey was conducted both in India and Pakistan by WorldPublicOpinion.org during October and November of 2007, in which it was revealed and I quote: ‘that half or more are open to a range of possible outcomes for Kashmir other than it being part of their respective countries. On neither side is there strong majority opposition to Kashmir becoming an independent country or dividing Kashmir between Pakistan and India. Indians and Pakistanis show a readiness to have the Kashmiri people decide their fate. If a majority of all Kashmiris were to choose independence, a majority of Indians and Pakistanis would find such independence at least tolerable.’ unquote
This shows a change of attitude among people of India and Pakistan on the controversial issue of Kashmir. This flexibility was not there some years ago. It means people on both sides feel that continued hostility over Kashmir is not in the best interest of their countries and in the best interest of the region. We need to build on this and build constituency of peace, harmony and tolerance. If we want to make progress and compete with challenges of the 21st century then we must learn to live side by side, and think of region of South Asia as whole. This is the only way to defeat forces of communalism, terrorism and hatred.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Spokesman, Kashmir National Party
Telfax: 0044 (0) 208597 4782/ mobile: 0044 (0) 7790942471
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Mr President, friends and colleagues aslamo alaykam
I am grateful to Dr Charles Graves and Interfaith International for organising this important conference at a time when a lot is happening in South Asia. Terrorist activities in both India and Pakistan are on increase with alarm bells ringing in many quarters around the world. The Kashmiri struggle which many thought had seen its peak and was now seen under control has once again made headlines, and people call this new wave of protest a Kashmiri intifada.
The topic of this conference is “Kashmir Issue, Terrorism and Human Rights”; and some speakers have spoken on the topic before me. Violence and terrorism are not new to human society; in fact, they are as old as human civilisation. But it is only after 9/11 that world opinion has dramatically changed against terrorism. If there was no 9/11 we might have seen Pakistan, the US and some other countries, in one way or the other still supporting terrorist groups in various parts of the world.
Today people associate terrorism with Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, in other words Alqaeeda and Taliban. One wonders who are God fathers of Osama and Mullah Omar and their groups. Who supported and promoted Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. When it suited both America and Pakistan they presented them as heroes and real mujahideen fighting the Russians. But when these Mujaheedens trained and armed by these countries decided not to play their game any more and wished to promote more jihad and militancy they were branded as bad boys.
Taliban is taken as a fundamentalist or a terrorist, but at one time it meant students who studied Islamic studies in religious schools. No religious school in Pakistan had skills and weapons to teach students in modern warfare or how to use tanks and heavy military equipment. Of course this was done by the Pakistan army and that is why a Pakistani Home Minister of the People Party government once said, ‘Taliban are our boys’.
These ‘boys’ were trained to accomplish a mission in Afghanistan and that was to control the volatile region that Pakistan can have a ‘strategic depth’- a name given to the policy of westward expansion by the Pakistan army in order to counter India. This could have given Pakistan a significant influence over Afghanistan and central Asia (not to mention Kashmir).
America also had interest in this if the Taliban were to provide stability in Afghanistan. Central Asian countries of Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan natural gas reserves of more than 236 trillion cubic feet. American oil companies wanted to build a pipeline that would transport oil from Central Asia through Afghanistan and ending at the Makran coast in Pakistan. The Wall Street Journal of 23 May 1997 declared and I quote: "the main interests of American and other economic elites is making Afghanistan a prime trans- shipment route for the exporting of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources……like them or not….the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history". Unquote
Taliban could not bring about much needed stability in Afghanistan, but Pakistan and the US succeeded in creating their own Frankenstein which did not hesitate to attack its creators. Pakistan with help and support of the US created a terrorist infrastructure to fight the Russians; and after their withdrawal from Afghanistan the US walked away as for them mission was accomplished. But ambitious and religiously motivated Pakistani agencies continued to use these ‘terrorist nurseries’ to support and promote violence to advance what they conceived as a Pakistani interest with the US turning their eyes other way.
This policy might have helped Pakistani agencies to advance their political and strategic agenda for some time but they didn’t realise that one day it will back fire. I personally spoke to senior Pakistani officials in mid 1990s, and requested them to abandon their policy of bringing jihadi warriors from other countries in Kashmir, as their presence was damaging our cause and changing the fundamental character of Kashmiri struggle. I also told them that one day they will have to pay heavy price for promoting politics of communalism, extremism and hatred, but they did not listen, and accused me of being anti Pakistan, anti jihad, anti Islam and pro India.
Where ever there is terrorism or armed struggle it surely has more than one impact on society: it seriously damages local economy and frightens investors and tourists. Victims are generally ordinary people and it gives excuse to both militants and armed forces to violate human rights; and above all it creates a class of people who make this has a business. These merchants of blood ensure that violence and terrorism continue and that they keep on getting rewards from this human tragedy.
General Musharaf is rightly accused of many wrong doings. His policies like policies of General Zia ul Haq will prove to be disastrous for Pakistan. He is also accused of playing double in the war on terrorism. His proposals on Kashmir were designed to divide Kashmir on religious lines, but the peace process, confidence building measure, and cease fire along the LOC have provided some relief to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially those living near the line of control.
His proposals on Kashmir were disliked and opposed by true nationalists and by all those who regarded the state as one political entity; but those who have commercialised the Kashmiri struggle saw an opportunity to make some more money and tried to sell this idea to the people, hence stand exposed in front of people. I hope that after general Musharaf his proposals on division of the State will be discarded and people of Kashmir will not allow these merchants to use the Kashmir dispute to further their commercial interests.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly divided since 1947, and human rights violations take place on both sides of the divide. It is natural wherever there is armed rebellion human rights abuse takes place; hence we witnessed human rights abuse on the Indian side of the divide committed by both state and non state actors. Whether human rights abuse is committed by militants or the people in uniform, generally victims are innocent people.
Every state has main responsibility of protecting life, honour and property of citizens, and the Maharaja of Kashmir’s provisional accession was based on this assumption that once he accedes to India the above pledge would be honoured. But what we see is that life, honour and property is not safe in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact in many cases they were targeted to punish people who had opposing political views. If the State actors are not personally responsible for these acts of violence perpetrated against civilians the state is still accountable as it is endowed with duty to protect life, liberty, honour and property of the people.
It must be pointed out here that State of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India was provisional and had to be ratified by the people. It is unfortunate that people of Jammu and Kashmir never had an opportunity to exercise their right to determine future of the State; and this is mainly because of competing interests of both India and Pakistan. However over the past years there have been some positive steps taken by both India and Pakistan to ease tension on borders and to create conducive environment to strengthen social, cultural and economic ties.
While appreciating these confidence building measures, I emphasis that more needs to be done and both countries need to take more Kashmir specific measures. They need to understand that war, militancy or proxy war is not sensible or viable option, and past experience and history is witness to this. Also it must be understood that politics of communalism, extremism and hatred might help their policy to make some immediate gains but in long run it will back fire and result in more violence and terrorism, so forces which preach violence and communalism must be controlled.
Apart from that it must be understood that Status quo is not an option either. Status quo means not only denial of right of self determination to the Kashmiri people which is the root cause of the problem, but also it means the continuation of the problem with commercial, political and strategic interest of many groups, which often result in killings, torture and violations of the fundamental human rights. Furthermore it means that both countries remain hostage to the Kashmir dispute and hold their progress and continue to spend huge resources to compete with each other, hence depriving their people of social advancement.
Also status quo means that because of acrimony, animosity and unending conflict between Pakistan and India, the region will remain unstable and world will remain under the threat of nuclear horror. Therefore a peaceful settlement of the dispute is the only option. Dialogue is the only way forward, but in this dialogue the main party to the dispute people of Jammu and Kashmir must also be present.
It must not be the case that India and Pakistan decide something on Kashmir and then impose that on us, as people will not accept it. This was even voiced by President of Pakistani Administered Kashmir Raja Zulqarnain Khan when he was asked on18 June 2007, about a claim of Pakistani foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri that Pakistan and India have almost reached an accord over the Kashmir dispute. Raja Zulqarnain Khan said and I quote: ‘Pakistan’s Foreign Office had neither taken him into confidence nor briefed him about negotiations with India since his assuming office last year. AJK president warned the Pakistani leadership that any agreement with India without the involvement of the Kashmiri people would not be acceptable.’ Unquote. If pro Pakistan leaders are not prepared to accept this kind of attitude and solution then one can imagine the response of other Kashmiris.
A survey was conducted both in India and Pakistan by WorldPublicOpinion.org during October and November of 2007, in which it was revealed and I quote: ‘that half or more are open to a range of possible outcomes for Kashmir other than it being part of their respective countries. On neither side is there strong majority opposition to Kashmir becoming an independent country or dividing Kashmir between Pakistan and India. Indians and Pakistanis show a readiness to have the Kashmiri people decide their fate. If a majority of all Kashmiris were to choose independence, a majority of Indians and Pakistanis would find such independence at least tolerable.’ unquote
This shows a change of attitude among people of India and Pakistan on the controversial issue of Kashmir. This flexibility was not there some years ago. It means people on both sides feel that continued hostility over Kashmir is not in the best interest of their countries and in the best interest of the region. We need to build on this and build constituency of peace, harmony and tolerance. If we want to make progress and compete with challenges of the 21st century then we must learn to live side by side, and think of region of South Asia as whole. This is the only way to defeat forces of communalism, terrorism and hatred.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Spokesman, Kashmir National Party
Telfax: 0044 (0) 208597 4782/ mobile: 0044 (0) 7790942471
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Sunday, 31 August 2008
New Phase of Kashmiri struggle
New Phase of Kashmiri struggle
Dr Shabir Choudhry 31 August 2008
People of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered for many decades; and their struggle for right of self – determination and national identity has seen many twists and turns. The new and probably the last phase of this long struggle has begun.
It is claimed that the new struggle is similar to the ‘Palestinian intifada’; and is peaceful in nature and was not led by any leadership but by the ordinary people. In this new struggle ordinary people - truck drivers fruit growers, fruit sellers, shop keepers etc, who were hitherto not part of the struggle are taking a lead role; and ‘leaders’ were obliged to take part in these processions to make themselves relevant.
The previous phase which started in 1988/9 had many dimensions and many phases within it. Some claim this militant phase ‘internationalised’ the Kashmir dispute, but it also brought suffering and disaster to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Sad thing is that despite all the suffering, deaths, torture, rapes and destruction the Kashmir dispute is still viewed as a bilateral dispute which has to be resolved by India and Pakistan.
The present uprising has astonished many Kashmir watchers and some think the authorities were also taken by surprise. But some experts think there is more than that to this uprising. Local Kashmiris I have spoken to claim that it is truly indigenous movement, but similar claims were made about the uprising of 1989, which was later proved that it was sponsored from outside.
Indian authorities thought they had probably seen the worst in Jammu and Kashmir and situation was gradually returning to some kind of normalcy. The peace process, although we Kashmiris were not part of it and it did not bring any tangible results to the solution, brought some relief to the people, especially to those living in border areas.
So to the Indian policy makers there was no need to make any concessions or to take any concrete steps to resolve the dispute. They perhaps thought that they can play for time until such time when situation is favourable to them or when Pakistan is in deep trouble, and has no time and resources left to continue tinkering with the Kashmir dispute; or even worse, when Pakistan because of political contradictions and internal divisions disintegrates as a nation state.
As a political analyst I want to read between the lines and try to see what is behind the headlines. I wonder if it is just the issue of transfer of land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board or something else behind it. Or is it just an excuse to give this matter a religious flavouring that people could be provoked and motivated to take extreme actions in name of religion both in the Valley and in Jammu?
SAHB was established by a Jammu and Kashmiri government of Farooq Abdullah and rightly or wrongly the land was also transferred by a Jammu and Kashmir Cabinet headed by Ghulam Nabi Azad. Apparent purpose of this land transfer was to provide facilities to visitors that pilgrimage is made easier, which will encourage more people to visit the Shrine. Tourism whether religious or leisure brings money and creates jobs and supports local economy; and when there is widespread unemployment in the Valley why oppose actions which will ultimately promote tourism and help to end unemployment?
In the past militants threatened to stop Amarnath Yatra which is clearly against teachings of Islam. Those who stopped religious festivals and adopted violent methods for it had no interest in the local economy or welfare of the people as they were mercenaries- those who are paid to execute a mission for monetary gains. Similarly APHC leaders and other leaders have no worries about bread and butter as they know they have accumulated enough wealth that their 5/6 generations don’t need to worry about their kitchen.
Those who have vested interest in affairs of Jammu and Kashmir, and want to maintain the status quo by ensuring that the Kashmir pot continues to boil, knew very well that the New World Order DOES NOT approve militancy and terrorism. They knew Kashmir pot could not continue to boil by use of gun for too long. A new strategy was desperately needed for this, and I indicated this in June 2008, in article: ‘They are back in Islamabad’.
It must be noted here that some kind of trouble or low level insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir suits many, which could be broadly termed as vested interest. This term vested interest encompass all those who, one way or the other, have benefited from this struggle and suffering of the people, and they are on both sides of the divide and include some members of the Kashmiri Diaspora. This ‘benefit’ could be in form of wealth, power, status, undue publicity etc, and beneficiaries include people in politics, militant groups, religious groups, army and corridors of power and policy makers. Peace, stability and resolution of the Kashmir dispute is not in the interest of those who have made it a commercial enterprise.
Space for extremists
With militancy on decline and some kind of gradual normalcy returning to the Jammu and Kashmir, although still around half million armed personnel were there, political space for extremists was declining. Same was the case for the politics of APHC. They felt that days of their politics were numbered, and they would be badly exposed in the next elections which were just around the corner. They also knew that the people ignored calls of boycott at the time of the last election even situation was much worse than what it was in June 2008.
Similarly appeal of extremist politics in Jammu was on decline. Secular minded people and members of the Kashmiri civil society in Jammu and the Valley opposed forces of communalism, extremism and hatred. Extremists both in Jammu and the Valley wanted to create a political space for themselves by playing communal and regional cards.
The issue of land transfer has provided the opportunity to the extremists to assert themselves both in Jammu and in the Valley. They have used religion and regional grievances to make space for their politics, and it looks that extremists are in the driving seat in both regions, and space for secular minded people and members of the civil society is declining.
One can understand the disappointment of people with the progress of the peace process. One can also appreciate their frustration and alienation, not to mention the trauma and suffering they have endured since 1988/9; but does that mean we give in to forces of extremism? Does it mean that members of the civil society remain silent spectators and let extremists call shots in politics of Jammu and Kashmir?
People have once again expressed their feelings that they are not happy with the status quo, and I for one will welcome this peaceful struggle; but I am deeply concerned with the communalism and regionalism embedded in this new phase of the struggle. If this trend of communalism and regionalism is not checked soon my fear is that it will tarnish our struggle and perhaps lead to disintegration of the State on communal lines. Already there are talks that Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir should be divided in to three administrative units.
One Kashmir watcher said the new phase of the struggle may be peaceful, but tactics of the authorities are same as they were in 1989/90. It looks either the authorities have not learnt anything from the two decades old militant struggle or they have deliberately let the situation escalate. It is mind-blowing to think that authorities let the situation reach a certain point before taking any action, which is generally violent and result in human rights abuse and killings.
Authorities knew by being a silent spectator it only encourages the movement to have a snow ball affect. They also knew that by adopting harsh measures, as were adopted in 1989/90, they will breed more violence and further alienate people. People show their resentment and dissatisfaction by holding large peaceful processions, but that must not be construed as a support for Pakistan, as some Pakistani leaders are claiming.
They wave Pakistani flags to taunt and tease India, as they know Indian authorities will dislike it, but it doesn’t mean they want to join Pakistan. People of Jammu and Kashmir know what is going on in Pakistan. They know F16 and helicopters are in action every day to kill and destroy those Pakistanis who are demanding their rights and identity. It is wrong of Pakistani leaders to assume that Kashmiri struggle is for ‘completion of Pakistan’, when we know Pakistanis are working hard to destroy the remaining Pakistan.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Dr Shabir Choudhry 31 August 2008
People of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered for many decades; and their struggle for right of self – determination and national identity has seen many twists and turns. The new and probably the last phase of this long struggle has begun.
It is claimed that the new struggle is similar to the ‘Palestinian intifada’; and is peaceful in nature and was not led by any leadership but by the ordinary people. In this new struggle ordinary people - truck drivers fruit growers, fruit sellers, shop keepers etc, who were hitherto not part of the struggle are taking a lead role; and ‘leaders’ were obliged to take part in these processions to make themselves relevant.
The previous phase which started in 1988/9 had many dimensions and many phases within it. Some claim this militant phase ‘internationalised’ the Kashmir dispute, but it also brought suffering and disaster to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Sad thing is that despite all the suffering, deaths, torture, rapes and destruction the Kashmir dispute is still viewed as a bilateral dispute which has to be resolved by India and Pakistan.
The present uprising has astonished many Kashmir watchers and some think the authorities were also taken by surprise. But some experts think there is more than that to this uprising. Local Kashmiris I have spoken to claim that it is truly indigenous movement, but similar claims were made about the uprising of 1989, which was later proved that it was sponsored from outside.
Indian authorities thought they had probably seen the worst in Jammu and Kashmir and situation was gradually returning to some kind of normalcy. The peace process, although we Kashmiris were not part of it and it did not bring any tangible results to the solution, brought some relief to the people, especially to those living in border areas.
So to the Indian policy makers there was no need to make any concessions or to take any concrete steps to resolve the dispute. They perhaps thought that they can play for time until such time when situation is favourable to them or when Pakistan is in deep trouble, and has no time and resources left to continue tinkering with the Kashmir dispute; or even worse, when Pakistan because of political contradictions and internal divisions disintegrates as a nation state.
As a political analyst I want to read between the lines and try to see what is behind the headlines. I wonder if it is just the issue of transfer of land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board or something else behind it. Or is it just an excuse to give this matter a religious flavouring that people could be provoked and motivated to take extreme actions in name of religion both in the Valley and in Jammu?
SAHB was established by a Jammu and Kashmiri government of Farooq Abdullah and rightly or wrongly the land was also transferred by a Jammu and Kashmir Cabinet headed by Ghulam Nabi Azad. Apparent purpose of this land transfer was to provide facilities to visitors that pilgrimage is made easier, which will encourage more people to visit the Shrine. Tourism whether religious or leisure brings money and creates jobs and supports local economy; and when there is widespread unemployment in the Valley why oppose actions which will ultimately promote tourism and help to end unemployment?
In the past militants threatened to stop Amarnath Yatra which is clearly against teachings of Islam. Those who stopped religious festivals and adopted violent methods for it had no interest in the local economy or welfare of the people as they were mercenaries- those who are paid to execute a mission for monetary gains. Similarly APHC leaders and other leaders have no worries about bread and butter as they know they have accumulated enough wealth that their 5/6 generations don’t need to worry about their kitchen.
Those who have vested interest in affairs of Jammu and Kashmir, and want to maintain the status quo by ensuring that the Kashmir pot continues to boil, knew very well that the New World Order DOES NOT approve militancy and terrorism. They knew Kashmir pot could not continue to boil by use of gun for too long. A new strategy was desperately needed for this, and I indicated this in June 2008, in article: ‘They are back in Islamabad’.
It must be noted here that some kind of trouble or low level insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir suits many, which could be broadly termed as vested interest. This term vested interest encompass all those who, one way or the other, have benefited from this struggle and suffering of the people, and they are on both sides of the divide and include some members of the Kashmiri Diaspora. This ‘benefit’ could be in form of wealth, power, status, undue publicity etc, and beneficiaries include people in politics, militant groups, religious groups, army and corridors of power and policy makers. Peace, stability and resolution of the Kashmir dispute is not in the interest of those who have made it a commercial enterprise.
Space for extremists
With militancy on decline and some kind of gradual normalcy returning to the Jammu and Kashmir, although still around half million armed personnel were there, political space for extremists was declining. Same was the case for the politics of APHC. They felt that days of their politics were numbered, and they would be badly exposed in the next elections which were just around the corner. They also knew that the people ignored calls of boycott at the time of the last election even situation was much worse than what it was in June 2008.
Similarly appeal of extremist politics in Jammu was on decline. Secular minded people and members of the Kashmiri civil society in Jammu and the Valley opposed forces of communalism, extremism and hatred. Extremists both in Jammu and the Valley wanted to create a political space for themselves by playing communal and regional cards.
The issue of land transfer has provided the opportunity to the extremists to assert themselves both in Jammu and in the Valley. They have used religion and regional grievances to make space for their politics, and it looks that extremists are in the driving seat in both regions, and space for secular minded people and members of the civil society is declining.
One can understand the disappointment of people with the progress of the peace process. One can also appreciate their frustration and alienation, not to mention the trauma and suffering they have endured since 1988/9; but does that mean we give in to forces of extremism? Does it mean that members of the civil society remain silent spectators and let extremists call shots in politics of Jammu and Kashmir?
People have once again expressed their feelings that they are not happy with the status quo, and I for one will welcome this peaceful struggle; but I am deeply concerned with the communalism and regionalism embedded in this new phase of the struggle. If this trend of communalism and regionalism is not checked soon my fear is that it will tarnish our struggle and perhaps lead to disintegration of the State on communal lines. Already there are talks that Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir should be divided in to three administrative units.
One Kashmir watcher said the new phase of the struggle may be peaceful, but tactics of the authorities are same as they were in 1989/90. It looks either the authorities have not learnt anything from the two decades old militant struggle or they have deliberately let the situation escalate. It is mind-blowing to think that authorities let the situation reach a certain point before taking any action, which is generally violent and result in human rights abuse and killings.
Authorities knew by being a silent spectator it only encourages the movement to have a snow ball affect. They also knew that by adopting harsh measures, as were adopted in 1989/90, they will breed more violence and further alienate people. People show their resentment and dissatisfaction by holding large peaceful processions, but that must not be construed as a support for Pakistan, as some Pakistani leaders are claiming.
They wave Pakistani flags to taunt and tease India, as they know Indian authorities will dislike it, but it doesn’t mean they want to join Pakistan. People of Jammu and Kashmir know what is going on in Pakistan. They know F16 and helicopters are in action every day to kill and destroy those Pakistanis who are demanding their rights and identity. It is wrong of Pakistani leaders to assume that Kashmiri struggle is for ‘completion of Pakistan’, when we know Pakistanis are working hard to destroy the remaining Pakistan.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Sunday, 17 August 2008
New trend in Kashmiri struggle
New trend in Kashmiri struggle
Dr Shabir Choudhry 17 August 2008
Situation in Pakistan is bothering everyone who has any interest or link with this region; and what worries people is that no one seems to be in control of the situation there, and no one knows future of the country. The situation started getting from bad to worse with Pakistan’s entry in the ‘war on terror’, which in view of many Pakistani experts was not Pakistan’s war, and if anything Pakistani agencies had their own history and experience of promoting and exporting this business.
Like politics of Pakistan it is difficult to predict future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the on going struggle. The State is multi religious and multi ethnic; and has competing interests from various political, religious and armed groups. Politics of the State is controlled from outside of the State boundaries and people of the state suffer as a result of this control and interference.
In June when Yasin Malik and APHC leaders went to Islamabad for new ‘instructions’ and a new ‘mandate’, I wrote in article titled, ‘They are back in Islamabad’: ‘Since the new government has taken power in Pakistan role of secret agencies has reduced considerably. Pakistan is reviewing its policy on Kashmir and has said good bye to the policy of General Musharaf. New policy requires a new strategy; and new strategy has a considerable political input as well. Militancy in Jammu and Kashmir will increase and to support and justify this, political activities will be organised inside and outside Kashmir.’
Since June we have seen many changes: rise in infiltration, rise in militancy, serious and violent agitation with strong communal flavour - first in the Valley then followed by in Jammu, and political conferences organised by pro Islamabad Kashmiris in various capitals of the world. This communal aspect of the Kashmir polity is so worrying that it could create situation similar to that of 1947.
Apart from that a new and interesting development is taking place on the Pakistani side of the divide, where the local people in the Neelam Valley are demonstrating against increased presence and activities of the militants. According to BBC report of 17 August 2008, this is the second such demonstration in the area in the past six weeks. The local people closed their shops and protested in hundreds on Saturday 16th in Athmaqaam in the Neelam Valley, and demanded that activities of these militants should be controlled as this could result in cross border shelling which could make life hell for the local people.
Munir Sharafat advocate on behalf of the demonstrators said, that for the past number of weeks we have noticed increased activities of these militants. Their facial features, language and behaviour tell us that they are not Kashmiris. We are seriously concerned about their presence, as it makes us vulnerable and potential target of the Indian retaliation. He said we have enjoyed peace since November 2003 and don’t want the hostilities to resume.
The demonstrators informed Deputy Commissioner about activities of these militants and potential threat they pose to the people of the area. Before the cease fire between India and Pakistan on the LOC, Neelam Valley was the worst hit area where hostilities are fierce and more frequent because of the terrain and close proximity of the rival forces which are only divided by the small river Neelam.
Some months ago one commentator said Kashmir dispute has been removed from the back burner as both countries are occupied with other priorities. But now Jammu and Kashmir is on fire with very dangerous trends. A Russian journalist in his email to me asked: ‘What is at heart of the recent escalation of conflict? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that 40 hectares of land could have stirred the communities to the boiling point. But then, I'm not an expert on the region, regrettably’.
So what is really behind this present uprising which some believe could be as nasty as the uprising of the 1989/90, if not worse? Is it that people are frustrated with the on going peace process, although it has brought peace to the region and better understanding between the both countries, but for the people of Jammu and Kashmir there are no tangible outcome of talks spread over many years.
Apart from that both countries still have paid no attention to the repeated demand of the Kashmiri people that they want to be part of the process that they can present their case and safeguard their interest. Also people feel that they been let down by their leadership, as they have no road map for solution of the dispute and they are busy with their personal gains and rewards with little or no attention to the problems of the suffering people.
When people are on streets and hold violent demonstrations that is not a sign of popularity of APHC leaders. All it shows is that people are not satisfied with the status quo - they are not happy with what India is doing, they are not happy with the government in Jammu and Kashmir, they are not happy with their leaders, they are not happy with large concentration of army, they are not happy with activities of the militants, they are not happy with lack of opportunities and unemployment; and demonstration is one way to show their anger and frustration.
Both India and Pakistan have their own game plan and agenda on Kashmir. Pakistan under General Musharaf a few years ago showed serious desperation and a clear change of policy on Kashmir. It looked he was desperate to have a ‘solution’ to have another feather in his cap to tell the world and his own countrymen that he has finally resolved the long standing dispute which was a source of instability in South Asia and which has held back our progress.
Because of his determination, drive and somersault on Kashmir many predicted that the Kashmir dispute would be ‘resolved’ by 2007. I was among those who discarded this claim, as in my view India would use General Musharaf to achieve maximum but would not make a deal on Kashmir with a man in uniform. Indian policy was to drag it on and take heat out of the militancy and rebellion. They have experience of dragging on talks for years and decades without giving anything in return.
But those Indian policy makers who thought that they can win the day by dragging their feet were wrong. They thought that the worst is over in Kashmir, and they can wrap up things by some window dressing and by some cosmetic changes. Perhaps they also thought that the other party to the dispute was sincere and both would jointly crush ‘terrorism’ and eradicate violence for ever, forgetting that both have contradictory claims on Kashmir and divergent interests both in South Asia and in the wider world. Interests of the parties and rules of game can change with changing situation and that is what has happened.
Things don’t always work out as we plan or expect them to happen. India had full control of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir for decades and very popular leaders sincerely helped them to make progress in Jammu and Kashmir. Then question is what went wrong? We can say Pakistani agencies also had hand in the matter but Indian policy makers also need to have a serious appraisal of their Kashmir policy, as one can only put so much under the carpet or continue to blame others.
Kashmir dispute is a serious matter although some have made a business out of it; and it needs serious and sincere attention. It has to be understood in its true perspective and appropriate strategy needs to be in place to resolve it. If we continue to play with sentiments of the people and continue to treat it as a territorial dispute or a religious matter then we could have another partition on communal lines.
We must remember that wounds of the communal partition which took place in 1947 have not been healed yet, and some people have let the communal genie out of a bottle again, and fear is that it will claim many innocent lives and destroy peace and harmony in the State. Those who believe in humanity, liberal and democratic rights for all, need to tell all concerned that Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity, and we would not allow division of the State; and that our struggle is for unification and independence.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 17 August 2008
Situation in Pakistan is bothering everyone who has any interest or link with this region; and what worries people is that no one seems to be in control of the situation there, and no one knows future of the country. The situation started getting from bad to worse with Pakistan’s entry in the ‘war on terror’, which in view of many Pakistani experts was not Pakistan’s war, and if anything Pakistani agencies had their own history and experience of promoting and exporting this business.
Like politics of Pakistan it is difficult to predict future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the on going struggle. The State is multi religious and multi ethnic; and has competing interests from various political, religious and armed groups. Politics of the State is controlled from outside of the State boundaries and people of the state suffer as a result of this control and interference.
In June when Yasin Malik and APHC leaders went to Islamabad for new ‘instructions’ and a new ‘mandate’, I wrote in article titled, ‘They are back in Islamabad’: ‘Since the new government has taken power in Pakistan role of secret agencies has reduced considerably. Pakistan is reviewing its policy on Kashmir and has said good bye to the policy of General Musharaf. New policy requires a new strategy; and new strategy has a considerable political input as well. Militancy in Jammu and Kashmir will increase and to support and justify this, political activities will be organised inside and outside Kashmir.’
Since June we have seen many changes: rise in infiltration, rise in militancy, serious and violent agitation with strong communal flavour - first in the Valley then followed by in Jammu, and political conferences organised by pro Islamabad Kashmiris in various capitals of the world. This communal aspect of the Kashmir polity is so worrying that it could create situation similar to that of 1947.
Apart from that a new and interesting development is taking place on the Pakistani side of the divide, where the local people in the Neelam Valley are demonstrating against increased presence and activities of the militants. According to BBC report of 17 August 2008, this is the second such demonstration in the area in the past six weeks. The local people closed their shops and protested in hundreds on Saturday 16th in Athmaqaam in the Neelam Valley, and demanded that activities of these militants should be controlled as this could result in cross border shelling which could make life hell for the local people.
Munir Sharafat advocate on behalf of the demonstrators said, that for the past number of weeks we have noticed increased activities of these militants. Their facial features, language and behaviour tell us that they are not Kashmiris. We are seriously concerned about their presence, as it makes us vulnerable and potential target of the Indian retaliation. He said we have enjoyed peace since November 2003 and don’t want the hostilities to resume.
The demonstrators informed Deputy Commissioner about activities of these militants and potential threat they pose to the people of the area. Before the cease fire between India and Pakistan on the LOC, Neelam Valley was the worst hit area where hostilities are fierce and more frequent because of the terrain and close proximity of the rival forces which are only divided by the small river Neelam.
Some months ago one commentator said Kashmir dispute has been removed from the back burner as both countries are occupied with other priorities. But now Jammu and Kashmir is on fire with very dangerous trends. A Russian journalist in his email to me asked: ‘What is at heart of the recent escalation of conflict? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that 40 hectares of land could have stirred the communities to the boiling point. But then, I'm not an expert on the region, regrettably’.
So what is really behind this present uprising which some believe could be as nasty as the uprising of the 1989/90, if not worse? Is it that people are frustrated with the on going peace process, although it has brought peace to the region and better understanding between the both countries, but for the people of Jammu and Kashmir there are no tangible outcome of talks spread over many years.
Apart from that both countries still have paid no attention to the repeated demand of the Kashmiri people that they want to be part of the process that they can present their case and safeguard their interest. Also people feel that they been let down by their leadership, as they have no road map for solution of the dispute and they are busy with their personal gains and rewards with little or no attention to the problems of the suffering people.
When people are on streets and hold violent demonstrations that is not a sign of popularity of APHC leaders. All it shows is that people are not satisfied with the status quo - they are not happy with what India is doing, they are not happy with the government in Jammu and Kashmir, they are not happy with their leaders, they are not happy with large concentration of army, they are not happy with activities of the militants, they are not happy with lack of opportunities and unemployment; and demonstration is one way to show their anger and frustration.
Both India and Pakistan have their own game plan and agenda on Kashmir. Pakistan under General Musharaf a few years ago showed serious desperation and a clear change of policy on Kashmir. It looked he was desperate to have a ‘solution’ to have another feather in his cap to tell the world and his own countrymen that he has finally resolved the long standing dispute which was a source of instability in South Asia and which has held back our progress.
Because of his determination, drive and somersault on Kashmir many predicted that the Kashmir dispute would be ‘resolved’ by 2007. I was among those who discarded this claim, as in my view India would use General Musharaf to achieve maximum but would not make a deal on Kashmir with a man in uniform. Indian policy was to drag it on and take heat out of the militancy and rebellion. They have experience of dragging on talks for years and decades without giving anything in return.
But those Indian policy makers who thought that they can win the day by dragging their feet were wrong. They thought that the worst is over in Kashmir, and they can wrap up things by some window dressing and by some cosmetic changes. Perhaps they also thought that the other party to the dispute was sincere and both would jointly crush ‘terrorism’ and eradicate violence for ever, forgetting that both have contradictory claims on Kashmir and divergent interests both in South Asia and in the wider world. Interests of the parties and rules of game can change with changing situation and that is what has happened.
Things don’t always work out as we plan or expect them to happen. India had full control of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir for decades and very popular leaders sincerely helped them to make progress in Jammu and Kashmir. Then question is what went wrong? We can say Pakistani agencies also had hand in the matter but Indian policy makers also need to have a serious appraisal of their Kashmir policy, as one can only put so much under the carpet or continue to blame others.
Kashmir dispute is a serious matter although some have made a business out of it; and it needs serious and sincere attention. It has to be understood in its true perspective and appropriate strategy needs to be in place to resolve it. If we continue to play with sentiments of the people and continue to treat it as a territorial dispute or a religious matter then we could have another partition on communal lines.
We must remember that wounds of the communal partition which took place in 1947 have not been healed yet, and some people have let the communal genie out of a bottle again, and fear is that it will claim many innocent lives and destroy peace and harmony in the State. Those who believe in humanity, liberal and democratic rights for all, need to tell all concerned that Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity, and we would not allow division of the State; and that our struggle is for unification and independence.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Kashmiri struggle in 2008
Kashmiri struggle in 2008
Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 August 2008
New phase of the Kashmiri struggle or whatever we want to call it in view of communalism, proxy war and terrorism, has been going on since 1947; and yet we people of Jammu and Kashmir have not been able to put our priorities right. We have not been able to differentiate between freedom and occupation. We have also failed to understand designs of both countries on Kashmir, and formulate appropriate policies to promote and advance a Kashmiri interest.
In view of the above can we make a valid claim to get independence and be recognised as a free nation and play our due role in comity of nations, especially when what are known as Kashmiri leaders, at best have been acting as puppets of either one country or the other and promoting and defending interest of either India or Pakistan?
Despite lack of democracy and encroachment of civil liberties the State of Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity in 1947. People of the State irrespective of their religious and cultural affiliations regarded themselves as Kashmiris, distinctly different from India and Pakistan; and wanted to maintain that difference.
Today the unfortunate State is forcibly divided in many parts, and people of the State are divided on religious, cultural, regional and ethnic lines. These divisions have never been so deep and so frightening in the history of the State, and it looks that those powers who are behind these moves are paving the way for the division of the state on communal and regional lines.
Call it armed struggle, jihad, terrorism or a proxy war it destroyed fundamental character of the Kashmiri society, and Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination. This armed struggle which was initiated, supported and promoted by secret agencies of Pakistan resulted in human rights violations and deepened the divisions in the Kashmiri society.
In this struggle a Pakistani gun and agenda was implemented by using a Kashmiri shoulder. It was presented to us by Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership as a Kashmiri struggle for liberation; and with hindsight we see that we Kashmiris were used as a raw material in this proxy war, and it added to our misery and suffering.
A few days ago a ‘friend’ who is still part of controversial nationalist group of JKLF invited me to take part in a picket outside an Indian High Commission on 15th August. According to him it was to demonstrate that India got independence on this date and they have occupied our country - Jammu and Kashmir. I said to him that Pakistan got independence one day before India, and Pakistan has also occupied some parts of Jammu and Kashmir; wouldn’t it be better to have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission first followed by one outside the Indian High Commission.
This friend said, how can we have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission, they are helping us against Indian occupation, can’t you see how the Indian army has killed innocent people who were peacefully proceeding towards LOC. I said to him that I condemned this brutal killing. There was no need to kill and torture people like that, but the Pakistani army did the same thing in1992 and more than 8 innocent people lost their lives.
I explained to him that in 1992 the JKLF people tried to cross the LOC from the AJK side and they were also innocent and wanted to proceed to the LOC peacefully, they were killed by the Pakistani army. Prior to this tragedy, National Students Federation members who were trying to cross the LOC were also killed and tortured by the Pakistan army. When it comes to enforcing ‘law and order’ or enforcing ‘writ of government’ army is trained to kill and torture, as it is happening in Jammu and Kashmir and in Swat, Balochistan, North West Frontier and FATA; or as it happened when Red Mosque was invaded and destroyed in name of enforcing ‘writ of government’.
I further said India virtually lost Kashmir Valley in 1990/1, however despite other heavy handedness India did not use helicopter gun ships or air force against Muslim militants; in Pakistan on the other hand helicopter gun ships and F 16 are regularly used to target alleged Muslim ‘terrorists’ in which innocent Pakistani Muslims are killed and their houses are destroyed. If you need any further evidence how Pakistani forces behave when asked to deal with ‘rebels’ or with those who demand rights then read history of East Pakistan or Bangladesh; or even ask members of Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front how they were treated in 1970/1 during investigations regarding Ganga Hijacking.
I said without being pro this or anti that one can see a nation whose leadership takes pride in ‘selling’ their (Pakistani) sons and daughters for sake of American dollars, just take example of Dr Afia Sadiqqi who was arrested in Karachi with her three young children and has ended up in America, and where - about of her three young children is still not known. Do you expect any mercy or better treatment from rulers and establishment of this country? If they treat their own people like butchers and regard them as an economic commodity don’t expect that they will treat us Kashmiris differently.
Knowledge of this friend was limited and he was having difficulty in justifying his argument, so he surrendered by saying that he could not compete with me in knowledge and argument. He said he was a loyal member of the JKLF and wanted to follow the party decision and the JKLF leaders. I appreciated his ‘loyalty’ but added that loyalty of his leaders is not with the JKLF or its ideology. Their loyalty is with agencies of our neighbours who reward them handsomely.
I said decision to hold a picket outside an Indian High commission was taken else where but only endorsed in your meeting. Your leadership discussed it with relevant quarters, agreed certain terms and conditions and then brought this issue to your meeting to be approved. Normally committee of personal and party loyalists do not disagree with any decision which is presented to them as approved by the top leadership, especially there is always hundred per cent unanimity when any actions is related to India.
This friend agreed with almost everything I said, but added that ‘you have always been critical of top JKLF leadership and Pakistan. And now that I have left the JKLF I should not criticise JKLF and its policies, as it hurts us and that we will also criticise you and make allegations against you’.
Whether he or some one else criticise me or not it is immaterial, what is important is the attitude of the Kashmiri people and especially that of ‘nationalist’ parties. It is unfortunate to note that despite this long struggle, sacrifices, and suffering on massive scale we as a nation have not been able to decide our priorities. We Kashmiris still have not been able to decide who is enemy of our independence and who is deceiving us in name of religion and brotherhood. It is unfortunate that many of us still view Kashmir dispute in the context of Muslims and non Muslims, and accept whatever is presented to us by media and organisations controlled by Islamabad.
My colleagues and I have always regarded Jammu and Kashmir as one political entity, and have promoted cause of united and independent Kashmir, and advanced non - communal politics as Kashmir dispute is not a religious one. But it is unfortunate to note that in 2008 we Kashmiris are more divided and more communalised then we were in 1947; and gulf between the regions and communities is widening.
Jammu and the Valley have different priorities and are playing in hands of those who want to play a religious card in order to divide the people on communal lines and advance their politics. Ladakh apart from the ‘Kargil war’ has not bee affected by the militancy; and has different agenda and has no interest with what is going on in other two regions. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan have no contact with each other and have different priorities and interests. People of Azad Kashmir, forgetting their own miseries and problems are seemed to be more concerned with what goes on across the LOC, and virtually accept everything what is presented to them by the Pakistani media.
By promoting religious politics are we not playing in hands of extremists who want to justify Two Nations Theory that Muslims and non Muslims cannot live together, hence pave way for division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious lines.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 August 2008
New phase of the Kashmiri struggle or whatever we want to call it in view of communalism, proxy war and terrorism, has been going on since 1947; and yet we people of Jammu and Kashmir have not been able to put our priorities right. We have not been able to differentiate between freedom and occupation. We have also failed to understand designs of both countries on Kashmir, and formulate appropriate policies to promote and advance a Kashmiri interest.
In view of the above can we make a valid claim to get independence and be recognised as a free nation and play our due role in comity of nations, especially when what are known as Kashmiri leaders, at best have been acting as puppets of either one country or the other and promoting and defending interest of either India or Pakistan?
Despite lack of democracy and encroachment of civil liberties the State of Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity in 1947. People of the State irrespective of their religious and cultural affiliations regarded themselves as Kashmiris, distinctly different from India and Pakistan; and wanted to maintain that difference.
Today the unfortunate State is forcibly divided in many parts, and people of the State are divided on religious, cultural, regional and ethnic lines. These divisions have never been so deep and so frightening in the history of the State, and it looks that those powers who are behind these moves are paving the way for the division of the state on communal and regional lines.
Call it armed struggle, jihad, terrorism or a proxy war it destroyed fundamental character of the Kashmiri society, and Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination. This armed struggle which was initiated, supported and promoted by secret agencies of Pakistan resulted in human rights violations and deepened the divisions in the Kashmiri society.
In this struggle a Pakistani gun and agenda was implemented by using a Kashmiri shoulder. It was presented to us by Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership as a Kashmiri struggle for liberation; and with hindsight we see that we Kashmiris were used as a raw material in this proxy war, and it added to our misery and suffering.
A few days ago a ‘friend’ who is still part of controversial nationalist group of JKLF invited me to take part in a picket outside an Indian High Commission on 15th August. According to him it was to demonstrate that India got independence on this date and they have occupied our country - Jammu and Kashmir. I said to him that Pakistan got independence one day before India, and Pakistan has also occupied some parts of Jammu and Kashmir; wouldn’t it be better to have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission first followed by one outside the Indian High Commission.
This friend said, how can we have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission, they are helping us against Indian occupation, can’t you see how the Indian army has killed innocent people who were peacefully proceeding towards LOC. I said to him that I condemned this brutal killing. There was no need to kill and torture people like that, but the Pakistani army did the same thing in1992 and more than 8 innocent people lost their lives.
I explained to him that in 1992 the JKLF people tried to cross the LOC from the AJK side and they were also innocent and wanted to proceed to the LOC peacefully, they were killed by the Pakistani army. Prior to this tragedy, National Students Federation members who were trying to cross the LOC were also killed and tortured by the Pakistan army. When it comes to enforcing ‘law and order’ or enforcing ‘writ of government’ army is trained to kill and torture, as it is happening in Jammu and Kashmir and in Swat, Balochistan, North West Frontier and FATA; or as it happened when Red Mosque was invaded and destroyed in name of enforcing ‘writ of government’.
I further said India virtually lost Kashmir Valley in 1990/1, however despite other heavy handedness India did not use helicopter gun ships or air force against Muslim militants; in Pakistan on the other hand helicopter gun ships and F 16 are regularly used to target alleged Muslim ‘terrorists’ in which innocent Pakistani Muslims are killed and their houses are destroyed. If you need any further evidence how Pakistani forces behave when asked to deal with ‘rebels’ or with those who demand rights then read history of East Pakistan or Bangladesh; or even ask members of Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front how they were treated in 1970/1 during investigations regarding Ganga Hijacking.
I said without being pro this or anti that one can see a nation whose leadership takes pride in ‘selling’ their (Pakistani) sons and daughters for sake of American dollars, just take example of Dr Afia Sadiqqi who was arrested in Karachi with her three young children and has ended up in America, and where - about of her three young children is still not known. Do you expect any mercy or better treatment from rulers and establishment of this country? If they treat their own people like butchers and regard them as an economic commodity don’t expect that they will treat us Kashmiris differently.
Knowledge of this friend was limited and he was having difficulty in justifying his argument, so he surrendered by saying that he could not compete with me in knowledge and argument. He said he was a loyal member of the JKLF and wanted to follow the party decision and the JKLF leaders. I appreciated his ‘loyalty’ but added that loyalty of his leaders is not with the JKLF or its ideology. Their loyalty is with agencies of our neighbours who reward them handsomely.
I said decision to hold a picket outside an Indian High commission was taken else where but only endorsed in your meeting. Your leadership discussed it with relevant quarters, agreed certain terms and conditions and then brought this issue to your meeting to be approved. Normally committee of personal and party loyalists do not disagree with any decision which is presented to them as approved by the top leadership, especially there is always hundred per cent unanimity when any actions is related to India.
This friend agreed with almost everything I said, but added that ‘you have always been critical of top JKLF leadership and Pakistan. And now that I have left the JKLF I should not criticise JKLF and its policies, as it hurts us and that we will also criticise you and make allegations against you’.
Whether he or some one else criticise me or not it is immaterial, what is important is the attitude of the Kashmiri people and especially that of ‘nationalist’ parties. It is unfortunate to note that despite this long struggle, sacrifices, and suffering on massive scale we as a nation have not been able to decide our priorities. We Kashmiris still have not been able to decide who is enemy of our independence and who is deceiving us in name of religion and brotherhood. It is unfortunate that many of us still view Kashmir dispute in the context of Muslims and non Muslims, and accept whatever is presented to us by media and organisations controlled by Islamabad.
My colleagues and I have always regarded Jammu and Kashmir as one political entity, and have promoted cause of united and independent Kashmir, and advanced non - communal politics as Kashmir dispute is not a religious one. But it is unfortunate to note that in 2008 we Kashmiris are more divided and more communalised then we were in 1947; and gulf between the regions and communities is widening.
Jammu and the Valley have different priorities and are playing in hands of those who want to play a religious card in order to divide the people on communal lines and advance their politics. Ladakh apart from the ‘Kargil war’ has not bee affected by the militancy; and has different agenda and has no interest with what is going on in other two regions. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan have no contact with each other and have different priorities and interests. People of Azad Kashmir, forgetting their own miseries and problems are seemed to be more concerned with what goes on across the LOC, and virtually accept everything what is presented to them by the Pakistani media.
By promoting religious politics are we not playing in hands of extremists who want to justify Two Nations Theory that Muslims and non Muslims cannot live together, hence pave way for division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious lines.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)