India helping other nations in conducting polls: U.S. official
Lauding Election Commission of India, a top U.S. official has highlighted that India is now using its expertise and excellence to help conduct polls in other parts of the globe.
“With India we have sought to highlight its excellence in administering elections,” Maria Otero, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, said in a speech.
India, she said, mobilises thousands of civil servants to help administer its domestic elections for over 730 million voters.
“The Indians are now sharing their expertise with other nations like Nigeria, where the electorate just went to the polls in a historic Presidential election that saw significant improvements over 2007 elections despite incidents of violence,” Otero said.
“India also just sent experts to Egypt, whom we hope will have its first successful free election soon,” she said, adding that South Africa has a similarly impressive history of breaking the yoke of apartheid and establishing a strong democracy in Africa.
Early this year, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a telephonic conversation with External Affairs Minister, sought India’s expertise in conducting free and fair elections in Egypt.
India has sent quite a number of electronic voting machines to Egypt.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1980544.ece
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Reap the democratic dividend in Kashmir
Reap the democratic dividend in Kashmir
From ANI
New Delhi, Apr 30: Despite vocal calls by various militant groups and separatist Kashmiri leaders, the first four phases of polling in the local body elections in Jammu and Kashmir have witnessed a voter turnout of nearly 80 percent.
Defying all expectations, almost 90 percent of the electorate turned up for voting in the separatist stronghold district of Kupwara during the first round of polling. The elections have, by and large, been peaceful.
This seems to be a significant turnaround after the violent protests last summer which brought the urban areas of Kashmir Valley to a standstill. Those protests were then portrayed by many commentators as an indictment of the Indian "occupation" of Kashmir.
To understand the significance of these voting figures, consider this fact. Very few Sarpanch and Panch constituencies in Kashmir Valley actually went to the poll during the last Panchayat elections in 2001. Polling took place in 208 out of 2348 constituencies in Baramulla, 152 out of 1695 constituencies in Kupwara and 53 out of 759 constituencies in Srinagar.
No poll was held in any of the 1022 constituencies of Badgam. The terrorist violence was at its peak in the state at that time, and the calls given by the Hizbul Mujahideen and the Hurriyat Conference, invoked enough fear in the minds of the candidates and the electorate to keep them away from the polls.
This turnaround, from 2001 to 2011, is a direct consequence of the decline in militancy in Kashmir. While militancy, which was essentially rural in nature, has been effectively pacified by the security forces, this has led to a change in tactics by the separatists.
Since 2008, the separatists have shifted their focus to protests, shutdowns and demonstrations --- often involving organised stone-pelting against the security forces --- in the urban areas of Kashmir Valley. The urban bias of the media coverage, both national and international, has resulted in presenting a rather lopsided picture of the prevailing situation in Kashmir.
Many Indian commentators welcome the high participation of Kashmiris in the local polls as a vindication of Indian democracy and a proof of Kashmiris' disposition to be a part of the Indian Republic --- a de facto referendum in India's favour.
In contrast, most Kashmiri commentators, including the mainstream political leadership of the state, are guarded and often opposed to openly making any such proclamations. In fact, their stock answer is to dissociate these elections from the larger "Kashmir problem".
This somewhat unconvincing but partially true explanation is driven by two fears. Firstly, if the mainstream political leadership of the state claims victory after the high polling percentage in initial rounds, it may lead to a concerted blowback from the separatists and militants to derail the future rounds of polls.
It is indeed prudent to make any claims after all the phases of elections conclude successfully in June.
The second, and the more damaging apprehension, is based on the experience in the aftermath of successful assembly and parliamentary polls of 2008 and 2009 respectively.
After more than 60 percent voters participated in those elections, the Indian State claimed that all was well in Kashmir and sat on its haunches. No political or economic steps were initiated by the Centre to build upon the hope generated by those elections. Many people fear the same complacency from the Centre again, if these elections are universally acclaimed to be a sign of a normal Kashmir.
Notwithstanding the above, all elections are inherently political in nature. These Panchayat elections have reinvigorated the political process at the grass root level in the state. It is not a secret that despite its public stance, the Jamaat- e- Islami is contesting these elections in a big way.
Even if it is conceded that people have not explicitly voted in favour of India by turning out in such vast numbers, by defying the unequivocal call of the separatists for poll boycott, they have certainly raised serious questions against those who claim to be the real representatives of the Kashmiris.
These elections vindicate the findings of the Freedom House-UNHCR's Freedom Index for 2010 where Kashmir was rated higher on both Political Rights and Civil Liberties than Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and even Pakistan. PoK was in fact rated as "Not Free" by the Freedom House.
These elections provide an opportunity for India to educate the many international experts who tend to take the name "Azad Kashmir" (The Free Kashmir) for PoK rather literally, while pillorying India for its policies in Kashmir.
Successful Panchayat elections are not an end in themselves. However they do provide an opportunity for Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to regain his political and administrative credibility, which stands diminished in the last two years.
The challenge for Mr. Abdullah is to build upon this success, devolve greater financial and administrative powers to these local bodies, politically engage the newly elected leaders, and closely involve these new stakeholders in governance.
The release of an additional grant of nearly Rs 1000 crore, held back by the Centre due to absence of elected local bodies, will provide the state government with greater resources and flexibility to deploy these resources via these newly-elected local bodies.
It is nobody's claim that successful Panchayat elections will solve the Kashmir problem. But, if followed up with bold political steps and imaginative administrative measures, these elections can provide a platform for what an average Kashmiri needs during the summer of 2011: peace, security and normalcy --- and a chance to lead a regular socio-economic life.
Attn: News Editors/News Desks: Sushant K. Singh heads the National Security programme at the Takshashila Institution and is editor of Pragati - The Indian National Interest Review. By Sushant K. Singh
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/437248.php
From ANI
New Delhi, Apr 30: Despite vocal calls by various militant groups and separatist Kashmiri leaders, the first four phases of polling in the local body elections in Jammu and Kashmir have witnessed a voter turnout of nearly 80 percent.
Defying all expectations, almost 90 percent of the electorate turned up for voting in the separatist stronghold district of Kupwara during the first round of polling. The elections have, by and large, been peaceful.
This seems to be a significant turnaround after the violent protests last summer which brought the urban areas of Kashmir Valley to a standstill. Those protests were then portrayed by many commentators as an indictment of the Indian "occupation" of Kashmir.
To understand the significance of these voting figures, consider this fact. Very few Sarpanch and Panch constituencies in Kashmir Valley actually went to the poll during the last Panchayat elections in 2001. Polling took place in 208 out of 2348 constituencies in Baramulla, 152 out of 1695 constituencies in Kupwara and 53 out of 759 constituencies in Srinagar.
No poll was held in any of the 1022 constituencies of Badgam. The terrorist violence was at its peak in the state at that time, and the calls given by the Hizbul Mujahideen and the Hurriyat Conference, invoked enough fear in the minds of the candidates and the electorate to keep them away from the polls.
This turnaround, from 2001 to 2011, is a direct consequence of the decline in militancy in Kashmir. While militancy, which was essentially rural in nature, has been effectively pacified by the security forces, this has led to a change in tactics by the separatists.
Since 2008, the separatists have shifted their focus to protests, shutdowns and demonstrations --- often involving organised stone-pelting against the security forces --- in the urban areas of Kashmir Valley. The urban bias of the media coverage, both national and international, has resulted in presenting a rather lopsided picture of the prevailing situation in Kashmir.
Many Indian commentators welcome the high participation of Kashmiris in the local polls as a vindication of Indian democracy and a proof of Kashmiris' disposition to be a part of the Indian Republic --- a de facto referendum in India's favour.
In contrast, most Kashmiri commentators, including the mainstream political leadership of the state, are guarded and often opposed to openly making any such proclamations. In fact, their stock answer is to dissociate these elections from the larger "Kashmir problem".
This somewhat unconvincing but partially true explanation is driven by two fears. Firstly, if the mainstream political leadership of the state claims victory after the high polling percentage in initial rounds, it may lead to a concerted blowback from the separatists and militants to derail the future rounds of polls.
It is indeed prudent to make any claims after all the phases of elections conclude successfully in June.
The second, and the more damaging apprehension, is based on the experience in the aftermath of successful assembly and parliamentary polls of 2008 and 2009 respectively.
After more than 60 percent voters participated in those elections, the Indian State claimed that all was well in Kashmir and sat on its haunches. No political or economic steps were initiated by the Centre to build upon the hope generated by those elections. Many people fear the same complacency from the Centre again, if these elections are universally acclaimed to be a sign of a normal Kashmir.
Notwithstanding the above, all elections are inherently political in nature. These Panchayat elections have reinvigorated the political process at the grass root level in the state. It is not a secret that despite its public stance, the Jamaat- e- Islami is contesting these elections in a big way.
Even if it is conceded that people have not explicitly voted in favour of India by turning out in such vast numbers, by defying the unequivocal call of the separatists for poll boycott, they have certainly raised serious questions against those who claim to be the real representatives of the Kashmiris.
These elections vindicate the findings of the Freedom House-UNHCR's Freedom Index for 2010 where Kashmir was rated higher on both Political Rights and Civil Liberties than Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and even Pakistan. PoK was in fact rated as "Not Free" by the Freedom House.
These elections provide an opportunity for India to educate the many international experts who tend to take the name "Azad Kashmir" (The Free Kashmir) for PoK rather literally, while pillorying India for its policies in Kashmir.
Successful Panchayat elections are not an end in themselves. However they do provide an opportunity for Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to regain his political and administrative credibility, which stands diminished in the last two years.
The challenge for Mr. Abdullah is to build upon this success, devolve greater financial and administrative powers to these local bodies, politically engage the newly elected leaders, and closely involve these new stakeholders in governance.
The release of an additional grant of nearly Rs 1000 crore, held back by the Centre due to absence of elected local bodies, will provide the state government with greater resources and flexibility to deploy these resources via these newly-elected local bodies.
It is nobody's claim that successful Panchayat elections will solve the Kashmir problem. But, if followed up with bold political steps and imaginative administrative measures, these elections can provide a platform for what an average Kashmiri needs during the summer of 2011: peace, security and normalcy --- and a chance to lead a regular socio-economic life.
Attn: News Editors/News Desks: Sushant K. Singh heads the National Security programme at the Takshashila Institution and is editor of Pragati - The Indian National Interest Review. By Sushant K. Singh
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/437248.php
Now Geelani opposes stone pelting, says it achieved nothing
Now Geelani opposes stone pelting, says it achieved nothing
http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=235776
Srinagar, April 30 (IANS) Hardline senior separatist leader Syed Ali Geelani has appealed to the youth not to pelt stones at security forces in Kashmir as the octogenarian leader realized "the failure of stone pelting to achieve any results".
Addressing a gathering in north Kashmir Bandipora town Friday, Geelani said: "Religious debate about the relevance of stone pelting notwithstanding, we have realized stone pelting yielded no contribution to the freedom struggle last year.
"Instead, we lost 118 youth in last year's unrest."
Geelani said since no contribution was made towards the cause of freedom through stone pelting, youth should not hurl stones at the security forces or security bunkers here.
He also condemned the death of a local driver in a hospital here Thursday after being injured in a stone pelting incident in north Kashmir Baramulla town.
The driver was caught unawares when youth were pelting stones at security forces in Baramulla town.
Police here confirmed he had been injured because of the stone pelters.
Baramulla has been a hotbed of separatist sentiment in north Kashmir.
The youth of the town, especially those living in the old town there, have earned an unenviable reputation for indulging in stone pelting on flimsy grounds.
Police and other security forces have been trying to address the alienation of the town's youth by organizing sports events, interactive sessions, debates, tours etc.
The state government, headed by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, has asked the centre to depute an additional 70 companies of paramilitary forces comprising 7,000 men to the state.
The step is seen as part of the state government's concern to ensure peaceful holding of this year's Amarnath Yatra and also address apprehensions that stone pelting might erupt again this summer.
Kashmir has not seen a peaceful summer since 2008.
There was the Amarnath shrine land row agitation in 2008, Shopian alleged double murder and rape agitation in 2009 and the bloody summer unrest in 2010 in which 110 youth died in clashes between unruly mobs and the security forces.
http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=235776
Srinagar, April 30 (IANS) Hardline senior separatist leader Syed Ali Geelani has appealed to the youth not to pelt stones at security forces in Kashmir as the octogenarian leader realized "the failure of stone pelting to achieve any results".
Addressing a gathering in north Kashmir Bandipora town Friday, Geelani said: "Religious debate about the relevance of stone pelting notwithstanding, we have realized stone pelting yielded no contribution to the freedom struggle last year.
"Instead, we lost 118 youth in last year's unrest."
Geelani said since no contribution was made towards the cause of freedom through stone pelting, youth should not hurl stones at the security forces or security bunkers here.
He also condemned the death of a local driver in a hospital here Thursday after being injured in a stone pelting incident in north Kashmir Baramulla town.
The driver was caught unawares when youth were pelting stones at security forces in Baramulla town.
Police here confirmed he had been injured because of the stone pelters.
Baramulla has been a hotbed of separatist sentiment in north Kashmir.
The youth of the town, especially those living in the old town there, have earned an unenviable reputation for indulging in stone pelting on flimsy grounds.
Police and other security forces have been trying to address the alienation of the town's youth by organizing sports events, interactive sessions, debates, tours etc.
The state government, headed by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, has asked the centre to depute an additional 70 companies of paramilitary forces comprising 7,000 men to the state.
The step is seen as part of the state government's concern to ensure peaceful holding of this year's Amarnath Yatra and also address apprehensions that stone pelting might erupt again this summer.
Kashmir has not seen a peaceful summer since 2008.
There was the Amarnath shrine land row agitation in 2008, Shopian alleged double murder and rape agitation in 2009 and the bloody summer unrest in 2010 in which 110 youth died in clashes between unruly mobs and the security forces.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Kashmiri protest against Pakistani Kashmir policy
Kashmiri protest against Pakistani Kashmir policy
Dr Shabir Choudhry 29 April 2011
Kashmiri thinking and actions are changing. For past many decades they were brainwashed to protest only against India; now this is fast changing and true sons of Jammu and Kashmir do not shy away to criticise and protest against wrong policies of Pakistan.
On 28 April 2011, different Kashmiri parties protested outside Pakistani High Commission in London against Pakistan’s wrong Kashmir policy and fraudulent occupation of Gilgit Baltistan. Pakistani governments fooled people for too long by claiming that they took control of Gilgit Baltistan as a result of the Karachi Agreement which was allegedly signed by President of Azad Kashmir and Minister of Pakistan Mushtaq Gurmani on 28 April 1949.
Later on President of Azad Kashmir, Sardar Ibrahim Khan, more than once, revealed that he never signed any agreement regarding Gilgit Baltistan. What this means is that Pakistani presence in Gilgit Baltistan is illegal and is based on fraud and lies; hence all subsequent actions are null and void.
People of Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan have started a campaign against the Pakistani occupation and their illegal presence in that region. Protest marches and seminars have been held in various parts of the world, including Pakistan, Gilgit Baltistan, England and Pakistani Administered Kashmir.
The London protest was arranged by JKNIA, which was also attended by KNP and UKPNP. However, icing on the cake was participation of some liberal minded and peace loving Pakistanis, who believe people of Jammu and Kashmir have right to live with respect and dignity and decide their future without any fear and intimidation.
Among the Pakistani protestors was Imtiaz Ul Maqsood, President of Friends of Kashmir National Party, who said: ‘As a Pakistani I love my country and Kashmiri people should also have right to love their country. I would like Kashmir to join Pakistan, but that decision must be taken by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and if they want to live as an independent country I will respect their decision.’
He further said, ‘It is very difficult to find time in London on a working day for a demonstration, yet I am here to express my solidarity with oppressed and forcibly divided people of Jammu and Kashmir. I had to leave many important tasks related to my work, bought my own ticket and came here to give this message to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that we care for you. We will support you even if you don’t want to join Pakistan; and demand government of Pakistan to respect fundamental rights of all Kashmiris living in Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir.’
Another Pakistani Ejaz Pracha, Secretary General of Friends of KNP said: I am a peace loving person and want to see peace and stability not only in Jammu and Kashmir but also in Pakistan and entire South Asia. We cannot have peace if we still promote violence and do not resolve all disputes by a process of dialogue.’
He further said, ‘I am from Khyber Pahktoon Khawa province, as a result of violence and extremism I have witnessed death and destruction in my province and in other parts of Pakistan. As a student of history I know disputes could not be resolved by promoting violence and by use of guns’.
He said, ‘When governments commit human rights abuses and oppress innocent people, all civilised citizens must speak out to protest against these actions. I believe when wrongs were done to the people of East Pakistan, if people of West Pakistan had, at that time, spoken out against that then it was possible that East Pakistan might have been still part of Pakistan. I have learnt that people are denied of their fundamental rights in Gilgit Baltistan and in Azad Kashmir, but situation is worse in Balochistan and we all have to speak out against the situation there.’
Noman Khan, a student from Khyber Pahktoon Khawa province said, ‘History we were taught in Pakistani schools told us that Gilgit Baltistan was part of Pakistan; and now after associating myself with Friends of KNP I learnt that these areas are part of State of Jammu and Kashmir. I love my country and people of Kashmir have right to love their country and I support them in their struggle.’
Those protesting outside the Pakistani High Commission on this occasion shouted various slogans. I told Kashmiri people not to shout derogatory slogans as we do not intend to insult the Pakistani nation, and annoy ordinary Pakistanis who have no control over the Kashmir policy of the Pakistani elite.
One Kashmiri nationalist was going to shout a known derogatory slogan: Kashmir ki azadi kay do shaitan – eik India dosra Pakistan, meaning two devils have encroached our independence – one is India other is Pakistan; I immediately stopped him by saying that we need to win minds and hearts of those who occupy us and this kind of language will not help us.
Thankfully, this Kashmiri leader listened and refrained from shouting this slogan; however people shouted other pro Kashmir and pro independence slogans. Someone suggested that we should also shout slogans against India. Another person said, but this protest is against Pakistani policies on Kashmir, especially in Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, so why shout against India; and he looked towards me for support.
I said, India is also occupying our land and people are struggling and suffering there, so if people want to shout slogans against India they have every right to do that. So people started shouting ‘India and Pakistan out of our Kashmir’ and ‘Foreign forces out of Kashmir’.
It was a good show, especially when we consider that it was a working day. I was happy to see some of my old colleagues Mohammed Younis Trayabi, Mohammed Asim, Sadeeq Mirza, Najib Afsar, Mehmood Kashmiri and others. Abbas Butt and Usman Kayani among others ensured that people did not use foul language and there were no other problems.
However, it was sad to note that the Pakistani media in London totally boycott this protest. They are very keen to cover protests taking place outside the Indian High Commission, even when turn out is less than 20. They even provide wide coverage to protests against Pakistan arranged by Pakistani parties, but they have no interest to project grievances of people of Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. No wonder Kashmiri and Pakistani parliamentarians do not want to say anything that could annoy the Pakistani establishment, hence no media coverage.
Cynthia Chandran on behalf of ANI and Nawaz Majid on behalf of Daily Kashmir Express and another non Kashmiri journalist covered the protest and helped us to promote our cause. The Pakistani media, perhaps, does not know that the modern technology has empowered people to send their message across the thousands of people via email, twitter, texts and Face - book debates. Their action of the Pakistani media has not created any goodwill, if anything; it has sent a negative message.
I salute all those who came out to protest against injustice and oppression. They also had other commitments but they thought it was their jihad to speak truth and expose wrongs perpetrated in name of religion and brotherhood. Their action is better than those who are sitting on the fence and fear of losing rewards and protocol from Pakistani establishment.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 29 April 2011
Kashmiri thinking and actions are changing. For past many decades they were brainwashed to protest only against India; now this is fast changing and true sons of Jammu and Kashmir do not shy away to criticise and protest against wrong policies of Pakistan.
On 28 April 2011, different Kashmiri parties protested outside Pakistani High Commission in London against Pakistan’s wrong Kashmir policy and fraudulent occupation of Gilgit Baltistan. Pakistani governments fooled people for too long by claiming that they took control of Gilgit Baltistan as a result of the Karachi Agreement which was allegedly signed by President of Azad Kashmir and Minister of Pakistan Mushtaq Gurmani on 28 April 1949.
Later on President of Azad Kashmir, Sardar Ibrahim Khan, more than once, revealed that he never signed any agreement regarding Gilgit Baltistan. What this means is that Pakistani presence in Gilgit Baltistan is illegal and is based on fraud and lies; hence all subsequent actions are null and void.
People of Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan have started a campaign against the Pakistani occupation and their illegal presence in that region. Protest marches and seminars have been held in various parts of the world, including Pakistan, Gilgit Baltistan, England and Pakistani Administered Kashmir.
The London protest was arranged by JKNIA, which was also attended by KNP and UKPNP. However, icing on the cake was participation of some liberal minded and peace loving Pakistanis, who believe people of Jammu and Kashmir have right to live with respect and dignity and decide their future without any fear and intimidation.
Among the Pakistani protestors was Imtiaz Ul Maqsood, President of Friends of Kashmir National Party, who said: ‘As a Pakistani I love my country and Kashmiri people should also have right to love their country. I would like Kashmir to join Pakistan, but that decision must be taken by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and if they want to live as an independent country I will respect their decision.’
He further said, ‘It is very difficult to find time in London on a working day for a demonstration, yet I am here to express my solidarity with oppressed and forcibly divided people of Jammu and Kashmir. I had to leave many important tasks related to my work, bought my own ticket and came here to give this message to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that we care for you. We will support you even if you don’t want to join Pakistan; and demand government of Pakistan to respect fundamental rights of all Kashmiris living in Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir.’
Another Pakistani Ejaz Pracha, Secretary General of Friends of KNP said: I am a peace loving person and want to see peace and stability not only in Jammu and Kashmir but also in Pakistan and entire South Asia. We cannot have peace if we still promote violence and do not resolve all disputes by a process of dialogue.’
He further said, ‘I am from Khyber Pahktoon Khawa province, as a result of violence and extremism I have witnessed death and destruction in my province and in other parts of Pakistan. As a student of history I know disputes could not be resolved by promoting violence and by use of guns’.
He said, ‘When governments commit human rights abuses and oppress innocent people, all civilised citizens must speak out to protest against these actions. I believe when wrongs were done to the people of East Pakistan, if people of West Pakistan had, at that time, spoken out against that then it was possible that East Pakistan might have been still part of Pakistan. I have learnt that people are denied of their fundamental rights in Gilgit Baltistan and in Azad Kashmir, but situation is worse in Balochistan and we all have to speak out against the situation there.’
Noman Khan, a student from Khyber Pahktoon Khawa province said, ‘History we were taught in Pakistani schools told us that Gilgit Baltistan was part of Pakistan; and now after associating myself with Friends of KNP I learnt that these areas are part of State of Jammu and Kashmir. I love my country and people of Kashmir have right to love their country and I support them in their struggle.’
Those protesting outside the Pakistani High Commission on this occasion shouted various slogans. I told Kashmiri people not to shout derogatory slogans as we do not intend to insult the Pakistani nation, and annoy ordinary Pakistanis who have no control over the Kashmir policy of the Pakistani elite.
One Kashmiri nationalist was going to shout a known derogatory slogan: Kashmir ki azadi kay do shaitan – eik India dosra Pakistan, meaning two devils have encroached our independence – one is India other is Pakistan; I immediately stopped him by saying that we need to win minds and hearts of those who occupy us and this kind of language will not help us.
Thankfully, this Kashmiri leader listened and refrained from shouting this slogan; however people shouted other pro Kashmir and pro independence slogans. Someone suggested that we should also shout slogans against India. Another person said, but this protest is against Pakistani policies on Kashmir, especially in Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, so why shout against India; and he looked towards me for support.
I said, India is also occupying our land and people are struggling and suffering there, so if people want to shout slogans against India they have every right to do that. So people started shouting ‘India and Pakistan out of our Kashmir’ and ‘Foreign forces out of Kashmir’.
It was a good show, especially when we consider that it was a working day. I was happy to see some of my old colleagues Mohammed Younis Trayabi, Mohammed Asim, Sadeeq Mirza, Najib Afsar, Mehmood Kashmiri and others. Abbas Butt and Usman Kayani among others ensured that people did not use foul language and there were no other problems.
However, it was sad to note that the Pakistani media in London totally boycott this protest. They are very keen to cover protests taking place outside the Indian High Commission, even when turn out is less than 20. They even provide wide coverage to protests against Pakistan arranged by Pakistani parties, but they have no interest to project grievances of people of Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. No wonder Kashmiri and Pakistani parliamentarians do not want to say anything that could annoy the Pakistani establishment, hence no media coverage.
Cynthia Chandran on behalf of ANI and Nawaz Majid on behalf of Daily Kashmir Express and another non Kashmiri journalist covered the protest and helped us to promote our cause. The Pakistani media, perhaps, does not know that the modern technology has empowered people to send their message across the thousands of people via email, twitter, texts and Face - book debates. Their action of the Pakistani media has not created any goodwill, if anything; it has sent a negative message.
I salute all those who came out to protest against injustice and oppression. They also had other commitments but they thought it was their jihad to speak truth and expose wrongs perpetrated in name of religion and brotherhood. Their action is better than those who are sitting on the fence and fear of losing rewards and protocol from Pakistani establishment.
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
We will protest against Pakistani injustice, Dr Shabir Choudhry
We will protest against Pakistani injustice, Dr Shabir Choudhry
London 26 April 2011
Kashmir National Party leader Dr Shabir Choudhry said 28 April is an important date in modern history of Kashmir, as it was on this date Pakistani government illegally usurped areas of Gilgit Baltistan.
KNP leaders said Pakistani authorities have hitherto fooled people of Jammu and Kashmir, including people of Gilgi Baltistan that they took charge of these areas after an agreement with Azad Kashmiri President Sardar Ibrahim Khan.
However, Sardar Ibrahim Khan more than once exposed this lie that he did not sign any contract or deal with the Pakistani authorities with regard to future of Gilgit Baltistan, hence Pakistani occupation of these areas is illegal and against the expressed wishes of the local people.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said Kashmir National Party will take part in the demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission in London to protest against injustice and exploitation of Pakistan. This demonstration is organised by Kashmir National Independence Alliance.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said we will support this action of KNIA even though we are not part of this Alliance. He said we support our brothers who are fighting for their rights on the Indian side of the divide, but our struggle is on the Pakistani side of the LOC; and we expect our brothers on that side to understand that we are also occupied and they should express their solidarity with us.
Mr Imtiaz Ul Maqsood, President of Friends of Kashmir National Party said, ‘I will also join the protest to show solidarity with people of Jammu and Kashmir. People of Jammu and Kashmir, including people of Gilgit Baltistan should be treated with dignity and respect; and they must be given unfettered right of self determination to determine their own future.’
Imtiaz Ul Maqsood said, ‘People of Pakistan are increasingly becoming aware of Pakistani policy on Kashmir, and wish to see peace and stability in South Asia which can only come about if the Kashmir dispute is resolved according to wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.’ He said he and his Pakistani friends will take part in this protest to show that we care for them. He said we cannot turn clock of history back apart from expressing remorse on wrong doings of Pakistan, but in future we will stand with our Kashmiri brothers and assure them that our support is unconditional.
Details of demonstration are as follows:
Time: 12 – 2pm
Date: 28 April 2011
Venue: 34 -36 Lowndes Sq, London, SW1X 9JN
Issued by Dr Shabir Choudhry
Tel. 07790942471 Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
London 26 April 2011
Kashmir National Party leader Dr Shabir Choudhry said 28 April is an important date in modern history of Kashmir, as it was on this date Pakistani government illegally usurped areas of Gilgit Baltistan.
KNP leaders said Pakistani authorities have hitherto fooled people of Jammu and Kashmir, including people of Gilgi Baltistan that they took charge of these areas after an agreement with Azad Kashmiri President Sardar Ibrahim Khan.
However, Sardar Ibrahim Khan more than once exposed this lie that he did not sign any contract or deal with the Pakistani authorities with regard to future of Gilgit Baltistan, hence Pakistani occupation of these areas is illegal and against the expressed wishes of the local people.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said Kashmir National Party will take part in the demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission in London to protest against injustice and exploitation of Pakistan. This demonstration is organised by Kashmir National Independence Alliance.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said we will support this action of KNIA even though we are not part of this Alliance. He said we support our brothers who are fighting for their rights on the Indian side of the divide, but our struggle is on the Pakistani side of the LOC; and we expect our brothers on that side to understand that we are also occupied and they should express their solidarity with us.
Mr Imtiaz Ul Maqsood, President of Friends of Kashmir National Party said, ‘I will also join the protest to show solidarity with people of Jammu and Kashmir. People of Jammu and Kashmir, including people of Gilgit Baltistan should be treated with dignity and respect; and they must be given unfettered right of self determination to determine their own future.’
Imtiaz Ul Maqsood said, ‘People of Pakistan are increasingly becoming aware of Pakistani policy on Kashmir, and wish to see peace and stability in South Asia which can only come about if the Kashmir dispute is resolved according to wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.’ He said he and his Pakistani friends will take part in this protest to show that we care for them. He said we cannot turn clock of history back apart from expressing remorse on wrong doings of Pakistan, but in future we will stand with our Kashmiri brothers and assure them that our support is unconditional.
Details of demonstration are as follows:
Time: 12 – 2pm
Date: 28 April 2011
Venue: 34 -36 Lowndes Sq, London, SW1X 9JN
Issued by Dr Shabir Choudhry
Tel. 07790942471 Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Saturday, 23 April 2011
UN Resolutions and an Independent Kashmir
UN Resolutions and an Independent Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry
From my PhD research which will be published soon.
It should be noted that the UN Resolution of 21 April 1948, stated that it was for 'The people of Kashmir to decide in a fair and impartial plebiscite if they want to accede to India or Pakistan'. In other words the people of Kashmir had only two options available to them whether to join India or Pakistan, the option of independence was not offered to them. This is largely because the ‘The Jammu and Kashmir Question’ or ‘India and Pakistan Question’, as it was later called, was represented by the officials of India and Pakistan. Officials of both countries presented the case as it suited their national interest with little or no care for the people of Kashmir.
But when the Commission reached the Sub Continent and had the opportunity to meet the Kashmiri people, even though the officials of the both countries all the time shadowed them, they opened the door for an independent Kashmir.
Whereas the Resolution of 21 April 1948, stated that the people of Kashmir could only accede to India or Pakistan, the Resolution of 13th August 1948 said that the "future status of the state shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people...."
The phrase "future status" could mean the following:
1. Accession of the State to India;
2. Accession to Pakistan or
3. An independent Kashmir.
Fearing the possibility of an independent Kashmir, The Pakistan Foreign Office, in a letter to the Security Council, enquired if the words 'future status' could mean an independent Kashmir. The reply was that the Kashmiri people could have an independent Kashmir if that was the majority decision. After receiving this reply, the Pakistan government decided to suggest an amendment to this resolution. It was unfortunate that the Pakistan government in its letter to General A. G. L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council, dated 28 December 1948, wrote to propose a change in this clause:
Paragraph 1 (A) reads,
For the words "the future status of State of Jammu and Kashmir" substitute the following:
"The question of the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan. 20
As a result of this request the next resolution which was passed on 5 January 1949, read like this:
'The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite'.
Despite this important change in the Resolution, General A. G. L. McNaughton after intensive interaction between the both governments, in his report in December 1949, still proposed the following:
"To determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir by the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, to take place as soon as possible". 21
Pakistan once again wrote him a letter and asked for a change that was made in the Resolution of 5 January 1949. What this meant was that the government of Pakistan, in principle, was prepared to accept the whole of the State going to India in the event of the plebiscite going against Pakistan; but was not prepared to accept the State of Jammu and Kashmir becoming an independent if the people voted in favour of this option.
It must be noted that under the Security Council Resolution, Pakistan had to withdraw all of her troops from the State, and India only had to withdraw 'bulk' of her troops. This could mean that India could have had 49% of her troops present in Kashmir and with Sheikh Abdullah at the helm of political affairs the result of the plebiscite could well have gone in India’s favour.
Even those writers who are regarded as pro Pakistan seem to agree that if the proposed plebiscite had taken place while the Indian troops, whatever their number, were present and Sheikh Abdullah was in charge of the Kashmiri administration the outcome of the Plebiscite would have gone against Pakistan. Sheikh Abdullah was the most popular leader and the atrocities committed by the Tribesmen sponsored by Pakistan were still fresh in peoples mind. Perhaps Pakistan, realising this eventuality, was not too keen in pulling out her troops from Kashmir.
But it is demoralising and disappointing to note that Pakistan too was interested in territorial gains and was not really concerned about the welfare of the people or the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. Had welfare of the Kashmiri people and principle of self determination being Pakistan's first priority, then perhaps the government would have acted differently and:
1. Would not have changed the title of the case from 'The Jammu and Kashmir Question' to 'India and Pakistan question';
2. Would not have limited the choice of the Kashmiri people to accession to India or Pakistan.
Pakistan's policy regarding Kashmir still has not changed. Pakistani government officials talk about human rights violations in the Indian occupied Kashmir, and rightly so because India is guilty of human rights violations, but what about the rights of the people living in Gilgit Baltistan?
These people oppressed and deprived of fundamental human rights. They don't have even those limited rights enjoyed by people in Azad Kashmir. If the Pakistan government is sincere with the right of self determination of the Kashmiri people, then she should not be imposing any restrictions on them by saying that they cannot remain independent. Time and again they very openly opposed the idea of an independent Kashmir.
Pakistan pay lip service to Kashmiri people's right to self determination, and yet gives them only a limited choice of either joining Pakistan or India. This in practice means only one choice - accession to Pakistan, as the majority of the Kashmiris have rejected India's claim on Kashmir and openly declared their unwillingness to join India.
The point is that the Kashmiri people's right to determine their own future must not be circumscribed or limited. For whatever reason, if Kashmir has to accede to Pakistan, the decision must be voluntarily made by the people, not imposed on them.
Under the terms of the Resolution of 13th August 1948, the cease- fire became effective on the 1st January 1949. On 5th January 1949, the second Resolution was passed which was supplementary to the Commission's resolutions passed on the 13th August 1948.
In the view of many writers and commentators, the nature of Kashmir dispute changed with the passage of this Resolution. From then onwards it was no longer a question of right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people; rather the Kashmiri people, according to the Resolution, would be given a limited choice to decide if they wanted to become Indian or Pakistani; thus implying that it was a territorial dispute between the two countries, not a right of self determination as acknowledged in the UN Charter. 22
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry
From my PhD research which will be published soon.
It should be noted that the UN Resolution of 21 April 1948, stated that it was for 'The people of Kashmir to decide in a fair and impartial plebiscite if they want to accede to India or Pakistan'. In other words the people of Kashmir had only two options available to them whether to join India or Pakistan, the option of independence was not offered to them. This is largely because the ‘The Jammu and Kashmir Question’ or ‘India and Pakistan Question’, as it was later called, was represented by the officials of India and Pakistan. Officials of both countries presented the case as it suited their national interest with little or no care for the people of Kashmir.
But when the Commission reached the Sub Continent and had the opportunity to meet the Kashmiri people, even though the officials of the both countries all the time shadowed them, they opened the door for an independent Kashmir.
Whereas the Resolution of 21 April 1948, stated that the people of Kashmir could only accede to India or Pakistan, the Resolution of 13th August 1948 said that the "future status of the state shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people...."
The phrase "future status" could mean the following:
1. Accession of the State to India;
2. Accession to Pakistan or
3. An independent Kashmir.
Fearing the possibility of an independent Kashmir, The Pakistan Foreign Office, in a letter to the Security Council, enquired if the words 'future status' could mean an independent Kashmir. The reply was that the Kashmiri people could have an independent Kashmir if that was the majority decision. After receiving this reply, the Pakistan government decided to suggest an amendment to this resolution. It was unfortunate that the Pakistan government in its letter to General A. G. L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council, dated 28 December 1948, wrote to propose a change in this clause:
Paragraph 1 (A) reads,
For the words "the future status of State of Jammu and Kashmir" substitute the following:
"The question of the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan. 20
As a result of this request the next resolution which was passed on 5 January 1949, read like this:
'The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite'.
Despite this important change in the Resolution, General A. G. L. McNaughton after intensive interaction between the both governments, in his report in December 1949, still proposed the following:
"To determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir by the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, to take place as soon as possible". 21
Pakistan once again wrote him a letter and asked for a change that was made in the Resolution of 5 January 1949. What this meant was that the government of Pakistan, in principle, was prepared to accept the whole of the State going to India in the event of the plebiscite going against Pakistan; but was not prepared to accept the State of Jammu and Kashmir becoming an independent if the people voted in favour of this option.
It must be noted that under the Security Council Resolution, Pakistan had to withdraw all of her troops from the State, and India only had to withdraw 'bulk' of her troops. This could mean that India could have had 49% of her troops present in Kashmir and with Sheikh Abdullah at the helm of political affairs the result of the plebiscite could well have gone in India’s favour.
Even those writers who are regarded as pro Pakistan seem to agree that if the proposed plebiscite had taken place while the Indian troops, whatever their number, were present and Sheikh Abdullah was in charge of the Kashmiri administration the outcome of the Plebiscite would have gone against Pakistan. Sheikh Abdullah was the most popular leader and the atrocities committed by the Tribesmen sponsored by Pakistan were still fresh in peoples mind. Perhaps Pakistan, realising this eventuality, was not too keen in pulling out her troops from Kashmir.
But it is demoralising and disappointing to note that Pakistan too was interested in territorial gains and was not really concerned about the welfare of the people or the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. Had welfare of the Kashmiri people and principle of self determination being Pakistan's first priority, then perhaps the government would have acted differently and:
1. Would not have changed the title of the case from 'The Jammu and Kashmir Question' to 'India and Pakistan question';
2. Would not have limited the choice of the Kashmiri people to accession to India or Pakistan.
Pakistan's policy regarding Kashmir still has not changed. Pakistani government officials talk about human rights violations in the Indian occupied Kashmir, and rightly so because India is guilty of human rights violations, but what about the rights of the people living in Gilgit Baltistan?
These people oppressed and deprived of fundamental human rights. They don't have even those limited rights enjoyed by people in Azad Kashmir. If the Pakistan government is sincere with the right of self determination of the Kashmiri people, then she should not be imposing any restrictions on them by saying that they cannot remain independent. Time and again they very openly opposed the idea of an independent Kashmir.
Pakistan pay lip service to Kashmiri people's right to self determination, and yet gives them only a limited choice of either joining Pakistan or India. This in practice means only one choice - accession to Pakistan, as the majority of the Kashmiris have rejected India's claim on Kashmir and openly declared their unwillingness to join India.
The point is that the Kashmiri people's right to determine their own future must not be circumscribed or limited. For whatever reason, if Kashmir has to accede to Pakistan, the decision must be voluntarily made by the people, not imposed on them.
Under the terms of the Resolution of 13th August 1948, the cease- fire became effective on the 1st January 1949. On 5th January 1949, the second Resolution was passed which was supplementary to the Commission's resolutions passed on the 13th August 1948.
In the view of many writers and commentators, the nature of Kashmir dispute changed with the passage of this Resolution. From then onwards it was no longer a question of right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people; rather the Kashmiri people, according to the Resolution, would be given a limited choice to decide if they wanted to become Indian or Pakistani; thus implying that it was a territorial dispute between the two countries, not a right of self determination as acknowledged in the UN Charter. 22
Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Kashmir And The Partition of India
Kashmir And The Partition of India
The politicians and the personalities involved in the partition of India, and legal position of Jammu and Kashmir State on 15th August 1947
VDM Verag Dr. Müller (2011-04-20)
ISBN-13:
978-3-639-34801-9
ISBN-10:
363934801X
EAN:
9783639348019
Book language:
English
Blurb/Shorttext:
The work also looks at the partition of India in detail. Special attention was given to the role of Mountbatten – his appointment, his power and influence in deciding the most delicate matters. His personal friendship with Nehru and his dislike of Jinnah had an important effect on the whole process of partition. There were other important and influential personalities like Gandhi, Patel, V.P. Menon and Edwina Mountbatten, who had close contacts with, and influence over Mountbatten and Nehru. Another controversial area worthy of detailed analysis was the Radcliffe Award, the delay in its announcement and its effect upon the cost of independence to the people of the Indian Sub- Continent.
Despite detailed research, logical discussion and an analytical approach, there still remain some grey areas and a number of uncertainties. It would be erroneous to claim that my research has discovered the whole truth regarding the partition of India; perhaps the whole truth will never be known, as many of the characters involved are no longer alive. But I have tried to shed new light on many areas, and developed new themes in some aspects of the partition of India.
Publishing house:
VDM Verlag Dr. Müller
By (author):
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Number of pages: 504
Published at: 2011-04-20
Category: Comparative and international political science
Price: 79.00 €
The politicians and the personalities involved in the partition of India, and legal position of Jammu and Kashmir State on 15th August 1947
VDM Verag Dr. Müller (2011-04-20)
ISBN-13:
978-3-639-34801-9
ISBN-10:
363934801X
EAN:
9783639348019
Book language:
English
Blurb/Shorttext:
The work also looks at the partition of India in detail. Special attention was given to the role of Mountbatten – his appointment, his power and influence in deciding the most delicate matters. His personal friendship with Nehru and his dislike of Jinnah had an important effect on the whole process of partition. There were other important and influential personalities like Gandhi, Patel, V.P. Menon and Edwina Mountbatten, who had close contacts with, and influence over Mountbatten and Nehru. Another controversial area worthy of detailed analysis was the Radcliffe Award, the delay in its announcement and its effect upon the cost of independence to the people of the Indian Sub- Continent.
Despite detailed research, logical discussion and an analytical approach, there still remain some grey areas and a number of uncertainties. It would be erroneous to claim that my research has discovered the whole truth regarding the partition of India; perhaps the whole truth will never be known, as many of the characters involved are no longer alive. But I have tried to shed new light on many areas, and developed new themes in some aspects of the partition of India.
Publishing house:
VDM Verlag Dr. Müller
By (author):
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Number of pages: 504
Published at: 2011-04-20
Category: Comparative and international political science
Price: 79.00 €
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)