Nawaz Sharif says: Pakistani institutions have done more damage to Kashmir dispute than anyone else may - may Allah bless him for that
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/06/11/in-session-11th-june-2011-latest-on-dunya-news/
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Monday, 6 June 2011
Non Kashmiri political parties are a serious threat to Kashmiri struggle
Non Kashmiri political parties are a serious threat to Kashmiri struggle
Dr Shabir Choudhry 6 June 2011
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are taking place this month. These elections are no different to the elections that place on the others side of the Line of Control under the Indian Administration. Whereas, Pakistani governments, their secret agencies and their proxies oppose, tooth and nail, elections on the Indian side; they put up a good drama of elections in areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control.
At one time, people of the Indian Administered Kashmir under influence of Pakistan and their proxies in the Valley of Kashmir took the bait and boycotted elections as if they were haram forbidden in Qur’an. They were led to believe that if they took part in elections it will be tantamount to voting for accession of the State with India, even though one UN Security Council Resolution clearly says that no election can substitute election.
Thank Almighty that people have now understood game plan of Pakistan and their proxies who urged people not to take part in the elections, as people now know elections are for administrative purposes and they do not change status of this disputed territory. Furthermore, they understood that if the elections are halal – allowed under the Pakistani Administration then they cannot be haram – forbidden under the Indian Administration.
Once the people understood that agents of Pakistan and Pakistan’s proxy leaders were not sincere with the Kashmiri struggle and that the call to boycott elections was to get more rewards from Islamabad, they totally ignored this call of boycott and participated in the elections in great numbers surprising all the analysts.
Unlike India, Pakistani control over areas of Jammu and Kashmir is more subtle, scientific and stringent. Areas known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan do not even have those facilities and liberties which their counterparts, despite the militancy, violence and presence of a large army enjoy; yet these people are fooled in to believe that they are azad meaning free.
As a result of this false sense of being free, majority of people think they don’t need to struggle for freedom, rule of law and fundamental laws. They think because we are allowed to go to mosques, open a corner shop and kill cows in Islamic way we are free, even though our resources and government is controlled and exploited y Pakistan and their agents inside the territories under Pakistani control.
Elections are not contested on any principle or ideology. Those who have money, legal or illegal, can buy tickets of the parties and seats in the Upper House known as Kashmir Council. Recently Kashmir Council elections have been completed and some people had to pay three cror rupees (around £250,000) to buy the seat. Each Kashmir Council member gets around four cror rupees per annum; and it is up to them how they spend that – there is no accountability. It is a good business.
To get a party ticket for the Assembly of Pakistani Administered Kashmir from one of the major political parties, each applicant has to submit 135,000 rupees; and each constituency attracts many applications. All the money goes to party heads. In our unfortunate territory PPP and Muslim League N are big parties and both are non local parties – Pakistanis. Who gets ticket for which seat final decision is taken by Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, so where is the much talked democracy.
While talking to me on this subject Masoom Ansari, a leader of Kashmir National Party said: ‘Azad Kashmiri politics is now controlled by Pakistani political parties and this is very dangerous for the Kashmiri struggle and our identity. What interest does PPP, N League, MQM and Jamat e Islami could have to our problems and our struggle for independence? Pakistan already controls all aspects of our social, political and economic life, our resources are looted and we have become powerless and enslaved in our motherland.’
Masoom Ansari further said: ‘These parties are not here to help or support us in any way. They are here to colonise us. People of Azad Kashmir, before supporting them must think what these parties have done to Pakistan. If these political parties can do that to Pakistan - to their own country just imagine what they can do to a territory that is not legally part of Pakistan? We are deprived of that little control we had on our political parties and selection of candidates, now Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain will decide who is going to be our member of Assembly.’
Another senior Kashmir leader of Liberation League, Choudhry Mohammed Sadiq said: ‘We have differences with Muslim League, we dislike their policies and style of government, but after all they are a local party with local interest in mind. Pakistani parties should not be allowed to take part in the elections. These are non Kashmiri parties with non Kashmiri agenda. They will advance a Pakistani agenda and that is to make this area a part of Pakistan. People should not vote for candidates of these parties to express their approval.’
I agree with the sentiments expressed by my fellow Kashmiris, but I know people will vote for them; and even if they don’t still PPP and many N League leaders will be declared winners. It is also possible that MQM will win a few seats. In a place like Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan money speaks; and elections are not won on the strength of a principle or an ideology.
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are not won or lost on political or ideological basis. Money, social status, tribal strength and moreover contacts with the Pakistani establishment is the determining factor. Islamabad ensures that only those people win the elections who are easy to handle and who have no strength of character or ideology.
Some Kashmiri nationalist parties have decided to sign the declaration which prohibits them to take part in the elections. These parties have no finance to match pro Pakistan parties. They have no experience in contesting elections; and they have weak organisational structures. They don’t have strong contacts with the Azad Kashmir bureaucracy; and the Pakistani establishment don’t want them to win.
Despite all that they have decided to contest. They know they will lose, but they are determined to fight. They are determined to challenge the proxy rule and proxy politics and might of Islamabad. These leaders say winning is not everything; the elections will provide them an opportunity to meet people and tell them how Islamabad and their agents have exploited them in name of Islam and freedom struggle.
These leaders think those who inserted that clause in Act 1974, under which Azad Kashmir is administered, that demands loyalty to Pakistan before one can even become a candidate was designed to keep the Kashmiri nationalists away from the ‘democratic process’. The nationalist Kashmiri leadership without realising designs of the imperialist minds in Islamabad fell in this trap and boycotted elections since 1974. That policy ensured that nationalist leadership did not interact with ordinary people and give this message to the ordinary people that they had no interest and no role in local matters which were related to every day issues of the people.
Some Kashmiri nationalists individually contested elections in the past, and generally they were castigated for that. It was the Kashmir National Party, which after lengthy debates in the party boldly came out with a policy that we will support the democratic process on both sides of the divide; and will take part in the elections.
Some other parties also followed the KNP foot steps and declared that they would also contest elections. The result of intra - party discussions is an alliance called National Democratic Alliance which has put forward an election manifesto and fielded a number of candidates. This is a turning point in the polity of the Pakistani Administered Kashmir.
These pro independent Kashmir candidates are not in a position to defeat the social and political infrastructure put in place by Pakistan and their agencies to protect and promote their interest; but they will be in a position to dent the credibility of Pakistan and their policy on Kashmir. To me that itself is a commendable act and a step in right direction.
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 6 June 2011
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are taking place this month. These elections are no different to the elections that place on the others side of the Line of Control under the Indian Administration. Whereas, Pakistani governments, their secret agencies and their proxies oppose, tooth and nail, elections on the Indian side; they put up a good drama of elections in areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control.
At one time, people of the Indian Administered Kashmir under influence of Pakistan and their proxies in the Valley of Kashmir took the bait and boycotted elections as if they were haram forbidden in Qur’an. They were led to believe that if they took part in elections it will be tantamount to voting for accession of the State with India, even though one UN Security Council Resolution clearly says that no election can substitute election.
Thank Almighty that people have now understood game plan of Pakistan and their proxies who urged people not to take part in the elections, as people now know elections are for administrative purposes and they do not change status of this disputed territory. Furthermore, they understood that if the elections are halal – allowed under the Pakistani Administration then they cannot be haram – forbidden under the Indian Administration.
Once the people understood that agents of Pakistan and Pakistan’s proxy leaders were not sincere with the Kashmiri struggle and that the call to boycott elections was to get more rewards from Islamabad, they totally ignored this call of boycott and participated in the elections in great numbers surprising all the analysts.
Unlike India, Pakistani control over areas of Jammu and Kashmir is more subtle, scientific and stringent. Areas known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan do not even have those facilities and liberties which their counterparts, despite the militancy, violence and presence of a large army enjoy; yet these people are fooled in to believe that they are azad meaning free.
As a result of this false sense of being free, majority of people think they don’t need to struggle for freedom, rule of law and fundamental laws. They think because we are allowed to go to mosques, open a corner shop and kill cows in Islamic way we are free, even though our resources and government is controlled and exploited y Pakistan and their agents inside the territories under Pakistani control.
Elections are not contested on any principle or ideology. Those who have money, legal or illegal, can buy tickets of the parties and seats in the Upper House known as Kashmir Council. Recently Kashmir Council elections have been completed and some people had to pay three cror rupees (around £250,000) to buy the seat. Each Kashmir Council member gets around four cror rupees per annum; and it is up to them how they spend that – there is no accountability. It is a good business.
To get a party ticket for the Assembly of Pakistani Administered Kashmir from one of the major political parties, each applicant has to submit 135,000 rupees; and each constituency attracts many applications. All the money goes to party heads. In our unfortunate territory PPP and Muslim League N are big parties and both are non local parties – Pakistanis. Who gets ticket for which seat final decision is taken by Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, so where is the much talked democracy.
While talking to me on this subject Masoom Ansari, a leader of Kashmir National Party said: ‘Azad Kashmiri politics is now controlled by Pakistani political parties and this is very dangerous for the Kashmiri struggle and our identity. What interest does PPP, N League, MQM and Jamat e Islami could have to our problems and our struggle for independence? Pakistan already controls all aspects of our social, political and economic life, our resources are looted and we have become powerless and enslaved in our motherland.’
Masoom Ansari further said: ‘These parties are not here to help or support us in any way. They are here to colonise us. People of Azad Kashmir, before supporting them must think what these parties have done to Pakistan. If these political parties can do that to Pakistan - to their own country just imagine what they can do to a territory that is not legally part of Pakistan? We are deprived of that little control we had on our political parties and selection of candidates, now Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain will decide who is going to be our member of Assembly.’
Another senior Kashmir leader of Liberation League, Choudhry Mohammed Sadiq said: ‘We have differences with Muslim League, we dislike their policies and style of government, but after all they are a local party with local interest in mind. Pakistani parties should not be allowed to take part in the elections. These are non Kashmiri parties with non Kashmiri agenda. They will advance a Pakistani agenda and that is to make this area a part of Pakistan. People should not vote for candidates of these parties to express their approval.’
I agree with the sentiments expressed by my fellow Kashmiris, but I know people will vote for them; and even if they don’t still PPP and many N League leaders will be declared winners. It is also possible that MQM will win a few seats. In a place like Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan money speaks; and elections are not won on the strength of a principle or an ideology.
In Pakistani Administered Kashmir elections are not won or lost on political or ideological basis. Money, social status, tribal strength and moreover contacts with the Pakistani establishment is the determining factor. Islamabad ensures that only those people win the elections who are easy to handle and who have no strength of character or ideology.
Some Kashmiri nationalist parties have decided to sign the declaration which prohibits them to take part in the elections. These parties have no finance to match pro Pakistan parties. They have no experience in contesting elections; and they have weak organisational structures. They don’t have strong contacts with the Azad Kashmir bureaucracy; and the Pakistani establishment don’t want them to win.
Despite all that they have decided to contest. They know they will lose, but they are determined to fight. They are determined to challenge the proxy rule and proxy politics and might of Islamabad. These leaders say winning is not everything; the elections will provide them an opportunity to meet people and tell them how Islamabad and their agents have exploited them in name of Islam and freedom struggle.
These leaders think those who inserted that clause in Act 1974, under which Azad Kashmir is administered, that demands loyalty to Pakistan before one can even become a candidate was designed to keep the Kashmiri nationalists away from the ‘democratic process’. The nationalist Kashmiri leadership without realising designs of the imperialist minds in Islamabad fell in this trap and boycotted elections since 1974. That policy ensured that nationalist leadership did not interact with ordinary people and give this message to the ordinary people that they had no interest and no role in local matters which were related to every day issues of the people.
Some Kashmiri nationalists individually contested elections in the past, and generally they were castigated for that. It was the Kashmir National Party, which after lengthy debates in the party boldly came out with a policy that we will support the democratic process on both sides of the divide; and will take part in the elections.
Some other parties also followed the KNP foot steps and declared that they would also contest elections. The result of intra - party discussions is an alliance called National Democratic Alliance which has put forward an election manifesto and fielded a number of candidates. This is a turning point in the polity of the Pakistani Administered Kashmir.
These pro independent Kashmir candidates are not in a position to defeat the social and political infrastructure put in place by Pakistan and their agencies to protect and promote their interest; but they will be in a position to dent the credibility of Pakistan and their policy on Kashmir. To me that itself is a commendable act and a step in right direction.
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
Saturday, 4 June 2011
The death of Ilyas Kashmiri
The death of Ilyas Kashmiri
By Editorial
Published: June 5, 2011
A US drone strike in South Waziristan killed nine militants, including leader of Harakat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Mohammad (HuJI) Ilyas Kashmiri, BBC Urdu reported on Saturday. PHOTO: FILE
It appears that Ilyas Kashmiri, a top al Qaeda militant, has been killed in a drone attack in South Waziristan – with confirmation coming purportedly from his own organisation. His death, if indeed he has been killed, will come as a huge blow to al Qaeda since Kashmiri was being touted as a potential successor to Osama bin Laden and was the outfit’s military commander. Kashmiri was one of the few men who provided a link between al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. As the leader of the 313 Brigade, his autonomous unit within the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, he drew on his contacts from his time resisting the Soviets in Afghanistan to collaborate with al Qaeda. Connected to both local and foreign militant outfits, his killing should come as a relief not just to Pakistan but all countries afflicted by terrorism.
His killing may also reignite the debate over the use of armed drones in the tribal areas. In isolation, it is hard to conceive of a more effective weapon in the fight against militancy. Drones target specific individuals, thereby limiting the casualties that would be incurred if ground troops were sent into North Waziristan. However, the public relations fight for the use of drones has been lost thanks to theduplicity of the Pakistan government. As shown in leaked US State Department cables, the country’s military and government has authorised, and even welcomed, the US drones while maintaining public deniability. Had our government been straight with the people from the outset, perhaps public opinion against the use of drones would not be strong.
Kashmiri’s killing should also be a cause for reflection in the military. Here was another man who was incubated, trained and rewarded by the military for fighting in Indian Kashmir only to turn against his benefactors. As reported by slain journalist Saleem Shahzad, Kashmiri was likely the mastermind behind the attack on PNS Mehran. The fallout between the military and Kashmiri wasn’t ideological; he had, according to several accounts, refused to serve alongside Maulana Masood Azhar. Even upon his return from Kashmir, Kashmiri was allowed to operate relatively freely. He was arrested for plotting to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf but then inexplicably freed. That Kashmiri has now been killed is good news but that the military-militant nexus isn’t yet dead is cause for concern.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 5th, 2011.
Just to get the facts straight, this guy was launched by ‘Pak’ Fauj.
An excerpt from a piece of writing by Saleem Shehzad:
So far A-Qaeda has introduced a few leaders for example Ilyas Kashmiri and his highly sophesticated guerrilla 313 Brigade who espoused the global Jihad.
Born in Bimbur (old Mirpur) in the Samhani Valley of Pakistan-administered Kashmir on February 10, 1964, Ilyas passed the first year of a mass communication degree at Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. He did not continue due to his heavy involvement in jihadi activities.
The Kashmir Freedom Movement was his first exposure in the field of militancy, then the Harkat-ul Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI) and ultimately his legendary 313 Brigade. This grew into the most powerful group in South Asia and its network is strongly knitted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Nepal and Bangladesh. According to some CIA dispatches, the footprints of 313 Brigade are now in Europe and capable of the type of attack that saw a handful of militants terrorize the Indian city of Mumbai last November.
Little is documented of Ilyas’ life, and what has been reported is often contradictory. However, he is invariably described, certainly by world intelligence agencies, as the most effective, dangerous and successful guerrilla leader in the world.
He left the Kashmir region in 2005 after his second release from detention by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and headed for North Waziristan. He had previously been arrested by Indian forces, but he broke out of jail and escaped. He was then detained by the ISI as the suspected mastermind of an attack on then-president Pervez Musharraf, in 2003, but was cleared and released. The ISI then picked Ilyas up again in 2005 after he refused to close down his operations in Kashmir.
His relocation to the troubled border areas sent a chill down spines in Washington as they realized that with his vast experience, he could turn unsophisticated battle patterns in Afghanistan into audacious modern guerrilla warfare.
Ilyas’ track record spoke for itself. In 1994, he launched the al-Hadid operation in the Indian capital, New Delhi, to get some of his jihadi comrades released. His group of 25 people included Sheikh Omar Saeed (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) as his deputy. The group abducted several foreigners, including American, Israeli and British tourists and took them to Ghaziabad near Delhi. They then demanded that the Indian authorities release their colleagues, but instead they attacked the hideout. Sheikh Omar was injured and arrested. (He was later released in a swap for the passengers of a hijacked Indian aircraft). Ilyas escaped unhurt. On February 25, 2000, the Indian army killed 14 civilians in Lonjot village in Pakistan-administered Kashmir after commandos had crossed the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two Kashmirs. They returned to the Indian side with abducted Pakistani girls, and threw the severed heads of three of them at Pakistani soldiers.
The very next day, Ilyas conducted a guerilla operation against the Indian army in Nakyal sector after crossing the LoC with 25 fighters of 313 Brigade. They kidnapped an Indian army officer who was later beheaded – his head was paraded in the bazaars of Kotli back in Pakistani territory.
However, the most significant operation of Ilyas was in Aknor cantonment in Indian-administered Kashmir against the Indian armed forces following the massacre of Muslims in the Indian city of Gujarat in 2002. In cleverly planned attacks involving 313 Brigade divided into two groups, Indian generals, brigadiers and other senior officials were lured to the scene of the first attack. Two generals were injured (the Pakistan army could not injure a single Indian general in three wars) and several brigadiers and colonels were killed. This was one of the most telling setbacks for India in the long-running Kashmiri insurgency.
Within just months of arriving in the Afghan war theater in 2005, Kashmiri redefined the Taliban-led insurgency based on legendary Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap’s three-pronged guerrilla warfare strategy. For the Taliban, the main emphasis was to be placed on cutting NATO’s supply lines from all four sides of Afghanistan, and carrying out special operations similar to the Mumbai attack in Afghanistan. (See Asia Times Online)
Ref: http://www.syedsaleemshahzad.com/2011/05/bin-ladens-death-new-organization-leadership-emerges/
By Editorial
Published: June 5, 2011
A US drone strike in South Waziristan killed nine militants, including leader of Harakat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Mohammad (HuJI) Ilyas Kashmiri, BBC Urdu reported on Saturday. PHOTO: FILE
It appears that Ilyas Kashmiri, a top al Qaeda militant, has been killed in a drone attack in South Waziristan – with confirmation coming purportedly from his own organisation. His death, if indeed he has been killed, will come as a huge blow to al Qaeda since Kashmiri was being touted as a potential successor to Osama bin Laden and was the outfit’s military commander. Kashmiri was one of the few men who provided a link between al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. As the leader of the 313 Brigade, his autonomous unit within the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, he drew on his contacts from his time resisting the Soviets in Afghanistan to collaborate with al Qaeda. Connected to both local and foreign militant outfits, his killing should come as a relief not just to Pakistan but all countries afflicted by terrorism.
His killing may also reignite the debate over the use of armed drones in the tribal areas. In isolation, it is hard to conceive of a more effective weapon in the fight against militancy. Drones target specific individuals, thereby limiting the casualties that would be incurred if ground troops were sent into North Waziristan. However, the public relations fight for the use of drones has been lost thanks to theduplicity of the Pakistan government. As shown in leaked US State Department cables, the country’s military and government has authorised, and even welcomed, the US drones while maintaining public deniability. Had our government been straight with the people from the outset, perhaps public opinion against the use of drones would not be strong.
Kashmiri’s killing should also be a cause for reflection in the military. Here was another man who was incubated, trained and rewarded by the military for fighting in Indian Kashmir only to turn against his benefactors. As reported by slain journalist Saleem Shahzad, Kashmiri was likely the mastermind behind the attack on PNS Mehran. The fallout between the military and Kashmiri wasn’t ideological; he had, according to several accounts, refused to serve alongside Maulana Masood Azhar. Even upon his return from Kashmir, Kashmiri was allowed to operate relatively freely. He was arrested for plotting to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf but then inexplicably freed. That Kashmiri has now been killed is good news but that the military-militant nexus isn’t yet dead is cause for concern.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 5th, 2011.
Just to get the facts straight, this guy was launched by ‘Pak’ Fauj.
An excerpt from a piece of writing by Saleem Shehzad:
So far A-Qaeda has introduced a few leaders for example Ilyas Kashmiri and his highly sophesticated guerrilla 313 Brigade who espoused the global Jihad.
Born in Bimbur (old Mirpur) in the Samhani Valley of Pakistan-administered Kashmir on February 10, 1964, Ilyas passed the first year of a mass communication degree at Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. He did not continue due to his heavy involvement in jihadi activities.
The Kashmir Freedom Movement was his first exposure in the field of militancy, then the Harkat-ul Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI) and ultimately his legendary 313 Brigade. This grew into the most powerful group in South Asia and its network is strongly knitted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Nepal and Bangladesh. According to some CIA dispatches, the footprints of 313 Brigade are now in Europe and capable of the type of attack that saw a handful of militants terrorize the Indian city of Mumbai last November.
Little is documented of Ilyas’ life, and what has been reported is often contradictory. However, he is invariably described, certainly by world intelligence agencies, as the most effective, dangerous and successful guerrilla leader in the world.
He left the Kashmir region in 2005 after his second release from detention by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and headed for North Waziristan. He had previously been arrested by Indian forces, but he broke out of jail and escaped. He was then detained by the ISI as the suspected mastermind of an attack on then-president Pervez Musharraf, in 2003, but was cleared and released. The ISI then picked Ilyas up again in 2005 after he refused to close down his operations in Kashmir.
His relocation to the troubled border areas sent a chill down spines in Washington as they realized that with his vast experience, he could turn unsophisticated battle patterns in Afghanistan into audacious modern guerrilla warfare.
Ilyas’ track record spoke for itself. In 1994, he launched the al-Hadid operation in the Indian capital, New Delhi, to get some of his jihadi comrades released. His group of 25 people included Sheikh Omar Saeed (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) as his deputy. The group abducted several foreigners, including American, Israeli and British tourists and took them to Ghaziabad near Delhi. They then demanded that the Indian authorities release their colleagues, but instead they attacked the hideout. Sheikh Omar was injured and arrested. (He was later released in a swap for the passengers of a hijacked Indian aircraft). Ilyas escaped unhurt. On February 25, 2000, the Indian army killed 14 civilians in Lonjot village in Pakistan-administered Kashmir after commandos had crossed the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two Kashmirs. They returned to the Indian side with abducted Pakistani girls, and threw the severed heads of three of them at Pakistani soldiers.
The very next day, Ilyas conducted a guerilla operation against the Indian army in Nakyal sector after crossing the LoC with 25 fighters of 313 Brigade. They kidnapped an Indian army officer who was later beheaded – his head was paraded in the bazaars of Kotli back in Pakistani territory.
However, the most significant operation of Ilyas was in Aknor cantonment in Indian-administered Kashmir against the Indian armed forces following the massacre of Muslims in the Indian city of Gujarat in 2002. In cleverly planned attacks involving 313 Brigade divided into two groups, Indian generals, brigadiers and other senior officials were lured to the scene of the first attack. Two generals were injured (the Pakistan army could not injure a single Indian general in three wars) and several brigadiers and colonels were killed. This was one of the most telling setbacks for India in the long-running Kashmiri insurgency.
Within just months of arriving in the Afghan war theater in 2005, Kashmiri redefined the Taliban-led insurgency based on legendary Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap’s three-pronged guerrilla warfare strategy. For the Taliban, the main emphasis was to be placed on cutting NATO’s supply lines from all four sides of Afghanistan, and carrying out special operations similar to the Mumbai attack in Afghanistan. (See Asia Times Online)
Ref: http://www.syedsaleemshahzad.com/2011/05/bin-ladens-death-new-organization-leadership-emerges/
Friday, 3 June 2011
We must forget bitterness of the past
We must forget bitterness of the past
Dr Shabir Choudhry 4 June 2011
Call me what suits you, but I have to say what I strongly feel is true and which has soured relations between non Muslims and Muslims of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Non Muslims (and Muslims to some extent) were butchered, raped and kidnapped by Tribal invaders in October 1947. This Tribal invasion was managed by Pakistani rulers to capture Kashmir. Horrible memories of the past were still there when Pakistani backed militants drove out non Muslims from the Valley of Kashmir in 1990. These people are living away from their homes and from their natural habitat for more than two decades.
Both events were tragic and unwarranted; and what hurts me more is that these shameful acts were committed in name of religion and freedom struggle. No religion and civilised society can allow acts like that. To me and many other liberal and democratic citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, these acts were shameful to our history of toleration and coexistence; and they must be condemned.
These thoughts came to my mind once again because of inconsiderate attitude of one Pandit brother who with his family was uprooted by militants in 1990. During my recent visit to Vienna, where I went to address a Seminar on Cross border Terrorism and Human Rights in Kashmir, I met this Pandit.
My hosts, Naeem Khan and Abdul Rashid Choudhry suggested having an evening meal at a restaurant owned by this Pandit; and also inviting him to this seminar. They said he is a good person to have a chat on matters related to Kashmir.
Naeem Khan introduced me to him and also extended invitation for the seminar. He shook hand with a smile but soon after hearing about the seminar he retorted: You have come for a meal, enjoy it. Leave Kashmir and its politics on one side.
Realising his anger I immediately intervened and said: ‘You are our Kashmiri brother and tomorrow’s seminar is on terrorism and human rights in Kashmir, and we need to oppose…’
He abruptly interrupted me and said: ‘When we were victims of this terrorism you people were no where to be seen. We were terrorised, killed and expelled from our homes. After 20 years now you want to oppose terrorism and express sympathy….It is best to leave Kashmir and its politics aside and enjoy your meal.’
He said this and walked away. I was taken aback by his attitude. My hosts were also embarrassed with his attitude. I told my hosts that I did not expect this kind of response from him but we need to understand their bitterness as well. These people lived there for centuries. They are part of Kashmiri history and culture and some fanatics infatuated with power and new and alien interpretation of Islam drove them out of their homes.
I can understand his bitterness and anger of other Kashmiri brothers who have become victims of extremism and violence. However, it must be remembered that it is in the interest of some groups in India and Pakistan to ensure that people of the region continue to remain divided on religious and sectarian lines, as it serves their personal and political agenda.
These groups can only flourish if people of the Sub Continent are divided on religious, ethnic and regional lines. They know apart from other issues the Kashmir dispute is the main unresolved dispute and to which people of the governments have emotional attachment.
Leaders of these extremist groups know that social and political culture of Jammu and Kashmir is different, and there is more tolerance and harmony. These extremists could only succeed if they can divide people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious and ethnic lines and destroy peace and harmony in the State.
Since 1947 all ethnic groups of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered; and there is bitterness and anger. Those who want to keep us divided they keep on pouring fuel on fire, and devise new strategies to promote hatred among different ethnic communities that we hold each other responsible for our miseries.
Success of those who occupy us is that in each divided region of the State of Jammu and Kashmir we wrongly think that our problems are either because of Muslims, Hindus, Sunnis, Shias or Buddhists; and further division is on ethnic and regional lines. Fact, however, is that forces of occupation spread these rumours and use vulnerable people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds to advance their agenda of promoting hatred and entrenching their rule.
Those who became victims of communal hatred need to think why all of sudden their homeland became inhospitable to them. Those who did not like culture of peace and tolerance prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir, they by use of money and extremist ideology transformed it in to a ‘jihadi camp’ where non Muslims were the prime target; but those Muslims who challenged this alien thinking and ideology were also butchered.
It was not a fight of one religion against the other; rather it was a mindset which wanted to change the political and social scene by use of force to advance its extremist ideology. I am as against this mindset as any non Muslim can be. Our struggle, therefore, should be against this mindset rather than against any religion or against ordinary citizens of Jammu and Kashmir.
During this trip I asked one Kashmiri activist what was his struggle for. He said, ‘at one time he wanted to join Pakistan, but after visiting Pakistan his views have changed; and now his struggle is for an independent, democratic and secular Jammu and Kashmir.’
I said but, ‘that option, despite so much bloodshed, violence and destruction is not on the table and we Kashmiris are urged to become either part of Pakistan or India. In view of that what is best for us.’
He paused for a moment and looked around, and after realising that there was no one else listening he said: ‘I have seen both India and Pakistan. Our first choice must be an independent Jammu and Kashmir and if that is not possible then we should come to some kind of terms with India rather than Pakistan. India, despite all the faults and what has happened over the years can offer us better deal than Pakistan could ever give us. Pakistan has no future of its own and we will end up having very serious social, political and economic problems; even if Pakistan survives as a nation state, we will lose our identity and culture in Pakistan.’
We people of Jammu and Kashmir need to understand that, despite different religions, different cultures and different languages our State was one political entity until it was forcibly divided; and whatever its future might be the State must remain one political entity. If we diverge from this crucial point, then we are all doomed; and we will become history.
Those who want to annex our homeland and usurp our fundamental rights will promote extremism, hatred and divisions, as that will help them to weaken us and rule us. We need to be conscious of their designs and counter them. It is, therefore, imperative that we put bitterness of the past behind us, and think as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir to protect our history, culture, identity and future of next generation.
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 4 June 2011
Call me what suits you, but I have to say what I strongly feel is true and which has soured relations between non Muslims and Muslims of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Non Muslims (and Muslims to some extent) were butchered, raped and kidnapped by Tribal invaders in October 1947. This Tribal invasion was managed by Pakistani rulers to capture Kashmir. Horrible memories of the past were still there when Pakistani backed militants drove out non Muslims from the Valley of Kashmir in 1990. These people are living away from their homes and from their natural habitat for more than two decades.
Both events were tragic and unwarranted; and what hurts me more is that these shameful acts were committed in name of religion and freedom struggle. No religion and civilised society can allow acts like that. To me and many other liberal and democratic citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, these acts were shameful to our history of toleration and coexistence; and they must be condemned.
These thoughts came to my mind once again because of inconsiderate attitude of one Pandit brother who with his family was uprooted by militants in 1990. During my recent visit to Vienna, where I went to address a Seminar on Cross border Terrorism and Human Rights in Kashmir, I met this Pandit.
My hosts, Naeem Khan and Abdul Rashid Choudhry suggested having an evening meal at a restaurant owned by this Pandit; and also inviting him to this seminar. They said he is a good person to have a chat on matters related to Kashmir.
Naeem Khan introduced me to him and also extended invitation for the seminar. He shook hand with a smile but soon after hearing about the seminar he retorted: You have come for a meal, enjoy it. Leave Kashmir and its politics on one side.
Realising his anger I immediately intervened and said: ‘You are our Kashmiri brother and tomorrow’s seminar is on terrorism and human rights in Kashmir, and we need to oppose…’
He abruptly interrupted me and said: ‘When we were victims of this terrorism you people were no where to be seen. We were terrorised, killed and expelled from our homes. After 20 years now you want to oppose terrorism and express sympathy….It is best to leave Kashmir and its politics aside and enjoy your meal.’
He said this and walked away. I was taken aback by his attitude. My hosts were also embarrassed with his attitude. I told my hosts that I did not expect this kind of response from him but we need to understand their bitterness as well. These people lived there for centuries. They are part of Kashmiri history and culture and some fanatics infatuated with power and new and alien interpretation of Islam drove them out of their homes.
I can understand his bitterness and anger of other Kashmiri brothers who have become victims of extremism and violence. However, it must be remembered that it is in the interest of some groups in India and Pakistan to ensure that people of the region continue to remain divided on religious and sectarian lines, as it serves their personal and political agenda.
These groups can only flourish if people of the Sub Continent are divided on religious, ethnic and regional lines. They know apart from other issues the Kashmir dispute is the main unresolved dispute and to which people of the governments have emotional attachment.
Leaders of these extremist groups know that social and political culture of Jammu and Kashmir is different, and there is more tolerance and harmony. These extremists could only succeed if they can divide people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious and ethnic lines and destroy peace and harmony in the State.
Since 1947 all ethnic groups of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered; and there is bitterness and anger. Those who want to keep us divided they keep on pouring fuel on fire, and devise new strategies to promote hatred among different ethnic communities that we hold each other responsible for our miseries.
Success of those who occupy us is that in each divided region of the State of Jammu and Kashmir we wrongly think that our problems are either because of Muslims, Hindus, Sunnis, Shias or Buddhists; and further division is on ethnic and regional lines. Fact, however, is that forces of occupation spread these rumours and use vulnerable people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds to advance their agenda of promoting hatred and entrenching their rule.
Those who became victims of communal hatred need to think why all of sudden their homeland became inhospitable to them. Those who did not like culture of peace and tolerance prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir, they by use of money and extremist ideology transformed it in to a ‘jihadi camp’ where non Muslims were the prime target; but those Muslims who challenged this alien thinking and ideology were also butchered.
It was not a fight of one religion against the other; rather it was a mindset which wanted to change the political and social scene by use of force to advance its extremist ideology. I am as against this mindset as any non Muslim can be. Our struggle, therefore, should be against this mindset rather than against any religion or against ordinary citizens of Jammu and Kashmir.
During this trip I asked one Kashmiri activist what was his struggle for. He said, ‘at one time he wanted to join Pakistan, but after visiting Pakistan his views have changed; and now his struggle is for an independent, democratic and secular Jammu and Kashmir.’
I said but, ‘that option, despite so much bloodshed, violence and destruction is not on the table and we Kashmiris are urged to become either part of Pakistan or India. In view of that what is best for us.’
He paused for a moment and looked around, and after realising that there was no one else listening he said: ‘I have seen both India and Pakistan. Our first choice must be an independent Jammu and Kashmir and if that is not possible then we should come to some kind of terms with India rather than Pakistan. India, despite all the faults and what has happened over the years can offer us better deal than Pakistan could ever give us. Pakistan has no future of its own and we will end up having very serious social, political and economic problems; even if Pakistan survives as a nation state, we will lose our identity and culture in Pakistan.’
We people of Jammu and Kashmir need to understand that, despite different religions, different cultures and different languages our State was one political entity until it was forcibly divided; and whatever its future might be the State must remain one political entity. If we diverge from this crucial point, then we are all doomed; and we will become history.
Those who want to annex our homeland and usurp our fundamental rights will promote extremism, hatred and divisions, as that will help them to weaken us and rule us. We need to be conscious of their designs and counter them. It is, therefore, imperative that we put bitterness of the past behind us, and think as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir to protect our history, culture, identity and future of next generation.
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, 31 May 2011
Former F Minister of Pakistan talks on ISI links with terrorist groups
Former F Minister of Pakistan talks on ISI links with terrorist groups
http://ibnlive.in.com/shows/Devil%27s+Advocate/155213.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/shows/Devil%27s+Advocate/155213.html
Monday, 30 May 2011
Territorial Plan: Jammu, Kashmir And Ladakh
Territorial Plan: Jammu, Kashmir And Ladakh
By Inshah Malik
29 May, 2011
Countercurrents.org
It is the commencement of much awaited summer, if the rebels of the street (Sangbaaz) are facing massive crackdown from the state and population is engrossed in unperturbed silence of misdoings, it is perhaps the right time to ask questions and seek answers. Over past twenty years to seek legitimation and relevancy, the state has not just evolved but also employed methodologies to accomplish what I call a ‘Territorial Plan’. It is important to revere some theoretical underpinnings; State has always emerged to maintain the hierarchy between the contesting social groups. It becomes absolutely inevitable to distribute, redistribute populations on the basis of territory so that ‘state’ becomes absolutely relevant machination the one which puts out the balancing act between contesting social groups.
Engel says ‘in contradiction to the old gentile (tribe or clan) order, the state first divides the subjects according to territory”.
Under the supervision of above statement let us explore the Dogra state of Jammu and Kashmir which was formed out of an elite upper class as an instrument to subjugate a Kashmiri population. The state executed through a manifestation of public power predominantly police apparatus and prisons. Eventually, under the rebellion headed by Sheikh Muhamad Abdullah, a definite ‘withering away’ of this State resolved into formation of yet another State reinforced by a predominant upper class within the Kashmiri population. This modern state of Jammu and Kashmir could be well understood as a ‘state carved out of elite governed by State of India’. The governing elite primarily are Kashmiri (not from Jammu or Ladakh). State of India ensures democracy but this discrepancy has been allowed with a purpose. The purpose is to create the image of opportunist Kashmiri and is only one that a Ladakhi or Jammuite sees. The face of the oppressed Kashmiri remains unexplored for the other two parts of the state.
What has created Jammu?
After the Dogra retreat into an area named as Jammu, which is also an only logical continuum of the Indian culture with Kashmir, it has been beautifully carved to serve as a bridge which looks absolutely natural to the foreigners. Jammu has been forcefully imagined as the only hope of holding on to oneness of Indian nationalism while the ‘Jawahar Lal Tunnel’ serves the best blinder before the reality strikes us.
The Question of Jammu arises after 100 years of Dogra rule and 70 years of Indian rule one wonders where was this question before that?, interestingly did ‘state’ create it?,-more so in past 20 years when Kashmir was caught in violent politics. Placing Jammu against Kashmir is a strategy that benefits none other than the state. Construction of Kashmiri State as a violent enemy with no civil face for the people of Jammu has served a base for harboring ethnic difference and total disengagement. Jammu is now a hot bed Hindu Right wing politics since the face of Kashmiri they see is that of the governing elite Kashmiri.
Does an Oppressed Kashmiri hate a Jammuite?
The oppressed can never hate anyone other than an oppressor. The People in Jammu have been forced to remain in a dark shell of opportunism and imperialist interest because they have known Kashmiris only as opportunist governors. The need to tame Kashmiris and considering the state of India rightful in its actions is actually the insecurity emerging from the lack of power. It is not the terrorist theory that bothers them as much the fact that Kashmir remains the only attraction of Indian state despite the ‘loyalty of Jammu’ to Indian State.
The Ladakh Question?
Ladakh has stayed destitute though not through brutal oppression of the militaristic apparatus installed in Jammu and Kashmir but their daily life is a struggle of different nature, the atrocious climate, economic burdens and basic survival threats are rampant. A common Kashmiri is unaware of a challenging life in Ladakh and it is true as much the vice versa. The barriers of language and terrain have been humungous to overcome but the matrimonial ties of Kashmiris have been spread all across this region even up to Tibet.
Ladakh has been angry with Kashmiri people because their oppression has been economic and vehemently executed by the ‘governing elite’ who have hardly given space to the voices of the oppressed Ladakhis. The problem is also triggered when less of solidarities are extended by the oppressed in the valley to them. The more hatred is filled due to state’s promotion of their seclusion and limited interaction in Kashmir. More direct flights from New Delhi to Ladakh and the new road and train ways into Ladakh without touching Kashmir is another method that has been employed to implement the ‘Territorial plan’.
This territorial plan that Engels has foretold manifests in subtly different ways in Kashmir to ascertain and legitimize the power of state. These divisions created over time and investments are real threats to establishing a harmonious communion unless extending solidarities and rightful redistribution of power does not take place. This territorial politics has been well gauged under economic growth and package scheme in order to make Kashmir’s claim of Right to self determination sound more ridiculous and obscure and delay it further by creating a beautiful occupation out of an ugly one.
Inshah Malik is a research scholar at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
By Inshah Malik
29 May, 2011
Countercurrents.org
It is the commencement of much awaited summer, if the rebels of the street (Sangbaaz) are facing massive crackdown from the state and population is engrossed in unperturbed silence of misdoings, it is perhaps the right time to ask questions and seek answers. Over past twenty years to seek legitimation and relevancy, the state has not just evolved but also employed methodologies to accomplish what I call a ‘Territorial Plan’. It is important to revere some theoretical underpinnings; State has always emerged to maintain the hierarchy between the contesting social groups. It becomes absolutely inevitable to distribute, redistribute populations on the basis of territory so that ‘state’ becomes absolutely relevant machination the one which puts out the balancing act between contesting social groups.
Engel says ‘in contradiction to the old gentile (tribe or clan) order, the state first divides the subjects according to territory”.
Under the supervision of above statement let us explore the Dogra state of Jammu and Kashmir which was formed out of an elite upper class as an instrument to subjugate a Kashmiri population. The state executed through a manifestation of public power predominantly police apparatus and prisons. Eventually, under the rebellion headed by Sheikh Muhamad Abdullah, a definite ‘withering away’ of this State resolved into formation of yet another State reinforced by a predominant upper class within the Kashmiri population. This modern state of Jammu and Kashmir could be well understood as a ‘state carved out of elite governed by State of India’. The governing elite primarily are Kashmiri (not from Jammu or Ladakh). State of India ensures democracy but this discrepancy has been allowed with a purpose. The purpose is to create the image of opportunist Kashmiri and is only one that a Ladakhi or Jammuite sees. The face of the oppressed Kashmiri remains unexplored for the other two parts of the state.
What has created Jammu?
After the Dogra retreat into an area named as Jammu, which is also an only logical continuum of the Indian culture with Kashmir, it has been beautifully carved to serve as a bridge which looks absolutely natural to the foreigners. Jammu has been forcefully imagined as the only hope of holding on to oneness of Indian nationalism while the ‘Jawahar Lal Tunnel’ serves the best blinder before the reality strikes us.
The Question of Jammu arises after 100 years of Dogra rule and 70 years of Indian rule one wonders where was this question before that?, interestingly did ‘state’ create it?,-more so in past 20 years when Kashmir was caught in violent politics. Placing Jammu against Kashmir is a strategy that benefits none other than the state. Construction of Kashmiri State as a violent enemy with no civil face for the people of Jammu has served a base for harboring ethnic difference and total disengagement. Jammu is now a hot bed Hindu Right wing politics since the face of Kashmiri they see is that of the governing elite Kashmiri.
Does an Oppressed Kashmiri hate a Jammuite?
The oppressed can never hate anyone other than an oppressor. The People in Jammu have been forced to remain in a dark shell of opportunism and imperialist interest because they have known Kashmiris only as opportunist governors. The need to tame Kashmiris and considering the state of India rightful in its actions is actually the insecurity emerging from the lack of power. It is not the terrorist theory that bothers them as much the fact that Kashmir remains the only attraction of Indian state despite the ‘loyalty of Jammu’ to Indian State.
The Ladakh Question?
Ladakh has stayed destitute though not through brutal oppression of the militaristic apparatus installed in Jammu and Kashmir but their daily life is a struggle of different nature, the atrocious climate, economic burdens and basic survival threats are rampant. A common Kashmiri is unaware of a challenging life in Ladakh and it is true as much the vice versa. The barriers of language and terrain have been humungous to overcome but the matrimonial ties of Kashmiris have been spread all across this region even up to Tibet.
Ladakh has been angry with Kashmiri people because their oppression has been economic and vehemently executed by the ‘governing elite’ who have hardly given space to the voices of the oppressed Ladakhis. The problem is also triggered when less of solidarities are extended by the oppressed in the valley to them. The more hatred is filled due to state’s promotion of their seclusion and limited interaction in Kashmir. More direct flights from New Delhi to Ladakh and the new road and train ways into Ladakh without touching Kashmir is another method that has been employed to implement the ‘Territorial plan’.
This territorial plan that Engels has foretold manifests in subtly different ways in Kashmir to ascertain and legitimize the power of state. These divisions created over time and investments are real threats to establishing a harmonious communion unless extending solidarities and rightful redistribution of power does not take place. This territorial politics has been well gauged under economic growth and package scheme in order to make Kashmir’s claim of Right to self determination sound more ridiculous and obscure and delay it further by creating a beautiful occupation out of an ugly one.
Inshah Malik is a research scholar at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Territorial Plan: Jammu, Kashmir And Ladakh
Territorial Plan: Jammu, Kashmir And Ladakh
By Inshah Malik
29 May, 2011
Countercurrents.org
It is the commencement of much awaited summer, if the rebels of the street (Sangbaaz) are facing massive crackdown from the state and population is engrossed in unperturbed silence of misdoings, it is perhaps the right time to ask questions and seek answers. Over past twenty years to seek legitimation and relevancy, the state has not just evolved but also employed methodologies to accomplish what I call a ‘Territorial Plan’. It is important to revere some theoretical underpinnings; State has always emerged to maintain the hierarchy between the contesting social groups. It becomes absolutely inevitable to distribute, redistribute populations on the basis of territory so that ‘state’ becomes absolutely relevant machination the one which puts out the balancing act between contesting social groups.
Engel says ‘in contradiction to the old gentile (tribe or clan) order, the state first divides the subjects according to territory”.
Under the supervision of above statement let us explore the Dogra state of Jammu and Kashmir which was formed out of an elite upper class as an instrument to subjugate a Kashmiri population. The state executed through a manifestation of public power predominantly police apparatus and prisons. Eventually, under the rebellion headed by Sheikh Muhamad Abdullah, a definite ‘withering away’ of this State resolved into formation of yet another State reinforced by a predominant upper class within the Kashmiri population. This modern state of Jammu and Kashmir could be well understood as a ‘state carved out of elite governed by State of India’. The governing elite primarily are Kashmiri (not from Jammu or Ladakh). State of India ensures democracy but this discrepancy has been allowed with a purpose. The purpose is to create the image of opportunist Kashmiri and is only one that a Ladakhi or Jammuite sees. The face of the oppressed Kashmiri remains unexplored for the other two parts of the state.
What has created Jammu?
After the Dogra retreat into an area named as Jammu, which is also an only logical continuum of the Indian culture with Kashmir, it has been beautifully carved to serve as a bridge which looks absolutely natural to the foreigners. Jammu has been forcefully imagined as the only hope of holding on to oneness of Indian nationalism while the ‘Jawahar Lal Tunnel’ serves the best blinder before the reality strikes us.
The Question of Jammu arises after 100 years of Dogra rule and 70 years of Indian rule one wonders where was this question before that?, interestingly did ‘state’ create it?,-more so in past 20 years when Kashmir was caught in violent politics. Placing Jammu against Kashmir is a strategy that benefits none other than the state. Construction of Kashmiri State as a violent enemy with no civil face for the people of Jammu has served a base for harboring ethnic difference and total disengagement. Jammu is now a hot bed Hindu Right wing politics since the face of Kashmiri they see is that of the governing elite Kashmiri.
Does an Oppressed Kashmiri hate a Jammuite?
The oppressed can never hate anyone other than an oppressor. The People in Jammu have been forced to remain in a dark shell of opportunism and imperialist interest because they have known Kashmiris only as opportunist governors. The need to tame Kashmiris and considering the state of India rightful in its actions is actually the insecurity emerging from the lack of power. It is not the terrorist theory that bothers them as much the fact that Kashmir remains the only attraction of Indian state despite the ‘loyalty of Jammu’ to Indian State.
The Ladakh Question?
Ladakh has stayed destitute though not through brutal oppression of the militaristic apparatus installed in Jammu and Kashmir but their daily life is a struggle of different nature, the atrocious climate, economic burdens and basic survival threats are rampant. A common Kashmiri is unaware of a challenging life in Ladakh and it is true as much the vice versa. The barriers of language and terrain have been humungous to overcome but the matrimonial ties of Kashmiris have been spread all across this region even up to Tibet.
Ladakh has been angry with Kashmiri people because their oppression has been economic and vehemently executed by the ‘governing elite’ who have hardly given space to the voices of the oppressed Ladakhis. The problem is also triggered when less of solidarities are extended by the oppressed in the valley to them. The more hatred is filled due to state’s promotion of their seclusion and limited interaction in Kashmir. More direct flights from New Delhi to Ladakh and the new road and train ways into Ladakh without touching Kashmir is another method that has been employed to implement the ‘Territorial plan’.
This territorial plan that Engels has foretold manifests in subtly different ways in Kashmir to ascertain and legitimize the power of state. These divisions created over time and investments are real threats to establishing a harmonious communion unless extending solidarities and rightful redistribution of power does not take place. This territorial politics has been well gauged under economic growth and package scheme in order to make Kashmir’s claim of Right to self determination sound more ridiculous and obscure and delay it further by creating a beautiful occupation out of an ugly one.
Inshah Malik is a research scholar at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
By Inshah Malik
29 May, 2011
Countercurrents.org
It is the commencement of much awaited summer, if the rebels of the street (Sangbaaz) are facing massive crackdown from the state and population is engrossed in unperturbed silence of misdoings, it is perhaps the right time to ask questions and seek answers. Over past twenty years to seek legitimation and relevancy, the state has not just evolved but also employed methodologies to accomplish what I call a ‘Territorial Plan’. It is important to revere some theoretical underpinnings; State has always emerged to maintain the hierarchy between the contesting social groups. It becomes absolutely inevitable to distribute, redistribute populations on the basis of territory so that ‘state’ becomes absolutely relevant machination the one which puts out the balancing act between contesting social groups.
Engel says ‘in contradiction to the old gentile (tribe or clan) order, the state first divides the subjects according to territory”.
Under the supervision of above statement let us explore the Dogra state of Jammu and Kashmir which was formed out of an elite upper class as an instrument to subjugate a Kashmiri population. The state executed through a manifestation of public power predominantly police apparatus and prisons. Eventually, under the rebellion headed by Sheikh Muhamad Abdullah, a definite ‘withering away’ of this State resolved into formation of yet another State reinforced by a predominant upper class within the Kashmiri population. This modern state of Jammu and Kashmir could be well understood as a ‘state carved out of elite governed by State of India’. The governing elite primarily are Kashmiri (not from Jammu or Ladakh). State of India ensures democracy but this discrepancy has been allowed with a purpose. The purpose is to create the image of opportunist Kashmiri and is only one that a Ladakhi or Jammuite sees. The face of the oppressed Kashmiri remains unexplored for the other two parts of the state.
What has created Jammu?
After the Dogra retreat into an area named as Jammu, which is also an only logical continuum of the Indian culture with Kashmir, it has been beautifully carved to serve as a bridge which looks absolutely natural to the foreigners. Jammu has been forcefully imagined as the only hope of holding on to oneness of Indian nationalism while the ‘Jawahar Lal Tunnel’ serves the best blinder before the reality strikes us.
The Question of Jammu arises after 100 years of Dogra rule and 70 years of Indian rule one wonders where was this question before that?, interestingly did ‘state’ create it?,-more so in past 20 years when Kashmir was caught in violent politics. Placing Jammu against Kashmir is a strategy that benefits none other than the state. Construction of Kashmiri State as a violent enemy with no civil face for the people of Jammu has served a base for harboring ethnic difference and total disengagement. Jammu is now a hot bed Hindu Right wing politics since the face of Kashmiri they see is that of the governing elite Kashmiri.
Does an Oppressed Kashmiri hate a Jammuite?
The oppressed can never hate anyone other than an oppressor. The People in Jammu have been forced to remain in a dark shell of opportunism and imperialist interest because they have known Kashmiris only as opportunist governors. The need to tame Kashmiris and considering the state of India rightful in its actions is actually the insecurity emerging from the lack of power. It is not the terrorist theory that bothers them as much the fact that Kashmir remains the only attraction of Indian state despite the ‘loyalty of Jammu’ to Indian State.
The Ladakh Question?
Ladakh has stayed destitute though not through brutal oppression of the militaristic apparatus installed in Jammu and Kashmir but their daily life is a struggle of different nature, the atrocious climate, economic burdens and basic survival threats are rampant. A common Kashmiri is unaware of a challenging life in Ladakh and it is true as much the vice versa. The barriers of language and terrain have been humungous to overcome but the matrimonial ties of Kashmiris have been spread all across this region even up to Tibet.
Ladakh has been angry with Kashmiri people because their oppression has been economic and vehemently executed by the ‘governing elite’ who have hardly given space to the voices of the oppressed Ladakhis. The problem is also triggered when less of solidarities are extended by the oppressed in the valley to them. The more hatred is filled due to state’s promotion of their seclusion and limited interaction in Kashmir. More direct flights from New Delhi to Ladakh and the new road and train ways into Ladakh without touching Kashmir is another method that has been employed to implement the ‘Territorial plan’.
This territorial plan that Engels has foretold manifests in subtly different ways in Kashmir to ascertain and legitimize the power of state. These divisions created over time and investments are real threats to establishing a harmonious communion unless extending solidarities and rightful redistribution of power does not take place. This territorial politics has been well gauged under economic growth and package scheme in order to make Kashmir’s claim of Right to self determination sound more ridiculous and obscure and delay it further by creating a beautiful occupation out of an ugly one.
Inshah Malik is a research scholar at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)