The political will for peace in Kashmir
The main obstacle to peace between India and Pakistan is a passive acceptance of the status quo.
Marie Lall Last Modified: 02 Aug 2011 11:56
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/07/201178112742392599.html
India and Pakistan are talking again - that is a good thing; especially since it has taken more than two years for both sides to get back to the negotiation table. And it is definitely better than sabre rattling - or all out war.
But what would be best for both countries, for the region at large and for the wider world would be peace. However, we should not expect any more from these talks than a replay of slow and protracted confidence-building measures leading nowhere firm. Peace is a long way off and there is not enough political will on either side to change the status quo.
One could argue that this is a good time to finally sort out the conflict which has held the two countries hostage for six decades and give Kashmiris, caught in the crossfire, the peace they deserve. Pakistan has a mountain of internal and foreign policy problems, starting with the unstable border region with Afghanistan and its liaison with the United States' war as well as increasing domestic instability with home-grown armed groups who terrorise civilians as well as the armed forces.
The Pakistani army does not need conflicts on two fronts. India tends to be smug about Pakistan's unstable situation; sometimes talking about a failed state, but should look closer to home - where not all is well either.
More recently, New Delhi has been plagued by a series of ever-increasing corruption scandals and at least 20 per cent of India's rural areas are under some form of Naxalite control. Poverty and rising inequalities are rife in both countries and both need all possible resources to sort out other issues on both the domestic and the international fronts. In fact, Kashmir is no longer the priority it once was either in India or Pakistan.
While neither side wants to move away from their principled positions, domestic politics tend to focus on other issues and the wider populations no longer seem that interested in Kashmir. So this would be a good time to work out a solution and move on as an overall more stable region.
It would also send a clear signal to extremist elements in Pakistan as well as in India (yes - they exist there as well) that the governments can be stronger than destabilising non-state actors. Peace would be a "win win" situation all around. So why is it unlikely to happen?
Short sighted goals
The problems are principally structural in both countries. Starting with India, it has become obvious over the past few decades that India lacks a clearly defined long term geopolitical vision. Nehru's goal of India as a leader of the decolonised and developing world is no longer relevant as India has left non-alignment behind and has found an alliance with the United States.
India still wants recognition as a power which matters on the world stage - but there seems to be no clear path carved out to achieve this. Obviously strong economic growth, preferably in double digits, is an important part of a country's power status in the new world order; however, unless India's poverty issue - affecting around 70 per cent of the billion strong population is sorted out, the claims of an economic power house will continue to ring hollow.
Domestic and foreign policy priorities are hampered by two things - the priority for parties to get re-elected, and therefore focusing on short term gains, as well as the lack of coordination between ministries, which operate largely like independent fiefdoms.
There is a lack of vision and leadership as the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) sets its own priorities and cannot monitor the move of each and every ministry. One would expect that Kashmir and the peace process with Pakistan would be a PMO priority - however it is unclear what instructions are given and while the ministry of commerce has in the past expressed the view that increased trade with Pakistan would benefit both countries - this view is diametrically opposed to the home ministry - concerned primarily with security and maintaining a strong border.
The re-election issue is important as well. There is little political capital to be made out of pushing a process that only really affects the Kashmiris. India's vision of itself in the region is unclear. It is today no longer sufficient to simply be the largest and most populous country. But no one seems to be working towards anything like what the Chinese have been doing for two decades - an economic powerhouse well linked into the region through investments and good will gestures.
Army entrenched in old ways
Pakistan is equally to blame. Here, the main structural issue is the political role of the army.
Today, even with a civilian government in Islamabad and an active conflict both inside the country and on Afghanistan's border, Pakistan's army still sees its raison d'être as defending its country against India. There is no understanding that a war is not on India's agenda.
If there were to be peace in Kashmir, the role of the army would have to change and it would lose the political (and possibly also some of its economic) power it has developed over the decades. There is disagreement across different power centres here as well, but rather than ministries, the disagreements seem to come from differences between the intelligence and security forces on one hand and the civilian leadership on the other. And - as in India - it is good to always have someone to blame when things go wrong. Here too, there is no coordinated vision about what to do about India, or indeed Kashmir.
Linked to this issue is the imperative that Pakistan needs to reign in the extremist groups operating on its soil such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. Any further attack in India which can be linked back to a group in Pakistan is likely to spark a military response. The problem is that the military establishment in Pakistan is no longer able to control all groups. Is it possible to have lasting peace when Pakistan cannot control these Kashmiri-sympathising armed organisations and individuals, keen to wage jihad against India?
Beyond these two points which have been made many times before, lies the issue of water. Pakistan has raised the water issue at every track two channel diplomacy meeting that has taken place since 1999. It has called for World Bank arbitration on one disputed dam and taken another that is being built in Kashmir to the International Court of Arbitration at the Hague.
Unless Pakistan works out its water policy, especially how to conserve and better use its dwindling water resources - and there is no indication that it is doing this - it will continue to put pressure on the fragile India-Pakistan dynamic, especially with regard to Kashmir.
There is, of course, the reason that is always held up as making an Indo-Pakistani peace over Kashmir elusive and difficult to achieve - historical legacy, or who is right or wrong when it came to the ascendancy of a state with a majority Muslim population and a Hindu ruler. But actually history is not at the bottom of the impasse.
The structural issues within both countries have resulted in a lack of political will and a certain comfort with the status quo. So as long as there are talks and no one is shooting, doing the painful work of developing genuine peace is really not much of a priority.
Dr Marie Lall is a South Asia expert specialising in political issues and education. She is a member of the faculty at the University of London and an Associate Fellow of the Asia programme at Chatham House.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Baloch and Sindhis demand for the US intervention in Balochistan
Baloch and Sindhis demand for the US intervention in Balochistan
Released on - Wednesday,03 August , 2011 -10:39
The Baloch and Sindhi communities in the UK demanded physical intervention from the international community in the wake of continued atrocities being committed by the Pakistani military in Balochistan.
According to reports, a rally organized by Baloch Human Right Council (UK), Balochistan Liberation Organization, and World Sindhi Congress was held in front of the US Embassy in London on July 31, 2011.
The protest was aimed to draw the attention of the international community in general and the US government in particular towards the crimes against humanity in Balochistan. The Baloch leader Nawabzada Meer Hayrbiar was also present in the gathering.
Speakers expressed their solidarity with families affected by the inhuman actions of the Government in Sindh and Balochistan. They demanded immediate stoppage of every kind of aid to Pakistan from the US and its allies as it is being used to crush the Baloch and Sindhi national resistance against subjugation and exploitation. Speakers included Abdullah Baloch, Jamshed Amiri, Kader Jatoi, Faiz Baluch, Mehrab Sarjoi, Zahed Baloch, Mansoor Baloch, Rahim Bandovi, Dr. Lakhu Luhana and Samad Baloch.
A letter will be sent to President Obama urging him for immediate action against Pakistani military establishment and urging him to use the US influence for the trial of Pakistani military officials in the International Criminal Court for the crimes committed against humanity in Balochistan.
Before that , Human Rights Watch stressed Pakistan's government to end widespread disappearances of suspected militants and activists by the military, intelligence agencies, and the paramilitary Frontier Corps in the southwestern province of Balochistan, but this demand was rejected by Pakistan Army.
http://pk.msn.com/news/localnews/alqamar/2011/august/8040658.aspx?region=pk.&featuredpkBaloch
Released on - Wednesday,03 August , 2011 -10:39
The Baloch and Sindhi communities in the UK demanded physical intervention from the international community in the wake of continued atrocities being committed by the Pakistani military in Balochistan.
According to reports, a rally organized by Baloch Human Right Council (UK), Balochistan Liberation Organization, and World Sindhi Congress was held in front of the US Embassy in London on July 31, 2011.
The protest was aimed to draw the attention of the international community in general and the US government in particular towards the crimes against humanity in Balochistan. The Baloch leader Nawabzada Meer Hayrbiar was also present in the gathering.
Speakers expressed their solidarity with families affected by the inhuman actions of the Government in Sindh and Balochistan. They demanded immediate stoppage of every kind of aid to Pakistan from the US and its allies as it is being used to crush the Baloch and Sindhi national resistance against subjugation and exploitation. Speakers included Abdullah Baloch, Jamshed Amiri, Kader Jatoi, Faiz Baluch, Mehrab Sarjoi, Zahed Baloch, Mansoor Baloch, Rahim Bandovi, Dr. Lakhu Luhana and Samad Baloch.
A letter will be sent to President Obama urging him for immediate action against Pakistani military establishment and urging him to use the US influence for the trial of Pakistani military officials in the International Criminal Court for the crimes committed against humanity in Balochistan.
Before that , Human Rights Watch stressed Pakistan's government to end widespread disappearances of suspected militants and activists by the military, intelligence agencies, and the paramilitary Frontier Corps in the southwestern province of Balochistan, but this demand was rejected by Pakistan Army.
http://pk.msn.com/news/localnews/alqamar/2011/august/8040658.aspx?region=pk.&featuredpkBaloch
Najam Sethi explains real situation on a Pakistani TV channel Geo real reasons for wars between India and Pakistan; and how Pakistani governments have
Najam Sethi explains real situation on a Pakistani TV channel Geo real reasons for wars between India and Pakistan; and how Pakistani governments have used Kashmir cause for their political purposes.
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/08/03/apas-ki-baat-3rd-august-2011/
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/08/03/apas-ki-baat-3rd-august-2011/
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Now, Fai's U.K. links in focus, HASAN SUROOR
Now, Fai's U.K. links in focus, HASAN SUROOR
SHARE · COMMENT · PRINT · T+
Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, the controversial U.S.-based lobbyist accused of being an agent of the ISI, was also heavily engaged in a campaign to influence the British government's Kashmir policy through a London-based pressure group, the Justice Foundation Kashmir Centre.
The Foundation, which describes itself as “a non-partisan, non-governmental organisation that seeks justice and peace for the oppressed people of Jammu and Kashmir, not aligning itself with any of the political parties of India or Pakistan'', paid for a cross-party group of British parliamentarians — two MPs and one peer — to visit Pakistan recently.
The Times newspaper on Tuesday claimed that according to records of Companies House, Mr. Fai was one of the two directors.
The newspaper reported that in March, the Foundation “helped to fund'' a trip to Kashmir by Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer; Andrew Griffiths, a Conservative MP; and Simon Danczuk, a Labour MP. A Conservative MP, Richard Harrington, paid his own costs.
Senior members
“The trip was organised by Lord Ahmed, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, of which all three MPs are senior members. There is no suggestion that they were aware of the centre's alleged links to the ISI or have acted improperly in any way,'' it said.
Lord Ahmed said he had known Dr. Fai since 1993 but was unaware that he was a director of the Foundation which he thought was a charity. A spokesman for Mr Danczuk said the MP “did not know anything about the Kashmir Centre and had no idea that it was allegedly funded by the ISI” .
Set up in 2003 by late Dr. Ayub Thakur, a controversial figure, the Foundation has organised many high-profile conferences in the U.K. In 2006, Dr. Fai attended an International Kashmir Peace Conference in London. It says it's aim is to “keep the issue of human rights and the conflict in Kashmir on the political and diplomatic agendas through encouraging the debate within the journalistic and academic communities on both sides of the divide''.
SHARE · COMMENT · PRINT · T+
Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, the controversial U.S.-based lobbyist accused of being an agent of the ISI, was also heavily engaged in a campaign to influence the British government's Kashmir policy through a London-based pressure group, the Justice Foundation Kashmir Centre.
The Foundation, which describes itself as “a non-partisan, non-governmental organisation that seeks justice and peace for the oppressed people of Jammu and Kashmir, not aligning itself with any of the political parties of India or Pakistan'', paid for a cross-party group of British parliamentarians — two MPs and one peer — to visit Pakistan recently.
The Times newspaper on Tuesday claimed that according to records of Companies House, Mr. Fai was one of the two directors.
The newspaper reported that in March, the Foundation “helped to fund'' a trip to Kashmir by Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer; Andrew Griffiths, a Conservative MP; and Simon Danczuk, a Labour MP. A Conservative MP, Richard Harrington, paid his own costs.
Senior members
“The trip was organised by Lord Ahmed, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, of which all three MPs are senior members. There is no suggestion that they were aware of the centre's alleged links to the ISI or have acted improperly in any way,'' it said.
Lord Ahmed said he had known Dr. Fai since 1993 but was unaware that he was a director of the Foundation which he thought was a charity. A spokesman for Mr Danczuk said the MP “did not know anything about the Kashmir Centre and had no idea that it was allegedly funded by the ISI” .
Set up in 2003 by late Dr. Ayub Thakur, a controversial figure, the Foundation has organised many high-profile conferences in the U.K. In 2006, Dr. Fai attended an International Kashmir Peace Conference in London. It says it's aim is to “keep the issue of human rights and the conflict in Kashmir on the political and diplomatic agendas through encouraging the debate within the journalistic and academic communities on both sides of the divide''.
Why Kashmir is so quiet - for now, Mukhtar Khan/AP
Why Kashmir is so quiet - for now, Mukhtar Khan/AP
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0802/Why-Kashmir-is-so-quiet-for-now
Smarter tactics by Indian police and a desire among Kashmiri businesses to make money are keeping a fragile peace in Kashmir a year after violent police crackdowns killed more than 100 people.
Kashmiri Muslims offers prayer on a street on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in Srinagar, India, Tuesday, Aug. 2.
Mukhtar Khan/AP
Enlarge
0 and 0
By Ben Arnoldy, Staff writer / August 2, 2011
Srinagar, Indian-controlled KashmirAfter security forces killed 117 civilians in Kashmir last summer, B.N. Ramesh took over as a top police officer here and saw a mess that his MBA degree could help him fix.
Skip to next paragraph
Related stories
India, Pakistan talks target rebuilding of trust
Kashmiris respond to arrest of alleged secret agent in Washington
Kashmir’s David vs Goliath battle against corruption
Topics
Peacekeeping and Security
Government and Politics
War and Conflict
Last summer, young people led street protests againstIndia’s presence here that prompted deadly police crackdowns, which in turn fueled more protests. This summer, in contrast, the valley has been mostly calm.
Why the calm? Young Kashmiris were not happy with the police. So Mr. Ramesh tried a new tactic: The Central Reserve Police Force in Kashmir (CRPF) began organizing sports teams for young men, hired discontented youth from 70 villages, gave away computers, and set up medical camps to offer free health care.
“People’s problems can be put into mathematical equations,” says Ramesh, who cites business management gurus like IBM’s Louis Gerstner, Jr. and Harvard University’s Michael Porter for informing his counterinsurgency theories. “The more we manage [people’s] frustration, the more … the war cries for so-called independence will calm down.”
Related Kashmir 101: Decoding Kashmir’s conflict
Ramesh embodies a hope held by some Indian officials that Kashmiris can eventually be sold on Indian rule. The latest stretch of calm, the return of Indian tourists, and the wide participation in recent elections have bolstered this hope.
But nearly everyone in the Kashmir Valley is warning that underlying desires for separation from India have not changed and that unrest could return in an instant. Local business leaders in particular are urging India to take this window of opportunity to negotiate a lasting settlement of the decades-old dispute.
“This part of Kashmir has been with India for the last 63 years. You can imagine how much money they have spent here and still [separatism] has not ended,” says Siraj Ahmed, president of theKashmir Hotel & Restaurant Association. “Ultimately, there has to be some sort of structure to address the main issue.”
Disaster for the business community
Mr. Ahmed’s group joined forces last year with the local shopkeeper’s association and a top businessman Iqbal Trumboo to form the Kashmir Economic Alliance. The group’s goal is to pressure all sides to talk and hash out a settlement – with good reason.
Last summer was a disaster for the business community. Between government curfews and separatist strikes, businesses lost 135 working days. Each day cost millions of dollars to the private sector, according to Shakeel Qalander, president of the Federation Chamber of Industries Kashmir.
After last summer, business leaders went to the separatists to explain their dire situation. “I approached them and requested them not to go for frequent strike calls because it’s self-inflicted injuries you are creating,” says Mr. Qalander.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0802/Why-Kashmir-is-so-quiet-for-now
Smarter tactics by Indian police and a desire among Kashmiri businesses to make money are keeping a fragile peace in Kashmir a year after violent police crackdowns killed more than 100 people.
Kashmiri Muslims offers prayer on a street on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in Srinagar, India, Tuesday, Aug. 2.
Mukhtar Khan/AP
Enlarge
0 and 0
By Ben Arnoldy, Staff writer / August 2, 2011
Srinagar, Indian-controlled KashmirAfter security forces killed 117 civilians in Kashmir last summer, B.N. Ramesh took over as a top police officer here and saw a mess that his MBA degree could help him fix.
Skip to next paragraph
Related stories
India, Pakistan talks target rebuilding of trust
Kashmiris respond to arrest of alleged secret agent in Washington
Kashmir’s David vs Goliath battle against corruption
Topics
Peacekeeping and Security
Government and Politics
War and Conflict
Last summer, young people led street protests againstIndia’s presence here that prompted deadly police crackdowns, which in turn fueled more protests. This summer, in contrast, the valley has been mostly calm.
Why the calm? Young Kashmiris were not happy with the police. So Mr. Ramesh tried a new tactic: The Central Reserve Police Force in Kashmir (CRPF) began organizing sports teams for young men, hired discontented youth from 70 villages, gave away computers, and set up medical camps to offer free health care.
“People’s problems can be put into mathematical equations,” says Ramesh, who cites business management gurus like IBM’s Louis Gerstner, Jr. and Harvard University’s Michael Porter for informing his counterinsurgency theories. “The more we manage [people’s] frustration, the more … the war cries for so-called independence will calm down.”
Related Kashmir 101: Decoding Kashmir’s conflict
Ramesh embodies a hope held by some Indian officials that Kashmiris can eventually be sold on Indian rule. The latest stretch of calm, the return of Indian tourists, and the wide participation in recent elections have bolstered this hope.
But nearly everyone in the Kashmir Valley is warning that underlying desires for separation from India have not changed and that unrest could return in an instant. Local business leaders in particular are urging India to take this window of opportunity to negotiate a lasting settlement of the decades-old dispute.
“This part of Kashmir has been with India for the last 63 years. You can imagine how much money they have spent here and still [separatism] has not ended,” says Siraj Ahmed, president of theKashmir Hotel & Restaurant Association. “Ultimately, there has to be some sort of structure to address the main issue.”
Disaster for the business community
Mr. Ahmed’s group joined forces last year with the local shopkeeper’s association and a top businessman Iqbal Trumboo to form the Kashmir Economic Alliance. The group’s goal is to pressure all sides to talk and hash out a settlement – with good reason.
Last summer was a disaster for the business community. Between government curfews and separatist strikes, businesses lost 135 working days. Each day cost millions of dollars to the private sector, according to Shakeel Qalander, president of the Federation Chamber of Industries Kashmir.
After last summer, business leaders went to the separatists to explain their dire situation. “I approached them and requested them not to go for frequent strike calls because it’s self-inflicted injuries you are creating,” says Mr. Qalander.
some historic blunders in Pakistan as explained by Najam Sethi most informed and influential journalist and writer:
some historic blunders in Pakistan as explained by Najam Sethi most informed and influential journalist and writer:
http://www.punjabrang.com/forum/content/apas-ki-baat-2nd-august-2011-3291/
http://www.punjabrang.com/forum/content/apas-ki-baat-2nd-august-2011-3291/
Monday, 1 August 2011
Earthquake in Kashmir Politics- By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
Earthquake in Kashmir Politics- By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
Secretary General - JKCHR
Posted: August 01, 2011
The arrest of Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai by FBI is the first major earthquake in the politics of Kashmir in the last 124 years (since 1877). It is not the arrest of an individual but the credibility of the claim that the people of Kashmir were waging an indigenous resistance for their right of self-determination, in particular since 1990 has come under the international scanner.
My views on the right of self-determination, loss of liberty in Fai’s case and the understanding of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case date back to my College, University days when I used to write for Weekly Azan and other papers in Kashmir. I did not compromise my opinions in regard to the best interests of the people of Kashmir during my stay in AJK/Pakistan when my opinions brought me into a fatal conflict with Zia regime. I was booked for 5 years imprisonment and 10 lashes and later under MLR 53 for a death sentence. I persevered in my faith and am alive to write this column and have continued to advocate the right of self-determination.
The weaknesses in Fai’s case are more than one. First and foremost that has surfaced is the fact that many of his close friends, those he would strike a quid pro quo with, have started distancing themselves on one or the other explanation. It proves that all those who turned up at Fai’s treats were taking these invitations as pleasure trips with very little regard for the people of Kashmir.
The FBI Affidavit could have been very easily countered if there was a trace of evidence that his diplomatic work had the input of the Government of AJK under article 11 of the AJK Act 1974 or any input of the Government of Pakistan under article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Under the interpretation of statutes the two Constitutional provisions could have been argued to cover his tracks. The preamble of the AJK Constitution (although authored by the Government of Pakistan) could have been extremely helpful. We could have linked the work with the universal character of the Kashmir case. I have always argued to move away from a bilateral bracket and agitate the universality of the UN resolutions on Kashmir. At the same time we could have asked the J & K Government to subscribe its interest in Fai’s arrest under article 4 and 48 of the J & K Constitution.
Unfortunately, even Fai with his exposure and resources failed to understand the Kashmir case. All that his work boils down is a quid pro quo with some powerful people in Pakistan and role of a conformist at the cost of people and habitat of Kashmir. A conformist always avoids to say no and as a natural consequence hurts the interest of the other. His arrest has hurt us as a people and we have become suspects all over the world.
The most difficult problem for Fai remains embedded in FBI affidavit. It may appear an arrest for “conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign principal without registering with the Attorney General, and to falsify, conceal, and cover up material by tricks, schemes, and devices, in matters within the jurisdiction of agencies of the executive branch of the Government of the United States”, but in para 3 of the affidavit the matters turn grave when the FBI agent subscribes on oath that “Because this affidavit is for the limited purpose of setting forth facts sufficient to establish probable cause, it does not include all of the pertinent facts that I have learned in the course of this investigation”. We know that Fai has been on FBI radar for some time and had lawful court orders to record his communications.
What these “all pertinent facts” and “recorded communications” are could be either very simple to explain or may turn out to be explosive and may have a potential to net many other people living in USA, Pakistan, India, AJK, J & K and many other countries. The manner in which Fai has unfortunately conducted himself has been attributed to a Confidential Witness in Para 8 of the affidavit. This witness has provided information to FBI agents in 2005, 2006 and in 2010 “about a scheme in which he participated to obscure the origin of money transferred by the ISI to Fai to use as a lobbyist for the KAC in furtherance of the interests of the government of Pakistan”. This witness has explained “that money was transferred to Fai through an American citizen living in Pakistan by the name of Zaheer Ahmad”.
Circle of wisdom and freedom of expression has been made causality in Kashmir. A few officers in a section of establishment in Pakistan tried to rewrite history in Kashmir and rewrite the script for politics, militancy and diplomacy for the people of Kashmir. They did it out of arrogance and with a sense of superiority, believing that Kashmir was a colony of their little secrets. In the course of time we killed a generation in Kashmir and by causing a numerical deficit killed the right of self-determination. Men, women, children and elderly have been exposed to unprecedented violation of human rights and other abuse.
Lack of interest in the best interests of the people of Kashmir and lack of reliable understanding of Kashmir case – have continued as the main defects in the present struggle since 1990. No one among this elitist group had ever visualised that the three components namely, politics, militancy and diplomacy would enter rough seas if they were not backed by the UN mechanism on Kashmir, Constitutions of J & K, AJK and the Constitution of Pakistan.
Para 8 maintains that Fai accepted money from ISI ‘in furtherance of the interests of the government of Pakistan”. This allegation remains at war with Fai’s claim that he was acting in the interests of the people of Kashmir. No Kashmiri could act in furtherance of the interests of the government of Pakistan until the point identified by article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Until then one has to advocate the freedom of choice at the time of a referendum. How Fai or his associates in the “scheme” could prepone the wisdom of article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan is very difficult to understand. If this has been the case Fai and his associates could be accused of sabotaging the UN mechanism on Kashmir and hurting the principle of self-determination. It is also going to war against the principles laid down in AJK, J & K and the Constitution of Pakistan and the UN Security Council Resolution on Kashmir.
I should not be wrongly understood as advocating anti-Pakistan views. While in Pakistan I submit myself to article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan which prescribes “Loyalty to State and Obedience to Constitution and Law”. This is an obligation for every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan. Fai has not only given up his right for a speedy trial, he has also never looked back for a re-check whether he has been conducting himself in accordance with the diplomatic wisdom provided in the preamble and article 11 of AJK Constitution, article 4 and 48 of the Constitution of J & K, article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the UN mechanism on Kashmir.
It needs to be pointed out that the manner and kind of diplomatic work entrusted to Fai had nothing to do with enhancing the constituency of the best interests of the people of Kashmir and it has never touched the core fact that there was a UN mechanism on Kashmir. A valuable Kashmiri turned into a conformist and failed to interpret the relief available to the people of Kashmir under J & K Constitution and the terms of a bilateral agreement between the Government of Kashmir and the Government of India. With a proper understanding of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case and the resources made available to Fai, we could have succeeded to fix the liability for the death and destruction in Kashmir.
Fai made a choice at the cost of the best interests of the people and the jurisprudence of Kashmir case. His support base was myopic and driven by colonial instinct. Others had the conscience to say no and it really should have been a difficult task to argue the jurisprudence of Kashmir case before the full court (High Court) in AJK from December 1992 – April 1999 making Government of AJK and the Government of Pakistan as parties. I would advise the readers to read the judgment published in the Pakistan Yearly Law Reporter 1999 titled “Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights v Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 4 others”.
Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations and can be mailed at dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
http://www.thenewskashmir.com/drsngilani.htm#771884874
Dr S N Gilani
www.thenewskashmir.com
The mission statement of this site is very simple. The site contains current news and articles on Kashmir. If you wish to contribute to the site, feel free to send me pictures or feedback. The email address to use is editor@thenewskashmir.com
Secretary General - JKCHR
Posted: August 01, 2011
The arrest of Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai by FBI is the first major earthquake in the politics of Kashmir in the last 124 years (since 1877). It is not the arrest of an individual but the credibility of the claim that the people of Kashmir were waging an indigenous resistance for their right of self-determination, in particular since 1990 has come under the international scanner.
My views on the right of self-determination, loss of liberty in Fai’s case and the understanding of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case date back to my College, University days when I used to write for Weekly Azan and other papers in Kashmir. I did not compromise my opinions in regard to the best interests of the people of Kashmir during my stay in AJK/Pakistan when my opinions brought me into a fatal conflict with Zia regime. I was booked for 5 years imprisonment and 10 lashes and later under MLR 53 for a death sentence. I persevered in my faith and am alive to write this column and have continued to advocate the right of self-determination.
The weaknesses in Fai’s case are more than one. First and foremost that has surfaced is the fact that many of his close friends, those he would strike a quid pro quo with, have started distancing themselves on one or the other explanation. It proves that all those who turned up at Fai’s treats were taking these invitations as pleasure trips with very little regard for the people of Kashmir.
The FBI Affidavit could have been very easily countered if there was a trace of evidence that his diplomatic work had the input of the Government of AJK under article 11 of the AJK Act 1974 or any input of the Government of Pakistan under article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Under the interpretation of statutes the two Constitutional provisions could have been argued to cover his tracks. The preamble of the AJK Constitution (although authored by the Government of Pakistan) could have been extremely helpful. We could have linked the work with the universal character of the Kashmir case. I have always argued to move away from a bilateral bracket and agitate the universality of the UN resolutions on Kashmir. At the same time we could have asked the J & K Government to subscribe its interest in Fai’s arrest under article 4 and 48 of the J & K Constitution.
Unfortunately, even Fai with his exposure and resources failed to understand the Kashmir case. All that his work boils down is a quid pro quo with some powerful people in Pakistan and role of a conformist at the cost of people and habitat of Kashmir. A conformist always avoids to say no and as a natural consequence hurts the interest of the other. His arrest has hurt us as a people and we have become suspects all over the world.
The most difficult problem for Fai remains embedded in FBI affidavit. It may appear an arrest for “conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign principal without registering with the Attorney General, and to falsify, conceal, and cover up material by tricks, schemes, and devices, in matters within the jurisdiction of agencies of the executive branch of the Government of the United States”, but in para 3 of the affidavit the matters turn grave when the FBI agent subscribes on oath that “Because this affidavit is for the limited purpose of setting forth facts sufficient to establish probable cause, it does not include all of the pertinent facts that I have learned in the course of this investigation”. We know that Fai has been on FBI radar for some time and had lawful court orders to record his communications.
What these “all pertinent facts” and “recorded communications” are could be either very simple to explain or may turn out to be explosive and may have a potential to net many other people living in USA, Pakistan, India, AJK, J & K and many other countries. The manner in which Fai has unfortunately conducted himself has been attributed to a Confidential Witness in Para 8 of the affidavit. This witness has provided information to FBI agents in 2005, 2006 and in 2010 “about a scheme in which he participated to obscure the origin of money transferred by the ISI to Fai to use as a lobbyist for the KAC in furtherance of the interests of the government of Pakistan”. This witness has explained “that money was transferred to Fai through an American citizen living in Pakistan by the name of Zaheer Ahmad”.
Circle of wisdom and freedom of expression has been made causality in Kashmir. A few officers in a section of establishment in Pakistan tried to rewrite history in Kashmir and rewrite the script for politics, militancy and diplomacy for the people of Kashmir. They did it out of arrogance and with a sense of superiority, believing that Kashmir was a colony of their little secrets. In the course of time we killed a generation in Kashmir and by causing a numerical deficit killed the right of self-determination. Men, women, children and elderly have been exposed to unprecedented violation of human rights and other abuse.
Lack of interest in the best interests of the people of Kashmir and lack of reliable understanding of Kashmir case – have continued as the main defects in the present struggle since 1990. No one among this elitist group had ever visualised that the three components namely, politics, militancy and diplomacy would enter rough seas if they were not backed by the UN mechanism on Kashmir, Constitutions of J & K, AJK and the Constitution of Pakistan.
Para 8 maintains that Fai accepted money from ISI ‘in furtherance of the interests of the government of Pakistan”. This allegation remains at war with Fai’s claim that he was acting in the interests of the people of Kashmir. No Kashmiri could act in furtherance of the interests of the government of Pakistan until the point identified by article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Until then one has to advocate the freedom of choice at the time of a referendum. How Fai or his associates in the “scheme” could prepone the wisdom of article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan is very difficult to understand. If this has been the case Fai and his associates could be accused of sabotaging the UN mechanism on Kashmir and hurting the principle of self-determination. It is also going to war against the principles laid down in AJK, J & K and the Constitution of Pakistan and the UN Security Council Resolution on Kashmir.
I should not be wrongly understood as advocating anti-Pakistan views. While in Pakistan I submit myself to article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan which prescribes “Loyalty to State and Obedience to Constitution and Law”. This is an obligation for every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan. Fai has not only given up his right for a speedy trial, he has also never looked back for a re-check whether he has been conducting himself in accordance with the diplomatic wisdom provided in the preamble and article 11 of AJK Constitution, article 4 and 48 of the Constitution of J & K, article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the UN mechanism on Kashmir.
It needs to be pointed out that the manner and kind of diplomatic work entrusted to Fai had nothing to do with enhancing the constituency of the best interests of the people of Kashmir and it has never touched the core fact that there was a UN mechanism on Kashmir. A valuable Kashmiri turned into a conformist and failed to interpret the relief available to the people of Kashmir under J & K Constitution and the terms of a bilateral agreement between the Government of Kashmir and the Government of India. With a proper understanding of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case and the resources made available to Fai, we could have succeeded to fix the liability for the death and destruction in Kashmir.
Fai made a choice at the cost of the best interests of the people and the jurisprudence of Kashmir case. His support base was myopic and driven by colonial instinct. Others had the conscience to say no and it really should have been a difficult task to argue the jurisprudence of Kashmir case before the full court (High Court) in AJK from December 1992 – April 1999 making Government of AJK and the Government of Pakistan as parties. I would advise the readers to read the judgment published in the Pakistan Yearly Law Reporter 1999 titled “Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights v Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 4 others”.
Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations and can be mailed at dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
http://www.thenewskashmir.com/drsngilani.htm#771884874
Dr S N Gilani
www.thenewskashmir.com
The mission statement of this site is very simple. The site contains current news and articles on Kashmir. If you wish to contribute to the site, feel free to send me pictures or feedback. The email address to use is editor@thenewskashmir.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)