Fall of Dacca by Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

Fall of Dacca

by

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

December 16 comes every year to haunt the nation, particularly those few remaining who were witness to the debacle. I had the misfortune to be one. On this day the Quaid’s Pakistan, which was considered an epitome of ‘Divided we Stand’, was actually divided by breaking loose all bonds of unity between the two wings. That day the largest Muslim army suffered the ignominious humiliation of the greatest defeat. This was the darkest day of our national history that stunned everyone. How did it happen? Equipped with the hindsight knowledge, I will try to reconstruct some of the sad saga.

In early July 1971 I was posted to East Pakistan as the Principal Staff Officer (GSO-1) to late Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan – in charge Martial Law (Civil Affairs). In my such capacity I was more or less responsible for the Civil Administration of the Province and had the opportunity of seeing the events unfolding themselves from the vantage viewpoint of the Governor House, Dacca – the then epicentre of the entire activity in East Pakistan. I had also access to the events of the past buried in the files which kept popping up randomly during my daily official work there. This all presented me with a fairly clear picture of all that was happening there and why.

If I am asked who to blame for the debacle I would say that we were all – from the common man in the street to the highest person in the office, equally responsible for it. The common man for committing the sin of keeping himself ignorant of the under currents simmering there ever since that fateful 19^th day of March 1948 when Quaid raising his admonishing finger to the Bengali students at the Dacca University convocation had warned them that Urdu will be the only official state language of Pakistan, and not trying to assess the anguish caused to the Bengalis and take measures to bring any rapprochement. The highest in authority were guilty of being too greedy, power hungry and selfish. Unfortunately we all treated East Pakistan as a colony and never granted them their justly deserved status of being the major human organ of Pakistan’s body – 54 percent of the population. As power barons of the Federal government mostly hailed from West Pakistan they never shared the power willingly or happily with their Bengali brethren. Imagine, the Bengalis though in majority going jubilant in 1956 when Suhrawardy got them ‘parity’ (equal treatment) with the West Pakistanis! Ever heard of a majority people thanking obligingly the minority people for treating them equal?! We did it again in 1971. The minority pronouncing the majority unpatriotic, traitor and secessionist! Minority forcing the majority to leave the country whose foundations they had laid in 1906! Not only, that the Bengalis were treated as unequals, but it is also a fact that they were the major revenue earner for Pakistan, mainly through the export of their Golden Fibre to Manchester and Dundee jute mills in the UK. They bore the major financial burden of Pakistan and happily too for more than 15 years and until 1962 the cash flow was from East Pakistan to West Pakistan. Thereafter, after an equilibrium of about two years the process revers ed but not that heavily. Bengalis had, therefore, every reason to be chary of and chagrin with the sala Punzabis. (every West Pakistani was a Punjabi to them). Though the Bengalis proved themselves to be equally, if not more, patriotic than the West Pakistanis during the 65 war with India, yet the state of mutual confidence between the two left more to be desired. By 1971 the relations deteriorated further and irreversibly. The last straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back was Bhutto’s rejection of 1970 election results which had given Shaikh Mujib ur Rehman’s Awami League a clear cut majority to form the government at the centre. ZAB’s one after the other statements like “we will break the legs of anyone going to Dacca to attend the NA session there”, “Udhar tum idhar hum” and “I would rather be a top dog of half of Pakistan than be an underdog of full Pakistan” left little doubt in the minds of Mujib and company who opted for the Civil Disobedience in the province. Their provincial autonomy stance kept becoming harder by the day and all negotiations between them and the West Pakistani leaders and the Federal government led by Gen.Yahya himself failed. The civil disobedience had transformed itself into an outright mutiny and to quell it the army struck on the night of 25^th March 1971, starting an internecine guerrilla war between the military and Mukti Bahini lasting for 8 long months. On 21^st November 1971 – Eid Day – the Indians launched a fully fledged armed attack on East Pakistan which lasted for 26 days of intense fighting by the Pakistan army under extremely adverse conditions of (1) being badly out-numbered in men and material – 3 Indian Corps’ against one and that too lame, under-strength and ill equipped, no tanks, very little artillery – only the infantry and a battalion of Engineers, (2) hostility of the local populace – no army can fight without the support of the civilians, but here what to talk of the support the civil populace was totally hostile, supporting the Indians by providing them with the crucial intelligence needed by them, (3) poor communications and logistics – no reinforcements or arms and equipment could be supplied from West Pakistan. India had stopped the over flights since February 70 after the clever and clandestine planting of Ganga episode, (4) lack of air cover – the only squadron of the F-86s that we had could not operate as the runway of the only military airport Kurmi Tola had been rendered out of operation by the Indians bombing it incessantly. If anything, under such impossible conditions, it goes to the credit of the army that it could fight for over nine months in East Pakistan.

In the second half of the year 1971 those in power – both civil and military – seemed to be suffering from a stupor and behaving like silent spectators waiting helplessly for the catastrophe to fall. I distinctly remember Major General A Rahim Khan – later Secretary General Defence, while addressing a batch of newly posted two dozen Lt Cols and Majors to East Pakistan saying on or around 11 July 1971 “Gentlemen, the entire administration of the province had collapsed. I have made it stand but only on its knees. Now it will be for you to make it stand and stand it erect.” Having said that the General went on to add, “I have given my word to the Chief (Gen. Yahya) to give me three months for the task, and if I cannot do it, he can — (I murmured under my lip, hang me!) he can – replace me”. I was shocked that the general had equated the stakes simply to his being replaced! There would be nothing in three months to replace him for !! On another occasion Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi – alias Tiger Niazi – the GOC Eastern Command as late as in October 71, before the start of a special briefing to the visiting high powered army team from the GHQ on the latest military situation in East Pakistan, advised his senior staff officers not to depress the visiting generals from the GHQ by giving them the dismal military picture of East Pakistan or ask them for more troops. He quipped, “gentlemen, if they send us more troops – more the merrier, but if they don’t – lesser the better”. With the result that the operational military map on the board showed more of ‘Green’ pins all over the area than the ‘Red’ pins depicting the area under Mukti Bahini control. Whereas the map should have been clustered with the Red pins. The GHQ team returned satisfied about all being hunky-dory in East Pakistan. Similar ‘Sab Achha’ reports kept ema nating from various sectors and parts of East Pakistan to West Pakistan, till the water passed over the head. But by then it was too late for any political solution that the likes of Gen. Farman were advocating from the beginning but being too junior in the army hierarchy were not given due importance. To a few others it was a case of misplaced egoistic valour – not to be dubbed as having been ‘chickened out’ in the army parlance. The true information was not only denied to the common man in West Pakistan but even to those at the helm also.

Handling of the East Pakistan issue at the International level, too, was a fiasco on our part. Not that we did not mobilise any world opinion in our favour, we on the contrary rather alienated them mostly. On the other hand Indira undertook a whirlwind tour of 19 countries in October 1971 propagating the imaginary atrocities against the Bengalis and particularly the Hindus of East Pakistan and yet assuring each one of them that India had no intentions of aggression. Ironically, while she was convincing and canvassing the world powers, her army’s Eastern Command was giving the final touches to the Attack Plan in Fort William at the eastern bank of river Hoogli, Calcutta. Whereas in our case despite Nixon’s more or less ordering Kissinger to ‘do some thing’ their 7^th Fleet just passed by the Bay of Bengal without even radioing the customary courtesy good will message or tooting its horns thrice the Navy style. I am personally witn ess to the Chinese repeated enquiries as to what could they do for us, after we had established am emergency radio link with them? But all that we could get from the stupor struck President’s Secretariat at Rawalpindi was, “Just wait, please”. Hopes from the sincere Chinese friends were so high that when the Indian para troopers chuted down over Narain Ganj every one waived them jubilantly taking them to be Chinese coming to our aid! Our Eastern Command had a morbid fear of the Indians capturing a piece of land and passing it on to the Muktis to plant a flag there and declare it to be the Bangla Desh. The Indians would recognise it instantly thus giving birth to Bangla Desh. Consequently the troops were spread in a thin line all along the border that weakened the defence all over. There was no depth, no reserves, no second lines. There was enemy (Indians) in the front and enemy at the back (Muktis).They never realised that it was not the l oss of any territory but the fall of the capital of a country that mattered. It had to be the Warsaw, the Paris, the Moscow, the Berlin and in our case Dacca that until captured the country would not fall. If they had only concentrated all the troops in Dacca, made a fortress out of it and held it for months, which they could do, the East Pakistan story would have been different today. Agreed, the Bangla Desh would have still come into being but instead of taking birth in battle field it would have come into being on a negotiating table. Negotiations by the world powers and probably the UNO itself and Pakistan would not have had to suffer the ignominy of the defeat.

End:

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

30, Werstridge-1

Rawalpindi46000

Tel: (051) 5158 033

Statement of Dr Fai in the Alexandria Court House, Virginia) Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

Posted by K4Kashmir on December 8, 2011 in Kashmir | 0 CommentEdit

Statement of Dr Fai in the Alexandria Court House, Virginia)

Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

Dr. Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai

Washington, D.C.

December 7, 2011

(The statement was issued at the Alexandria Court House, Virginia)

The Kashmir issue is simply this: the people of a large territory which is not part of any existing sovereign state were assured by the entire international community represented by the United States that they would be enabled to decide their future by a free vote. Until now, this assurance has not been honored.

I, as an American of Kashmiri origin am profoundly grateful to the Administration for upholding the position of principle which the United States has sustained throughout the existence of the contentious issue relating to the status of Kashmir. When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States championed the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be determined by the will of the people of the territory and that their wishes must be ascertained through an impartial plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United Nations. The U.S. was a principle sponsor of the resolution # 47 which was adopted by the Security Council on April 21, 1948 and which was based on that unchallenged principle. It was also upheld equally by both India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was brought before the Security Council in 1948. The commitment of the U.S. was indicated by a personal appeal made by President Harry Truman that differences over demilitarization be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator, a distinguished American war hero: Admiral Chester Nimitz.

It was most gratifying for Kashmiri American community when President George W. Bush (Republican) said on February 22, 2006 that the United States supports a solution of Kashmir dispute acceptable not only to India and Pakistan but also to “citizens of Kashmir.” It was equally gratifying for us when President Barack Obama said on October 30, 2008, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.’

Today, Kashmir is a living proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (independence) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering which has not been exacted from any other people of the South Asian subcontinent. Compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process.

The scale of the popular backing for Kashmiri resistance can be judged from the established fact that virtually all the citizenry of Srinagar (Capital city of Kashmir) – men, women and children – came out multiple times on the streets to lodge a non-violent protest against the continuance of alien occupation. The fact that they presented petitions at the office of the United Nations Military Observers Group shows the essentially peaceful nature of the aims of the uprising and its trust in justice under international law. At times the number of people in these peaceful processions exceeded 1 million. India has tried to portray the uprising as the work of terrorists or fanatics. Terrorists do not compose an entire population, including women and children; fanatics do not look to the United Nations to achieve pacific, and rational settlement.

That is a most poignant truth. But even more bitterly ironical is the contrast between the complex and decades-long agony the Kashmir issue has caused to Kashmiris, to Pakistan and to India itself and the simple, rational measures that would be needed for its solution. No sleight of hand is required, no subtle concepts are to be deployed, and no ingenious deal needs to be struck between an Indian and a Pakistani leader with the endorsement of the more pliable Kashmiri figures. The time for subterfuges is gone. All that is needed is going back — yes, going back — to the point of agreement which historically existed beyond doubt between India and Pakistan and jointly resolving to retrieve it with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time.

That point of agreement was one of inescapable principle- — that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

Between India’s insistence that a settlement must be “within the four corners of the Indian constitution” and Pakistan’s demand that it must be based on the international agreement embodied in the UN Security Council resolutions, there cannot be a meeting point which the two governments can find by themselves. Neither can disentangle itself from the massive under growth of the dispute. There needs to be a third way which neither admits nor challenges any claim or proposition on the question of sovereignty over Kashmir nor on the desirability or otherwise of the partition or reunification of the State. Both these questions need to be set aside if the dispute is to be put on the road to a settlement.

There is nothing in the United Nations plan that is incompatible with pluralism. We do not wish to foreclose any of the three possible options for the people: independence, accession to Pakistan or accession to India. We refuse to believe that fairness is an impractical proposition.

Its object should be not to answer what is the correct or best solution of the Kashmir problem but how that solution can be arrived at. In other words, it should by itself neither promote nor preclude any rational settlement of the dispute, be it accession to India or Pakistan or independence. Rather than seek to impose a settlement on Kashmir, it should engage the peoples of each region of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir to work out a settlement themselves without any external constraint.

I am equally proud of Kashmiri pluralism. The term fundamentalism is quite inapplicable to Kashmiri society. One of the proud distinctions of Kashmir has been the sustained tradition of tolerance, amity, good will and friendship between the members of different religious and cultural communities. It has a long tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism and fundamentalism. Kashmir conflict was never a fight between Hindus and Muslims. It was never a struggle between theocracy and secularism. It has always been about the destiny and future of 17 million people of Kashmir, be they Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists.

The Policy Of

The Kashmiri American Council

After the uprising in Kashmir in 1989, a group of Kashmiri Americans established the Kashmiri American Council (KAC) in Washington in 1990. The primary objective of KAC was simply to raise the consciousness of the international community toward the issue of Kashmir; and to seek the understanding of the United States to help achieve the right of self-determination which was guaranteed to the people of Kashmir under the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The U.S. has, since the adoption of the UN resolutions in 1948, always held the position that Kashmir is a disputed territory; that it is not an integral part of either India or Pakistan; and that India and Pakistan should resolve the issue, taking into account the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir. Therefore, there was no need to influence U.S. foreign policy which has always been consistent with the goals of the Kashmiri people. However, we felt that there was a need to educate and encourage policy makers to take concrete steps to help achieve this goal.

Who I Represent

Kashmiri American Council and I have always tried to represent the sentiments of the people of Kashmir, irrespective of the religious background and cultural affiliations. Sometimes it meant to state the hard facts which people in the halls of power in New Delhi or Islamabad might not always find agreeable. But unfortunately facts are facts and ignoring them would not have done justice not only to people of Kashmir but to the people of both India and Pakistan. This fact can be understood from an article of mine which was published in Washington Times on January 18, 2004, when I was analyzing various possibilities that could lead us to a just settlement of Kashmiri issue. I wrote, under the title, “The taproot of South Asian turbulence,” (an article particularly harsh to the sensitivities of both the Indian government and the government of Pakistan.) “Finding a solution to the stalemate over self-determination in Kashmir, however, is vastly more complex than articulating the problem. Some in India profit from Kashmir’s tumults. They appeal to extreme Hindu nationalists who insist on Muslim inferiority and envision India as an expanding sun in the South Asian universe. Likewise, some in Pakistan gain by keeping Kashmir unresolved. It distracts attention from Pakistan’s enormous domestic faults, and provides indigenous militants with an outlet unthreatening to [its own] government.”

Had it been true that I was being dictated by someone from New Delhi or Islamabad, then it would not have been easy for me to publish my article in Boston Globe on January 5, 2002, “Kashmir Rights Cannot Be Denied,” I wrote, “There are suggestions in some quarters that the United Nations should broker a deal on Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Kashmiris wish to stress that their land is not real estate that can be parceled out between two [non-resident] disputants but the home of nation with a history far more compact and coherent than India’s and far longer than Pakistan’s. No settlement of their status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of self-determination and erases the so-called line of control, which is in reality the line of conflict. ”

Likewise it would not have been easy to question the involvement of India and Pakistan in the talks to resolve the Kashmir issue. I wrote in The Quarterly Magazine About the Developing World published by the National Peace Corps Association in its August through October 1998 issue, Volume 11, number 4, entitled “Colony Kashmir, a Voice for independence.” I said, “I wish to emphasize the point that as the dispute involves three parties– India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir — who are the most directly affected. Any attempt to strike a deal between two without the association of the third, will fail to yield a credible settlement. The contemporary history of South Asia is abundantly clear that bilateral efforts have never met with success.”

In that same article, I also stated, “but we believe that India and Pakistan cannot by themselves reach a settlement over Kashmir without associating the genuine Kashmiri leadership–All Parties Hurriyet Conference–with the negotiations. It would be performing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.”

My approach has been consistent and there was absolutely no reason for me to do otherwise, and that is to inform the world powers that India and Pakistan by themselves are not able to resolve the issue of Kashmir. They have tried over decades but failed. That’s why in an article called “The New Clinton Doctrine” which I published in July 1997, I wrote: “But the Kashmir problem should not be viewed as a territorial dispute between these two countries. The reality is that it is first and foremost a problem that involves the life and future of the thirteen million people of Kashmir– a people with a historical identity, a distinct individuality and the same aspirations for freedom as that of any other people on earth.”
The most important constituency which we have to address is not United States, not Pakistan, not elsewhere, but India itself. Meeting with Indian officials was fundamental to my strategy in communicating with New Delhi to find the means by which we as Kashmiri Americans could contribute to peace in that part of the world and in resolving the crisis in Kashmir. During the past twenty years, I along with Ambassador Yusuf Buch, former Senior Advisor to the United Nations Secretary General and late Dr. Ayub Thuker, President, World Kashmir Freedom Movement, have met with various Indian Cabinet Ministers, belonging to the administrations of Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, Prime Minister Atel Behari Vajpayee and current Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. And during the past eleven years, I also met with four different officials at the Indian embassy who succeeded each other periodically and introduced me to the new incoming official before leaving for a new post.

It has always been my habit to keep the channel of communication open to the Indian embassy. I have met with the officials of Indian embassy in Washington since 1999, sometimes monthly, sometimes bi-monthly. From March 2006 onward we met monthly and at times twice a month. Whenever we had a seminar or a conference on Kashmir I would invite the Indian ambassador to speak. I had a habit of exchanging information and establishing the details in advance with an official of the embassy, and then a final copy of the invitation for the ambassador would be given to the official, whom I usually met at a public cafeteria. An Indian official called me either on July 18 or July 19, 2011, the day I was arrested. He left a voicemail that we must meet, which I heard ten days later after my release.

I have made personal mistakes that I deeply regret and I feel great sorrow for that, but I have never compromised our goals of independence and self-determination for the Kashmiri people and our commitment to peaceful negotiations between India, Pakistan and the leadership of the Kashmiri people. My own passion for the plight of Kashmir is clearly nothing unique. As a child of Kashmir, born and raised in this environment myself, I am just one of the hundreds of thousands of youth who, through no fault or choice of their own, have become directly or indirectly involved and deeply and passionately motivated to do something positive for their country, however insignificant in the context of global affairs, to make a difference. A country can be destroyed but a nation cannot be defeated. Our own independence from this tyranny is the song in our heart, the poetry on our lips, and the vision that solidly unites us. It is the bedrock of our determination to continue unrelentingly to seek justice and truth for the people of Kashmir, despite our seeming powerlessness in the face of this occupation. Our hope is in our unity, in our love for one another as a people, as a nation, and as a divine spirit that pervades our history as a people with a unique cultural identity regardless of race, religion or creed, and our lasting belief that we cannot be denied our birth right to self-determination.

Conclusion

Win-win solutions are further important because they safeguard against prospective bitterness or humiliation that are the fuel of new conflict. If one party to a solution feels exploited or unfairly treated, then national sentiments to undo the settlement will naturally swell. We must not belittle, embarrass, or humiliate any party. Every participant should be treated with dignity and humanity. Charity, not the triumphal, should be the earmark of the negotiating enterprise. Also, we should not sacrifice the good on the altar of the perfect. Compromises are the staple of conflict resolution. To achieve some good is worthwhile even though not all good is achieved.

gnfai2003@yahoo.com

New book of Dr Shabir Choudhry, ‘Azad Kashmir And Gilgit Baltistan’ is published. Details are as follows:

New book of Dr Shabir Choudhry, ‘Azad Kashmir And Gilgit Baltistan’ is published. Details are as follows:

Azad Kashmir And Gilgit Baltistan

Bitter Realities About Situation In Pakistani Occupied Kashmir

LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2011-12-02)

ISBN-13: 978-3-8465-1495-5

ISBN-10: 3846514950

EAN: 9783846514955

Book language: English

https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/azad-kashmir-and-gilgit-baltistan/isbn/978-3-8465-1495-5

Blurb/Shorttext:

Pakistani ruling elite have been very clever as they managed to camouflage their imperial designs in the holy name of Islam, and presented themselves as ‘friends’ and ‘liberators’ of Kashmiris. They presented the Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination as a struggle between Hinduism and Islam. Of course, majority of Muslims fell in to this trap; however, with time they are beginning to understand the game plan of Islamabad. Majority of them now know that the struggle is political in nature; and name of religion was used to divide the people of Jammu and Kashmir and exacerbate already complicated situation. Pakistani policy makers and their secret agencies with use of stick and carrot policy manipulated people in believing that India was the aggressor and in occupation of Muslim Kashmir; and that areas under Pakistan were ‘azad’ – independent. Reality, however, was totally different.

Publishing house:

LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing

Website:

http://www.lap-publishing.com/

By (author) Shabir Choudhry

Number of pages: 304

Published at: 2011-12-02

Category: State and political administration studies

Price: 79.00 €

Keywords: Azad Kashmir, Kashmir Dispute, Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistani occupied Kashmir

Predictions of Molana Azad on future of Pakistan

Predictions of Molana Azad on future of Pakistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOZbvwnjLnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jn6h6Ek6ZQ&feature=related

Lord Nazir Ahmed and issue of Kashmiri nationality, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Lord Nazir Ahmed and issue of Kashmiri nationality

Dr Shabir Choudhry 26 November 2011

Lord Nazir Ahmed knows how to stay in news. There are other Kashmiri and Pakistani Members of the British Parliament, but very rarely they make headlines. Lord Nazir Ahmed, on the other hand is always in news, especially in Kashmiri and Pakistani media.

This time he is in news because of his help to a PPP ‘rebel’ Dr Zulfiqar Mirza; and Azad Kashmiri Cabinets resolution that strongly criticised his conduct, and threatened him to revoke his Kashmiri nationality.

Lord Nazir Ahmed and I belong to same region and have had friendly relations, but we don’t see eye to eye on many issues. I don’t like his politics; and he hates my political ideology and activities I conduct to promote pro peace and pro Kashmir policies. Despite our different views and different political paths we are both Kashmiris and we have one vote each. Whether it is vote in local elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir or vote in future plebiscite to decide future status of Jammu and Kashmir, my vote will be just as good as his vote.

Both Lord Nazir Ahmed and I hold dual nationality – we are British and citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. Whereas the British citizenship can be revoked in certain cases by the British Sovereign, or by the British government on behalf of the sovereign; but the Kashmiri citizenship cannot be revoked by any government, be it Jammu and Kashmir government or Azad Kashmir government.

The Azad Kashmiri Cabinet passed a resolution stating that: ‘Lord Nazir Ahmed is “a despicable person” and the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has the right to take legal action against him, the AJK cabinet declared in a unanimous resolution when it met in Muzaffarabad late on Thursday.’

http://tribune.com.pk/story/297875/cabinet-session-ajk-govt-can-take-legal-action-against-lord-nazir/

Critics say Lord Nazir Ahmed is a Member of the British House of Lords, but it looks that Pakistani politics is closer to his heart; and he spends more time with Pakistani leaders and issues related to Pakistan than the British politics. He is a good speaker and courageously speaks on different issues; and do not hesitate to raise controversial issues. Lord Nazir Ahmed has helped former Sindh Home Minister Dr Zulfiqar Mirza in his ‘crusade’ against MQM and its Chief Altaf Hussain who lives in London and controls politics of Pakistan and Karachi from here.

This policy of Lord Nazir Ahmed is not only loathed by the MQM leaders and stalwarts; but also fiercely opposed by the Pakistani government, as they fear that activities of Dr Zulfiqar Mirza could annoy the MQM to the extent that they could once again walk out of the coalition making the unstable PPP government more vulnerable. President Asif Ali Zardari is more powerful than the Prime Minister of Pakistan even though it is a Parliamentary form of government, and Yousaf Raza Gilani is the Chief Executive, but he has no control or influence over a Member of the British Parliament, especially when he has become a ‘rebel’.

But Asif Ali Zardari had a few cards up his sleeve, and he thought he can try to discipline Lord Nazir Ahmed through his puppets in Azad Kashmir. The puppet Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir also belongs to the same area as Lord Nazir Ahmed; and also belongs to the same tribe and they know each other well. It was expected that both leaders will work closely to promote issues related to common good; but unfortunately under pressure from Zardari government Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir opened fire on Lord Nazir Ahmed, hoping to intimidate him by passing a resolution against him and by calling him a quomi mujram – national criminal, as if he has committed a serious crime or committed treachery.

The puppet Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir and its Cabinet, apart from threatening Lord Nazir Ahmed to revoke his Kashmiri nationality has also declared to confiscate his property in Azad Kashmir. The Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir knows his role is to safeguard interests of Pakistan; but perhaps he forgets that he is controlled by four Pakistani lent officers appointed by Pakistan and he is not even in a position to make any major appointments or promote certain officers in Azad Kashmir.

He should read Act 74 again and see for himself that Azad Kashmir government has no control over 55 important subjects, and that includes laws concerning: Nationality, citizenship and naturalisation, migration from or into Azad Jammu and Kashmir, admission into, and immigration and expulsion from AJK including in relation there to the regulation of the movements in AJK;

Furthermore, Kashmiri citizenship was not granted to Lord Nazir Ahmed by any puppet government. He is a Kashmiri by birth, and no one can take that away from him. Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir did us a great service by defining the State Subject laws. State Subject Definition Notification dated the 20th April, 1927, states:

‘That all emigrants from the Jammu and Kashmir State to foreign territories shall be considered State Subjects and also the descendants of these emigrants born abroad for two generations. Provided that, these nationals of the Jammu and Kashmir State shall not be entitled to claim the internal rights granted to subjects of this State by the laws, unless they fulfil the conditions laid down by those laws and rules for the specific purposes mentioned therein.’

This State Subject Notification was issued by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir; and the State of Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity at that time. According to this Notification all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir State (people of present Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan, Ladakh, Kashmir and Jammu) are lawful citizens of Kashmir; and because the former State is forcibly divided, no one part of the former State can revoke that Notification, or change legal status of citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, especially when they are not independent themselves and are subject to control and rule of neighbours of Jammu and Kashmir.

Lord Nazir Ahmed has very rightly said that no one can revoke his Kashmiri nationality; and that no one can stop him going to his motherland. Furthermore, no one can legally take over his property. I know Lord Nazir Ahmed is a fighter; and I am sure he will fight back and defeat these puppets of Zardari government who want to deprive him of his Kashmiri identity, and may be his property.

If these puppets can illegally revoke Kashmiri nationality of Lord Nazir Ahmed and deprive him of his property, then it will open a flood gate and corrupt officials will do same to millions of other citizens of Jammu and Kashmir living in Britain, Europe and America and confiscate their properties by revoking their Kashmiri nationality or blackmail them by giving them a threat of revoking their Kashmiri nationality.

We can all find reasons to oppose Lord Nazir Ahmed; but in this fight we must support him because it is not only his fight it is our fight, as any changes to the State Subject Notification of 1927 will have far reaching consequences for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. I suggest that Lord Nazir Ahmed should pack his bags and travel to Azad Kashmir to challenge these puppets on their home ground; and I am willing to travel with him and support him. Of course I will pay for my own expenses.

Writer is Director 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: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

AJK Cabinet decision against Lord Nazir

http://www.sadaechanar.com/detail.php?category=taza&id=1

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle

JKLF played into ISI hands - Kashmir was never a Muslim struggle http://currentnews.in/2011/11/22/jklf-played-into-isi-hands-kashmir-was-never-a-muslim-struggle/

Born in Nakker Shamali in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) Dr Shabir Choudhry has been in the UK since 1966 and holds dual nationality. He regularly takes part in the UN Human Rights (Commission) and has addressed many conferences and seminars opposing violence and highlighting the Kashmir cause. He has 25 books and booklets on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle to his credit. Throughout his life he has worked for the cause of Kashmir as a JKLF founder-member since its inception in 1977. Due to differences with top leaders of the JKLF he parted ways and formed the Kashmir National Party (KNP). He spoke with RC GANJOO on a host of issues:

Current: You were an active member of JKLF but what forced you to launch the KNP in London.

Shabir Choudhry: JKLF was formed in Birmingham, England in 1977, and I was among its founders. The JKLF believed in a united and independent Jammu and Kashmir free from both countries, and of course from China as well. The JKLF head office was shifted from Britain to Muzaffrabad when Amanullah Khan was expelled from Britain in 1987. Perhaps that was the first serious tactical mistake we made, and I take responsibility for that as I forcefully advocated this change. The late Afzal Jatalvi and I were senior office bearers at that time and we both agreed that it was in the best interest of the party because we feared action against the JKLF in Britain as a result of Rawinder Mahtre’s (Indian diplomat in Britain) kidnapping and subsequent killing.

The JKLF believed in non communal politics — religion to us was a personal matter. We strongly believed in equality for all citizens, rule of law, democracy and liberal ideals; and to us both India and Pakistan were occupiers, hence equally bad as far as imperialism and occupation was concerned. Our struggle was against both.

But when Amanullah Khan was expelled from Britain he decided to take help from one occupier (Pakistan) to fight against the other occupier (India). With that secret deal of Amanullah Khan and the ISI began a gradual shift in JKLF policy as the party was used as a vehicle to promote a proxy war. The struggle for independence or right of self determination was transformed into a ‘Jihad’ against Hindu rule or Hindus in which minorities were targeted. Cinemas, beauty parlours, tourists, religious festivals (Amarnath Yatra) were targeted. All this was against Islamic teaching, but unfortunately it happened, and the JKLF leadership unfortunately either remained quiet or became part of this communal game.

From then onwards it became a Muslim struggle and not a Kashmiri struggle and the JKLF group while still wearing a secular hat became part of this game.

Amanullah Khan also realised that he was used to advance a Pakistani interest, but he is a stubborn man who is dictatorial. He with the support of the ISI managed to keep his stature and his JKLF group functioning. Anyone who dared to challenge him was expelled from the party on charges of working for either the ISI or R&AW. The reality, however, is that he is the one who closely worked with the ISI and continues to do so. My friends and I have been fighting establishment policies on Kashmir and their stooges since 1992. We sincerely worked hard to unite the factions of the JKLF and correct the wrongs. I have no hesitation in acknowledging our failure; the JKLF senior leadership with the help of the ISI won and we lost in our attempt to unite the JKLF.

In 1995 when Yasin Malik and Amanullah Khan fell out we thought maybe Yasin Malik will be better than Amanullah Khan and supported him. But he proved to be worse. When we realised that the top leadership of JKLF had abandoned the ideology of Maqbool Butt, we decided to say good bye to the JKLF and formed Kashmir National Party to advance the cause of a united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Now the two factions of JKLF, one headed by Ammanullah Khan and the other by Yaseen Malik have joined hands. What could be the politics behind their merger?

Shabir Choudhry: Unity of like minded people with a common agenda is must to advance and common agenda; but that unity must be based on certain principles and there must be sincerity. In my opinion it is not unity of JKLF groups, as two individuals met and without taking any senior leaders in to confidence announced this unity.

Still people are questioning the real motives behind this unity. If it was a JKLF unity then the question is why other JKLF groups were left out. Even in the final declaration prepared by the working group of both J Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik, only urged Rauf Kashmiri to abandon his group and join them; but they completely ignored the Aftab Group and Bitta Karate or Farooq Dar Group.

What prompted you to observe 22 October as a black day in London?

Shabir Choudhry: Pakistan and pro-Pakistan political parties want people of Jammu and Kashmir to observe 27 October as a Black Day because it was on this date Indian troops landed in Kashmir. Under the influence of Pakistani propaganda and wrong history that has been taught to people, we all observed 27 October as a Black Day, and some still do. However, with time we realised that Black Day should be observed on 22 October, because it was on this date Pakistani sponsored tribesmen attacked the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir and killed, raped and looted innocent people of Kashmir, especially non Muslims.

It must be noted that Indian troops came to Kashmir on a request of the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir and after a treaty (provisional accession); but Pakistan sent in their warriors to capture Kashmir by violating a treaty (Standstill Agreement) with the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir after lapse of paramountcy became an independent ruler; it was Pakistan which unleashed an unprovoked attack on Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja requested help from India when he realised that his forces were unable to save his country and his subjects from this savage attack and subsequent killing, raping, kidnapping and looting. In other words, if there was no tribal attack we could still have been an independent country and what happened on 27 October is a by product of events that started on 22 October and which have changed the course of our history. So to us the root cause to our past and present problems is 22 October and we should all observe this as a Black Day.

POK and Gilgit-Baltistan are reeling under the authoritarian rule of Pakistan. How long will the people of these areas have to suffer?

Shabir Choudhry: It is true the people of POK and Gilgit Baltistan are manipulated intimidated, oppressed and deprived of their fundamental rights. It is unfortunate I don’t have any good news for the people of these regions.

However, the facts are totally different and the people on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir have better living standards and economic development. Unless people of PoK and Gilgit Baltistan realise that they are occupied and denied of fundamental rights there can never be change on this side of the divide. Furthermore, they need to understand that our struggle is against the Pakistani side of the divide; and those who tell us to fight against Indian occupation only want to focus attention on the Valley. We are occupied by Pakistan and our struggle should be against the country that occupies us; and those who are occupy by India they can struggle over there according to their situation. However, we must not become tools in hands of agencies who want to advance their own agenda.

Do you foresee a sinister game being hatched for Pok-GB regions where China’s presence is there in guise of development activity with the permission of Pakistan?

Shabir Choudhry: I have said this many times that policy makers of Pakistan want to make China part of the Kashmir dispute and in this regard some so-called Kashmiri leaders and political activists are also working hard. Till very recently China was not a party to this dispute even though China also occupies some territory of Jammu and Kashmir – some of this territory was occupied in 1962 Sino-India war; and some territory was gifted to China by Pakistan in 1963 to link both parts.

However, as Pakistan is getting weaker and more unstable and occupied in the civil war and war on terrorism, policy makers of Islamabad feel they need extra help on the issue of Kashmir to counter Indian hegemony.

Whereas I have no problem with China helping Pakistan with different development projects in Pakistan, I have serious concern with the presence of the Chinese army and other civilian and technical staff on my territory – Gilgit Baltistan and PoK. Both Pakistan and China under cover of different projects are looting and plundering our resources, as contracts and large areas are leased out to China for exploration without any knowledge and agreement of local administration and to the detriment of our interest. Further, the presence of the Chinese army on our territory will only exacerbate the situation and attract challenges from those who also have interest in the region. What that means is that our territory could become a battle ground for competing military strategic and economic interests of very powerful countries of the world.

It must be understood that China is not part of South Asia and it will be wrong to drag China into the affairs of South Asia as it could prove disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and the entire region.

Will Taliban ever get neutralized by Pakistan in a joint operation with Afghanistan?

Shabir Choudhry: The issue of Taliban and their politics is directly related to the mindset of the Pakistani establishment. In my opinion, those forces which promote communalism and regard these “jihadi” outfits and Taliban as strategic assets are very powerful in Pakistan and as long as they call the shots and determine foreign policy and other issues related to security and stability of Pakistan, I am afraid not much is going to change. Pakistan has to go through a transition – rather a blood bath, if ever it is going to put things right and live in peace and harmony with itself and with its neighbours.