CONFESSIONS OF A PAKISTANI TERRORIST
How many have been killed? Weren’t over the ground worker supporting terrorist like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6xqf_a7d8
About K4Kashmir
Monday, 16 January 2012
Pakistan: ‘Free Kashmir’ Far From Free | Human Rights Watch
Pakistan: ‘Free Kashmir’ Far From Free | Human Rights Watch
www.hrw.org
(Islamabad) - In Azad Kashmir, a region largely closed to international scrutiny until a devastating earthquake hit last year, the Pakistani government represses democratic freedoms, muzzles the press and practices routine torture, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/20/pakistan-free-kashmir-far-free
www.hrw.org
(Islamabad) - In Azad Kashmir, a region largely closed to international scrutiny until a devastating earthquake hit last year, the Pakistani government represses democratic freedoms, muzzles the press and practices routine torture, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/20/pakistan-free-kashmir-far-free
Saturday, 7 January 2012
CAT IS OUT OF BAG- JKLF (r) for implementation of UN resolution
CAT IS OUT OF BAG-
JKLF (r) for implementation of UN resolution
South Asian News Agency (SANA) ⋅ January 7, 2012 ⋅ Share/Save
SRINAGAR (SANA): Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front ( R), at a meeting held with its chairman Farooq Ahmad Dar alias Bita Karatey in chair, urged the United Nations Security Council to take effective steps for the implementation of its January 5, 1949 resolution.
Addressing the meeting, Karatey said, “The international community has resolved almost all the international issues but the Kashmir issue is pending its resolution despite the UNO has passed several resolutions on it.”
He said the UN Resolutions provided the best solution to Kashmir issue. “So its implementation is imperative for resolving Kashmir issue which is the stumbling block in the relations between India and Pakistan and it has the potential to trigger a nuclear
http://www.sananews.net/english/2012/01/jklf-r-for-implementation-of-un-resolution/
JKLF (r) for implementation of UN resolution
South Asian News Agency (SANA) ⋅ January 7, 2012 ⋅ Share/Save
SRINAGAR (SANA): Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front ( R), at a meeting held with its chairman Farooq Ahmad Dar alias Bita Karatey in chair, urged the United Nations Security Council to take effective steps for the implementation of its January 5, 1949 resolution.
Addressing the meeting, Karatey said, “The international community has resolved almost all the international issues but the Kashmir issue is pending its resolution despite the UNO has passed several resolutions on it.”
He said the UN Resolutions provided the best solution to Kashmir issue. “So its implementation is imperative for resolving Kashmir issue which is the stumbling block in the relations between India and Pakistan and it has the potential to trigger a nuclear
http://www.sananews.net/english/2012/01/jklf-r-for-implementation-of-un-resolution/
Thursday, 5 January 2012
JAMMU KASHMIR LIBERATION FRONT (JKLF) SOLD TO ISI BY AMMAN-U-LLAH KHAN
JAMMU KASHMIR LIBERATION FRONT (JKLF) SOLD TO ISI BY AMMAN-U-LLAH KHAN
Dr Sajid Chairman Kashmir Canada Freedom Forum
https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/134a42c36705ef4d
One could surprise to see such comments from a person like me who stood all years long to defend JKLF and Amman sb,but when things get to a point where you cannot give even the benefit of doubt to leadership actions, then ,this is better to call a spade a spade.Amman sb fell pray to ISI tactices in 1990 leading to the ist blood drawn from JKLF cadre.In 1996 the present ISI sponsored chairman Mr Malik ,collaborated with RAW to get himself out from behind the bars,and JKLF witnessed another division among its ranks.But over the period of years Mr Malik succeffully developed ties with ISI and helped them promoting their agenda under the guise of national liberation and is now, ISI darling from last few years.
I wrote earlier when MR Fai,ISI agent in USA got exposed. that ISI will try to find other alternates,and infact she did,when ISI approached Ammanullah khan to bring Mr Malik on board to give him not only more weight but, to slaughter, all those elements within the ranks of JKLF who challage both India and Pakistan in the same tune and don,t look towards Dehli or Islamabad for personal aggrandizement.
What Mr Fai was doing in USA is not a secret.So could I ask Mr Malik or Amman sb
1-Is JKLF is struggling for accession to Pakistan?
2-Is this ok to be on ISI pay roll at the cost of your idealogy?
3-Why should not, Abdul Qayom khan, Chaudary Ghulam Abbas and Atique khan should be national heros for JKLF,because they are doing the same what Mr FAi was doing ,I mean struggling for accesion of Kashmir to Pakistan.
So here is the difference between the approach and idealogy of Mr Malik ,Mr Amman and the rest of nationalist forces in Kashmir
1- these two people are calling Mr Fai a hero,where as we nationalist consider him an agent of an occupational force.
2-these two people are extremely valley centric that is why neither Amman sb made any concrete progress in Gilgit Baltistan nor Mr Malik did any thing in Ladakh or Jammu.
3-neither Amman sb speaks agaist injustices in GB and AK nor Malik speaks agaist Pakistani injustices in AK or GB.
Dr Sajid
Chairman Kashmir Canada Freedom Forum
Dr Sajid Chairman Kashmir Canada Freedom Forum
https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/134a42c36705ef4d
One could surprise to see such comments from a person like me who stood all years long to defend JKLF and Amman sb,but when things get to a point where you cannot give even the benefit of doubt to leadership actions, then ,this is better to call a spade a spade.Amman sb fell pray to ISI tactices in 1990 leading to the ist blood drawn from JKLF cadre.In 1996 the present ISI sponsored chairman Mr Malik ,collaborated with RAW to get himself out from behind the bars,and JKLF witnessed another division among its ranks.But over the period of years Mr Malik succeffully developed ties with ISI and helped them promoting their agenda under the guise of national liberation and is now, ISI darling from last few years.
I wrote earlier when MR Fai,ISI agent in USA got exposed. that ISI will try to find other alternates,and infact she did,when ISI approached Ammanullah khan to bring Mr Malik on board to give him not only more weight but, to slaughter, all those elements within the ranks of JKLF who challage both India and Pakistan in the same tune and don,t look towards Dehli or Islamabad for personal aggrandizement.
What Mr Fai was doing in USA is not a secret.So could I ask Mr Malik or Amman sb
1-Is JKLF is struggling for accession to Pakistan?
2-Is this ok to be on ISI pay roll at the cost of your idealogy?
3-Why should not, Abdul Qayom khan, Chaudary Ghulam Abbas and Atique khan should be national heros for JKLF,because they are doing the same what Mr FAi was doing ,I mean struggling for accesion of Kashmir to Pakistan.
So here is the difference between the approach and idealogy of Mr Malik ,Mr Amman and the rest of nationalist forces in Kashmir
1- these two people are calling Mr Fai a hero,where as we nationalist consider him an agent of an occupational force.
2-these two people are extremely valley centric that is why neither Amman sb made any concrete progress in Gilgit Baltistan nor Mr Malik did any thing in Ladakh or Jammu.
3-neither Amman sb speaks agaist injustices in GB and AK nor Malik speaks agaist Pakistani injustices in AK or GB.
Dr Sajid
Chairman Kashmir Canada Freedom Forum
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Kashmir profile, BBC
Kashmir profile, BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11693674
Continue reading the main story
Kashmir Flashpoint
Voices of fury
Viewpoint: ‘Killing the truth’
Desperate housewives
Back to frontline
The former princely state of Kashmir has been partitioned between India and Pakistan since 1947, to the satisfaction neither of the two countries nor the Kashmiris themselves.
Failure to agree on the status of the territory by diplomatic means has brought India and Pakistan to war on a number of occasions, and ignitied an insurgency that shows no signs of abating.
Partition
When India and Pakistan gained independence from British rule in 1947, the various princely rulers were able to choose which state to join.
The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was the Hindu head of a majority Muslim state sandwiched between the two countries, and could not decide. He signed an interim “standstill” agreement to maintain transport and other services with Pakistan.
In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh’s delaying tactics.The Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance.
India’s governor-general, Lord Mountbatten, believed peace would best be served by Kashmir’s joining India on a temporary basis, pending a vote on its ultimate status. Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession that month, ceding control over foreign and defence policy to India.
The mountains of Kashmir, scene of a violent territorial dispute
Indian troops took two-thirds of the territory, and Pakistan seized the northern remainder. China occupied eastern parts of the state in the 1950s.
Dispute
Whether the Instrument of Accession or the entry of Indian troops came first remains a major source of dispute between India and Pakistan. India insists that Hari Singh signed first, thereby legitimising the presence of their troops. Pakistan is adamant that the Maharaja could not have signed before the troops arrived, and that he and India had therefore ignored the “standstill” agreement with Pakistan.
Kashmir is renowned as a source for the fine wool known as cashmere
Pakistan demands a referendum to decide the status of Kashmir, while Delhi argues that, by voting in successive Indian state and national elections, Kashmiris have confirmed their accesson to India. Pakistan cites numerous UN resolutions in favour of a UN-run referendum, while India says the Simla Agreement of 1972 binds the two countries to solve the problem on a state-to-state basis.
There has been no significant movement from these positions in decades. In addition, some Kashmiris seek a third option – independence – which neither India nor Pakistan is prepared to contemplate.
Line of Control
The two countries fought wars over Kashmir in 1947-48 and 1965. They formalised the original ceasefire line as the Line of Control in the Simla Agreement, but this did not prevent further clashes in 1999 on the Siachen Glacier, which is beyond the Line of Control. India and Pakistan came close to war again in 2002.
Continue reading the main story
Jammu and Kashmir
Status: State of India
Area: 222,236 sq km (85,806 sq miles)
Population: 10.1 million
Continue reading the main story
Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Status: Autonomous territory of Pakistan
Area: 13,297 sq km (5,134 sq miles)
Population: 4.5 million
Continue reading the main story
Gilgit-Baltistan
Status: Autonomous territory of Pakistan
Area: 72,496 sq km (27,990 sq miles)
Population: 1.8 million
Furthermore an Islamist-led insurgency broke out in 1989 and remains significant. India gave the army additional authority to end the insurgency under the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Pro-Pakistan and pro-independence public protests erupted in the Kashmir Valley in the summer of 2010, and clashes with Indian security forces left more than 100 people dead.
Given that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, the stakes in the dispute are high.
A thaw in relations after 2002, which saw some road and rail communications into Pakistan reopened, ended abruptly with the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. India blamed Pakistani and Kashmiri Islamists, in particular the Lashkar-e-Toiba group, for the attacks. Talks between the two countries on improving ties across the Kashmiri Line of Control did however resume in 2010.
Division
The population of historic Kashmir is divided into about 10 million people in Indian-administrated Jammu and Kashmir and 4.5 million in Pakistani-run Azad Kashmir. There are a further 1.8 million people in the Gilgit-Baltistan autonomous territory, which Pakistan created from northern Kashmir and the two small princely states of Hunza and Nagar in 1970.
The government of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has often been led by the National Conference, a pro-Indian party led by the Abdullah political dynasty. Pakistan runs Azad Jammu and Kashmir as a self-governing state, in which the Muslim Conference has played a prominent role for decades.
Dal Lake Srinagar, once a popular tourist spot
The National Conference moved from an almost pro-independence stance in the 1950s to accepting the status of a union state within India, albeit with more autonomy than other states.
Jammu and Kashmir is diverse in religion and culture. It consists of the heavily-populated and overwhelmingly Muslim Kashmir Valley, the mainly Hindu Jammu district, and Ladakh, which has a roughly even number of Buddhists and Shia Muslims.
The Hindus of Jammu and the Ladakhis back India in the dispute, although there is a campaign in the Leh District of Ladakh to be upgraded into a separate union territory in order to reflect its predominantly Buddhist identity. India gave the two districts of Ladakh some additional autonomy within Jammu and Kashmir in 1995.
Kashmir’s economy is predominantly agrarian. The important tourism sector in Indian-administered Kashmir was hard-hit by the post-1989 insurgency, but has seen some recovery since 2009.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11693674
Continue reading the main story
Kashmir Flashpoint
Voices of fury
Viewpoint: ‘Killing the truth’
Desperate housewives
Back to frontline
The former princely state of Kashmir has been partitioned between India and Pakistan since 1947, to the satisfaction neither of the two countries nor the Kashmiris themselves.
Failure to agree on the status of the territory by diplomatic means has brought India and Pakistan to war on a number of occasions, and ignitied an insurgency that shows no signs of abating.
Partition
When India and Pakistan gained independence from British rule in 1947, the various princely rulers were able to choose which state to join.
The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was the Hindu head of a majority Muslim state sandwiched between the two countries, and could not decide. He signed an interim “standstill” agreement to maintain transport and other services with Pakistan.
In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh’s delaying tactics.The Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance.
India’s governor-general, Lord Mountbatten, believed peace would best be served by Kashmir’s joining India on a temporary basis, pending a vote on its ultimate status. Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession that month, ceding control over foreign and defence policy to India.
The mountains of Kashmir, scene of a violent territorial dispute
Indian troops took two-thirds of the territory, and Pakistan seized the northern remainder. China occupied eastern parts of the state in the 1950s.
Dispute
Whether the Instrument of Accession or the entry of Indian troops came first remains a major source of dispute between India and Pakistan. India insists that Hari Singh signed first, thereby legitimising the presence of their troops. Pakistan is adamant that the Maharaja could not have signed before the troops arrived, and that he and India had therefore ignored the “standstill” agreement with Pakistan.
Kashmir is renowned as a source for the fine wool known as cashmere
Pakistan demands a referendum to decide the status of Kashmir, while Delhi argues that, by voting in successive Indian state and national elections, Kashmiris have confirmed their accesson to India. Pakistan cites numerous UN resolutions in favour of a UN-run referendum, while India says the Simla Agreement of 1972 binds the two countries to solve the problem on a state-to-state basis.
There has been no significant movement from these positions in decades. In addition, some Kashmiris seek a third option – independence – which neither India nor Pakistan is prepared to contemplate.
Line of Control
The two countries fought wars over Kashmir in 1947-48 and 1965. They formalised the original ceasefire line as the Line of Control in the Simla Agreement, but this did not prevent further clashes in 1999 on the Siachen Glacier, which is beyond the Line of Control. India and Pakistan came close to war again in 2002.
Continue reading the main story
Jammu and Kashmir
Status: State of India
Area: 222,236 sq km (85,806 sq miles)
Population: 10.1 million
Continue reading the main story
Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Status: Autonomous territory of Pakistan
Area: 13,297 sq km (5,134 sq miles)
Population: 4.5 million
Continue reading the main story
Gilgit-Baltistan
Status: Autonomous territory of Pakistan
Area: 72,496 sq km (27,990 sq miles)
Population: 1.8 million
Furthermore an Islamist-led insurgency broke out in 1989 and remains significant. India gave the army additional authority to end the insurgency under the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Pro-Pakistan and pro-independence public protests erupted in the Kashmir Valley in the summer of 2010, and clashes with Indian security forces left more than 100 people dead.
Given that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, the stakes in the dispute are high.
A thaw in relations after 2002, which saw some road and rail communications into Pakistan reopened, ended abruptly with the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. India blamed Pakistani and Kashmiri Islamists, in particular the Lashkar-e-Toiba group, for the attacks. Talks between the two countries on improving ties across the Kashmiri Line of Control did however resume in 2010.
Division
The population of historic Kashmir is divided into about 10 million people in Indian-administrated Jammu and Kashmir and 4.5 million in Pakistani-run Azad Kashmir. There are a further 1.8 million people in the Gilgit-Baltistan autonomous territory, which Pakistan created from northern Kashmir and the two small princely states of Hunza and Nagar in 1970.
The government of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has often been led by the National Conference, a pro-Indian party led by the Abdullah political dynasty. Pakistan runs Azad Jammu and Kashmir as a self-governing state, in which the Muslim Conference has played a prominent role for decades.
Dal Lake Srinagar, once a popular tourist spot
The National Conference moved from an almost pro-independence stance in the 1950s to accepting the status of a union state within India, albeit with more autonomy than other states.
Jammu and Kashmir is diverse in religion and culture. It consists of the heavily-populated and overwhelmingly Muslim Kashmir Valley, the mainly Hindu Jammu district, and Ladakh, which has a roughly even number of Buddhists and Shia Muslims.
The Hindus of Jammu and the Ladakhis back India in the dispute, although there is a campaign in the Leh District of Ladakh to be upgraded into a separate union territory in order to reflect its predominantly Buddhist identity. India gave the two districts of Ladakh some additional autonomy within Jammu and Kashmir in 1995.
Kashmir’s economy is predominantly agrarian. The important tourism sector in Indian-administered Kashmir was hard-hit by the post-1989 insurgency, but has seen some recovery since 2009.
Kashmir want freedom from Pakistan
Kashmir want freedom from Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g6EuCgwMQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g6EuCgwMQA
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Kashmiri struggle and traitors, Dr Shabir Choudhry
Kashmiri struggle and traitors
Dr Shabir Choudhry 03 January 2012
Traitor is someone who knowingly and deliberately involves in actions that are detrimental to interests of his/her nation, a tribe or a community. In other words, a traitor commits acts of treason by betraying. This betrayal or treachery does not have to be for the sake of monetary gains, as people do it for different reasons. Some do it for money; others do it for ideological or religious reasons. Some may do it for political gains and social status; and some may do it to take revenge from some perceived injustice to his/her family or tribe or for being let down.
In contemporary history of Jammu and Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah was the first leader to be called a ‘traitor’, fact, however, is that he was a great leader, and pursued pro Kashmir policies, which were not appreciated by rulers of Pakistan. He was a Kashmiri leader and promoted pro Kashmir policies. He did not want Jammu and Kashmir to become either part of Pakistan or India. He wanted Jammu and Kashmir to become independent, detached from India and Pakistan that they can have separate existence and promote their history and culture.
Rulers of Pakistan did not want Jammu and Kashmir to become independent. Despite Standstill Agreement with Kashmir they blocked food supply to Jammu and Kashmir and on 22 October 1947 managed a naked tribal aggression against Kashmir and killed innocent people, raped women and looted citizens of Kashmir.
The forces of Jammu and Kashmir were unable to defend this aggression; and dream of Sheikh Abdullah and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir to remain independent was shattered. Fearing capture of Srinagar – summer capital and the main city of the State, the Maharaja fled to Jammu – the winter capital and requested India for help. India also wanted Jammu and Kashmir to become part of India; and this naked aggression provided India with an opportunity to gain accession of the State with India.
The Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir had no choice but to accede to India in order to seek military help and save his state and citizens. This accession was provisional in nature and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and to date we had no opportunity to express our view on this matter.
Sheikh Abdullah, on this occasion, decided to side with the Maharajah and people of Jammu and Kashmir; and fought those who came to occupy his motherland. He was, no doubt, pro independent and not pro India, but when he was insulted by Mohammed Ali Jinnah fourth time in October 1947, he had made up his mind that he would not support State’s accession to Pakistan. However, the situation imposed on him and on Kashmir by Pakistan’s unprovoked attack, forced Sheikh Abdullah to support this ‘provisional accession’.
The Pakistani rulers failed to capture Kashmir and held Sheikh Abdullah and India responsible for this; and it was at that time they called Sheikh Abdullah a ‘traitor’; and many people under propaganda of Pakistan viewed him in that light. However, the situation changed when the same Sheikh Abdullah showed signs of rebellion and was paving way for an independent Jammu and Kashmir, he was sent to jail by India; and at that time Pakistani government forgetting what they called him in past, promoted Sheikh Abdullah as a ‘Lion of Kashmir’.
The point to be remembered here is that it was our Muslim brothers and neighbouring Pakistan that attacked us on 22 October 1947 once we became independent after lapse of the British Paramountcy on 15 October 1947; and it was the rulers of Pakistan who gave a title of a ‘traitor’ to a towering Kashmiri leader of Jammu and Kashmir. Furthermore, it was this attack that forcibly divided our country, hence our miseries on both sides of the divided line since 1947.
Since that date our so called ‘advocate’ and ‘liberators’ issued many fatwas (edicts) telling us who is a ‘Kashmiri traitor’ and who is a ‘Kashmir patriot’; and while doing this ‘great service’ to the people of Jammu and Kashmir they applied a simple criteria: a Kashmiri who was loyal to Pakistan was a patriot; and those who earnestly opposed accession to Pakistan were declared ‘anti Pakistan’ and ‘traitors’. This policy has not changed since that date.
With passage of time Jammu and Kashmir became hunting ground for secret agencies of both India and Pakistan where people were oppressed and intimidated for holding pro Kashmir views; and some were labelled as ‘traitors’ by respective governments. Many leaders and political activists of Jammu and Kashmir do not openly express their views because of fear that they will be declared ‘anti Pakistan’ and ‘Indian agent’. It is ironic that those who work against interests of Jammu and Kashmir and promote Pakistani interests are not considered traitors; if anything they proudly promote a Pakistani agenda and call themselves ‘patriots’.
In the past this task of labelling ‘traitor’ or ‘agent’ was assigned to the secret agencies; but now this task, by and large, has been taken over by people of Jammu and Kashmir and especially people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Leaders and political activists of the Valley can promote pro Pakistan policy or even division of Jammu and Kashmir, and both of these positions are against genuine interests of Jammu and Kashmir, yet they are considered patriots and no one from the Valley call them ‘traitors’.
But if leaders and political activists of Pakistani Administered Kashmir oppose accession to India, oppose accession to Pakistan and promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir that caters for all its citizens irrespective of their religious or ethnic background they are labelled as ‘traitors’ by Pakistani secret agencies, and by some people with tunnel vision in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in the Indian Administered Kashmir.
This labelling of each other as a ‘traitor’ and an ‘agent’ has made the task of dividing and governing us easier for India and Pakistan; and weaken our struggle so much that despite so many sacrifices there is no light at the end of tunnel. New Year has started, and many have wished Happy New Year, but I cannot see any happiness coming our way; if anything, I can see more trouble and misery descending on South Asia.
Seeds of extremism, communalism, hatred and violence sowed to destroy and unstable enemies of Pakistan have torn the Pakistani society apart. Extremism, communalism and violence which was, at one time, exported in holy name of Jihad has made Pakistan a battleground for competing interests and militant groups, each calling the other ‘Kaffir’ and in some cases enemy of Islam and Pakistan.
We Kashmiris protest that Pakistan has stabbed our struggle for independence and have been instrumental in division of our homeland that has brought misery and oppression on both sides of the divide. But what can you expect from Pakistani rulers and establishment? Those who have destroyed Jinnah’s Pakistan; and those who kill, oppress and torture their own people cannot be expected to be nice to us.
In a country where political culture is such that President, Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Army Chief are accused of being ‘traitors’ and ‘agents’ of other countries and working against integrity and sovereignty of the State; and where every leader is perceived as corrupt and working against national interests what can you expect from them? This political culture has filtered down to various parts of divided Jammu and Kashmir; and people of Jammu and Kashmir have made task of secret agencies of India and Pakistan easier because now we call each other ‘traitor’ and ‘agent’ of one country or the other.
This trend of labelling each other with titles of a ‘traitor’ and an ‘agent’ has further divided and weakened the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and people who are divided are easy to control and oppress. If we are to make progress and achieve our most cherished goal of independence then we have to carefully analyse the situation and see what went wrong. We are occupied by more than one country. True, militarily we cannot fight them all, but we must not be promoting agenda of those who occupy us; and say that one is an occupier and the other is not.
We must remember that Jammu and Kashmir is a multi religious and multi ethnic State; and the Kashmir dispute is not religious in nature. Kashmiri people on the Pakistani side of the divide cannot practically and logically fight to liberate the people on the other side of the divide; and they cannot come to liberate us or people of Gilgit Baltistan. Whether we like it or not, the struggle has to be done by the local people where they are occupied; and without fear of being called a ‘traitor’.
We can only be traitors if we are working to divide the State of Jammu and Kashmir, either in name of religion or some ideology. Our prime responsibility is to promote a Kashmiri interest; and if that clashes with the perceived national interest of those who occupy us then that should not be our problem. If we defend a Kashmiri interest and promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir then we are Kashmiri patriots and not agents of any country; and those who view us like that could well be agents of those who occupy us.
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
Dr Shabir Choudhry 03 January 2012
Traitor is someone who knowingly and deliberately involves in actions that are detrimental to interests of his/her nation, a tribe or a community. In other words, a traitor commits acts of treason by betraying. This betrayal or treachery does not have to be for the sake of monetary gains, as people do it for different reasons. Some do it for money; others do it for ideological or religious reasons. Some may do it for political gains and social status; and some may do it to take revenge from some perceived injustice to his/her family or tribe or for being let down.
In contemporary history of Jammu and Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah was the first leader to be called a ‘traitor’, fact, however, is that he was a great leader, and pursued pro Kashmir policies, which were not appreciated by rulers of Pakistan. He was a Kashmiri leader and promoted pro Kashmir policies. He did not want Jammu and Kashmir to become either part of Pakistan or India. He wanted Jammu and Kashmir to become independent, detached from India and Pakistan that they can have separate existence and promote their history and culture.
Rulers of Pakistan did not want Jammu and Kashmir to become independent. Despite Standstill Agreement with Kashmir they blocked food supply to Jammu and Kashmir and on 22 October 1947 managed a naked tribal aggression against Kashmir and killed innocent people, raped women and looted citizens of Kashmir.
The forces of Jammu and Kashmir were unable to defend this aggression; and dream of Sheikh Abdullah and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir to remain independent was shattered. Fearing capture of Srinagar – summer capital and the main city of the State, the Maharaja fled to Jammu – the winter capital and requested India for help. India also wanted Jammu and Kashmir to become part of India; and this naked aggression provided India with an opportunity to gain accession of the State with India.
The Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir had no choice but to accede to India in order to seek military help and save his state and citizens. This accession was provisional in nature and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and to date we had no opportunity to express our view on this matter.
Sheikh Abdullah, on this occasion, decided to side with the Maharajah and people of Jammu and Kashmir; and fought those who came to occupy his motherland. He was, no doubt, pro independent and not pro India, but when he was insulted by Mohammed Ali Jinnah fourth time in October 1947, he had made up his mind that he would not support State’s accession to Pakistan. However, the situation imposed on him and on Kashmir by Pakistan’s unprovoked attack, forced Sheikh Abdullah to support this ‘provisional accession’.
The Pakistani rulers failed to capture Kashmir and held Sheikh Abdullah and India responsible for this; and it was at that time they called Sheikh Abdullah a ‘traitor’; and many people under propaganda of Pakistan viewed him in that light. However, the situation changed when the same Sheikh Abdullah showed signs of rebellion and was paving way for an independent Jammu and Kashmir, he was sent to jail by India; and at that time Pakistani government forgetting what they called him in past, promoted Sheikh Abdullah as a ‘Lion of Kashmir’.
The point to be remembered here is that it was our Muslim brothers and neighbouring Pakistan that attacked us on 22 October 1947 once we became independent after lapse of the British Paramountcy on 15 October 1947; and it was the rulers of Pakistan who gave a title of a ‘traitor’ to a towering Kashmiri leader of Jammu and Kashmir. Furthermore, it was this attack that forcibly divided our country, hence our miseries on both sides of the divided line since 1947.
Since that date our so called ‘advocate’ and ‘liberators’ issued many fatwas (edicts) telling us who is a ‘Kashmiri traitor’ and who is a ‘Kashmir patriot’; and while doing this ‘great service’ to the people of Jammu and Kashmir they applied a simple criteria: a Kashmiri who was loyal to Pakistan was a patriot; and those who earnestly opposed accession to Pakistan were declared ‘anti Pakistan’ and ‘traitors’. This policy has not changed since that date.
With passage of time Jammu and Kashmir became hunting ground for secret agencies of both India and Pakistan where people were oppressed and intimidated for holding pro Kashmir views; and some were labelled as ‘traitors’ by respective governments. Many leaders and political activists of Jammu and Kashmir do not openly express their views because of fear that they will be declared ‘anti Pakistan’ and ‘Indian agent’. It is ironic that those who work against interests of Jammu and Kashmir and promote Pakistani interests are not considered traitors; if anything they proudly promote a Pakistani agenda and call themselves ‘patriots’.
In the past this task of labelling ‘traitor’ or ‘agent’ was assigned to the secret agencies; but now this task, by and large, has been taken over by people of Jammu and Kashmir and especially people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Leaders and political activists of the Valley can promote pro Pakistan policy or even division of Jammu and Kashmir, and both of these positions are against genuine interests of Jammu and Kashmir, yet they are considered patriots and no one from the Valley call them ‘traitors’.
But if leaders and political activists of Pakistani Administered Kashmir oppose accession to India, oppose accession to Pakistan and promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir that caters for all its citizens irrespective of their religious or ethnic background they are labelled as ‘traitors’ by Pakistani secret agencies, and by some people with tunnel vision in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in the Indian Administered Kashmir.
This labelling of each other as a ‘traitor’ and an ‘agent’ has made the task of dividing and governing us easier for India and Pakistan; and weaken our struggle so much that despite so many sacrifices there is no light at the end of tunnel. New Year has started, and many have wished Happy New Year, but I cannot see any happiness coming our way; if anything, I can see more trouble and misery descending on South Asia.
Seeds of extremism, communalism, hatred and violence sowed to destroy and unstable enemies of Pakistan have torn the Pakistani society apart. Extremism, communalism and violence which was, at one time, exported in holy name of Jihad has made Pakistan a battleground for competing interests and militant groups, each calling the other ‘Kaffir’ and in some cases enemy of Islam and Pakistan.
We Kashmiris protest that Pakistan has stabbed our struggle for independence and have been instrumental in division of our homeland that has brought misery and oppression on both sides of the divide. But what can you expect from Pakistani rulers and establishment? Those who have destroyed Jinnah’s Pakistan; and those who kill, oppress and torture their own people cannot be expected to be nice to us.
In a country where political culture is such that President, Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Army Chief are accused of being ‘traitors’ and ‘agents’ of other countries and working against integrity and sovereignty of the State; and where every leader is perceived as corrupt and working against national interests what can you expect from them? This political culture has filtered down to various parts of divided Jammu and Kashmir; and people of Jammu and Kashmir have made task of secret agencies of India and Pakistan easier because now we call each other ‘traitor’ and ‘agent’ of one country or the other.
This trend of labelling each other with titles of a ‘traitor’ and an ‘agent’ has further divided and weakened the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and people who are divided are easy to control and oppress. If we are to make progress and achieve our most cherished goal of independence then we have to carefully analyse the situation and see what went wrong. We are occupied by more than one country. True, militarily we cannot fight them all, but we must not be promoting agenda of those who occupy us; and say that one is an occupier and the other is not.
We must remember that Jammu and Kashmir is a multi religious and multi ethnic State; and the Kashmir dispute is not religious in nature. Kashmiri people on the Pakistani side of the divide cannot practically and logically fight to liberate the people on the other side of the divide; and they cannot come to liberate us or people of Gilgit Baltistan. Whether we like it or not, the struggle has to be done by the local people where they are occupied; and without fear of being called a ‘traitor’.
We can only be traitors if we are working to divide the State of Jammu and Kashmir, either in name of religion or some ideology. Our prime responsibility is to promote a Kashmiri interest; and if that clashes with the perceived national interest of those who occupy us then that should not be our problem. If we defend a Kashmiri interest and promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir then we are Kashmiri patriots and not agents of any country; and those who view us like that could well be agents of those who occupy us.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)