Kashmir dispute, secularism and Muslim Umma
Dr Shabir Choudhry 02 September 2012
Groups and parties which want to see dominance of religion in the society have deliberately distorted the meaning of ‘secularism’, as that helps them to protect their privileges and advance their agenda. They have intentionally presented secularism as ‘anti religion’ or ‘anti Almighty’, which is far from truth. Because of this propaganda, especially in Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir and some other developing countries secularism is perceived as anathema - an evil that has to be opposed by all people who believe in religion.
The Pakistani society is deeply divided on religious and sectarian lines; and unfortunately whatever happens in Pakistan spills over to different parts of Jammu and Kashmir and creates serious problems for us. I have always maintained that policies of both India and Pakistan are imperialist in nature; but Pakistani governments and different religious parties have camouflaged their designs in name of Islam. As soon as people of Jammu and Kashmir talk of independence of Jammu and Kashmir and assert that the Kashmir dispute is not religious in nature; jihadi warriors and imperialists of Pakistan accuse and abuse us as ‘non Muslims’, ‘Kaffirs’ and ‘agents’, just because we want to have a democratic and secular society in Jammu and Kashmir.
Former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is multi religious and multi ethnic State. It has a great geographical significance and is surrounded by three nuclear countries, namely India, Pakistan and China; and it also has a border with Afghanistan. Different regions of Jammu and Kashmir have majority of either one religion or the other; and then within some regions districts and sub districts are dominated by certain sects. In other words, it is impossible to find a solution of the Kashmir dispute in name of religion, unless we want to divide the State on religious lines and promote extremism and religious hatred as a result.
What is Secularism
Secular and Secularism are Western terms; and originate from the Latin word Seculum, literal meaning of which is related to earthly life. In the Middle - Ages the Roman Catholic Bishops were divided between those who were strict followers of the religion and confined themselves to unmarried lives in churches; and those who lived lives like ordinary citizens. Those who lived lives of ordinary citizens were called ‘seculars’, as these people did not adhere to strict Christian life style of Bishops in Churches. Also all those institutions which were not controlled by Churches or property and estates that were sold by Churches were called ‘secular’.
Secular ideas have been practised for many centuries in various parts of the world; however, it was the British writer George Jacob Holyoake (1817 – 1906) who first coined the term "secularism." George Jacob Holyoake was a teacher in Mechanics Institute in Birmingham (England). He strongly believed in individual’s right of expression and right to choose and right to disagree.
Secularism does not mean atheism – against religion or non – believer, as propagated by religious groups. Atheist is a person who does not believe in any religion or God; and of course, Atheism means no belief in religion or God. However, Secularism does not promote that view, as secularists believe in religions and some of them are very dedicated followers of religions.
In view of these secularists, secularism advocates free thinking and individual’s right to hold an opinion and express it. Secularism believes in free thinking and equality. In other words, secularism believes in a framework of a democratic society where people belonging to various religions and ethnic groups can live in peace and harmony without attacking each other or imposing their views on others.
It must be pointed out that Atheists feel secularism is closer to their thinking, and it could be used to promote the kind of society they envisage; so obviously they have interest in supporting secularism. However, unlike Atheism, Secularism does not directly challenge the tenets of any religion. Furthermore, Secularism does not make any attempt to impose atheism on anyone or promote it as an alternative to any religion.
In a secular society people are regarded as equal irrespective of their views on religion. Secularism protects and promotes right of expression and right to question. Religious groups have the right to express their beliefs publicly; but other people have right to question those beliefs. In a democratic and secular society, all ideas and beliefs must be open to discussion. Individuals have rights, ideas do not.
Britain has a secular society where people have equality, justice, right to free education and free treatment, right of expression, right to protest, right to practise religion, build Masjids, Temples and promote religions as people like. How could a system that feeds the poor, provides free education to all, provides equality, justice and other fundamental rights is against ideals of Islam?
Once Ilford South Member of the British Parliament, Mike Gapes came to address a Muslim Community in Ilford and there were some misguided youths shouting slogans of Khilafa and some other unpleasant slogans. During his speech Mike Gapes said: We have created a system which provides equality to all. A system which provides you justice, right of expression, right to practise your religion and promote your religion as you wish. I know no Muslim country can provide you the facilities we have provided to you; learn to respect that. It is because of our secular and democratic system that you people are allowed to protest outside and shout slogans against us.
Common points in Islam and Secularism
Allah SWT says: Do not confound truth with falsehood [2/42]
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: "Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to people."
I have explained above what Secularism is, but I note with regret that religious scholars and various religious groups have deliberately distorted true meaning of ‘secularism’ and propagated it as a system of government that was anti religion, anti tradition and which promoted immoral ideas, bad manners, bad culture to create chaos and divide people. This is far from truth. As explained above, Secularism promotes equality for all citizens, rule of law, fairness, freedom and human rights. It is based on two fundamental principles: strict separation of the state from religious institutions; and that all people are equal before the law.
This is not to suggest that Islam does not speak about equality, fairness, freedom and rule of law; if any thing, Islam is the best religion and Qur’an is the final revelation from the Almighty which preached equality, rule of law and right of expression many centuries before the Western societies practised all this. However, early this year I met a senior Israeli diplomat and during course of our long meeting he said: we have no problem with Islam and Qur’an; but problem is the wrong interpretations of Qur’an by the extremist groups who want to advance their political agenda under cover of Islam.
I agree with this assertion that various religious groups advance their political agenda by interpreting Qur’an and Hadees (saying of the Holy Prophet) to justify their actions, wrong or objectionable as they may be. Unlike contention of critics of Secularism, it clearly supports certain elements of the Islamic teaching; and is in line with the policy adopted by the Prophet of Islam in Madina when he gave a written constitution to the State of Madina and which could be rightly called the first written constitution of the world.
This contract or agreement was known as Meesaaq e Madina or The Constitution of Islamic State of Madina. It has 63 Articles, and I will quote some Articles to prove my point. Article 3 is translated by world famous religious scholar Dr Tahir Ul Qadri as ‘Formation of the Constitutional Nationality’. He defines it further by saying: ‘The aforementioned communities shall formulate a Constitutional Unity as distinct from (other) people.’ 1
Article 20 says: Non –Muslim minorities (Jews) have the same right of life protection (like Muslims).2
Article 50 makes further clarification: Equal right of life protection shall be granted to everyone, who has been given the constitutional shelter.3
Article 30: Guarantee of freedom of religion for both the Muslims and non Muslim minorities. 4
Article 40 explains further: Equality of rights for all branches of the Jews. 5
So one can see what the Holy Prophet practised in the State of Madina was equality, fairness and religious freedom; and secularism, in its own way promotes rule of law, equality and religious freedom. Its main principle is separation of religion from affairs of the state, emphasising that religion is a personal matter of citizens and that the state must not interfere in religious affairs of citizens. Conversely, religious groups must not interfere in affairs of the state.
A true secular society has a duty to protect all its citizens whether they believe in any religion or not. They should be allowed to enjoy all rights and privileges, and must get equal opportunities in all walks of life. A true secular society aims to protect religious beliefs of its citizens and makes no attempt to curtail religious freedoms. We all need hospitals, schools, the police and other services provided by local authorities; and it is absolutely important that these services are ‘secular’ and are available to all, and no one is discriminated on grounds of religious beliefs or lack of them.
Khilafa or Umma
Whenever we people of Jammu and Kashmir demand respect for our identity, fundamental human rights and independence, people with vested interests get activated to oppose us and portray us as anti Islam, anti Pakistan and agent of some country. These people with vested interest confuse people by bringing issues of Khilafat and Umma and unity of all Muslims.
The system of Khilafat, as people with knowledge know, got in to serious problems during the rule of Hazrat Usmaan (May Allah be pleased with him). Those who opposed his rule virtually took over the Capital (Madina) and martyred him while he was reciting holy Qur’an. Hazrat Ali (May Allah be please with him), became the fourth Khalifa (Caliph) but the trouble continued, and all issues could not be resolved to satisfaction of all. Unfortunately in year 40 of the Islamic calendar, he was also martyred in a mosque while he was praying; and Hazrat Hassan, his eldest son, who succeeded his father resigned from his position for the sake of unity among the Muslims.
That was effectively the end of Khilafat. The Prophet of Mohammed peace be upon him also predicted that the Khalafat will end after 30 years after his departure from this world.6 What we Muslims had afterwards was a ‘monarchy’, and not a system of Khilafa, especially after Ameer Mahvia (May Allah be pleased with him). When after resignation of Hazrat Hassan, Hazrat Saad Bin Abi Waqaas met Hazrat Ameer Mahvia and addressed him as a king. Hazrat Ameer Mahvia protested and said: It would have been better if you had called me a ‘Caliph’ (instead of a King).
Hazrat Saad Bi Abi Waqas replied: I swear in name of Allah that I would not have become a ruler the way you have become.7 Later on in his life, Hazrat Ameer Mahvia himself conceded that he was the first Muslim King.8 Very famous Muslim historian Ibne Kaseer also asserted that it is better to call Ameer Mahvia as the first King of Muslims.9
Anyhow, call it ‘Khilafa’ or the system of Monarchy, it continued under different shapes and forms until 1924. Like rulers of any other nation or religion, we had good rulers and we had not so good or bad rulers. It was under the Muslim rule that Holy cities of Madina and Makkah were attacked and ransacked; and holy place of Kahba was attacked and destroyed.
Muslim countries and Muslim rulers attacked each other and killed millions of innocent Muslims; and Muslim history is full of these tragic events. Despite this tragic history, some people living in imaginary world claim that Khalafa provided unity to Muslims. The fact is that after the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) more Muslim countries were attacked by Muslims and more Muslims lost their lives at the hands of Muslims than non Muslims. I am not speaking against Islam or the institution of Khilafa as it existed during early years of Islam, but I am merely quoting few examples of Islamic history which put us to shame.
The fact is many of the Caliphs were corrupt, inefficient and not even good Muslims. The system of Khilafat which ended in 1924 was corrupt to the core; and some Muslims want to bring that back, may be it suits their designs but that is not suitable to overwhelming majority of Muslims. Moreover, not one country out of 57 Muslim countries in the world wishes to bring back the system of Khilafat; but some Pakistanis and Kashmiri Muslims want us Kashmiris to be tied to that system and deprive us of our fundamental rights in name of Khilafat and Umma.
These people with tunnel vision and misplaced loyalty want us Kashmiris to be part of Pakistan, because to them it is an Islamic country (may be because its official name is Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and would help to establish Khilafa and unite Muslims. Reality, however, is that in this country, Muslims are systematically killed and no one feels safe; and those who could not be killed by them, they allow the Americans to kill them with drones. Furthermore, majority of Pakistani Muslims became Bangladeshis when the minority with help of weapons tried to impose their will and deprived them of their fundamental rights.
Apart from that, if purpose of establishing Pakistan was to unite Muslims of the world and revive Khilafa, then why not Pakistani government takes this initiative and become part of neighbouring countries and then invite other Muslim countries to join this united country or united front. Why this illusionary unity has to start with depriving the people of Jammu and Kashmir of their fundamental rights and their identity.
Those who preach us unity and give us lectures on Khilafa and Umma know very well that no Muslim country is serious about Khilafa or Umma, as each country has its own problems and interests; and each country strives to protect its interests, and often fight another Muslim country or help non Muslims countries to attack neighbouring Muslim state.
India killed Kashmiris and committed human rights abuses and Muslim Umma remained quiet. Pakistan regularly kill Shias in Gilgit Baltistan and deprive people of their fundamental rights and Muslim Umma remains quiet. America attacked Afghanistan, Fort of Islam and other Muslim countries supported that, and continue to do so. America attacked Iraq; again some Muslim countries supported that. Now Syria is under attack and some Muslim countries support those who are attacking the government with help of non Muslims.
More than thirty thousands innocent Muslims were brutally killed in Burma a few months ago; and their suffering continues; but I did not see any action from any Muslim country to stop that carnage. Fort of Islam (Pakistan) also decided to remain quiet, as they were busy fighting each other and killing Muslims inside the country. OIC took some action, but that was not to help the suffering Muslims of Burma but to expel another Muslim country (Syria) from this debating club (OIC).
So where is that Muslim Umma? Why fool and confuse people in its name and prolong our suffering? Are you our friends or enemies? A criterion of friendship and animosity is simple: are you prolonging our miseries under different pretexts or helping us to get our fundamental rights and independence.
Love your country
If some Muslims want to live in past or live in a dreamland, I cannot help that, as that is their choice; but Allah has blessed me with wisdom, courage, ability to think, analyse, plan and speak out; and I am doing that. Nowhere in Qur’an Allah has ordered us not to fight for our rights, not to protect ourselves and not to protect our families and not to look after our interests?
Allah SWT in Qur’an said: "We created you out of one father and one mother and made you groups and families in order that you may recognise each other; only they are the most honoured (with Us) amongst you who are most mindful (of the law of God)." (49:13)
Allah’s Prophet (peace be upon him) on many occasions said; I am an Arab, I am a Qureshi and Hashmi; and that was not to express any arrogance or pride but to identify who he was. Love for place of birth is natural. Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) said: love of a country is half faith. On many occasions, after being forced to leave Makkah, the Holy Prophet faced towards Makkah and unbuttoned his shirt and said: breeze coming from Makkah give me pleasure and satisfaction.
By that gesture, the holy Prophet expressed his love for place of his birth which he had to leave because of animosity against him in Makkah. If we express love for place of our birth and try to get it united that we can manage its affairs in accordance with our needs and interests, why this is against any religion; and especially why is it against Islam which highly talks of rights of individuals, rights of expression, humanity, care for others, care for neighbours and non Muslims?
We have no intention of dividing human beings in any name. However, those who divided Muslims by using name of Islam in 1947; and those who divided Pakistan in 1971 want to divide people of South Asia in name of religion and different sects that chaos can continue. We have to fight and defeat people with this mindset who believe they have monopoly over wisdom; and those who divided the Indian Sub Continent in name of religion to create chaos, spread extremism, hatred and intolerance.
When we Kashmiris talk of our identity, our fundamental rights and unity of our divided country some people get activated and they confuse people in name of Muslim unity, Khilafa and Umma. These people urge us to join Pakistan in name of unity of Muslims, even when they know the future of Pakistan is bleak and the country is fighting for its survival. These people have only one option for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and that is to join Pakistan or put up with the present suffering, forced division and chaos.
My request to these ideologues is, let people of Jammu and Kashmir get their identity, just like people of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and other Muslim countries have their identity; and when Muslims of the world will decide to become one Umma or when they will decide to get united on one platform, we people of Jammu and Kashmir will support that process and will not hold back. But for Allah’s sake do not perpetuate our misery and troubles in name of Umma and Islam or unity.
References:
1. Constitution of Madina, Dr Tahir Ul Qadri, page 117
2. ibid, page 134
3. ibid, page166
4. ibid, page 145
5. ibid, page 156
6. Molana Abu Ahla Moduudi, Khilafat Aur Malooqiat, page, 148
7. Ibid, page, 147
8. Ibid, page, 148
9. Ibid, page, 148
Writer is a 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
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
Gilgit Baltistan Assembly has no right to decided future of this region
Gilgit Baltistan Assembly has no right to decided future of this region
Geneva 11 September 2012
Kashmir National Party leaders Abbas Butt, Zubair Ansari and Dr Shabir Choudhry in a joint statement reiterated KNP stand that Gilgit Baltistan is legal and constitutional part of State of Jammu and Kashmir; and the entire State is disputed and forcibly divided and occupied.
KNP leaders said the State of Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity and must not be divided in any form or shape. Whatever the future status of the State it must remain united; and any attempts to divide it will be opposed as it will be disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir State and the entire region of South Asia. They said Gilgit Baltistan was practically controlled and annexed by Pakistan, and this move was opposed by all freedom loving people in Gilgit Baltistan, Azad Kashmir and in Jammu and Kashmir.
However, it is disturbing to note that those forces which want to divide the State of Jammu and Kashmir are, once again, active and they want to pass a resolution through the Gilgit Baltistan Assembly to provide some legal cover for annexation of this region. KNP leaders further said those who are presenting this resolution or supporting it are not well wishers of the people of Gilgit Baltistan; and this move is perceived as treachery by the freedom loving people of Jammu and Kashmir State.
KNP leaders added this move is very dangerous and will provide justification to the similar resolution passed by the Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, on strength of which India claims Kashmir to be its integral part. They asserted, no Assembly of the divided State of Jammu and Kashmir has right to decide future of any region; as the future of the entire State has to be decided by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Abbas Butt and Dr Shabir Choudhry said during our stay in Geneva, we will meet like minded Kashmiri people and work out some strategy to oppose this nefarious move, and see how we can activate the UN mechanism to highlight this move of Pakistani controlled Assembly, as it is clearly violation of the UNCIP Resolutions on the Kashmir dispute. END
Geneva 11 September 2012
Kashmir National Party leaders Abbas Butt, Zubair Ansari and Dr Shabir Choudhry in a joint statement reiterated KNP stand that Gilgit Baltistan is legal and constitutional part of State of Jammu and Kashmir; and the entire State is disputed and forcibly divided and occupied.
KNP leaders said the State of Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity and must not be divided in any form or shape. Whatever the future status of the State it must remain united; and any attempts to divide it will be opposed as it will be disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir State and the entire region of South Asia. They said Gilgit Baltistan was practically controlled and annexed by Pakistan, and this move was opposed by all freedom loving people in Gilgit Baltistan, Azad Kashmir and in Jammu and Kashmir.
However, it is disturbing to note that those forces which want to divide the State of Jammu and Kashmir are, once again, active and they want to pass a resolution through the Gilgit Baltistan Assembly to provide some legal cover for annexation of this region. KNP leaders further said those who are presenting this resolution or supporting it are not well wishers of the people of Gilgit Baltistan; and this move is perceived as treachery by the freedom loving people of Jammu and Kashmir State.
KNP leaders added this move is very dangerous and will provide justification to the similar resolution passed by the Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, on strength of which India claims Kashmir to be its integral part. They asserted, no Assembly of the divided State of Jammu and Kashmir has right to decide future of any region; as the future of the entire State has to be decided by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Abbas Butt and Dr Shabir Choudhry said during our stay in Geneva, we will meet like minded Kashmiri people and work out some strategy to oppose this nefarious move, and see how we can activate the UN mechanism to highlight this move of Pakistani controlled Assembly, as it is clearly violation of the UNCIP Resolutions on the Kashmir dispute. END
The path you have chosen is a difficult one, Dr Shabir Choudhry tells new members
The path you have chosen is a difficult one, Dr Shabir Choudhry tells new members
While speaking to a public meeting after the formation of Kashmir National Party branch in Bedford, England Dr Shabir Choudhry said:
Dear friends and colleagues aslamo alaikam
I know my colleagues Abbas Butt and Zubair Ansari have already warmly welcomed you to the KNP. However, I want to welcome you as well; and also explain to you some of the problems you might encounter. I know you people have made a conscious decision to join the KNP and have taken oath to sincerely advance the political and social agenda of Kashmir National Party.
I appreciate your decision to join the KNP. I understand you people have made the right decision. You have joined the right party – a party that has forward looking approach on Kashmir dispute; and which has formulated policies that are practical and appropriate to deal with the problems of forcibly divided State of Jammu and Kashmir. The KNP leadership believes that Kashmir dispute is not religious in nature and there is no danger to Islam in Jammu and Kashmir. We believe use of force by any party to the dispute will only add to our problems and will not lead to any solution.
It is pleasure to note that the KNP is making progress and more and more people are joining us. This means our message is getting across and people are taking us as a genuine nationalist party that promotes a cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. It also shows that people believe that we sincerely want to establish democratic, plural and secular society in Jammu and Kashmir.
After commending your decision I want to caution you that the path you have chosen is very difficult one. It is uphill struggle all the way. It is full of hard work and sacrifices with no rewards or appreciation; however, you will face plenty of criticism, verbal abuses and unfounded allegations. Those who dislike you or the struggle of the KNP will make every effort to confuse you, demoralise and intimidate you. It will be a test of your nationalism, dedication and courage.
If you give - in and stop what you have taken oath to do, then they have won and you have lost. However, I believe this will not happen because you love your homeland and will continue your struggle despite all the opposition, just like I have done. I started my struggle as a teenager in 1973. At that time demanding an independent Kashmir was a sin; and those who demanded it were accused as ‘Indian agents’. I wrote an article in support of an independent Kashmir in 1973, and I was also labelled with the same tag.
Since that date I have been called a ‘Pakistani agent’, ‘British agent’, ‘American agent’, ‘Israeli agent’, ‘non believer’, anti Islam ‘anti Pakistan’ etc. No one has provided any evidence to prove anything against me, or prove me wrong. Those who made these allegations wanted to intimidate me, alienate me and defame me. Despite these allegations I have continued my struggle for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. Since that date I have promoted the cause of Jammu and Kashmir sincerely and honestly; and agents of forces of occupation did their job to harass me, demoralise me and intimidate me. By grace of Almighty, they have not won. They are illogical arguments and allegations are exposed to people with common sense.
I am not doing this because I enjoy this abuse, or get any rewards for this. I live comfortably in a liberal and democratic society of England. I have no financial worries and I have no compulsion of any kind to do what I am doing; but I strongly believe that I have a duty to perform. I have an obligation to continue my jihad against forces of extremism, violence and hatred. I want to promote peace, tolerance and fundamental human rights for all sections of the society. I am doing this jihad that our future generations can live in peace; and that they don’t encounter the kind of abuse and problems we have faced.
My colleagues and I feel we owe it to our future generations that we fight those who occupy us and those who divide us in name of religion, ethnicity and caste. We know some of our countrymen cannot fight back because of fear of reprisals. Some others are mentally enslaved by forces of occupation through decades of propaganda; and they are unable to distinguish between independence and occupation. Also there are some who feel it is futile exercise as nothing is going to change. We feel we have to be optimistic and do our bit to promote our struggle for our national identity, our unfettered right of self determination and tell people facts that were hidden by those who occupy us.
The first thing the forces of occupation do is to take away your identity, and distort your history and culture; and through their proxies and agents teach you wrong history and demoralise you and intimidate you. If you resist them and continue with your struggle they and their agents will make allegations against sincere and prominent Kashmiris. I cannot find any sincere and prominent Kashmiri who has not been labelled as agent of someone. It is in a political culture of that region to accuse political opponents of being agents or traitors.
However, sad thing in this regard is that, at one time, Pakistan and their agents used to make baseless allegations against true Kashmiri nationalists. Later on, pro Pakistan Kashmiri parties started doing this; and called all those Kashmiris ‘agents of India’ who did not want to join Pakistan or wanted an independent Jammu and Kashmir. Another stage reached when pro independent Kashmiri parties because of political rivalry and personal issues started accusing each other for being either agent of India or Pakistan. As if that was not bad enough for the struggle of an independent Jammu and Kashmir, now some members of the same party accuse their colleagues as agents of either India or Pakistan. They do this either because of some personal rivalry, personality clash or under influence of propaganda of those who occupy us.
I regard this as a success of secret agencies of India and Pakistan that they have damaged credibility of every Kashmiri leader with some standing; and now they don’t need to do much as Kashmiri political activists are willing to back stab Kashmiri leaders and stick a label against their fellow citizen without any evidence.
You will also be called anti Pakistan and anti Islam and in some cases atheist. Tell them we are not anti Pakistan or anti India. We are only against their Kashmir policy. If they change their Kashmir policy and allow people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own future, then we have nothing against them. We can all live in peace and harmony.
Tell these critics that Secularism does not mean Atheism. By Secularism we mean state has no religion; and individuals have right to practise whatever their faith is, and no one has right to impose his or her faith on others. Also Secularism promotes equality for all citizens, rule of law, fairness, freedom and human rights; and all that is prescribed by Islam as well.
Friends and colleagues, I have said all this not to attack anyone or frighten you. My aim is to enlighten you what we do and what challenges we face in this unrewarding struggle; because soon you will also encounter similar problems. It will be a test of your patience, sincerity, dedication and tolerance and I hope you will make us all proud.
Thank you for being so patient. I will be happy to reply to any questions you may have.
While speaking to a public meeting after the formation of Kashmir National Party branch in Bedford, England Dr Shabir Choudhry said:
Dear friends and colleagues aslamo alaikam
I know my colleagues Abbas Butt and Zubair Ansari have already warmly welcomed you to the KNP. However, I want to welcome you as well; and also explain to you some of the problems you might encounter. I know you people have made a conscious decision to join the KNP and have taken oath to sincerely advance the political and social agenda of Kashmir National Party.
I appreciate your decision to join the KNP. I understand you people have made the right decision. You have joined the right party – a party that has forward looking approach on Kashmir dispute; and which has formulated policies that are practical and appropriate to deal with the problems of forcibly divided State of Jammu and Kashmir. The KNP leadership believes that Kashmir dispute is not religious in nature and there is no danger to Islam in Jammu and Kashmir. We believe use of force by any party to the dispute will only add to our problems and will not lead to any solution.
It is pleasure to note that the KNP is making progress and more and more people are joining us. This means our message is getting across and people are taking us as a genuine nationalist party that promotes a cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. It also shows that people believe that we sincerely want to establish democratic, plural and secular society in Jammu and Kashmir.
After commending your decision I want to caution you that the path you have chosen is very difficult one. It is uphill struggle all the way. It is full of hard work and sacrifices with no rewards or appreciation; however, you will face plenty of criticism, verbal abuses and unfounded allegations. Those who dislike you or the struggle of the KNP will make every effort to confuse you, demoralise and intimidate you. It will be a test of your nationalism, dedication and courage.
If you give - in and stop what you have taken oath to do, then they have won and you have lost. However, I believe this will not happen because you love your homeland and will continue your struggle despite all the opposition, just like I have done. I started my struggle as a teenager in 1973. At that time demanding an independent Kashmir was a sin; and those who demanded it were accused as ‘Indian agents’. I wrote an article in support of an independent Kashmir in 1973, and I was also labelled with the same tag.
Since that date I have been called a ‘Pakistani agent’, ‘British agent’, ‘American agent’, ‘Israeli agent’, ‘non believer’, anti Islam ‘anti Pakistan’ etc. No one has provided any evidence to prove anything against me, or prove me wrong. Those who made these allegations wanted to intimidate me, alienate me and defame me. Despite these allegations I have continued my struggle for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. Since that date I have promoted the cause of Jammu and Kashmir sincerely and honestly; and agents of forces of occupation did their job to harass me, demoralise me and intimidate me. By grace of Almighty, they have not won. They are illogical arguments and allegations are exposed to people with common sense.
I am not doing this because I enjoy this abuse, or get any rewards for this. I live comfortably in a liberal and democratic society of England. I have no financial worries and I have no compulsion of any kind to do what I am doing; but I strongly believe that I have a duty to perform. I have an obligation to continue my jihad against forces of extremism, violence and hatred. I want to promote peace, tolerance and fundamental human rights for all sections of the society. I am doing this jihad that our future generations can live in peace; and that they don’t encounter the kind of abuse and problems we have faced.
My colleagues and I feel we owe it to our future generations that we fight those who occupy us and those who divide us in name of religion, ethnicity and caste. We know some of our countrymen cannot fight back because of fear of reprisals. Some others are mentally enslaved by forces of occupation through decades of propaganda; and they are unable to distinguish between independence and occupation. Also there are some who feel it is futile exercise as nothing is going to change. We feel we have to be optimistic and do our bit to promote our struggle for our national identity, our unfettered right of self determination and tell people facts that were hidden by those who occupy us.
The first thing the forces of occupation do is to take away your identity, and distort your history and culture; and through their proxies and agents teach you wrong history and demoralise you and intimidate you. If you resist them and continue with your struggle they and their agents will make allegations against sincere and prominent Kashmiris. I cannot find any sincere and prominent Kashmiri who has not been labelled as agent of someone. It is in a political culture of that region to accuse political opponents of being agents or traitors.
However, sad thing in this regard is that, at one time, Pakistan and their agents used to make baseless allegations against true Kashmiri nationalists. Later on, pro Pakistan Kashmiri parties started doing this; and called all those Kashmiris ‘agents of India’ who did not want to join Pakistan or wanted an independent Jammu and Kashmir. Another stage reached when pro independent Kashmiri parties because of political rivalry and personal issues started accusing each other for being either agent of India or Pakistan. As if that was not bad enough for the struggle of an independent Jammu and Kashmir, now some members of the same party accuse their colleagues as agents of either India or Pakistan. They do this either because of some personal rivalry, personality clash or under influence of propaganda of those who occupy us.
I regard this as a success of secret agencies of India and Pakistan that they have damaged credibility of every Kashmiri leader with some standing; and now they don’t need to do much as Kashmiri political activists are willing to back stab Kashmiri leaders and stick a label against their fellow citizen without any evidence.
You will also be called anti Pakistan and anti Islam and in some cases atheist. Tell them we are not anti Pakistan or anti India. We are only against their Kashmir policy. If they change their Kashmir policy and allow people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own future, then we have nothing against them. We can all live in peace and harmony.
Tell these critics that Secularism does not mean Atheism. By Secularism we mean state has no religion; and individuals have right to practise whatever their faith is, and no one has right to impose his or her faith on others. Also Secularism promotes equality for all citizens, rule of law, fairness, freedom and human rights; and all that is prescribed by Islam as well.
Friends and colleagues, I have said all this not to attack anyone or frighten you. My aim is to enlighten you what we do and what challenges we face in this unrewarding struggle; because soon you will also encounter similar problems. It will be a test of your patience, sincerity, dedication and tolerance and I hope you will make us all proud.
Thank you for being so patient. I will be happy to reply to any questions you may have.
JKLF struggle – is it for an independent Kashmir
JKLF struggle - is it for an independent Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry 19 September 2012
After what Azeem Dutt, a nationalist Kashmiri leader and a former President of Jammu Kashmir Plebiscite Front said about Amanullah Khan and Kashmir Liberation Front, a number of people asked me to either confirm what Azeem Dutt has said or as a writer and analyst provide more information about this.
I don’t know exactly what Azeem Dutt said about Amanullah Khan and the JKLF, but what I have read in the newspaper and what is available on social media is in line with what many leaders and political activists have said about Amanullah Khan and the JKLF; and that includes the leaders of JKPF.
Although the JKLF is still in many groups, but I still believe that the JKLF have some very dedicated members who sincerely believe that they are promoting the cause of Kashmiri nationalism. However, their top leadership have some other ideas and they are not promoting what ordinary members of the JKLF think they are promoting. Like many others I also worked extremely hard for the JKLF believing it to be a true nationalist party; but when I realised that the top JKLF leadership was fooling simple members in name of nationalism and Kashmiri independence, I agreed with my colleagues to set up Kashmir National Party.
JKLF and Amanullah Khan are controversial and will always remain controversial. Anyhow, let us first look at what Azeem Dutt said or alleged to have said in a reception held in Mirpur. English translation of what he said is as follows:
‘In order to strengthen Plebiscite Front and to promote ideology of an independent Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the divide, Plebiscite Front’s first President Abdul Khaliq Ansari Advocate sent Amanullah Khan and Sabir Ansari to Britain in 1977. As Plebiscite Front got stronger, conspiracies against it also started – first, name of the Plebiscite Front was changed in Britain to Liberation Front, which was part of the Plebiscite Front Europe Zone.
As JKLF got stronger in Britain, Amanullah Khan back stabbed the Kashmiri Movement by establishing branches of the JKLF in Azad Kashmir; and later on worked as an agent of agencies, and without ideological training used some young men and got Maqbool Butt martyred. Amanullah Khan acknowledged this fact in a public meeting held in Mirpur by saying that if this had not happened; Maqbool Butt would have died as unknown person in prison.
Later on he invited young men from the Indian occupied Kashmir to this side and continued non ideological struggle for 22 years. When his God Fathers refused to help, then so called mujahids and guerrillas started going back. According to one estimate about 15,000 to 20,000 people have gone back and taken oath that they will be loyal to India and will not take part in any struggle in future. Azeem Dutt said if the young men were equipped with ideological training, struggle was based on ideology and it was controlled by us with our own resources then this would not have happened. He said young men should not be disappointed because in struggle sometimes these events take place, and struggles do not end because of these setbacks. However, young men need to research to find out who is pioneer of this struggle and who is a traitor; and who has landed us in this quandary.’ 1
Very senior JKLF leader Asghar Malik, known as Asghar Sethi was discussing issues related to the JKLF and the Kashmiri struggle with Abbas Butt and Asim Mirza. Abbas Butt asked him, ‘If Yasin Malik is not a national leader so do you regard Amanullah Khan as a national leader?’
Asghar Malik laughed and said, ‘He is worse than Yasin Malik. Amanullah Khan has more interest in satisfying his ego than independence of Jammu and Kashmir. Yasin Malik, at least, wants independence of a region where he was born and where he lives. Amanullah Khan has no interest about the region where he was born; and has no desire to even live there or work for rights and interests of that region. He is not even loyal to that region. He has no branches of his JKLF in Astore where he was born or anywhere in Gilgit Baltistan. Genuine nationalists question his loyalty to the ideology of Maqbool Butt and his loyalty to Gilgit Baltistan’.
He further said, ‘Why is it that he likes to have branches and demonstrations in Azad Kashmir but not in Gilgit Baltistan? Is it that he doesn’t regard this region as a part of the State; or he is not allowed to politicise this region because Islamabad and their secret agencies feel uneasy about it?’
Asim Mirza said, ‘Amanullah Khan has declared that his dead body should be buried in Gilgit after his death; and doesn’t that show his love for that region?’
Asghar Malik laughed at this and said, ‘This is another gimmick of Amanullah Khan. It is just for propaganda purposes that his body should be taken to Gilgit after his death. What are they going to do with this body after his death, when in his life time he has neglected them and did not care to live among them or do anything for their betterment?’
Asghar Malik said, ‘I have worked with Amanullah Khan, and have closely studied him. When I and other colleagues realised that he only loves himself and is loyal to secret agencies of Pakistan, we left him. He has always ensured that no one with political sense or some leadership quality stays in his party to threaten his position. He has expelled many capable and dedicated people under different pretexts; and main reason was to safeguard his interests and satisfy his ego. He has done more damage to the independence movement than anyone else.’ 2
Sardar Abid Khan, a former leader of JKLF and a close associate of Amanullah Khan said:
‘....While in the JKLF, I was very close to Amanullah Khan; and I used to accompany Amanullah Khan when he met various officers of the ISI. Amanullah Khan used to go inside to see ISI officers and I (Sardar Abid Khan) used to wait outside. At that time I was very loyal and dedicated follower of Amanullah Khan, as at that time I thought service to Amanullah Khan was service to the struggle of independent Kashmir. Like many others, I believed that Amanullah Khan could not do anything wrong; and all his struggle was for the cause of an independent Kashmir’
He further said, ‘Amanullah Khan was acting on advice of the ISI. The whole struggle, military and political was controlled by them and Amanullah Khan was just their front man, pretending that he was in charge. At that time we were immature and did not understand implications of all this; and those who understood his policies were expelled by him. Amanullah Khan has betrayed the JKLF and its ideology’.
Sardar Abid Khan further said, ‘Would you regard that man loyal to Kashmir and independent Kashmir who starts militancy in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan with help of Indian RAW? If that person could not be loyal then how could a man who starts militancy with help of ISI be loyal, because both countries are occupiers?’ 3
Like Azeem Dutt, many other nationalist leaders and analysts believe that Amanullah Khan ‘conspired to get Maqbool Butt out of way’ and for that reason he ordered killing of the Indian diplomat which resulted in hanging of Maqbool Butt in Tihar Jail, New Delhi. Maqbool Butt’s attorney and former Vice Chairman of JKLF Bashir Ahmed Butt also expressed same view point in an interview on 12 October 2006:
Q. ‘Are you sure of it in terms of legal strength of the case or that you are
just moved by your emotions?
A. This I say as a lawyer. Death penalty can’t be carried out when there is no
original death sentence certificate. Supreme Court had sent the case back to the High Court on this ground and we were sure that Butt Sahib would be saved from capital punishment.
Q. Once more I ask you whether, as a lawyer, you believe that the death sentence was upheld because of Mahatre kidnapping.
A. As a lawyer I assert that the point we had raised in the petition was quite valid and legal and it was impossible to carry out the execution but for Mahatre’s kidnapping combined with political pressure made the Chief Justice uphold the sentence. Every Kashmiri child knows that if kidnapping had not taken place then execution could have been avoided. From 1976 till 1984, a period of eight years, the death sentence had not been implemented.
Q. Does it mean that whoever, whether Hashim Qureshi or Amanullah, killed Mahatre after kidnapping, is the murderer of Maqbool Butt?
A. Yes, it is my conviction that whoever got Mahatre killed is the real
murderer of Butt. I had met Shaheed Butt. He had showed his willingness to file this writ petition and he was suspicious about his people that they might hatch a conspiracy against him. He had said that he was being tried in another case, and until decision come in that, they could not hang him.
Q. Is it in Indian constitution that the death sentence cannot be carried out until decision in second murder case against the same accused is delivered?
A. Legally, yes. The first decision cannot be implemented till the decision in second case is given. It is out of my understanding that how Indian Supreme Court did it. Surely they did it because of Mahatare issue.’ 4
Bruce Riedel was a former senior CIA officer. He is a senior fellow in Foreign Policy and the Saban Centre at the Brookings Institution. He served four American Presidents on Middle East and South Asia. He closely worked with the ISI and Chaired a group which enacted Afpak policy. In his book ‘Deadly Embrace’ he writes:
‘Zia, Akhtar, and the ISI also reached out to other groups in Kashmir, including Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), which had been founded in 1977 by Kashmiris living in United Kingdom. The JKLF was much more sympathetic to Kashmiri independence than to union with Pakistan. It was also reluctant at first to accept ISI help, but Akhtar opened talks with its members in 1994, and by 1987 JKLF militants were also present in the ISI training camps.’ 5
Without going in to details of Ravinder Mahatare’s kidnapping and subsequent killing, we know he was killed on specific orders of Amanullah Khan. The above evidence clearly shows how the JKLF leaders cheated people in name of Kashmiri struggle, nationalism and independence. However, the readers can draw their own conclusions in light of this solid evidence provided above.
References:
1. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=365209720225068&set=a.260146754064699.63986.260136300732411&type=1&theater
2. Gilgit Baltistan – A New Round of Great Game, Page 63
3. Gilgit Baltistan – A New Round of Great Game, Page 21
4. Link to full interview of Bashir Ahmed Butt: http://k4kashmir.com/who-got-maqbool-butt-hanged-2/
5. Bruce Riedel, Deadly Embrace, The Brookings Institution, 2011, page 26
Writer is a 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 19 September 2012
After what Azeem Dutt, a nationalist Kashmiri leader and a former President of Jammu Kashmir Plebiscite Front said about Amanullah Khan and Kashmir Liberation Front, a number of people asked me to either confirm what Azeem Dutt has said or as a writer and analyst provide more information about this.
I don’t know exactly what Azeem Dutt said about Amanullah Khan and the JKLF, but what I have read in the newspaper and what is available on social media is in line with what many leaders and political activists have said about Amanullah Khan and the JKLF; and that includes the leaders of JKPF.
Although the JKLF is still in many groups, but I still believe that the JKLF have some very dedicated members who sincerely believe that they are promoting the cause of Kashmiri nationalism. However, their top leadership have some other ideas and they are not promoting what ordinary members of the JKLF think they are promoting. Like many others I also worked extremely hard for the JKLF believing it to be a true nationalist party; but when I realised that the top JKLF leadership was fooling simple members in name of nationalism and Kashmiri independence, I agreed with my colleagues to set up Kashmir National Party.
JKLF and Amanullah Khan are controversial and will always remain controversial. Anyhow, let us first look at what Azeem Dutt said or alleged to have said in a reception held in Mirpur. English translation of what he said is as follows:
‘In order to strengthen Plebiscite Front and to promote ideology of an independent Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the divide, Plebiscite Front’s first President Abdul Khaliq Ansari Advocate sent Amanullah Khan and Sabir Ansari to Britain in 1977. As Plebiscite Front got stronger, conspiracies against it also started – first, name of the Plebiscite Front was changed in Britain to Liberation Front, which was part of the Plebiscite Front Europe Zone.
As JKLF got stronger in Britain, Amanullah Khan back stabbed the Kashmiri Movement by establishing branches of the JKLF in Azad Kashmir; and later on worked as an agent of agencies, and without ideological training used some young men and got Maqbool Butt martyred. Amanullah Khan acknowledged this fact in a public meeting held in Mirpur by saying that if this had not happened; Maqbool Butt would have died as unknown person in prison.
Later on he invited young men from the Indian occupied Kashmir to this side and continued non ideological struggle for 22 years. When his God Fathers refused to help, then so called mujahids and guerrillas started going back. According to one estimate about 15,000 to 20,000 people have gone back and taken oath that they will be loyal to India and will not take part in any struggle in future. Azeem Dutt said if the young men were equipped with ideological training, struggle was based on ideology and it was controlled by us with our own resources then this would not have happened. He said young men should not be disappointed because in struggle sometimes these events take place, and struggles do not end because of these setbacks. However, young men need to research to find out who is pioneer of this struggle and who is a traitor; and who has landed us in this quandary.’ 1
Very senior JKLF leader Asghar Malik, known as Asghar Sethi was discussing issues related to the JKLF and the Kashmiri struggle with Abbas Butt and Asim Mirza. Abbas Butt asked him, ‘If Yasin Malik is not a national leader so do you regard Amanullah Khan as a national leader?’
Asghar Malik laughed and said, ‘He is worse than Yasin Malik. Amanullah Khan has more interest in satisfying his ego than independence of Jammu and Kashmir. Yasin Malik, at least, wants independence of a region where he was born and where he lives. Amanullah Khan has no interest about the region where he was born; and has no desire to even live there or work for rights and interests of that region. He is not even loyal to that region. He has no branches of his JKLF in Astore where he was born or anywhere in Gilgit Baltistan. Genuine nationalists question his loyalty to the ideology of Maqbool Butt and his loyalty to Gilgit Baltistan’.
He further said, ‘Why is it that he likes to have branches and demonstrations in Azad Kashmir but not in Gilgit Baltistan? Is it that he doesn’t regard this region as a part of the State; or he is not allowed to politicise this region because Islamabad and their secret agencies feel uneasy about it?’
Asim Mirza said, ‘Amanullah Khan has declared that his dead body should be buried in Gilgit after his death; and doesn’t that show his love for that region?’
Asghar Malik laughed at this and said, ‘This is another gimmick of Amanullah Khan. It is just for propaganda purposes that his body should be taken to Gilgit after his death. What are they going to do with this body after his death, when in his life time he has neglected them and did not care to live among them or do anything for their betterment?’
Asghar Malik said, ‘I have worked with Amanullah Khan, and have closely studied him. When I and other colleagues realised that he only loves himself and is loyal to secret agencies of Pakistan, we left him. He has always ensured that no one with political sense or some leadership quality stays in his party to threaten his position. He has expelled many capable and dedicated people under different pretexts; and main reason was to safeguard his interests and satisfy his ego. He has done more damage to the independence movement than anyone else.’ 2
Sardar Abid Khan, a former leader of JKLF and a close associate of Amanullah Khan said:
‘....While in the JKLF, I was very close to Amanullah Khan; and I used to accompany Amanullah Khan when he met various officers of the ISI. Amanullah Khan used to go inside to see ISI officers and I (Sardar Abid Khan) used to wait outside. At that time I was very loyal and dedicated follower of Amanullah Khan, as at that time I thought service to Amanullah Khan was service to the struggle of independent Kashmir. Like many others, I believed that Amanullah Khan could not do anything wrong; and all his struggle was for the cause of an independent Kashmir’
He further said, ‘Amanullah Khan was acting on advice of the ISI. The whole struggle, military and political was controlled by them and Amanullah Khan was just their front man, pretending that he was in charge. At that time we were immature and did not understand implications of all this; and those who understood his policies were expelled by him. Amanullah Khan has betrayed the JKLF and its ideology’.
Sardar Abid Khan further said, ‘Would you regard that man loyal to Kashmir and independent Kashmir who starts militancy in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan with help of Indian RAW? If that person could not be loyal then how could a man who starts militancy with help of ISI be loyal, because both countries are occupiers?’ 3
Like Azeem Dutt, many other nationalist leaders and analysts believe that Amanullah Khan ‘conspired to get Maqbool Butt out of way’ and for that reason he ordered killing of the Indian diplomat which resulted in hanging of Maqbool Butt in Tihar Jail, New Delhi. Maqbool Butt’s attorney and former Vice Chairman of JKLF Bashir Ahmed Butt also expressed same view point in an interview on 12 October 2006:
Q. ‘Are you sure of it in terms of legal strength of the case or that you are
just moved by your emotions?
A. This I say as a lawyer. Death penalty can’t be carried out when there is no
original death sentence certificate. Supreme Court had sent the case back to the High Court on this ground and we were sure that Butt Sahib would be saved from capital punishment.
Q. Once more I ask you whether, as a lawyer, you believe that the death sentence was upheld because of Mahatre kidnapping.
A. As a lawyer I assert that the point we had raised in the petition was quite valid and legal and it was impossible to carry out the execution but for Mahatre’s kidnapping combined with political pressure made the Chief Justice uphold the sentence. Every Kashmiri child knows that if kidnapping had not taken place then execution could have been avoided. From 1976 till 1984, a period of eight years, the death sentence had not been implemented.
Q. Does it mean that whoever, whether Hashim Qureshi or Amanullah, killed Mahatre after kidnapping, is the murderer of Maqbool Butt?
A. Yes, it is my conviction that whoever got Mahatre killed is the real
murderer of Butt. I had met Shaheed Butt. He had showed his willingness to file this writ petition and he was suspicious about his people that they might hatch a conspiracy against him. He had said that he was being tried in another case, and until decision come in that, they could not hang him.
Q. Is it in Indian constitution that the death sentence cannot be carried out until decision in second murder case against the same accused is delivered?
A. Legally, yes. The first decision cannot be implemented till the decision in second case is given. It is out of my understanding that how Indian Supreme Court did it. Surely they did it because of Mahatare issue.’ 4
Bruce Riedel was a former senior CIA officer. He is a senior fellow in Foreign Policy and the Saban Centre at the Brookings Institution. He served four American Presidents on Middle East and South Asia. He closely worked with the ISI and Chaired a group which enacted Afpak policy. In his book ‘Deadly Embrace’ he writes:
‘Zia, Akhtar, and the ISI also reached out to other groups in Kashmir, including Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), which had been founded in 1977 by Kashmiris living in United Kingdom. The JKLF was much more sympathetic to Kashmiri independence than to union with Pakistan. It was also reluctant at first to accept ISI help, but Akhtar opened talks with its members in 1994, and by 1987 JKLF militants were also present in the ISI training camps.’ 5
Without going in to details of Ravinder Mahatare’s kidnapping and subsequent killing, we know he was killed on specific orders of Amanullah Khan. The above evidence clearly shows how the JKLF leaders cheated people in name of Kashmiri struggle, nationalism and independence. However, the readers can draw their own conclusions in light of this solid evidence provided above.
References:
1. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=365209720225068&set=a.260146754064699.63986.260136300732411&type=1&theater
2. Gilgit Baltistan – A New Round of Great Game, Page 63
3. Gilgit Baltistan – A New Round of Great Game, Page 21
4. Link to full interview of Bashir Ahmed Butt: http://k4kashmir.com/who-got-maqbool-butt-hanged-2/
5. Bruce Riedel, Deadly Embrace, The Brookings Institution, 2011, page 26
Writer is a 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
KNP and elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir
KNP and elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry 23 September 2012
Kashmir National Party strongly believes in democracy; and wants to strengthen political and democratic process and empower people. Pro Pakistan parties fully supported elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir; and fiercely opposed similar kind of elections in the Indian Administered Kashmir, often resulting in death and destruction. One reason for this opposition was to ensure that chaos in Kashmir continues and there is no normalcy. Also it suited the ‘leadership’, they got rewards for promoting that imported policy and there was no fear of losing elections, if they were to contest.
We thought it was hypocrisy. Elections are held to elect representatives who can help to resolve local issues and not to determine future of the divided Jammu and Kashmir State. How the elections could be justified and appreciated in one part of the divided State and opposed tooth and nail in the other. In view of this, KNP took a daring step and included in its constitution the following clause:
‘Without prejudice to our inherent and most cherished right to independence; and despite restrictions upon those who adhere to this ideology, KNP in order to empower people and promote democratic values and culture of accountability and transparency will support democratic process in the divided State and might take part in the electoral process’.
KNP constitution further said, we will: ‘Encourage, promote and facilitate the process of accountability, and transparency; and provide such literature, information and support which can help to develop and promote a culture of accountability and transparency’.
So in line with our policy, we decided to contest elections. It must be pointed out that before us many Kashmiri nationalists contested elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Maqbool Butt Shaheed, his son Shaukat Maqbool Butt, Azeem Dutt, Nasir Ansari, Liaquat Ayat and many other known Kashmiri nationalist have contested elections in the past.
While taking part in elections we knew we will not win anything, but we wanted to show the local people that we were concerned about their problems. We thought it will give us an opportunity to go out and meet people during the election campaign and get our message across. Apart from us other nationalist parties participated in the elections. We still think it was the correct decision.
Every Kashmiri has a right to contest elections; there is nothing wrong with that. However, those Kashmiris who contest elections from the platform of Kashmiri nationalist parties they could be put in one category- despite contesting elections and signing the objectionable clause they are still respectable Kashmiri nationalists. However, those Kashmiris who have contested elections from the platforms of Pakistani parties they bound to be in a different category; and they can be called anything else but not Kashmiri nationalists.
It must be pointed out that Pakistan has spread network of Pakistani parties in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, just like India has done on the other side. These parties believe Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Pakistan (or India in case of BJP and the Congress); and those Kashmiris who join them and contest elections from their platform agree with their Kashmir policy.
Despite this clear contradiction and betrayal, if these people and their children believe that their parents are Kashmiri nationalists, then perhaps meaning of Kashmiri nationalism has changed over the past months. In my view, if these people who contest elections from the platforms of MQM, PPP, N League, BJP and the Congress are ‘nationalists’ then Sardar Atiq and Omar Abdullah are also ‘nationalists’; at least, Sardar Atiq and Omar Abdullah are leaders of Kashmiri political parties and do not represent non State parties.
Forces of occupation must be very satisfied with their Kashmir policy. They have managed to keep Jammu and Kashmir divided and occupied since 1947. They have manipulated the Kashmiri leadership either in name of religion or democracy and used them against each other. They have been calling shots in both parts of the divided State, promoted their interests and kept us away from the negotiating table. They have subtly changed our history and culture; and many Kashmiris have lost distinction between azadi and ghulami (independence and occupation).
Despite all the obstacles and nefarious campaign against us by forces of occupation and their touts, we will continue our struggle for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. KNP leaders and members declared that in its struggle the KNP will:
‘cooperate with all like - minded individuals and groups; and in doing so ensure that culture of violence, intimidation, suppression and oppression comes to an end’; and ‘Project the Kashmir Issue as a question of Kashmiri nation’s independence and not right of accession as projected by some interested quarters, at the international level, and to acquire support from international community for our struggle’.
KNP leaders also declared that we will make serious and sincere endeavours to:
‘Reinforce and promote Kashmiri culture and tradition of tolerance and peaceful co existence among all ethnic groups of the State, which was a key feature of Kashmiri history and culture; and oppose forces of communalism, extremism and hatred’.
Writer is a 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 23 September 2012
Kashmir National Party strongly believes in democracy; and wants to strengthen political and democratic process and empower people. Pro Pakistan parties fully supported elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir; and fiercely opposed similar kind of elections in the Indian Administered Kashmir, often resulting in death and destruction. One reason for this opposition was to ensure that chaos in Kashmir continues and there is no normalcy. Also it suited the ‘leadership’, they got rewards for promoting that imported policy and there was no fear of losing elections, if they were to contest.
We thought it was hypocrisy. Elections are held to elect representatives who can help to resolve local issues and not to determine future of the divided Jammu and Kashmir State. How the elections could be justified and appreciated in one part of the divided State and opposed tooth and nail in the other. In view of this, KNP took a daring step and included in its constitution the following clause:
‘Without prejudice to our inherent and most cherished right to independence; and despite restrictions upon those who adhere to this ideology, KNP in order to empower people and promote democratic values and culture of accountability and transparency will support democratic process in the divided State and might take part in the electoral process’.
KNP constitution further said, we will: ‘Encourage, promote and facilitate the process of accountability, and transparency; and provide such literature, information and support which can help to develop and promote a culture of accountability and transparency’.
So in line with our policy, we decided to contest elections. It must be pointed out that before us many Kashmiri nationalists contested elections in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Maqbool Butt Shaheed, his son Shaukat Maqbool Butt, Azeem Dutt, Nasir Ansari, Liaquat Ayat and many other known Kashmiri nationalist have contested elections in the past.
While taking part in elections we knew we will not win anything, but we wanted to show the local people that we were concerned about their problems. We thought it will give us an opportunity to go out and meet people during the election campaign and get our message across. Apart from us other nationalist parties participated in the elections. We still think it was the correct decision.
Every Kashmiri has a right to contest elections; there is nothing wrong with that. However, those Kashmiris who contest elections from the platform of Kashmiri nationalist parties they could be put in one category- despite contesting elections and signing the objectionable clause they are still respectable Kashmiri nationalists. However, those Kashmiris who have contested elections from the platforms of Pakistani parties they bound to be in a different category; and they can be called anything else but not Kashmiri nationalists.
It must be pointed out that Pakistan has spread network of Pakistani parties in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, just like India has done on the other side. These parties believe Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Pakistan (or India in case of BJP and the Congress); and those Kashmiris who join them and contest elections from their platform agree with their Kashmir policy.
Despite this clear contradiction and betrayal, if these people and their children believe that their parents are Kashmiri nationalists, then perhaps meaning of Kashmiri nationalism has changed over the past months. In my view, if these people who contest elections from the platforms of MQM, PPP, N League, BJP and the Congress are ‘nationalists’ then Sardar Atiq and Omar Abdullah are also ‘nationalists’; at least, Sardar Atiq and Omar Abdullah are leaders of Kashmiri political parties and do not represent non State parties.
Forces of occupation must be very satisfied with their Kashmir policy. They have managed to keep Jammu and Kashmir divided and occupied since 1947. They have manipulated the Kashmiri leadership either in name of religion or democracy and used them against each other. They have been calling shots in both parts of the divided State, promoted their interests and kept us away from the negotiating table. They have subtly changed our history and culture; and many Kashmiris have lost distinction between azadi and ghulami (independence and occupation).
Despite all the obstacles and nefarious campaign against us by forces of occupation and their touts, we will continue our struggle for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. KNP leaders and members declared that in its struggle the KNP will:
‘cooperate with all like - minded individuals and groups; and in doing so ensure that culture of violence, intimidation, suppression and oppression comes to an end’; and ‘Project the Kashmir Issue as a question of Kashmiri nation’s independence and not right of accession as projected by some interested quarters, at the international level, and to acquire support from international community for our struggle’.
KNP leaders also declared that we will make serious and sincere endeavours to:
‘Reinforce and promote Kashmiri culture and tradition of tolerance and peaceful co existence among all ethnic groups of the State, which was a key feature of Kashmiri history and culture; and oppose forces of communalism, extremism and hatred’.
Writer is a 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
Comments of a Pakistani expert on my research work.
Comments of a Pakistani expert on my research work.
This is what Dr. Yousaf Bokhari, Ex-chairman, Kashmiriyat Department, Punjab University, Lahore, said about my new book – Kashmir and the Partition of India.
FOREWORD
"Kashmir and The Partition of India", a research work accomplished by Dr. Shabir Choudhry deserves my rich tribute; and appreciation for Dr. Michel J Lelohe, Chairman of History and Politics, and Mr. J. Price for their assistance to the writer. This was, of course, an uphill task and voluminous hard work.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir, with its present boundaries, was founded by Maharaja Ghulab Singh. Initially, he had secured the principality of Jammu as a Jagir from Maharaja Ranjit Singh, in 1820. It was obtained in recognition of his loyal services and was authorized to rule over the territory as a Raja. After the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839 and the Anglo Sikh War, the East India Company concluded a treaty with Ghulab Singh at Amritsar, on 16 March, 1846. It is known as the Treaty of Amritsar. Kashmir was thus sold to Ghulab Singh for Rs. 75 lacs.
This work deeply observes the legal position of the State on 15 August, 1947. In this research work, the author writes, ‘Kashmir became the centre of one of the major international disputes, which brought those new countries into direct clash against each other’. The future status of Jammu and Kashmir became the quagmire of affairs, thus ball of controversy was rolled on, which parched the heart and tongue of every independent soul. Both India and Pakistan desired to make the state part of their own territory, whereas state ruler Hari Singh wanted Kashmir to become a sovereign independent state.
Dr Shabir is quite correct when he asserts that the British literally sold the Kashmiri nation like a commercial commodity. The Treaty of Amritsar consists of ten articles. All articles assure the Maharaja's subjugation of the British. Article IV of the deal is quite evident, according to which the limits of territories of Maharaja Ghulab Singh shall not be at any time changed without the concurrence of the British government.
The Indian Independence Act was ambiguous. It was made for keeping two nations in the state of tug-of-war at all times. I again agree with the writer that the Radcliffe Award was simply meant to provide India with land access to Kashmir and hence facilitate it.
The British government had clearly stated in the Independence Act, the states from all their obligations to the Crown. The states will have complete freedom technically, and legally they became independent.
A doubt on the role of Lord Mountbatten being prejudiced is not true. It was the dictation of the British rulers- for this and for everything Lord Mountbatten and Edwina Mountbatten. On this occasion, they proved very fruitful for evaluating the legacy of turmoil in the name of independence. Personal friendship with Nehru and his dislike for Jinnah had an important influence on the whole process of partition. Important personalities like Gandhi, Patel, V.P.Menon, particularly Edwina Mountbatten could not be ignored. For making the British ruler's dream come true, was the delay of the Radcliffe Award announcement Mountbatten arranged Gandhi's meeting with Maharaja Hari Singh and dispatched Nehru to Kohala to see Abdullah who was behind the bars. Hari Singh believed in an independent Kashmir. He wrote a letter to Mountbatten as follows:
"My Dear Lord Mountbatten, I have to inform your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my state and request immediate assistance of your government….. I wanted to take time to decide to which dominion I should accede or whether it is not on the best interest of both the dominions and my state to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both India and Pakistan. I accordingly approached the dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement."
Mountbatten replied as follows, "My dear Maharaja Sahib, letter dated 26th October has been delivered to me by V.P.Menon. My government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir state to the dominion of India."
For consolidating all the issues, Mountbatten arranged the visit of Gandhi to Kashmir which has eventually been done without any rhyme and reason. The research work gives birth to Kashmir issue by 1920, where economic deprivation and seeds of social unrest, germinated under the umbrella of 13 July, 1931, considered as the turning point of the modern Kashmiri struggle. The author believes the whole truth regarding the partition of India will never be known, because many of the characters involved are not alive. I believe nothing is latent. The principal characters in creating problems are Krishna Menon, Sardar Patel, Nehru and the Indian Independence Act of 1947 passed by the British Parliament on 17 July, 1947. Cabinet Mission Plan of 16 May, 1946. The partition was Mountbatten's policy of excessive haste. He arbitrarily advanced 15 August, 1947 the date for independence from the limit of June, 1948 given to him by the British Prime Minister Attlee's government. This ill-considered decision has unfortunately been accepted by both India and Pakistan.
This resulted in horrific killings of about one million human beings and the displacement and transfer of about 8 to 10 million people moving across the new frontiers. Rafiq Zakariya writes in his book, 'The Man Who Divided India 2001, Mr Jinnah strongly opposed the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. He wrote in May, 1947 to the British Cabinet asking to prevent such a decision, because he wanted large number of non-Muslims to also be part of original demand of Pakistan. The partition was callously imposed by the Congress and Mountbatten, not a condition created by the Quaid-e-Azam.
We have to probe into Johnson's diary where Johnson exclaims Lord Ismay feared that Winston Churchill has attributed the services of Mountbatten for the division for the best interest of Hindus, which would cause the loss to Indian Muslims.
It is worth recalling that Johnson writes in his diary about the first meeting of Nehru and Mountbatten. It was decided that Punjab would be divided on the basis of religion, although the 3rd June plan had not come into public. Sheikh Abdullah was made the controversial leader by Mirwaiz Yousaf Shah, with the intrigue of Hari Singh. He was impelled to form National Conference and bade goodbye to the Muslim Conference.
It was of course a good decision of Sheikh Abdullah and the Kashmiri leadership. The evolution two parties caused great loss to the Kashmir cause. This was Chaudhary Ghulam Abbass who ascertained that the party should have included non-Muslims in the mainstream of Kashmiri political life. Here Shabir Choudhry reflects, and explains in Chapter IV the aftermath of the Muslim Conference was changed into the National Conference.
Chapter V deals with Jinnah's visit to Kashmir. The researcher is very correct that Sheikh Abdullah invited Quaid-e-Azam to take guidelines about the conflict created by Hindus in Jammu, but instead compromise Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas parted from Abdullah had consoled Mirwaiz and Muslim conference instead Masudi and Mirza Afzal Beg who had a soft comer for Pakistan. They too were not taken into confidence, with the result that the road to Kashmir's independence was shattered and blocked.
Quaid-e-Azam was not in the interest of Hindu-Muslim unity. Thus if Quaid-e-Azam would have succeeded in bringing Kashmiri masses into the garland of unity, the future of Kashmir would not have been darkened. This has rightly been discussed by the author.
Actually it was threat of communism which gave birth to partition. America and Britain had the fear of communism raising alarm in London, the failure of Congress in India and Muslim League in Pakistan. The researcher has given solid reference with plea of Churchill and Attlee.
Sheikh Abdullah, as stated by the author in Chapter 6, has said to Quaid-e-Azam that experience has proved that the initial problem is not the confrontation between religions, but that of the economically divided society. There are those who exploit and those who are exploited. The struggle is not against individuals, rather it is against an oppressive system in which we will have to participate, irrespective of religion.
Sheikh Abdullah has proved it by maintaining 'Law, Land to the tillers'. All the Jagirdars were denied these lands and the cultivators owned and became the masters of the land. I appreciate the approach of the author with the last corner of my heart. He has well knit the situation.
The same chapter (6) explains the position of Britain. Britain has been in decline for a hundred years. The war forced Britain to accept American leadership. Britain was treated as a defeated nation and the advancement of communism and the inability to sustain the burden of Empire, industrial need became the cause to declare India's freedom. The author deserves appreciation for the way he has dealt with this chapter.
In Chapter 7, the importance of Khizar Hayat Tiwana has been expounded. However, in the Cabinet Mission, the meeting maintained that the state should not be forced to join any union, there should be prime facie, no objection to the formation of a confederation of the state if the Rulers so desired and there should be no interference by British India in their internal affairs.
Chapter 8, a surprise political move by Nehru and his arrest in Kashmir proved decisive in many respects, when it came to deciding the fixture of Kashmir.
Chapter 9 denotes the injustices attributed to Mountbatten, his wife and their friendship with Nehru and actually the prejudice to the Muslims of India. The author is very clear on this subject. This is a sad story for residents now in Pakistan.
Chapter 10 deals completely with Mountbatten. He got the upper hand from Prime Minister Attlee. He got the authority to deal with the Indian independence. He hurried into dividing India in August, 1947 instead of June, 1948. He did his best to keep India in Commonwealth which was in the best interest of Britain. Nehru played it as a trump card. This is very plainly, logically stated by the writer.
Chapter 11 is of great importance in that the Quit Kashmir Movement is discussed, with reference to the Muslim Conference. Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas, in order to show his political power, gave the arrest. Chaudhary Hamidullah became the acting president. He declared Kashmir to be a sovereign state, not to annoy the Hindu majority of Jammu and to have relations with both India and Pakistan. For this, Jinnah has also permitted Maharaja and that was pro-Pakistani Sardar Ibrahim was not allowed to see Jinnah. The writer has given all the causes, consequences regarding these occurrences, without any rhyme and reason.
Chapter 12 traces the details of existing states and the position they held. This chapter states the Princely States and relationship with the monarch. Here, the Muslim League is fancying the states to be independent, whereas Congress had not many daydreams.
In Chapter 13, the author discussed the main theme of the Commonwealth, in which Britain was quite interested.
Chapter 14 explains the reasons for an early transfer of power in August 1947, instead of June, 1948. It explains that the Congress leadership influenced Mountbatten's thinking through Edwina Mountbatten and Chapter 15 also exhibits the enmity between Mountbatten and Jinnah.
The ambiguity left in the 3rd June plan was working against the Princes, their future looked bleak. In Chapter 17, the work of the Boundary Commission is explained and analyzed. It is also shown that the Award was changed at the last moment, in favour of India. The last chapters depict the destruction and annihilation of Indian inhabitants.
I am pleased to see how the author has systematically dealt with the inns and outs of this slender vine problem with his steady oak and brought into the limelight, all the Indo-Pak partition issues.
Thank you.
Dr. Yousaf Bokhari,
Ex-chairman, Kashmiriyat Department, Punjab University, Lahore
Former Director, Sir Ganga Ram Heritage Foundation, Lahore.
Cell No: +92(0)321-4846684
This is what Dr. Yousaf Bokhari, Ex-chairman, Kashmiriyat Department, Punjab University, Lahore, said about my new book – Kashmir and the Partition of India.
FOREWORD
"Kashmir and The Partition of India", a research work accomplished by Dr. Shabir Choudhry deserves my rich tribute; and appreciation for Dr. Michel J Lelohe, Chairman of History and Politics, and Mr. J. Price for their assistance to the writer. This was, of course, an uphill task and voluminous hard work.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir, with its present boundaries, was founded by Maharaja Ghulab Singh. Initially, he had secured the principality of Jammu as a Jagir from Maharaja Ranjit Singh, in 1820. It was obtained in recognition of his loyal services and was authorized to rule over the territory as a Raja. After the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839 and the Anglo Sikh War, the East India Company concluded a treaty with Ghulab Singh at Amritsar, on 16 March, 1846. It is known as the Treaty of Amritsar. Kashmir was thus sold to Ghulab Singh for Rs. 75 lacs.
This work deeply observes the legal position of the State on 15 August, 1947. In this research work, the author writes, ‘Kashmir became the centre of one of the major international disputes, which brought those new countries into direct clash against each other’. The future status of Jammu and Kashmir became the quagmire of affairs, thus ball of controversy was rolled on, which parched the heart and tongue of every independent soul. Both India and Pakistan desired to make the state part of their own territory, whereas state ruler Hari Singh wanted Kashmir to become a sovereign independent state.
Dr Shabir is quite correct when he asserts that the British literally sold the Kashmiri nation like a commercial commodity. The Treaty of Amritsar consists of ten articles. All articles assure the Maharaja's subjugation of the British. Article IV of the deal is quite evident, according to which the limits of territories of Maharaja Ghulab Singh shall not be at any time changed without the concurrence of the British government.
The Indian Independence Act was ambiguous. It was made for keeping two nations in the state of tug-of-war at all times. I again agree with the writer that the Radcliffe Award was simply meant to provide India with land access to Kashmir and hence facilitate it.
The British government had clearly stated in the Independence Act, the states from all their obligations to the Crown. The states will have complete freedom technically, and legally they became independent.
A doubt on the role of Lord Mountbatten being prejudiced is not true. It was the dictation of the British rulers- for this and for everything Lord Mountbatten and Edwina Mountbatten. On this occasion, they proved very fruitful for evaluating the legacy of turmoil in the name of independence. Personal friendship with Nehru and his dislike for Jinnah had an important influence on the whole process of partition. Important personalities like Gandhi, Patel, V.P.Menon, particularly Edwina Mountbatten could not be ignored. For making the British ruler's dream come true, was the delay of the Radcliffe Award announcement Mountbatten arranged Gandhi's meeting with Maharaja Hari Singh and dispatched Nehru to Kohala to see Abdullah who was behind the bars. Hari Singh believed in an independent Kashmir. He wrote a letter to Mountbatten as follows:
"My Dear Lord Mountbatten, I have to inform your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my state and request immediate assistance of your government….. I wanted to take time to decide to which dominion I should accede or whether it is not on the best interest of both the dominions and my state to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both India and Pakistan. I accordingly approached the dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement."
Mountbatten replied as follows, "My dear Maharaja Sahib, letter dated 26th October has been delivered to me by V.P.Menon. My government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir state to the dominion of India."
For consolidating all the issues, Mountbatten arranged the visit of Gandhi to Kashmir which has eventually been done without any rhyme and reason. The research work gives birth to Kashmir issue by 1920, where economic deprivation and seeds of social unrest, germinated under the umbrella of 13 July, 1931, considered as the turning point of the modern Kashmiri struggle. The author believes the whole truth regarding the partition of India will never be known, because many of the characters involved are not alive. I believe nothing is latent. The principal characters in creating problems are Krishna Menon, Sardar Patel, Nehru and the Indian Independence Act of 1947 passed by the British Parliament on 17 July, 1947. Cabinet Mission Plan of 16 May, 1946. The partition was Mountbatten's policy of excessive haste. He arbitrarily advanced 15 August, 1947 the date for independence from the limit of June, 1948 given to him by the British Prime Minister Attlee's government. This ill-considered decision has unfortunately been accepted by both India and Pakistan.
This resulted in horrific killings of about one million human beings and the displacement and transfer of about 8 to 10 million people moving across the new frontiers. Rafiq Zakariya writes in his book, 'The Man Who Divided India 2001, Mr Jinnah strongly opposed the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. He wrote in May, 1947 to the British Cabinet asking to prevent such a decision, because he wanted large number of non-Muslims to also be part of original demand of Pakistan. The partition was callously imposed by the Congress and Mountbatten, not a condition created by the Quaid-e-Azam.
We have to probe into Johnson's diary where Johnson exclaims Lord Ismay feared that Winston Churchill has attributed the services of Mountbatten for the division for the best interest of Hindus, which would cause the loss to Indian Muslims.
It is worth recalling that Johnson writes in his diary about the first meeting of Nehru and Mountbatten. It was decided that Punjab would be divided on the basis of religion, although the 3rd June plan had not come into public. Sheikh Abdullah was made the controversial leader by Mirwaiz Yousaf Shah, with the intrigue of Hari Singh. He was impelled to form National Conference and bade goodbye to the Muslim Conference.
It was of course a good decision of Sheikh Abdullah and the Kashmiri leadership. The evolution two parties caused great loss to the Kashmir cause. This was Chaudhary Ghulam Abbass who ascertained that the party should have included non-Muslims in the mainstream of Kashmiri political life. Here Shabir Choudhry reflects, and explains in Chapter IV the aftermath of the Muslim Conference was changed into the National Conference.
Chapter V deals with Jinnah's visit to Kashmir. The researcher is very correct that Sheikh Abdullah invited Quaid-e-Azam to take guidelines about the conflict created by Hindus in Jammu, but instead compromise Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas parted from Abdullah had consoled Mirwaiz and Muslim conference instead Masudi and Mirza Afzal Beg who had a soft comer for Pakistan. They too were not taken into confidence, with the result that the road to Kashmir's independence was shattered and blocked.
Quaid-e-Azam was not in the interest of Hindu-Muslim unity. Thus if Quaid-e-Azam would have succeeded in bringing Kashmiri masses into the garland of unity, the future of Kashmir would not have been darkened. This has rightly been discussed by the author.
Actually it was threat of communism which gave birth to partition. America and Britain had the fear of communism raising alarm in London, the failure of Congress in India and Muslim League in Pakistan. The researcher has given solid reference with plea of Churchill and Attlee.
Sheikh Abdullah, as stated by the author in Chapter 6, has said to Quaid-e-Azam that experience has proved that the initial problem is not the confrontation between religions, but that of the economically divided society. There are those who exploit and those who are exploited. The struggle is not against individuals, rather it is against an oppressive system in which we will have to participate, irrespective of religion.
Sheikh Abdullah has proved it by maintaining 'Law, Land to the tillers'. All the Jagirdars were denied these lands and the cultivators owned and became the masters of the land. I appreciate the approach of the author with the last corner of my heart. He has well knit the situation.
The same chapter (6) explains the position of Britain. Britain has been in decline for a hundred years. The war forced Britain to accept American leadership. Britain was treated as a defeated nation and the advancement of communism and the inability to sustain the burden of Empire, industrial need became the cause to declare India's freedom. The author deserves appreciation for the way he has dealt with this chapter.
In Chapter 7, the importance of Khizar Hayat Tiwana has been expounded. However, in the Cabinet Mission, the meeting maintained that the state should not be forced to join any union, there should be prime facie, no objection to the formation of a confederation of the state if the Rulers so desired and there should be no interference by British India in their internal affairs.
Chapter 8, a surprise political move by Nehru and his arrest in Kashmir proved decisive in many respects, when it came to deciding the fixture of Kashmir.
Chapter 9 denotes the injustices attributed to Mountbatten, his wife and their friendship with Nehru and actually the prejudice to the Muslims of India. The author is very clear on this subject. This is a sad story for residents now in Pakistan.
Chapter 10 deals completely with Mountbatten. He got the upper hand from Prime Minister Attlee. He got the authority to deal with the Indian independence. He hurried into dividing India in August, 1947 instead of June, 1948. He did his best to keep India in Commonwealth which was in the best interest of Britain. Nehru played it as a trump card. This is very plainly, logically stated by the writer.
Chapter 11 is of great importance in that the Quit Kashmir Movement is discussed, with reference to the Muslim Conference. Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas, in order to show his political power, gave the arrest. Chaudhary Hamidullah became the acting president. He declared Kashmir to be a sovereign state, not to annoy the Hindu majority of Jammu and to have relations with both India and Pakistan. For this, Jinnah has also permitted Maharaja and that was pro-Pakistani Sardar Ibrahim was not allowed to see Jinnah. The writer has given all the causes, consequences regarding these occurrences, without any rhyme and reason.
Chapter 12 traces the details of existing states and the position they held. This chapter states the Princely States and relationship with the monarch. Here, the Muslim League is fancying the states to be independent, whereas Congress had not many daydreams.
In Chapter 13, the author discussed the main theme of the Commonwealth, in which Britain was quite interested.
Chapter 14 explains the reasons for an early transfer of power in August 1947, instead of June, 1948. It explains that the Congress leadership influenced Mountbatten's thinking through Edwina Mountbatten and Chapter 15 also exhibits the enmity between Mountbatten and Jinnah.
The ambiguity left in the 3rd June plan was working against the Princes, their future looked bleak. In Chapter 17, the work of the Boundary Commission is explained and analyzed. It is also shown that the Award was changed at the last moment, in favour of India. The last chapters depict the destruction and annihilation of Indian inhabitants.
I am pleased to see how the author has systematically dealt with the inns and outs of this slender vine problem with his steady oak and brought into the limelight, all the Indo-Pak partition issues.
Thank you.
Dr. Yousaf Bokhari,
Ex-chairman, Kashmiriyat Department, Punjab University, Lahore
Former Director, Sir Ganga Ram Heritage Foundation, Lahore.
Cell No: +92(0)321-4846684
Issues related to Provisional Government of 4th October 1947
Issues related to Provisional Government of 4th October 1947
Dr Shabir Choudhry 01 October 2012
Many Kashmiris regard 4th October 1947 as an historic day, as it was on this day, according to widely held view, some Kashmiris announced a ‘Provisional Government’ which was later to be called Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government. This Provisional Government was re-organised on 24th October 1947 and Pakistani authorities, and more precisely Commissioner of Rawalpindi appointed Sardar Ibrahim as a President of this government.
I acknowledge that I was among those who also actively supported the revival of this Provisional Government for many years, especially when I was part of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. However, later on, with more education and political maturity I started expressing doubts about this ‘historic event’; and for many years we have not held any functions on 4th October. Before I analyse this ‘historic event’ from a critical point of view, I must point out that views expressed in this article are mine as a writer, and my party has nothing to do with this.
It must be understood that under the terms of the Partition of India, after the lapse of the British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir and other Princely States that did not join India or Pakistan gained their independence on 15 August 1947. Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagarr were among those Princely States who became independent on 15 August 1947. The last two had Muslim Rulers with non- – Muslim majority population; and Kashmir had non- –Muslim Ruler with Muslim majority population.
The Muslim Ruler of Junagarr declared to accede to Pakistan, even though there was no land link with Pakistan, and the majority of the people were not Muslims. Pakistan accepted this ‘accession’, and in response to this, a ‘Provisional Government’ for Junagarr was announced by non Muslims of Junagarr in Bombay on 1 October 1947.
Either encouraged by this move, or on instructions of some sections of the Pakistani government, especially Sir Zafarullah Khan, Foreign Minister of Pakistan; who was a Qadiani, and they as a sect wished to have a country under their control in that region, some Kashmiri activists, namely Ghulam Nabi Gilkar, who was also a Qadiani, Bashir Din, Mehmood Ahmed, Mufti Zia- U- Din, and Mohammed Abdullah Qadri, gathered in Lahore and declared a similar type of Provisional Government for Jammu and Kashmir.
Ghulam Nabi Gilkar used a fake name of Mr Anwar, and sent out the following statement, in which he described him as the President of the Provisional Republic of Jammu and Kashmir:
‘With the termination of the Paramountcy of the British Crown the ruling family of Kashmir have lost whatever rights it claimed under the Treaty of Amritsar, under which Kashmir was transferred by the British to Maharaja Gulab singh, a forefather of the present ruler, for a paltry sum of Rs. 50 lakhs, and that the people have set up a Provisional Government with Headquarters at Muzaffarabad’.
‘If after 1pm on 4 October Hari Singh (the present Maharaja) or any person acting under his orders or instructions claims to rule over the State, he shall be punished according to the laws of the Provisional Government. Henceforth all the laws, orders and instructions promulgated by the Provisional Government shall be respected and obeyed.’
Let us leave the conspiracy aside and talk of some facts and apply some common sense to this. The first question is who was Ghulam Nabi Gilkar; and what was his political standing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir at that time? At that time there were two big political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, namely National Conference and Muslim Conference, with the former being most popular and well organised. Ghulam Nabi Gilkar did not even figure out among the middle ranking leadership of these two parties. In other words, he was not a known political figure, so what political significance we can assign to his statement issued in Lahore, a major city of our neighbouring country (which desperately wanted to get Kashmir) and signed with a fake name.
What right did he have to ‘depose’ the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir? What right or power he had to punish the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir and his officials for disobeying Ghulam Nabi Gilkar and his team? Who assigned this power to him? Where did he derive this power from? What legitimacy he and his Provisional Government had? Furthermore, did he have ability to enforce his orders; remember, at that time, this ‘Provisional Government’ had no army, no police and no other institutions.
Let me give few examples to prove my point. In Pakistan, Asif Zardari is President and Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is Prime Minister (and Yousaf Raza Gilani was the Prime Minister before him). They both are the most unpopular top office holders in history of Pakistan. Majority of people of Pakistan, not only dislike them but hate them because of rampant corruption, severe shortage of electricity, water, gas and other essential items; and in some parts of the country people have taken arms against the Federal Government.
What if some middle ranking political activists of some party get together in Kabul and declare a ‘Provisional Government’ of Pakistan; and claim that they have deposed President Zardari and Prime Minister Ashraf from their respective posts. They warn people of Pakistan not to obey orders of President Zardari and Prime Minister Pervaiz Ashraf; and anyone who obeys their orders will be punished by the Provisional Government. I am sure many people with common sense will ignore this statement and some will laugh at it.
Apart from that, we all know and now most Pakistani leaders acknowledge that in Balochistan there are militant groups fighting to get independence from Islamabad. These groups have political and military support as well. These political leaders are very well known; and they openly speak about their rights and oppression of the Pakistani army and secret agencies. What if some of these senior leaders, who are well known around the globe, declare their Provisional Government in Kabul; and declare that anyone supporting the Islamabad Government will be punished? It must be pointed out that they have ability to punish people as well.
Furthermore, Amanullah Khan, as the Chairman of JKLF announced a Provisional Government in June 1990. Unlike Ghulam Nabi Gilkar, Amanullah Khan was very popular Kashmiri leader in 1990; and JKLF was also at its peak. How many people took Amanullah Khan’s Provisional Government seriously? It resulted in a split of the JKLF and expulsion of Amanullah Khan from the JKLF with two - third majority of Central Committee members deciding against him. Today, even the JKLF members don’t want to talk about it.
Then question arises, why we people regard statement of Ghulam Nabi Gilkar so sacrosanct, even though he used a fake name for this purpose; and had virtually no political standing? My view is that government of Pakistan wanted to increase pressure on the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir who, contrary to expectation and needs of Pakistan was refusing to accede to Pakistan.
In order to break down resistance of the Maharajah, the Pakistani authorities first encouraged a rebellion against him in areas of Poonch which was primarily a movement against Maharaja’s administrative policies, especially against different kinds of excessive taxes; among them was notorious ‘Malia’ - a land tax. On 21 October 1947, Sheikh Abdullah, while talking about the Poonch problems said: ‘The present troubles in Poonch, a feudatory of Kashmir, were caused by the unwise policy adopted by the State. The people of Poonch had started a people’s movement for the redress of their grievances...’ Source- Kashmiris fight for freedom, Justice Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, page 801
In other words, it was not a movement for independence as such. However, Pakistani leaders, secret agencies, army, writers and other members of the society termed that as a ‘Liberation Movement’ to justify their interference in Kashmir; and pro Pakistani Kashmiris under this propaganda happily towed that line and continued to call their struggle against administrative matters ‘a liberation struggle’. Later on, Pakistani officials launched a tribal invasion in name of helping people of Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in death and destruction; and forced division of the State, which continues to date. Apart from that, the Pakistani authorities, in clear violation of the Standstill Agreement, applied economic blockade against the Maharajah, in which, of course, ordinary citizens of Jammu and Kashmir suffered.
As mentioned earlier, Ghulam Nabi Gilkar was a Qadiani, and so was Pakistan’s highly talented and influential Foreign Minister Sir Zafarullah Khan. Qadianis were also in search of a homeland for their sect; and they had their eyes on Kashmir, so it was more than likely that on his instructions Ghulam Nabi Gilkar declared this Provisional Government. Another important question is what happened to Ghulam Nabi Gilkar? According to one story, after declaring the Provisional Government, he travelled to Srinagar where he was arrested.
If he was genuinely a ‘President’ of the ‘Provisional Government’ would his Government and other officials allow him to travel to the ‘enemy area’ – Srinagar, where the Maharaja was still in power. It does not make sense. Reality is that it was a political stunt aimed at pressurising the Maharajah. However, powerful Sunni Muslim lobby feared a ‘Qadiani conspiracy’; and they got the ‘President’ out of way and changed this Government in name of re – organisation on 24th October 1947, and installed their trusted man – Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan as a President who sincerely served the interests of the Pakistani ruling elite.
I know for challenging a popular myth and the status quo, I will get criticism. I do not mind positive criticism, if anything, I welcome it as it helps me to learn and address other related questions. However, forces of occupation have appointed certain individuals with a clear task of attacking me; and they are spearheading a campaign of character assassination against me. As a sincere Kashmiri, a writer and analyst, I feel it is my duty to expose myths and lies spread by those who occupy us; and in performing my duties to my enslaved and forcibly divided nation, if I get some battering it is price worth paying.
Writer is a 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 01 October 2012
Many Kashmiris regard 4th October 1947 as an historic day, as it was on this day, according to widely held view, some Kashmiris announced a ‘Provisional Government’ which was later to be called Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government. This Provisional Government was re-organised on 24th October 1947 and Pakistani authorities, and more precisely Commissioner of Rawalpindi appointed Sardar Ibrahim as a President of this government.
I acknowledge that I was among those who also actively supported the revival of this Provisional Government for many years, especially when I was part of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. However, later on, with more education and political maturity I started expressing doubts about this ‘historic event’; and for many years we have not held any functions on 4th October. Before I analyse this ‘historic event’ from a critical point of view, I must point out that views expressed in this article are mine as a writer, and my party has nothing to do with this.
It must be understood that under the terms of the Partition of India, after the lapse of the British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir and other Princely States that did not join India or Pakistan gained their independence on 15 August 1947. Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagarr were among those Princely States who became independent on 15 August 1947. The last two had Muslim Rulers with non- – Muslim majority population; and Kashmir had non- –Muslim Ruler with Muslim majority population.
The Muslim Ruler of Junagarr declared to accede to Pakistan, even though there was no land link with Pakistan, and the majority of the people were not Muslims. Pakistan accepted this ‘accession’, and in response to this, a ‘Provisional Government’ for Junagarr was announced by non Muslims of Junagarr in Bombay on 1 October 1947.
Either encouraged by this move, or on instructions of some sections of the Pakistani government, especially Sir Zafarullah Khan, Foreign Minister of Pakistan; who was a Qadiani, and they as a sect wished to have a country under their control in that region, some Kashmiri activists, namely Ghulam Nabi Gilkar, who was also a Qadiani, Bashir Din, Mehmood Ahmed, Mufti Zia- U- Din, and Mohammed Abdullah Qadri, gathered in Lahore and declared a similar type of Provisional Government for Jammu and Kashmir.
Ghulam Nabi Gilkar used a fake name of Mr Anwar, and sent out the following statement, in which he described him as the President of the Provisional Republic of Jammu and Kashmir:
‘With the termination of the Paramountcy of the British Crown the ruling family of Kashmir have lost whatever rights it claimed under the Treaty of Amritsar, under which Kashmir was transferred by the British to Maharaja Gulab singh, a forefather of the present ruler, for a paltry sum of Rs. 50 lakhs, and that the people have set up a Provisional Government with Headquarters at Muzaffarabad’.
‘If after 1pm on 4 October Hari Singh (the present Maharaja) or any person acting under his orders or instructions claims to rule over the State, he shall be punished according to the laws of the Provisional Government. Henceforth all the laws, orders and instructions promulgated by the Provisional Government shall be respected and obeyed.’
Let us leave the conspiracy aside and talk of some facts and apply some common sense to this. The first question is who was Ghulam Nabi Gilkar; and what was his political standing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir at that time? At that time there were two big political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, namely National Conference and Muslim Conference, with the former being most popular and well organised. Ghulam Nabi Gilkar did not even figure out among the middle ranking leadership of these two parties. In other words, he was not a known political figure, so what political significance we can assign to his statement issued in Lahore, a major city of our neighbouring country (which desperately wanted to get Kashmir) and signed with a fake name.
What right did he have to ‘depose’ the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir? What right or power he had to punish the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir and his officials for disobeying Ghulam Nabi Gilkar and his team? Who assigned this power to him? Where did he derive this power from? What legitimacy he and his Provisional Government had? Furthermore, did he have ability to enforce his orders; remember, at that time, this ‘Provisional Government’ had no army, no police and no other institutions.
Let me give few examples to prove my point. In Pakistan, Asif Zardari is President and Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is Prime Minister (and Yousaf Raza Gilani was the Prime Minister before him). They both are the most unpopular top office holders in history of Pakistan. Majority of people of Pakistan, not only dislike them but hate them because of rampant corruption, severe shortage of electricity, water, gas and other essential items; and in some parts of the country people have taken arms against the Federal Government.
What if some middle ranking political activists of some party get together in Kabul and declare a ‘Provisional Government’ of Pakistan; and claim that they have deposed President Zardari and Prime Minister Ashraf from their respective posts. They warn people of Pakistan not to obey orders of President Zardari and Prime Minister Pervaiz Ashraf; and anyone who obeys their orders will be punished by the Provisional Government. I am sure many people with common sense will ignore this statement and some will laugh at it.
Apart from that, we all know and now most Pakistani leaders acknowledge that in Balochistan there are militant groups fighting to get independence from Islamabad. These groups have political and military support as well. These political leaders are very well known; and they openly speak about their rights and oppression of the Pakistani army and secret agencies. What if some of these senior leaders, who are well known around the globe, declare their Provisional Government in Kabul; and declare that anyone supporting the Islamabad Government will be punished? It must be pointed out that they have ability to punish people as well.
Furthermore, Amanullah Khan, as the Chairman of JKLF announced a Provisional Government in June 1990. Unlike Ghulam Nabi Gilkar, Amanullah Khan was very popular Kashmiri leader in 1990; and JKLF was also at its peak. How many people took Amanullah Khan’s Provisional Government seriously? It resulted in a split of the JKLF and expulsion of Amanullah Khan from the JKLF with two - third majority of Central Committee members deciding against him. Today, even the JKLF members don’t want to talk about it.
Then question arises, why we people regard statement of Ghulam Nabi Gilkar so sacrosanct, even though he used a fake name for this purpose; and had virtually no political standing? My view is that government of Pakistan wanted to increase pressure on the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir who, contrary to expectation and needs of Pakistan was refusing to accede to Pakistan.
In order to break down resistance of the Maharajah, the Pakistani authorities first encouraged a rebellion against him in areas of Poonch which was primarily a movement against Maharaja’s administrative policies, especially against different kinds of excessive taxes; among them was notorious ‘Malia’ - a land tax. On 21 October 1947, Sheikh Abdullah, while talking about the Poonch problems said: ‘The present troubles in Poonch, a feudatory of Kashmir, were caused by the unwise policy adopted by the State. The people of Poonch had started a people’s movement for the redress of their grievances...’ Source- Kashmiris fight for freedom, Justice Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, page 801
In other words, it was not a movement for independence as such. However, Pakistani leaders, secret agencies, army, writers and other members of the society termed that as a ‘Liberation Movement’ to justify their interference in Kashmir; and pro Pakistani Kashmiris under this propaganda happily towed that line and continued to call their struggle against administrative matters ‘a liberation struggle’. Later on, Pakistani officials launched a tribal invasion in name of helping people of Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in death and destruction; and forced division of the State, which continues to date. Apart from that, the Pakistani authorities, in clear violation of the Standstill Agreement, applied economic blockade against the Maharajah, in which, of course, ordinary citizens of Jammu and Kashmir suffered.
As mentioned earlier, Ghulam Nabi Gilkar was a Qadiani, and so was Pakistan’s highly talented and influential Foreign Minister Sir Zafarullah Khan. Qadianis were also in search of a homeland for their sect; and they had their eyes on Kashmir, so it was more than likely that on his instructions Ghulam Nabi Gilkar declared this Provisional Government. Another important question is what happened to Ghulam Nabi Gilkar? According to one story, after declaring the Provisional Government, he travelled to Srinagar where he was arrested.
If he was genuinely a ‘President’ of the ‘Provisional Government’ would his Government and other officials allow him to travel to the ‘enemy area’ – Srinagar, where the Maharaja was still in power. It does not make sense. Reality is that it was a political stunt aimed at pressurising the Maharajah. However, powerful Sunni Muslim lobby feared a ‘Qadiani conspiracy’; and they got the ‘President’ out of way and changed this Government in name of re – organisation on 24th October 1947, and installed their trusted man – Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan as a President who sincerely served the interests of the Pakistani ruling elite.
I know for challenging a popular myth and the status quo, I will get criticism. I do not mind positive criticism, if anything, I welcome it as it helps me to learn and address other related questions. However, forces of occupation have appointed certain individuals with a clear task of attacking me; and they are spearheading a campaign of character assassination against me. As a sincere Kashmiri, a writer and analyst, I feel it is my duty to expose myths and lies spread by those who occupy us; and in performing my duties to my enslaved and forcibly divided nation, if I get some battering it is price worth paying.
Writer is a 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)