Visit of 9 ‘generals’
Dr Shabir Choudhry 10 July 2005
Even if we are complacent with words the fact remains that State of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly divided and occupied by India and Pakistan, (although some area is under China but under the present situation it does not come in to equation).
Despite clear occupation and subjugation of the State, one region under Pakistan is known as ‘Azad Kashmir’, and this allusion of being ‘azad’ satisfies ego of many people of this region. This false sense of being ‘azad’ motivates them to ‘liberate’ areas under the occupation of India, while forgetting their own plight and plight of their fellow countrymen in Gilgit and Baltistan.
In June 2005, we saw a visit of nine ‘leaders’, rather nine generals who marched in to Pakistani occupied Kashmir, just like Roman generals used to march in to areas they conquered. The way they were greeted by people of Azad Kashmir and occupiers of this area and Gilgit and Baltistan indicated as if these people were coming here after liberation of territory under the occupation of India.
These ‘conquering generals’ always considered themselves as superior citizens of the State, and didn’t find anyone suitable in Azad Kashmir to represent them, so they had to ‘export’ their own favourites to represent them in APHC and in Islamabad.
These nine generals spent less time in Kashmiri territory, Azad Kashmir, and more time in the country which occupied a large part of their homeland and enjoyed receptions and banquets there. They did not dare to visit Gilgit and Baltistan, a region of the State occupied by Pakistan where people are still denied of basic human rights.
These leaders who were greeted here like heroes, did not even speak about Gilgit and Baltistan and about the plight of the people; but thought it appropriate to attack and humiliate their hosts, leaders of Azad Kashmir. This is not to say that leaders of Azad Kashmir are above criticism and that their role is exemplary, but there are some traditions and moral values which we should all respect.
If leaders of Azad Kashmir have adopted selfish attitude and have not fulfilled national aspirations of the Kashmiri people, they are not alone in this, leaders on the other side have done worse and they are more in number.
One can even question credentials of these visiting ‘kings’ who are beamed through Pakistani media as Kashmiri leaders, and ask what they have done to get unity and national emancipation. One has to see if they added to the problems and suffering of the ordinary people, or they have done something to alleviate this misery and suffering.
It is unfortunate that leadership is imposed on the people of Jammu and Kashmir from abroad, and for many decades it has been the Pakistani establishment and media who have chosen leaders for us. Kashmiri leaders on their part have been good in attacking and abusing each other and accusing each other of treachery and working for either RAW or ISI.
When these ‘leaders’ came to Azad Kashmir many thought they will come with a programme for unity or some kind of agenda which will help people of Jammu and Kashmir to get unity and independence. Instead they came armed with criticism and abuse; and wanted to divert attention to trivial issues by personalising matters.
They wanted to ensure that no one asks them about their lack of interest in the area of Gilgit and Baltistan; and lack of interest in other issues which immediately concern people of this area. They ensured that they DONOT say anything which could possibly annoy the Pakistani government and secret agencies, and for that they had to keep peoples attention focussed on other issues.
Despite this abuse and insult, leaders and people of Azad Kashmir showered them with love and respect; and many wonder if they deserved all this. Leaders of Azad Kashmir and especially nationalist leaders rightly question their right and ability to represent all sections of the Kashmiri community.
They all came together which gave the impression that they were all one – members of one team, but it soon became apparent that they were divided lot with individual agendas to suit their personal ambitions. Even the language they were speaking showed that they were individuals with no national programme; but they were all united in one thing and that was to ensure that Pakistani establishment is not upset with anything they say.
They visited Mirpur and biggest problem facing people of Mirpur is the proposed upraising of the Mangla Dam, which will uproot more than hundred thousand people and cause enormous other problems. Pakistan is upraising this dam against declared will of the local people and against their interest. This project will benefit Pakistani landlords and Pakistani industrialists at the expense of local people.
These ‘leaders’ who want to be taken as national leaders, and expect people of Azad Kashmir to rubber stamp their decisions; and yet they did not have courage and sense of responsibility to speak about rights and concerns of these people.
They did not express their desire to visit Gilgit and Baltistan or even to meet leaders of this area because they feared that Pakistani establishment would not like this. And those who tried to shout slogans about Gilgit and Baltistan, Mangla Dam and role of Pakistan were told not to say anything which could annoy Pakistani officials as they have been ‘good hosts.’
This attitude clearly shows that these ‘leaders’ have compromised their views about the Kashmiri struggle, and only want to talk about the Kashmiri territory under the Indian occupation; hence have collaborated with those who want to divide the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
In view of this it is imperative that all those who believe in unification of the state and oppose division as a solution, should come out and tell these ‘leaders’ that they don’t represent us; and that they must not use this struggle as a lucrative business.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir must understand that some of these ‘leaders’ have no constituency and no following, and yet they are projected and imposed upon us as leaders. For what they did there, they were appropriately rewarded and projected by the Pakistani media; and on their return they had this allusion that they were the real ‘leaders’ of Jammu and Kashmir, who (on instructions of Pakistan) will determine future of Kashmir.
Our message to these Pakistan TV leaders is that you do not represent wishes of the ordinary people. You may be representing and projecting the interest of Kashmir’s neighbours but you do not represent wishes of people of Azad Kashmir, Jammu, Gilgit and Baltistan, and Ladakh. You DONOT even represent wishes of majority of the people in the Valley.
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Saturday, 31 May 2008
Struggle for an independent Kashmir
Struggle for an independent Kashmir
Text of Dr Shabir Choudhry’s lecture at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London on 27 April 2005.
The Chairperson, friends and colleagues Aslamo Alaykam
I am grateful to the SOAS Jammu and Kashmir Society, and Nageela Yousaf for providing me this opportunity to speak to you.
Many people believe that the Kashmiri struggle started in 1989; and some think it started in 1931. I disagree with both dates. In my opinion it started in 1586 when an independent state of Kashmir was invaded by the Moghal Emperor, Akbar the Great.
By nature every human being likes freedom; and hate to be enslaved or subjugated. People of Jammu and Kashmir are no different. We also like to enjoy freedom, democracy and prosperity.
In other words the Kashmiri struggle for independence is as old as its slavery and subjugation. This struggle has seen many ups and downs in its long history. Events like 13 July 1931 are different phases of that struggle.
Instead of giving you a long historical background to this struggle I will focus my attention to the events of late 1940s; and will try to update you on the present phase of the struggle. I will also try to explain why the JKLF was formed, and what role it has played.
Is Kashmir part of ‘Two Nations Theory’?
Both India and Pakistan claim Kashmir; whereas India claims it on the strength of provisional accession, Pakistan claims it on the strength of Two Nations Theory. But before we start looking at different options on Kashmir it is important to establish the exact legal position of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As we all know the British Raj in India consisted of two units: British India and the Princely India, and Kashmir was one of hundreds of princely sates in the Indian Sub Continent. Whereas the British India was directly ruled by the British, Princes were taken as allies of the Crown. They enjoyed varying degree of autonomy, but they surrendered their sovereignty in return for the British protection.
At the end of the British Raj in India, they divided the British India; and not the Princely India, as the Two Nations theory did not apply to the Princely States. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was founder of Pakistan and President of Muslim League, in reply to a question on 17 June 1947, said, and I quote:
‘That after the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly {or Pakistan Constituent Assembly} or to decide to remain independent’. Unquote
Apart from this Mohammed Ali Jinnah practically proved that the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States. State of Junagarr had a Muslim ruler and nearly 80 % of its subjects were non Muslims, and the state had no land access to Pakistan. Had the rules of Two Nations Theory being applicable to Princely States, then this state would have automatically joined India; but the ruler of this State acceded to Pakistan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a Governor General of Pakistan accepted this accession.
Similarly Hyderabad state had 80 % non- Muslim majority, and ruler of this state wanted to become an independent ruler. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as a Governor General of Pakistan supported his right to become a sovereign ruler.
These two examples clearly show that the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely states, and Princely rulers had a right to regain their sovereignty after the lapse of British Paramountcy.
This principle was also confirmed by Lord Mountbatten, who as a Governor General of India and Crown’s representative, addressed Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947, he said, and I quote:
‘There had been universal acceptance among the States of the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May and when the political parties accepted the Statement of 3 June they fully realised and accepted that withdrawal of Paramountcy would enable the States to regain complete sovereignty….Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent.’
Unquote
Princely States had to join either India or Pakistan before the lapse of paramountcy, which ended on 15th August 1947, and those states who, for whatever reason, did not accede to either country, legally and constitutionally became independent. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was among those states who did not join either India and Pakistan, and regained their sovereignty after the lapse of British paramountcy.
Is Kashmir an integral part of India?
Now let us examine Indian claim to Kashmir, which rests on that controversial provisional accession. Many people question if at all this accession was signed by the Maharaja. Let’s us assume that the accession documents were signed by the Maharaja, but the point to remember is that it was a provisional accession which had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Pundit Nehru, as a Prime Minister of India, wrote to Liaqat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan on 31 October 1947, and I quote:
Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world. Unquote
To date this provisional accession has not been ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Government of India claims that Kashmir is its ‘atoot ang’, meaning an integral part, and in order to support its claim, government of India says that they have had many elections in Kashmir. Legitimacy of these elections aside, the UN Security Council resolution of 1957, clearly says that no election can substitute a plebiscite.
What this means is that accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is still provisional, and Kashmir is not ‘Atoot ang’ of India and nor it is ‘Sha rag’ of Pakistan. And good thing is both governments are aware of this. If India seriously believed that Jammu and Kashmir was its legal and constitutional part as a result of that provisional accession, then they would not have taken this to the UN, as no country agrees to hold a plebiscite on its territory to determine future of that area.
Apart from that both governments have many rounds of dialogue on the division of the State, and no country agrees to divide its territory and give it away to a neighbouring country. What this suggests is that, to them, issue is related to control of land and its resources, especially very important water resources. And Kashmiris suffer because they live in a beautiful country which is full of resources and its geographical location adds to more importance to its value.
An independent Kashmir
Many people think that the concept of an independent Kashmir is a new phenomenon, and some even link it to New World Order, and some conspiracy theorists even say that it is an India ploy. The concept of a New World Order emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the struggle for an independent Kashmir has a long history.
As I said at the beginning, the people of Kashmir have been fighting for their rights and their independence since 1586. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, was not a democrat, but one thing is clear that he wanted Kashmir to become an independent country; and despite pressure from Lord Mountbatten and others he refused to join either India and Pakistan.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as quoted earlier, in principle agreed that Kashmir could become an independent country. Before the Partition, National Conference was the most popular political party in Jammu and Kashmir, and it favoured an independent Kashmir. Muslim Conference was another important political party, and its acting President, Chaudhry Hameed Ullah Khan also agreed that it is best for Kashmir and all sections of the Kashmiri community that the State becomes an independent country.
It is interesting to note that in the past both India and Pakistan disagreed with each other virtually on everything, but both agreed to oppose an independent Kashmir; and both agreed to keep the Kashmiris out of talks on Kashmir. Just to emphasis this point I want to list some of the main events where we were deliberately kept away from the negotiating table:
People talk of UN resolutions on Kashmir, but we had no input on these, both India and Pakistan presented the case as it suited their national interest. First UNCIP resolution (of 13 August 1948) talked about future status of Kashmir which implied an independent Kashmir; and this did not suit national interest of Pakistan, so they suggested that Kashmiri peoples right to independence should be limited to either joining India or Pakistan.
We were kept away from all bilateral talks on Kashmir which has a long history;
We were not part of the Tashkant Agreement in 1966;
We were not part of the Shimla Agreement in 1972;
Pakistan hosted an Islamic Conference in Pakistan and Kashmiris were not invited. There was talk of all other disputes but no mention of Kashmir;
We were not part of Lahore Declaration;
And we are not part of the present peace process, although we fully support it as we think this could create conducive environment for a final settlement.
They want to decide about the future of Kashmir without making the Kashmiris part of this process; and history of bilateralism shows that when it comes to Kashmir it is doomed to fail because their diagnosis and prescription is wrong. Kashmir is not a bilateral issue, and cannot be resolved by bilateral talks.
It was in 1960s when Kashmiri nationalists regrouped themselves because they thought both countries had their own designs on Kashmir; and rights of the Kashmiri people is not on their agenda. Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front was set up to promote the cause of an independent Kashmir. Maqbool Butt (Shaheed) was its Publicity Secretary; he later became its President.
Maqbool Butt with help of other colleagues organised a secret military wing of this party, known as Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Front. After the Ganga hijacking of an Indian plane in 1970, Pakistan tried to brutally crush both parties in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan in early 1970s.
It was after this that nationalist Kashmiris organised their struggle outside the State. There were small nationalist groups in England, and in 1977 JKLF was formed in Birmingham. I am one of the founders of the JKLF; and it would be pertinent to point out that Maqbool Butt was not a member of the JKLF he was in the Indian prison at that time.
In nutshell the JKLF proved to be the biggest organisation to project the cause of united and independent Kashmir. Unlike some other Kashmiri organisations the JKLF believed in liberal and democratic values and claimed to speak for all sections of the Kashmiri community.
It is unfortunate that practise of some JKLF colleagues indicated undemocratic and communal tendencies which resulted in splits, and also it gave the JKLF bad name. It is also unfortunate that the JKLF is now in many groups, and many people question if some of the groups still adhere to ideology of the JKLF.
The present situation in Kashmir
The State is divided as follows:
As a result of the cease fire in 1949, the State was divided between India and Pakistan. Whereas the Indian side of Kashmir remained one political entity, the area on the Pakistani side was divided in to two units, namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. From the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, Pakistan gifted away nearly two and half thousand square miles of Kashmiri territory to China. On the other side of the divide as a result of a war between India and China, China occupied a large area of Aksai Chin.
On the Pakistani side of the divide Gilgit and Baltistan is directly controlled by Pakistan, and Azad Kashmir has semi autonomous status. Although people are not happy with what Pakistan does in these areas, but there is no widespread discontent and people have not resorted to militancy. Population of these areas is 100% Muslim, but different sects of Islam are in majority in different regions of these areas.
On the Indian side of the divide there is the Valley, Ladakh and Jammu. The Valley has overwhelming Muslim Majority, but Ladakh has one district with Muslim majority and the other with Buddhist majority. Similarly in Jammu there are Muslim majority districts and non Muslim majority districts. Whereas militancy has spilled over from the Valley to some parts of Jammu, Ladakh has been completely quiet.
Militancy
In the long Kashmiri struggle, a military aspect was once again introduced in 1988/9, and leaders of the JKLF have been proudly taking credit for this. However with hindsight many leaders of the JKLF now accept that they were used, and militancy was never under their control; and those who controlled it had different agenda to that of the JKLF.
Many analysts believe that introduction of foreign militants in Kashmir was perhaps the biggest mistake, as it changed the character of the Kashmiri struggle. It helped India to project the Kashmiri struggle as part of Islamic fundamentalism. Their presence was also not appreciated by the local people because this added to their misery and problems.
Militancy whether it was Kashmiri or non Kashmiri has resulted in more than 50 thousand lives, and it has also destroyed social fabrics of the Kashmiri society. In Kashmir, like in any other armed conflict, majority of the victims are innocent civilians. No one has the exact data about total deaths in Jammu and Kashmir, but it is true that majority of the casualties are civilians, and they are not all killed by the Indian forces. There are other non state actors who also did not hesitate to kill innocent people or cause their deaths by throwing bombs in populated areas.
One group of the JKLF headed by Yasin Malik declared a cease fire in 1995, and resorted to non violent struggle. JKLF believes that:
1. There is no military solution;
2. It has to be resolved through a process of tripartite or triangular dialogue;
3. It is not a religious dispute and no decision could be made on basis of religion; and that all sections of the Kashmiri community must be taken on board;
4. Kashmiri leadership should be allowed to meet that they can formulate a strategy to resolve the dispute;
5. Approximately 99% of the Kashmiris agree that there should be no division of the state, as division will cause more harm to the Kashmiris; and also it will detrimental to peace and stability of South Asia;
Bus Service
1. In principle we support the bus service. It gives an opportunity to people to meet their love ones who live on the other side of the forced division. Also it is a good CBM as people to people contacts always help to diffuse tension, but we strongly emphasise that the procedure should be simplified.
2. For example if a person from Gilgit wants to visit someone in Kargil, he has to first go to Muzaffrabad to get a form, which is a very long and difficult journey. I think it takes about twenty hours to get there, and completed form goes to Islamabad, and after clearance from there it goes to New Delhi; and when it gets clearance from Delhi then the lucky person is informed of his ‘success’.
3. I don’t need to remind people that this clearance is given by the secret agencies of both countries. This system virtually gives right to agencies of both countries to decide who should board this bus; and this way many genuine people could be denied of an opportunity to visit their love ones. Also this system will give encouragement to favouritism and corruption as agencies will support application of those who are part of their political system.
4. If the applicant is lucky to get permission, he/she will travel again from Gilgit to Muzaffarabad and board a bus to Srinagar, and from there many hours of long and hard journey to Kargil.
5. We therefore urge that all traditional routes which existed before the partition should be opened, and people should obtain and submit these forms at district head quarters.
6. We also strongly oppose that people of India and Pakistan should not be allowed to travel on this bus as the danger is that it might turn this in to another Wagha border - international border between India and Pakistan. Other routes which suit them more should be opened for people of these two countries. My fear is that if agencies are to decide who should board the bus then obviously they will prefer their own people, and not the Kashmiri people; and when this travel becomes hazard free then one could see more Indian and Pakistanis on the bus rather than the Kashmiris.
7. Another thing which is of concern to us, and which we have repeatedly pointed out and it is about the stipulation that people travelling on the bus could be asked to pay custom if they were carrying goods above certain value. This implies a first step towards an international border, as people don’t pay custom when they carry goods from one part of the country to another.
Kashmiris are not united
As pointed out India and Pakistan have always ensured that the Kashmiri leadership is not part of any dialogue on Kashmir; and to support their policy they sometimes say Kashmiris are divided, and there is no one suitable person to represent them.
True, we Kashmiris are divided, but that can be taken as a positive sign. We are thinking people, and we all have ideas about various things. Isn’t it true that all thinking people differ on certain things? What about Pakistani and Indian societies, are they not divided over many issues? Don’t they have many parties and groups? This is a flimsy excuse to keep us away from the negotiating table.
We say it should not be their problem which team will represent us on the negotiating table. You let us meet and we will select a team which will represent all sections of the community, and protect the national interest of Jammu and Kashmir.
Is an independent Kashmir viable?
India and Pakistan oppose an independent Kashmir not because it is not economically viable, but because they know that an independent Kashmir has a great economic potential.
Jammu and Kashmir has great economic potential, and there are many sources to generate revenue. If we, for time being, leave economic potential of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan aside, and only concentrate on one revenue generating source still we can be economically self reliant.
A research done by Kashmir Foundation for Peace and Development claims, that if we concentrate on Hydro Potential of Indian side of Kashmir, then we can generate 20,000 mega watt of electricity from there. The cost to generate one unit is only 20 paisa, and it is sold at 2.50 rupees. It means a net profit of 2 rupees and 30 paisa per unit. This source alone, according to the research, is sufficient to make Jammu and Kashmir self reliant; and it will pay back all the costs of the project within three years.
Last month I was in Islamabad where I met some Western diplomats. During the meeting they acknowledged that majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir were in favour of an independent Kashmir. They also agreed that economically it is viable, but the problem was attitude of India and Pakistan. An independent Kashmir cannot survive if India and Pakistan and the international community do not guarantee its independence.
Of course India and Pakistan have their genuine concerns about an independent Kashmir; and they also have economic and strategic interests. We Kashmiris want to be a source of friendship, cooperation and stability in South Asia. We cannot maintain our independence if we have two strong and hostile neighbours. We will all have to learn to live like good neighbours.
Both India and Pakistan have much to gain if there is peace, stability and economic cooperation in South Asia. Economic interests and other internal and external forces are pushing both countries towards a common goal and that is to have peace and economic cooperation in South Asia.
Of course India has much larger agenda which is to do with its international role and that could not be fulfilled without sorting out problems of South Asia first. And in my opinion for peace, stability and prosperity of South Asia, both India and Pakistan will have to agree to some kind of an independent Kashmir in near future.
Thank you for being so patient.
After the lecture there was question and answer session for half an hour.
Text of Dr Shabir Choudhry’s lecture at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London on 27 April 2005.
The Chairperson, friends and colleagues Aslamo Alaykam
I am grateful to the SOAS Jammu and Kashmir Society, and Nageela Yousaf for providing me this opportunity to speak to you.
Many people believe that the Kashmiri struggle started in 1989; and some think it started in 1931. I disagree with both dates. In my opinion it started in 1586 when an independent state of Kashmir was invaded by the Moghal Emperor, Akbar the Great.
By nature every human being likes freedom; and hate to be enslaved or subjugated. People of Jammu and Kashmir are no different. We also like to enjoy freedom, democracy and prosperity.
In other words the Kashmiri struggle for independence is as old as its slavery and subjugation. This struggle has seen many ups and downs in its long history. Events like 13 July 1931 are different phases of that struggle.
Instead of giving you a long historical background to this struggle I will focus my attention to the events of late 1940s; and will try to update you on the present phase of the struggle. I will also try to explain why the JKLF was formed, and what role it has played.
Is Kashmir part of ‘Two Nations Theory’?
Both India and Pakistan claim Kashmir; whereas India claims it on the strength of provisional accession, Pakistan claims it on the strength of Two Nations Theory. But before we start looking at different options on Kashmir it is important to establish the exact legal position of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As we all know the British Raj in India consisted of two units: British India and the Princely India, and Kashmir was one of hundreds of princely sates in the Indian Sub Continent. Whereas the British India was directly ruled by the British, Princes were taken as allies of the Crown. They enjoyed varying degree of autonomy, but they surrendered their sovereignty in return for the British protection.
At the end of the British Raj in India, they divided the British India; and not the Princely India, as the Two Nations theory did not apply to the Princely States. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was founder of Pakistan and President of Muslim League, in reply to a question on 17 June 1947, said, and I quote:
‘That after the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly {or Pakistan Constituent Assembly} or to decide to remain independent’. Unquote
Apart from this Mohammed Ali Jinnah practically proved that the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States. State of Junagarr had a Muslim ruler and nearly 80 % of its subjects were non Muslims, and the state had no land access to Pakistan. Had the rules of Two Nations Theory being applicable to Princely States, then this state would have automatically joined India; but the ruler of this State acceded to Pakistan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a Governor General of Pakistan accepted this accession.
Similarly Hyderabad state had 80 % non- Muslim majority, and ruler of this state wanted to become an independent ruler. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as a Governor General of Pakistan supported his right to become a sovereign ruler.
These two examples clearly show that the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely states, and Princely rulers had a right to regain their sovereignty after the lapse of British Paramountcy.
This principle was also confirmed by Lord Mountbatten, who as a Governor General of India and Crown’s representative, addressed Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947, he said, and I quote:
‘There had been universal acceptance among the States of the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May and when the political parties accepted the Statement of 3 June they fully realised and accepted that withdrawal of Paramountcy would enable the States to regain complete sovereignty….Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent.’
Unquote
Princely States had to join either India or Pakistan before the lapse of paramountcy, which ended on 15th August 1947, and those states who, for whatever reason, did not accede to either country, legally and constitutionally became independent. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was among those states who did not join either India and Pakistan, and regained their sovereignty after the lapse of British paramountcy.
Is Kashmir an integral part of India?
Now let us examine Indian claim to Kashmir, which rests on that controversial provisional accession. Many people question if at all this accession was signed by the Maharaja. Let’s us assume that the accession documents were signed by the Maharaja, but the point to remember is that it was a provisional accession which had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Pundit Nehru, as a Prime Minister of India, wrote to Liaqat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan on 31 October 1947, and I quote:
Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world. Unquote
To date this provisional accession has not been ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Government of India claims that Kashmir is its ‘atoot ang’, meaning an integral part, and in order to support its claim, government of India says that they have had many elections in Kashmir. Legitimacy of these elections aside, the UN Security Council resolution of 1957, clearly says that no election can substitute a plebiscite.
What this means is that accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is still provisional, and Kashmir is not ‘Atoot ang’ of India and nor it is ‘Sha rag’ of Pakistan. And good thing is both governments are aware of this. If India seriously believed that Jammu and Kashmir was its legal and constitutional part as a result of that provisional accession, then they would not have taken this to the UN, as no country agrees to hold a plebiscite on its territory to determine future of that area.
Apart from that both governments have many rounds of dialogue on the division of the State, and no country agrees to divide its territory and give it away to a neighbouring country. What this suggests is that, to them, issue is related to control of land and its resources, especially very important water resources. And Kashmiris suffer because they live in a beautiful country which is full of resources and its geographical location adds to more importance to its value.
An independent Kashmir
Many people think that the concept of an independent Kashmir is a new phenomenon, and some even link it to New World Order, and some conspiracy theorists even say that it is an India ploy. The concept of a New World Order emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the struggle for an independent Kashmir has a long history.
As I said at the beginning, the people of Kashmir have been fighting for their rights and their independence since 1586. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, was not a democrat, but one thing is clear that he wanted Kashmir to become an independent country; and despite pressure from Lord Mountbatten and others he refused to join either India and Pakistan.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as quoted earlier, in principle agreed that Kashmir could become an independent country. Before the Partition, National Conference was the most popular political party in Jammu and Kashmir, and it favoured an independent Kashmir. Muslim Conference was another important political party, and its acting President, Chaudhry Hameed Ullah Khan also agreed that it is best for Kashmir and all sections of the Kashmiri community that the State becomes an independent country.
It is interesting to note that in the past both India and Pakistan disagreed with each other virtually on everything, but both agreed to oppose an independent Kashmir; and both agreed to keep the Kashmiris out of talks on Kashmir. Just to emphasis this point I want to list some of the main events where we were deliberately kept away from the negotiating table:
People talk of UN resolutions on Kashmir, but we had no input on these, both India and Pakistan presented the case as it suited their national interest. First UNCIP resolution (of 13 August 1948) talked about future status of Kashmir which implied an independent Kashmir; and this did not suit national interest of Pakistan, so they suggested that Kashmiri peoples right to independence should be limited to either joining India or Pakistan.
We were kept away from all bilateral talks on Kashmir which has a long history;
We were not part of the Tashkant Agreement in 1966;
We were not part of the Shimla Agreement in 1972;
Pakistan hosted an Islamic Conference in Pakistan and Kashmiris were not invited. There was talk of all other disputes but no mention of Kashmir;
We were not part of Lahore Declaration;
And we are not part of the present peace process, although we fully support it as we think this could create conducive environment for a final settlement.
They want to decide about the future of Kashmir without making the Kashmiris part of this process; and history of bilateralism shows that when it comes to Kashmir it is doomed to fail because their diagnosis and prescription is wrong. Kashmir is not a bilateral issue, and cannot be resolved by bilateral talks.
It was in 1960s when Kashmiri nationalists regrouped themselves because they thought both countries had their own designs on Kashmir; and rights of the Kashmiri people is not on their agenda. Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front was set up to promote the cause of an independent Kashmir. Maqbool Butt (Shaheed) was its Publicity Secretary; he later became its President.
Maqbool Butt with help of other colleagues organised a secret military wing of this party, known as Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Front. After the Ganga hijacking of an Indian plane in 1970, Pakistan tried to brutally crush both parties in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan in early 1970s.
It was after this that nationalist Kashmiris organised their struggle outside the State. There were small nationalist groups in England, and in 1977 JKLF was formed in Birmingham. I am one of the founders of the JKLF; and it would be pertinent to point out that Maqbool Butt was not a member of the JKLF he was in the Indian prison at that time.
In nutshell the JKLF proved to be the biggest organisation to project the cause of united and independent Kashmir. Unlike some other Kashmiri organisations the JKLF believed in liberal and democratic values and claimed to speak for all sections of the Kashmiri community.
It is unfortunate that practise of some JKLF colleagues indicated undemocratic and communal tendencies which resulted in splits, and also it gave the JKLF bad name. It is also unfortunate that the JKLF is now in many groups, and many people question if some of the groups still adhere to ideology of the JKLF.
The present situation in Kashmir
The State is divided as follows:
As a result of the cease fire in 1949, the State was divided between India and Pakistan. Whereas the Indian side of Kashmir remained one political entity, the area on the Pakistani side was divided in to two units, namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. From the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, Pakistan gifted away nearly two and half thousand square miles of Kashmiri territory to China. On the other side of the divide as a result of a war between India and China, China occupied a large area of Aksai Chin.
On the Pakistani side of the divide Gilgit and Baltistan is directly controlled by Pakistan, and Azad Kashmir has semi autonomous status. Although people are not happy with what Pakistan does in these areas, but there is no widespread discontent and people have not resorted to militancy. Population of these areas is 100% Muslim, but different sects of Islam are in majority in different regions of these areas.
On the Indian side of the divide there is the Valley, Ladakh and Jammu. The Valley has overwhelming Muslim Majority, but Ladakh has one district with Muslim majority and the other with Buddhist majority. Similarly in Jammu there are Muslim majority districts and non Muslim majority districts. Whereas militancy has spilled over from the Valley to some parts of Jammu, Ladakh has been completely quiet.
Militancy
In the long Kashmiri struggle, a military aspect was once again introduced in 1988/9, and leaders of the JKLF have been proudly taking credit for this. However with hindsight many leaders of the JKLF now accept that they were used, and militancy was never under their control; and those who controlled it had different agenda to that of the JKLF.
Many analysts believe that introduction of foreign militants in Kashmir was perhaps the biggest mistake, as it changed the character of the Kashmiri struggle. It helped India to project the Kashmiri struggle as part of Islamic fundamentalism. Their presence was also not appreciated by the local people because this added to their misery and problems.
Militancy whether it was Kashmiri or non Kashmiri has resulted in more than 50 thousand lives, and it has also destroyed social fabrics of the Kashmiri society. In Kashmir, like in any other armed conflict, majority of the victims are innocent civilians. No one has the exact data about total deaths in Jammu and Kashmir, but it is true that majority of the casualties are civilians, and they are not all killed by the Indian forces. There are other non state actors who also did not hesitate to kill innocent people or cause their deaths by throwing bombs in populated areas.
One group of the JKLF headed by Yasin Malik declared a cease fire in 1995, and resorted to non violent struggle. JKLF believes that:
1. There is no military solution;
2. It has to be resolved through a process of tripartite or triangular dialogue;
3. It is not a religious dispute and no decision could be made on basis of religion; and that all sections of the Kashmiri community must be taken on board;
4. Kashmiri leadership should be allowed to meet that they can formulate a strategy to resolve the dispute;
5. Approximately 99% of the Kashmiris agree that there should be no division of the state, as division will cause more harm to the Kashmiris; and also it will detrimental to peace and stability of South Asia;
Bus Service
1. In principle we support the bus service. It gives an opportunity to people to meet their love ones who live on the other side of the forced division. Also it is a good CBM as people to people contacts always help to diffuse tension, but we strongly emphasise that the procedure should be simplified.
2. For example if a person from Gilgit wants to visit someone in Kargil, he has to first go to Muzaffrabad to get a form, which is a very long and difficult journey. I think it takes about twenty hours to get there, and completed form goes to Islamabad, and after clearance from there it goes to New Delhi; and when it gets clearance from Delhi then the lucky person is informed of his ‘success’.
3. I don’t need to remind people that this clearance is given by the secret agencies of both countries. This system virtually gives right to agencies of both countries to decide who should board this bus; and this way many genuine people could be denied of an opportunity to visit their love ones. Also this system will give encouragement to favouritism and corruption as agencies will support application of those who are part of their political system.
4. If the applicant is lucky to get permission, he/she will travel again from Gilgit to Muzaffarabad and board a bus to Srinagar, and from there many hours of long and hard journey to Kargil.
5. We therefore urge that all traditional routes which existed before the partition should be opened, and people should obtain and submit these forms at district head quarters.
6. We also strongly oppose that people of India and Pakistan should not be allowed to travel on this bus as the danger is that it might turn this in to another Wagha border - international border between India and Pakistan. Other routes which suit them more should be opened for people of these two countries. My fear is that if agencies are to decide who should board the bus then obviously they will prefer their own people, and not the Kashmiri people; and when this travel becomes hazard free then one could see more Indian and Pakistanis on the bus rather than the Kashmiris.
7. Another thing which is of concern to us, and which we have repeatedly pointed out and it is about the stipulation that people travelling on the bus could be asked to pay custom if they were carrying goods above certain value. This implies a first step towards an international border, as people don’t pay custom when they carry goods from one part of the country to another.
Kashmiris are not united
As pointed out India and Pakistan have always ensured that the Kashmiri leadership is not part of any dialogue on Kashmir; and to support their policy they sometimes say Kashmiris are divided, and there is no one suitable person to represent them.
True, we Kashmiris are divided, but that can be taken as a positive sign. We are thinking people, and we all have ideas about various things. Isn’t it true that all thinking people differ on certain things? What about Pakistani and Indian societies, are they not divided over many issues? Don’t they have many parties and groups? This is a flimsy excuse to keep us away from the negotiating table.
We say it should not be their problem which team will represent us on the negotiating table. You let us meet and we will select a team which will represent all sections of the community, and protect the national interest of Jammu and Kashmir.
Is an independent Kashmir viable?
India and Pakistan oppose an independent Kashmir not because it is not economically viable, but because they know that an independent Kashmir has a great economic potential.
Jammu and Kashmir has great economic potential, and there are many sources to generate revenue. If we, for time being, leave economic potential of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan aside, and only concentrate on one revenue generating source still we can be economically self reliant.
A research done by Kashmir Foundation for Peace and Development claims, that if we concentrate on Hydro Potential of Indian side of Kashmir, then we can generate 20,000 mega watt of electricity from there. The cost to generate one unit is only 20 paisa, and it is sold at 2.50 rupees. It means a net profit of 2 rupees and 30 paisa per unit. This source alone, according to the research, is sufficient to make Jammu and Kashmir self reliant; and it will pay back all the costs of the project within three years.
Last month I was in Islamabad where I met some Western diplomats. During the meeting they acknowledged that majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir were in favour of an independent Kashmir. They also agreed that economically it is viable, but the problem was attitude of India and Pakistan. An independent Kashmir cannot survive if India and Pakistan and the international community do not guarantee its independence.
Of course India and Pakistan have their genuine concerns about an independent Kashmir; and they also have economic and strategic interests. We Kashmiris want to be a source of friendship, cooperation and stability in South Asia. We cannot maintain our independence if we have two strong and hostile neighbours. We will all have to learn to live like good neighbours.
Both India and Pakistan have much to gain if there is peace, stability and economic cooperation in South Asia. Economic interests and other internal and external forces are pushing both countries towards a common goal and that is to have peace and economic cooperation in South Asia.
Of course India has much larger agenda which is to do with its international role and that could not be fulfilled without sorting out problems of South Asia first. And in my opinion for peace, stability and prosperity of South Asia, both India and Pakistan will have to agree to some kind of an independent Kashmir in near future.
Thank you for being so patient.
After the lecture there was question and answer session for half an hour.
Role of MQM in Relief work
Role of MQM in Relief work
Dr Shabir Choudhry email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
There are people who have many bad things to say about MQM as a party and a movement, and they even have criticism to make over their role in the relief work. As a Kashmiri nationalist I welcome their help. According to news in Pakistani papers there have been some clashes between MQM workers and Jammat E Islami workers in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Rivalry between these two go back to Karachi and has manifested itself even in the filed of relief work.
As far as I am concerned MQM was among the first to activate its cadre to support the victims of the earthquake, and they have provided millions of rupees and blankets etc; and have helped to save thousands of lives. We are grateful to MQM for everything they have done for us, and we hope that they will continue to help us because still there are millions of people without any shelter.
MQM, at one time, was only a regional or ethnic party with interest largely restricted to Karachi and Hyderabad, but we saw role of MQM gradually expanding to the rest of Pakistan. Over the years they have played an important role in the national politics of Pakistan; and now they have moved to Pakistani Administered Kashmir to help the quake victims.
Before the rise of MQM, Jammat e Islami had a big say in politics of Karachi, and after bitter confrontation their position was take over by MQM. And now that MQM workers came to Pakistani Administered Kashmir this alarmed Jammat e Islami, because they feel they could be squeezed here as well.
I can see MQM playing an important role not only in Pakistan but also in Kashmir as well. Sooner or later Pakistani government has to make some compromise on Kashmir and they have shown their ability to make u turns on important issues and get away with it. Kashmir dispute is a different ball game; the government has to get support of some powerful forces in the country.
MQM over the years has proved that they have the ability to mobilize public support on important issues, and effectively support the government. MQM Chief, Altaf Hussain, by sitting in London can call shots and make things happen in Pakistan. The military government and MQM need each other in order to be relevant. Their interests are common, and they have to forge closer ties to be successful in the next phase, which starts in 2007; but for that a lot of work needs to be done beforehand.
As noted above Pakistan has to swallow a bitter pill on Kashmir, and MQM could be a useful ally in this. It would not surprise me at all if MQM starts its branch in Azad Kashmir. I oppose Pakistani parties to have their branches in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in Gilgit and Baltistan; but if other Pakistani parties can have their branches here then no one can stop MQM to set up their branch here.
Should MQM decides to follow other Pakistani parties and move in to this area, which in one way they have already done because of the relief work, then they could soon be a successful party as they know how to make alliances and mobilize masses.
Dr Shabir Choudhry email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
There are people who have many bad things to say about MQM as a party and a movement, and they even have criticism to make over their role in the relief work. As a Kashmiri nationalist I welcome their help. According to news in Pakistani papers there have been some clashes between MQM workers and Jammat E Islami workers in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Rivalry between these two go back to Karachi and has manifested itself even in the filed of relief work.
As far as I am concerned MQM was among the first to activate its cadre to support the victims of the earthquake, and they have provided millions of rupees and blankets etc; and have helped to save thousands of lives. We are grateful to MQM for everything they have done for us, and we hope that they will continue to help us because still there are millions of people without any shelter.
MQM, at one time, was only a regional or ethnic party with interest largely restricted to Karachi and Hyderabad, but we saw role of MQM gradually expanding to the rest of Pakistan. Over the years they have played an important role in the national politics of Pakistan; and now they have moved to Pakistani Administered Kashmir to help the quake victims.
Before the rise of MQM, Jammat e Islami had a big say in politics of Karachi, and after bitter confrontation their position was take over by MQM. And now that MQM workers came to Pakistani Administered Kashmir this alarmed Jammat e Islami, because they feel they could be squeezed here as well.
I can see MQM playing an important role not only in Pakistan but also in Kashmir as well. Sooner or later Pakistani government has to make some compromise on Kashmir and they have shown their ability to make u turns on important issues and get away with it. Kashmir dispute is a different ball game; the government has to get support of some powerful forces in the country.
MQM over the years has proved that they have the ability to mobilize public support on important issues, and effectively support the government. MQM Chief, Altaf Hussain, by sitting in London can call shots and make things happen in Pakistan. The military government and MQM need each other in order to be relevant. Their interests are common, and they have to forge closer ties to be successful in the next phase, which starts in 2007; but for that a lot of work needs to be done beforehand.
As noted above Pakistan has to swallow a bitter pill on Kashmir, and MQM could be a useful ally in this. It would not surprise me at all if MQM starts its branch in Azad Kashmir. I oppose Pakistani parties to have their branches in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in Gilgit and Baltistan; but if other Pakistani parties can have their branches here then no one can stop MQM to set up their branch here.
Should MQM decides to follow other Pakistani parties and move in to this area, which in one way they have already done because of the relief work, then they could soon be a successful party as they know how to make alliances and mobilize masses.
Who is responsible for London Bombing?
Who is responsible for London Bombing?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 17 July 2005
People of London and Britain are trying to overcome the impact of tragic events of ‘London bombing’; moreover Muslim population of Britain is trying to face new pressures. Muslims and non Muslims have forwarded many theories about these bombers and motives behind this tragic incident, and no one theory could encompass the whole truth.
No one in his right mind could justify killing of these innocent people, but one has to remember that no one is born as a ‘terrorist’ or a ‘suicide bomber’. We are product of the society we live in, and different issues and factors influence our thinking and behaviour. As we live in a global village issues and events taking place elsewhere could also influence our thinking and behaviour.
The term suicide bombing has become an everyday term in our lives. As much as this act is hated we fail to see the root cause of the problem which has never been addressed by the relevant authorities. Increased security will not cease terrorism but recognition of grievances displayed by these desperate acts will play a more positive role in trying to prevent these acts. It has to be said, nothing can be done to fight those who are willing to die for their cause, whether that cause is justified or not in view of others; and there is no protection against this phenomenon.
Tony Blair was warned by many, including this writer that the war against terrorism cannot be fought by terrorism itself. In a letter to Tony Blair dated 07 April 2003, I said, ‘that by this aggression you will create chaos and instability and you will give birth to future ‘terrorists’ as people will take revenge for barbarism unleashed in name of ‘liberation’.
I further said that act of aggression which is carried out in disguise of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and ‘war on terrorism’ will create thousands of more terrorists, and will make the U.K vulnerable to attacks. Apart from me many other people wrote similar things, and if we, the ordinary people, could envisage this, the authorities with vast knowledge and experience could have also seen this; but strategic and economic interests were too high and these threats were ignored by the authorities.
The killing of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan has been disguised as ‘liberation’ and war on terrorism’. The killing of innocent people anywhere else is seen as an act of barbarity, but victims and those who are neutral in this struggle (crusade) question where is the distinction between the two?
Soon after the bombings in London Muslim scholars, community leaders and imams tried to take lead in condemning these bombings; of course members of other faiths and other communities and political leaders also condemned this act. Asian media, especially Asian TV channels held special programmes to condemn this and show solidarity with the government and the families of victims.
Vast majority of Muslims strongly oppose actions like this, and even though they had no prior knowledge about this incident, they feared that they will be accused of supporting or condoning this; and they felt they had to do more in order to show that they were not on the side of these terrorists.
I am among those who have opposed violence for many years and have paid a big price for this as well. I have no problem with these people condemning terrorism, but wonder if that is enough to stop terrorism. I also wonder if these people are sincere in condemning terrorism; or they just want to condemn terrorism in London because they fear it could possibly affect them.
Some of these people from Pakistani/Kashmiri back ground who are trying to take lead in condemning terrorism in London are the ones who opposed us when we spoke against violence in Kashmir and advocated a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
It was these people who called us ‘anti Islam’, ‘anti movement’ and ‘anti Jihadi elements’. The blood of victims whether they are in Aldgate (London), Lal Chowke (Srinagar) or Faluja (Iraq) is red, and they are all human beings with brothers, sisters and parents just like all of us. We cannot say that killing of innocent person in London is wrong, because we could feel heat as a result of this killing, and call it holy jihad elsewhere which must continue.
No doubt people of Jammu and Kashmir have genuine grievances against both India and Pakistan, as their homeland is forcibly divided and occupied by these two countries. What adds salt to our wounds is the denial of our inherent right of self determination, as both countries have clear territorial aims and want to deny us to exercise this right to determine our future.
Continued denial of this right has resulted in people resorting to violence, especially on the Indian side of the divide which was of course only possible with support of Pakistani agencies. We proposed a peaceful resolution of this dispute in mid 1990s, and we were criticised by those who wanted the pot to keep on boiling; but now all those who sincerely want to resolve the Kashmir dispute accept that there is no military solution to this dispute and that violence could only add to our problems.
The point I am trying to make is that we have to be honest in our approach to violence. We have to condemn all sorts of violence no matter where it is taking place, and no matter who is behind it. We cannot pick and choose, support it where it suits us and oppose it when tide is against us. A terrorist has no more right to commit an act of violence anymore than a nation state has. A death of one innocent person is a loss of one innocent human being regardless of who committed this act and for what purpose.
Islam is the most misunderstood and misinterpreted religion of all times, and ignorance only breeds the misunderstanding to the point of hate. Islam does not state any where that killing of innocent people will guarantee you heaven in the afterlife nor does Islam state killing of innocent people is justified in any circumstances. Lack of knowledge allows the terrorists to hide under the shield of religion to justify their acts.
Teaching of Islam is very clear on killing of innocent people: if you kill one innocent person that is as if you have killed the whole humanity, and if you save one innocent person and that is as if you have saved the whole humanity. But if we use our knowledge and experience to justify one innocent killing in one area of the world, because it is convenient to us then we are leaving space for others to use their knowledge and experience to justify such actions in other parts of the world as well.
Similarly if we justify killing of innocent people in Baghdad and Faluja because it serves our national and strategic interests then we are leaving space for others to broaden the area of conflict to satisfy their interest, no matter how obnoxious and condemnable these interests are.
What surprises many is that when Faluja was on fire and forces of occupation were unleashing most advanced and deadly weapons, at that time community leaders, religious scholars, and managers of Asian TVs did not find it appropriate to have discussion on the situation in Faluja where innocent Iraqis were facing bombs from everywhere. They should have had discussions to work out strategies to prevent that, and moreover to work out plans to control minds and actions of Muslim youths in Britain and elsewhere in Europe.
Some people are surprised and shocked by these attacks. I am among those who are saddened but not surprised, because it was clear that our foreign policy has made us target of these kinds of attacks. Tony Blair and George Bush say that these people attack us because they hate democracy and Western life style. This is not true. Once again they are trying to mislead people. If these terrorists hated democracies and Western life style then why they are not attacking Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and many other Western democracies. Answer is very simple: these countries have not committed aggression Muslim countries and have not supported aggressions and tyrants; whereas Britain and America have led this aggression and caused death of thousands of innocent Muslims.
One wonders who is responsible for this carnage. Is it our foreign policy which is perceived as anti Muslims and anti Islam by many, partly responsible for making London a target of these attacks? Or are we, the members of the Muslim Community, especially from South Asia, partly responsible for failing to teach our children that Britain is our home, and anything which hurts Britain will ultimately hurt us too. Apart from that have we failed to teach our children that as Muslims we must abide laws of the country we choose to live in, and must not work against interests of that country?
Or are those people partly responsible for this, who condone acts of terrorism in certain parts of the world because it suits them? Or these young men were mad and destructive, and were born with evil embedded within them?
I know the trend since the London bombing has been to write against these acts and not to write to open the reader’s mind to acknowledge a problem that is so deeply embedded within the structure of our government that maybe we should blame the same government promoting terrorism by its own acts. No matter what the trend is, I have always spoken out in support of what I believe is correct.
I would like to end this article by leaving these questions for my readers:
Alqaeeda members are perceived as very intelligent and well organised people, then why is it that these so called suicide bombers left their ID’s and other documents behind; and in case of America, left training manuals to fly aircrafts in Arabic in their cars?
Why would a car with explosives be left in a public place (car park in Luton), especially if the car was hired out in a name of one of the alleged terrorists?
Could they have not just boarded a train from Leeds or even steel a car to drive to Luton?
Why would so- called ‘Muslim bombers’ target pre-dominantly Muslim and ethnic minority areas to show retaliation against a Western society?
Many Muslims believe that one of the reasons why Britain joined America in this aggression was economic; and if the aim of these terrorists was to harm Britain, then wouldn’t it have been more effective to commit these acts one day earlier to sabotage Britain’s chance of holding Olympics in 2012. If this had happened on 5th or 6th July, instead of 7th July then there was no way Britain could have hosted Olympics and that would have surely hurt Britain economically.
Could it be possible that like in the case of Weapons of Mass Destruction, evidence was sought to suit policies and aims of the government; now evidence is ‘established’ or ‘planted’ to make an opening for a another war? Could all this be to create public fear and panic to condone such an action?
9/11 was used to launch a war against terrorism and that helped America and UK to fulfil their strategic and economic aims; and I hope this, 7/7, is not a prelude to another form of aggression.
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 17 July 2005
People of London and Britain are trying to overcome the impact of tragic events of ‘London bombing’; moreover Muslim population of Britain is trying to face new pressures. Muslims and non Muslims have forwarded many theories about these bombers and motives behind this tragic incident, and no one theory could encompass the whole truth.
No one in his right mind could justify killing of these innocent people, but one has to remember that no one is born as a ‘terrorist’ or a ‘suicide bomber’. We are product of the society we live in, and different issues and factors influence our thinking and behaviour. As we live in a global village issues and events taking place elsewhere could also influence our thinking and behaviour.
The term suicide bombing has become an everyday term in our lives. As much as this act is hated we fail to see the root cause of the problem which has never been addressed by the relevant authorities. Increased security will not cease terrorism but recognition of grievances displayed by these desperate acts will play a more positive role in trying to prevent these acts. It has to be said, nothing can be done to fight those who are willing to die for their cause, whether that cause is justified or not in view of others; and there is no protection against this phenomenon.
Tony Blair was warned by many, including this writer that the war against terrorism cannot be fought by terrorism itself. In a letter to Tony Blair dated 07 April 2003, I said, ‘that by this aggression you will create chaos and instability and you will give birth to future ‘terrorists’ as people will take revenge for barbarism unleashed in name of ‘liberation’.
I further said that act of aggression which is carried out in disguise of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and ‘war on terrorism’ will create thousands of more terrorists, and will make the U.K vulnerable to attacks. Apart from me many other people wrote similar things, and if we, the ordinary people, could envisage this, the authorities with vast knowledge and experience could have also seen this; but strategic and economic interests were too high and these threats were ignored by the authorities.
The killing of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan has been disguised as ‘liberation’ and war on terrorism’. The killing of innocent people anywhere else is seen as an act of barbarity, but victims and those who are neutral in this struggle (crusade) question where is the distinction between the two?
Soon after the bombings in London Muslim scholars, community leaders and imams tried to take lead in condemning these bombings; of course members of other faiths and other communities and political leaders also condemned this act. Asian media, especially Asian TV channels held special programmes to condemn this and show solidarity with the government and the families of victims.
Vast majority of Muslims strongly oppose actions like this, and even though they had no prior knowledge about this incident, they feared that they will be accused of supporting or condoning this; and they felt they had to do more in order to show that they were not on the side of these terrorists.
I am among those who have opposed violence for many years and have paid a big price for this as well. I have no problem with these people condemning terrorism, but wonder if that is enough to stop terrorism. I also wonder if these people are sincere in condemning terrorism; or they just want to condemn terrorism in London because they fear it could possibly affect them.
Some of these people from Pakistani/Kashmiri back ground who are trying to take lead in condemning terrorism in London are the ones who opposed us when we spoke against violence in Kashmir and advocated a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
It was these people who called us ‘anti Islam’, ‘anti movement’ and ‘anti Jihadi elements’. The blood of victims whether they are in Aldgate (London), Lal Chowke (Srinagar) or Faluja (Iraq) is red, and they are all human beings with brothers, sisters and parents just like all of us. We cannot say that killing of innocent person in London is wrong, because we could feel heat as a result of this killing, and call it holy jihad elsewhere which must continue.
No doubt people of Jammu and Kashmir have genuine grievances against both India and Pakistan, as their homeland is forcibly divided and occupied by these two countries. What adds salt to our wounds is the denial of our inherent right of self determination, as both countries have clear territorial aims and want to deny us to exercise this right to determine our future.
Continued denial of this right has resulted in people resorting to violence, especially on the Indian side of the divide which was of course only possible with support of Pakistani agencies. We proposed a peaceful resolution of this dispute in mid 1990s, and we were criticised by those who wanted the pot to keep on boiling; but now all those who sincerely want to resolve the Kashmir dispute accept that there is no military solution to this dispute and that violence could only add to our problems.
The point I am trying to make is that we have to be honest in our approach to violence. We have to condemn all sorts of violence no matter where it is taking place, and no matter who is behind it. We cannot pick and choose, support it where it suits us and oppose it when tide is against us. A terrorist has no more right to commit an act of violence anymore than a nation state has. A death of one innocent person is a loss of one innocent human being regardless of who committed this act and for what purpose.
Islam is the most misunderstood and misinterpreted religion of all times, and ignorance only breeds the misunderstanding to the point of hate. Islam does not state any where that killing of innocent people will guarantee you heaven in the afterlife nor does Islam state killing of innocent people is justified in any circumstances. Lack of knowledge allows the terrorists to hide under the shield of religion to justify their acts.
Teaching of Islam is very clear on killing of innocent people: if you kill one innocent person that is as if you have killed the whole humanity, and if you save one innocent person and that is as if you have saved the whole humanity. But if we use our knowledge and experience to justify one innocent killing in one area of the world, because it is convenient to us then we are leaving space for others to use their knowledge and experience to justify such actions in other parts of the world as well.
Similarly if we justify killing of innocent people in Baghdad and Faluja because it serves our national and strategic interests then we are leaving space for others to broaden the area of conflict to satisfy their interest, no matter how obnoxious and condemnable these interests are.
What surprises many is that when Faluja was on fire and forces of occupation were unleashing most advanced and deadly weapons, at that time community leaders, religious scholars, and managers of Asian TVs did not find it appropriate to have discussion on the situation in Faluja where innocent Iraqis were facing bombs from everywhere. They should have had discussions to work out strategies to prevent that, and moreover to work out plans to control minds and actions of Muslim youths in Britain and elsewhere in Europe.
Some people are surprised and shocked by these attacks. I am among those who are saddened but not surprised, because it was clear that our foreign policy has made us target of these kinds of attacks. Tony Blair and George Bush say that these people attack us because they hate democracy and Western life style. This is not true. Once again they are trying to mislead people. If these terrorists hated democracies and Western life style then why they are not attacking Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and many other Western democracies. Answer is very simple: these countries have not committed aggression Muslim countries and have not supported aggressions and tyrants; whereas Britain and America have led this aggression and caused death of thousands of innocent Muslims.
One wonders who is responsible for this carnage. Is it our foreign policy which is perceived as anti Muslims and anti Islam by many, partly responsible for making London a target of these attacks? Or are we, the members of the Muslim Community, especially from South Asia, partly responsible for failing to teach our children that Britain is our home, and anything which hurts Britain will ultimately hurt us too. Apart from that have we failed to teach our children that as Muslims we must abide laws of the country we choose to live in, and must not work against interests of that country?
Or are those people partly responsible for this, who condone acts of terrorism in certain parts of the world because it suits them? Or these young men were mad and destructive, and were born with evil embedded within them?
I know the trend since the London bombing has been to write against these acts and not to write to open the reader’s mind to acknowledge a problem that is so deeply embedded within the structure of our government that maybe we should blame the same government promoting terrorism by its own acts. No matter what the trend is, I have always spoken out in support of what I believe is correct.
I would like to end this article by leaving these questions for my readers:
Alqaeeda members are perceived as very intelligent and well organised people, then why is it that these so called suicide bombers left their ID’s and other documents behind; and in case of America, left training manuals to fly aircrafts in Arabic in their cars?
Why would a car with explosives be left in a public place (car park in Luton), especially if the car was hired out in a name of one of the alleged terrorists?
Could they have not just boarded a train from Leeds or even steel a car to drive to Luton?
Why would so- called ‘Muslim bombers’ target pre-dominantly Muslim and ethnic minority areas to show retaliation against a Western society?
Many Muslims believe that one of the reasons why Britain joined America in this aggression was economic; and if the aim of these terrorists was to harm Britain, then wouldn’t it have been more effective to commit these acts one day earlier to sabotage Britain’s chance of holding Olympics in 2012. If this had happened on 5th or 6th July, instead of 7th July then there was no way Britain could have hosted Olympics and that would have surely hurt Britain economically.
Could it be possible that like in the case of Weapons of Mass Destruction, evidence was sought to suit policies and aims of the government; now evidence is ‘established’ or ‘planted’ to make an opening for a another war? Could all this be to create public fear and panic to condone such an action?
9/11 was used to launch a war against terrorism and that helped America and UK to fulfil their strategic and economic aims; and I hope this, 7/7, is not a prelude to another form of aggression.
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Who paid for this?
Who paid for this?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 28 October 2004
Over the past twelve months a lot has happened in South Asia and clearly some progress has been made in understanding and resolving the Kashmir dispute. International Kashmir Alliance which is pro people and peace alliance visualised this progress last year and after careful preparation felt to forge unity and better understanding among different ethnic Kashmiri groups; and for this purpose announced first International Kashmir Conference in London to promote intra Kashmir dialogue.
Apart from inviting notable Indian and Pakistani politicians IKA invited Kashmiri leaders from all regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir who represented all shades of political opinion.
Those who opposed unity among different Kashmiri groups and didn’t want the Kashmiris to organise themselves to have a say in the future of Kashmir unleashed strong propaganda against the IKA leadership and this conference, alleging that it was funded by India.
A Kashmiri friend who also read this news item, which was displayed on front page of every newspaper, commented that hitherto Indians have always ensured that the Kashmir dispute is not mentioned in any international arena; and if they have started ‘funding’ such conferences then they must be out of their minds.
Kashmiris and Pakistani masses have amazing attitude, they can take money from American, British, Russian, Iranian, Pakistani and other agencies, look after their interests and feel proud about it. Those who have commercialised this struggle and take money for it, like to keep attention focused else where, so they make silly allegations against their political foes that so and so has received money from India. Innocent people forget every other type of money taken by these merchants and go berzerke on mere allegation and don’t even ask for any evidence.
With announcement of first Intra Kashmir Conference, it appears as if IKA opened a flood gate of Kashmir conferences and now hardly a week goes by when there is not a meeting of some Kashmiris which is called ‘International Kashmir Conference’.
In some of these so called ‘International Kashmir Conferences’ people from one region of Kashmir representing views of Islamabad get together to declare that they are representatives of Kashmiris, knowing full well that they have no one to represent people of the following communities or schools of thought:
Shias from Gilgit and Baltistan
Sunnis from Gilgit and Baltistan
Ismailis from Gilgit and Baltistan
Pro independent parties from Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan
Dogras from Jammu
Hindus from Jammu
Muslims from Jammu
Pandits from Jammu or the Valley
Pro independent groups from the Valley
Pro India groups from the Valley
Muslims from Ladakh
Budhists from Ladakh and
Sikhs and Bakarwals
A group of Kashmiri people who have many hats on their heads have concluded some ‘Kashmir Conferences’ in important capitals; and one such ‘conference’ has just ended a few days ago in London. In these conferences they spend generously and have opened large offices in posh areas of important capitals. These people are personally known to Kashmiri political activists, and a few years ago some of them had difficulty in paying their own fuel bills and were taken to court for non payment; and now they spend lavishly and travel first class.
We know these people have not sold any hotel to meet expenses of these conferences; nor have they sold any factory or orchard for this purpose; and Kashmiris have right to ask where this ‘Mann o Salva’ is coming from and what they have sold to get it.
Purpose of these ‘conferences’ is not to build consensus among different Kashmiri groups that they can collectively raise voice against any kind of forced division of the State; rather their agenda is to ensure that the gulf among Kashmiris is widened and they project a Kashmir policy which suits Islamabad.
Even though the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed and occupied, yet these people only ask India to quit Kashmir, and remain quiet about areas under Pakistan. They will never speak about any wrong doing on the Pakistani side of the divide, as if people here are enjoying heavenly peace and tranquillity; nor will they speak of any wrong doing by militants as if they were army of angels sent from heaven to accomplish a mission of love, peace and fraternity.
This policy of some Kashmiris provide a legitimate reason to India to claim that the whole movement is a Pakistani sponsored, and that people from outside have created chaos and disturbance in Kashmir. Also this policy makes Kashmiri claim of state human rights violations less credible to our Western friends when we try to exonerate militants of any wrong doings and present them as little angels.
We all know that human rights have been committed and innocent people have lost their lives and have suffered immensely, but it will be wrong to accuse India for everything. Apart from the Indian state craft other players have been in action as well, and we in IKA have this courage to blame India for its role, blame Pakistan where Pakistan is to be blamed and also blame militants and Jihadis, especially who are non Kashmiris and who are on a mission to ‘purify Kashmir from non Muslims’.
All those Kashmir who want to see their homeland united and who want to live in peace and harmony need to stand up and be counted. Those who have made the Kashmiri struggle as their business would like the State to remain divided and this chaos to continue because this is good for their business, but this is not good for ordinary people of Kashmir, Pakistan and India.
We need to ensure that these people are identified and countered at every level until such time that they realise that they are causing mischief and harm to the interests of ordinary Kashmiri people. Also we need to ensure that this peace process continues as this could lead to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute, and can bring peace, stability and prosperity to South Asia.
In order to get best for the people of Kashmir we Kashmiris, especially the leaders, have to think as Kashmiris and protect interests of all sections of the Kashmiri community. India and Pakistan are nation states with large infrastructures to protect their national interests, and DO NOT rely on puppets to look after their national interests.
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 28 October 2004
Over the past twelve months a lot has happened in South Asia and clearly some progress has been made in understanding and resolving the Kashmir dispute. International Kashmir Alliance which is pro people and peace alliance visualised this progress last year and after careful preparation felt to forge unity and better understanding among different ethnic Kashmiri groups; and for this purpose announced first International Kashmir Conference in London to promote intra Kashmir dialogue.
Apart from inviting notable Indian and Pakistani politicians IKA invited Kashmiri leaders from all regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir who represented all shades of political opinion.
Those who opposed unity among different Kashmiri groups and didn’t want the Kashmiris to organise themselves to have a say in the future of Kashmir unleashed strong propaganda against the IKA leadership and this conference, alleging that it was funded by India.
A Kashmiri friend who also read this news item, which was displayed on front page of every newspaper, commented that hitherto Indians have always ensured that the Kashmir dispute is not mentioned in any international arena; and if they have started ‘funding’ such conferences then they must be out of their minds.
Kashmiris and Pakistani masses have amazing attitude, they can take money from American, British, Russian, Iranian, Pakistani and other agencies, look after their interests and feel proud about it. Those who have commercialised this struggle and take money for it, like to keep attention focused else where, so they make silly allegations against their political foes that so and so has received money from India. Innocent people forget every other type of money taken by these merchants and go berzerke on mere allegation and don’t even ask for any evidence.
With announcement of first Intra Kashmir Conference, it appears as if IKA opened a flood gate of Kashmir conferences and now hardly a week goes by when there is not a meeting of some Kashmiris which is called ‘International Kashmir Conference’.
In some of these so called ‘International Kashmir Conferences’ people from one region of Kashmir representing views of Islamabad get together to declare that they are representatives of Kashmiris, knowing full well that they have no one to represent people of the following communities or schools of thought:
Shias from Gilgit and Baltistan
Sunnis from Gilgit and Baltistan
Ismailis from Gilgit and Baltistan
Pro independent parties from Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan
Dogras from Jammu
Hindus from Jammu
Muslims from Jammu
Pandits from Jammu or the Valley
Pro independent groups from the Valley
Pro India groups from the Valley
Muslims from Ladakh
Budhists from Ladakh and
Sikhs and Bakarwals
A group of Kashmiri people who have many hats on their heads have concluded some ‘Kashmir Conferences’ in important capitals; and one such ‘conference’ has just ended a few days ago in London. In these conferences they spend generously and have opened large offices in posh areas of important capitals. These people are personally known to Kashmiri political activists, and a few years ago some of them had difficulty in paying their own fuel bills and were taken to court for non payment; and now they spend lavishly and travel first class.
We know these people have not sold any hotel to meet expenses of these conferences; nor have they sold any factory or orchard for this purpose; and Kashmiris have right to ask where this ‘Mann o Salva’ is coming from and what they have sold to get it.
Purpose of these ‘conferences’ is not to build consensus among different Kashmiri groups that they can collectively raise voice against any kind of forced division of the State; rather their agenda is to ensure that the gulf among Kashmiris is widened and they project a Kashmir policy which suits Islamabad.
Even though the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed and occupied, yet these people only ask India to quit Kashmir, and remain quiet about areas under Pakistan. They will never speak about any wrong doing on the Pakistani side of the divide, as if people here are enjoying heavenly peace and tranquillity; nor will they speak of any wrong doing by militants as if they were army of angels sent from heaven to accomplish a mission of love, peace and fraternity.
This policy of some Kashmiris provide a legitimate reason to India to claim that the whole movement is a Pakistani sponsored, and that people from outside have created chaos and disturbance in Kashmir. Also this policy makes Kashmiri claim of state human rights violations less credible to our Western friends when we try to exonerate militants of any wrong doings and present them as little angels.
We all know that human rights have been committed and innocent people have lost their lives and have suffered immensely, but it will be wrong to accuse India for everything. Apart from the Indian state craft other players have been in action as well, and we in IKA have this courage to blame India for its role, blame Pakistan where Pakistan is to be blamed and also blame militants and Jihadis, especially who are non Kashmiris and who are on a mission to ‘purify Kashmir from non Muslims’.
All those Kashmir who want to see their homeland united and who want to live in peace and harmony need to stand up and be counted. Those who have made the Kashmiri struggle as their business would like the State to remain divided and this chaos to continue because this is good for their business, but this is not good for ordinary people of Kashmir, Pakistan and India.
We need to ensure that these people are identified and countered at every level until such time that they realise that they are causing mischief and harm to the interests of ordinary Kashmiri people. Also we need to ensure that this peace process continues as this could lead to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute, and can bring peace, stability and prosperity to South Asia.
In order to get best for the people of Kashmir we Kashmiris, especially the leaders, have to think as Kashmiris and protect interests of all sections of the Kashmiri community. India and Pakistan are nation states with large infrastructures to protect their national interests, and DO NOT rely on puppets to look after their national interests.
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Peace in Kashmir
Peace in Kashmir
Text of speech made by Dr Shabir Choudhry, Spokesman of IKA, in a peace conference held by International Kashmir Alliance in Canada on 27/28 November
2004.
Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
It is desire of every normal human being to live in secure and stable environment where they can enjoy prosperity and freedom. Security, stability and prosperity could only be achieved when there is peace. Absence of peace brings chaos and economic instability which only suits a small number of people.
People of Kashmir are not different from anyone else, and rhetoric aside they also want to live in peace and enjoy economic stability; but what they have gone through over the years it must not be construed as peace at any cost. They want peace with dignity. They want culture of fear and intimidation to end.
India and Pakistan have declared cease fire in Siachin and on LOC. We welcome this and all other confidence building measures which are desperately needed to achieve peace in the region. These measures good as they are, are only saving lives of Pakistani and Indian soldiers in these places and are not providing any relief to the suffering people of Kashmir.
People of Kashmir have lived through hell in the past fifteen years, and they continue to suffer. Every day they lose lives – some are killed by bullets and others die in cells or are made to die in shame because their sister or daughter has been rasped.
In past we have accused each other for wrong doings in Kashmir and this culture of blame game was used to divert attention from the real cause. Now that a peace process has started which has made some progress, it is not appropriate to continue with this blame game which only emitters the environment.
In order to resolve the complicated dispute of Kashmir we need cooperation and goodwill of all three parties to the dispute; and by accusing each other or by putting each other down we can only widen the gulf of differences, hence prolong misery and suffering of the Kashmiri people.
This approach will also hold back progress of South Asia, and people of this region have already suffered too much because of this dispute. We have to think of not only Kashmir but South Asia. Like people of Kashmir people of India and Pakistan are also paying a heavy price because of this dispute. They are also living below the poverty line because their governments are diverting funds to meet military requirements.
We need to focus all our attention in creating appropriate environment in which people can trust each other, and work together to achieve peace and stability which could lead to Kashmiris getting their national identification and right to determine their future.
All those who want to resolve the Kashmir dispute and want to have peace and stability in South Asia must understand that Kashmir dispute is not a religious one in nature. It is a political dispute and we must find a political solution for it. Any attempt to impose a decision based on religion could create more problems, and destabilise the entire region as its implications could affect other areas of the Sub Continent.
It should also be remembered that Kashmir is one political entity, and no matter what is the final solution, the state must remain one. Division of Kashmir in any form or shape will not provide a just and lasting solution.
After fall of Soviet Union, nuclearisation of South Asia and 9/11 world politics has changed dramatically; and we Kashmiris must adapt to new situation and make new strategies which can win us friends and sympathisers.
All those who project use of gun to settle the Kashmir dispute are not well wishers of Kashmiris. Similarly all those non Kashmiri militants who are in Kashmir are requested to leave as they are not helping the cause. Their presence is adding to the miseries of the people.
As noted above the Kashmir dispute is a complicated one, and in order to resolve this complicated issues, one needs goodwill, determination and patience. Despite all the goodwill and determination it may not be possible to resolve this complicated dispute in one go because of deep rooted and strong views on this. We may have to resolve it in stages by putting confidence building measures in place.
Both India and Pakistan have taken certain measures which could be taken as a first stage, and this has helped to cool down the temperature. This momentum must be carried forward by taking certain more actions, and government of India should take initiative by declaring a cease fire in Kashmir. This time people of Kashmir will welcome this initiative and support the peace process.
Apart from opening Muzaffarabad and Srinagar Road, other traditional routes should also be opened, and this will surely help the peace process. People who have been forcibly separated for past 57 years must be given a chance to interact with each other and strengthen social, cultural and economic ties.
The peace process could also be supported by releasing of political prisoners and by allowing political leaders to travel across the LOC. Not only APHC leaders should travel across the LOC but also other political leaders from both sides, especially leaders representing Kashmiri minorities should be allowed to go across and forge bridges of understanding.
It must be understood that people of Kashmir are the main party to this dispute, and they could not be bye passed by India and Pakistan to find a solution of Kashmir. A mechanism must be worked out that they can become part of the peace process.
It must not be a concern of India and Pakistan who will represent the people of Kashmir. If they let people of Kashmir interact with each other they can select their representatives who can effectively protect Kashmiri interest.
Until such time that the Kashmir dispute is resolved the people of Kashmir must not be deprived of their basic human rights on both sides of the divide. Not only that people of Gilgit and Baltistan don’t have basic human rights they are also deprived of their identity and legal status. A false name of Northern Areas is given to their homeland, as if this was a Pakistani territory.
Apart from that in complete violation to the State Subject Ordinance, which was put in place by the Maharaja to protect Kashmiri interests, government of Pakistan has settled tens of thousands of Pakistanis in Gilgit and Baltistan to change demography of this region. This practise must stop and those who have illegally settled in Gilgit and Baltistan must be sent back to Pakistan as their presence is causing enormous problems to the local people.
All those people who have been uprooted because of the trouble in Kashmir including members of the Pundit community must be settled back in their homes and appropriate compensation should be paid to them. These people are part of Kashmiri history and culture and they must be made comfortable to come back to their homes.
President Musharaf has made some interesting suggestions and people have criticised him for that. One must accept that it is a daring move, which none of his predecessors could dare to take. I don’t accept everything he has said but it is wrong to out rightly reject everything he has said. There are some positive aspects of his speech, for example he recognised that:
areas of Gilgit and Baltistan are part of State of Jammu and Kashmir;
the UN resolutions have failed to provide a solution and that they have to find a solution outside of these resolutions;
there is no military solution to this dispute;
Jihadi forces and other forces of extremism are hurdles in peaceful resolution of the dispute;
solution will come through a process of dialogue;
an independent Kashmir is also an option.
One can see it is a big change from Pakistan’s previous stated position and we should commend him for this, and hope that he will continue with this peace process. END
Text of speech made by Dr Shabir Choudhry, Spokesman of IKA, in a peace conference held by International Kashmir Alliance in Canada on 27/28 November
2004.
Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
It is desire of every normal human being to live in secure and stable environment where they can enjoy prosperity and freedom. Security, stability and prosperity could only be achieved when there is peace. Absence of peace brings chaos and economic instability which only suits a small number of people.
People of Kashmir are not different from anyone else, and rhetoric aside they also want to live in peace and enjoy economic stability; but what they have gone through over the years it must not be construed as peace at any cost. They want peace with dignity. They want culture of fear and intimidation to end.
India and Pakistan have declared cease fire in Siachin and on LOC. We welcome this and all other confidence building measures which are desperately needed to achieve peace in the region. These measures good as they are, are only saving lives of Pakistani and Indian soldiers in these places and are not providing any relief to the suffering people of Kashmir.
People of Kashmir have lived through hell in the past fifteen years, and they continue to suffer. Every day they lose lives – some are killed by bullets and others die in cells or are made to die in shame because their sister or daughter has been rasped.
In past we have accused each other for wrong doings in Kashmir and this culture of blame game was used to divert attention from the real cause. Now that a peace process has started which has made some progress, it is not appropriate to continue with this blame game which only emitters the environment.
In order to resolve the complicated dispute of Kashmir we need cooperation and goodwill of all three parties to the dispute; and by accusing each other or by putting each other down we can only widen the gulf of differences, hence prolong misery and suffering of the Kashmiri people.
This approach will also hold back progress of South Asia, and people of this region have already suffered too much because of this dispute. We have to think of not only Kashmir but South Asia. Like people of Kashmir people of India and Pakistan are also paying a heavy price because of this dispute. They are also living below the poverty line because their governments are diverting funds to meet military requirements.
We need to focus all our attention in creating appropriate environment in which people can trust each other, and work together to achieve peace and stability which could lead to Kashmiris getting their national identification and right to determine their future.
All those who want to resolve the Kashmir dispute and want to have peace and stability in South Asia must understand that Kashmir dispute is not a religious one in nature. It is a political dispute and we must find a political solution for it. Any attempt to impose a decision based on religion could create more problems, and destabilise the entire region as its implications could affect other areas of the Sub Continent.
It should also be remembered that Kashmir is one political entity, and no matter what is the final solution, the state must remain one. Division of Kashmir in any form or shape will not provide a just and lasting solution.
After fall of Soviet Union, nuclearisation of South Asia and 9/11 world politics has changed dramatically; and we Kashmiris must adapt to new situation and make new strategies which can win us friends and sympathisers.
All those who project use of gun to settle the Kashmir dispute are not well wishers of Kashmiris. Similarly all those non Kashmiri militants who are in Kashmir are requested to leave as they are not helping the cause. Their presence is adding to the miseries of the people.
As noted above the Kashmir dispute is a complicated one, and in order to resolve this complicated issues, one needs goodwill, determination and patience. Despite all the goodwill and determination it may not be possible to resolve this complicated dispute in one go because of deep rooted and strong views on this. We may have to resolve it in stages by putting confidence building measures in place.
Both India and Pakistan have taken certain measures which could be taken as a first stage, and this has helped to cool down the temperature. This momentum must be carried forward by taking certain more actions, and government of India should take initiative by declaring a cease fire in Kashmir. This time people of Kashmir will welcome this initiative and support the peace process.
Apart from opening Muzaffarabad and Srinagar Road, other traditional routes should also be opened, and this will surely help the peace process. People who have been forcibly separated for past 57 years must be given a chance to interact with each other and strengthen social, cultural and economic ties.
The peace process could also be supported by releasing of political prisoners and by allowing political leaders to travel across the LOC. Not only APHC leaders should travel across the LOC but also other political leaders from both sides, especially leaders representing Kashmiri minorities should be allowed to go across and forge bridges of understanding.
It must be understood that people of Kashmir are the main party to this dispute, and they could not be bye passed by India and Pakistan to find a solution of Kashmir. A mechanism must be worked out that they can become part of the peace process.
It must not be a concern of India and Pakistan who will represent the people of Kashmir. If they let people of Kashmir interact with each other they can select their representatives who can effectively protect Kashmiri interest.
Until such time that the Kashmir dispute is resolved the people of Kashmir must not be deprived of their basic human rights on both sides of the divide. Not only that people of Gilgit and Baltistan don’t have basic human rights they are also deprived of their identity and legal status. A false name of Northern Areas is given to their homeland, as if this was a Pakistani territory.
Apart from that in complete violation to the State Subject Ordinance, which was put in place by the Maharaja to protect Kashmiri interests, government of Pakistan has settled tens of thousands of Pakistanis in Gilgit and Baltistan to change demography of this region. This practise must stop and those who have illegally settled in Gilgit and Baltistan must be sent back to Pakistan as their presence is causing enormous problems to the local people.
All those people who have been uprooted because of the trouble in Kashmir including members of the Pundit community must be settled back in their homes and appropriate compensation should be paid to them. These people are part of Kashmiri history and culture and they must be made comfortable to come back to their homes.
President Musharaf has made some interesting suggestions and people have criticised him for that. One must accept that it is a daring move, which none of his predecessors could dare to take. I don’t accept everything he has said but it is wrong to out rightly reject everything he has said. There are some positive aspects of his speech, for example he recognised that:
areas of Gilgit and Baltistan are part of State of Jammu and Kashmir;
the UN resolutions have failed to provide a solution and that they have to find a solution outside of these resolutions;
there is no military solution to this dispute;
Jihadi forces and other forces of extremism are hurdles in peaceful resolution of the dispute;
solution will come through a process of dialogue;
an independent Kashmir is also an option.
One can see it is a big change from Pakistan’s previous stated position and we should commend him for this, and hope that he will continue with this peace process. END
Kashmir needs change of heart
Kashmir needs change of heart
Although situation has changed due to on going peace process, and especially after the deadly earthquake in Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan; but we must remember that at one time, Kashmir Dispute was referred as a ‘flash point’. This ‘flash point’ could have lead two hostile nuclear neighbours to full scale conventional, and possibly ‘non conventional’ armed conflict. It is argued by many that it is because of this ‘grave danger’ the Kashmir dispute has to be resolved.
No doubt the Kashmir dispute is one of the oldest, and it poses a serious threat to peace and stability of South Asia. And we Kashmiris more than anyone else want peace and stability in the region and want the Kashmir dispute to be resolved; but it should not be resolved just because the status quo is a threat to the peace of South Asia. Also that the status quo is in way of a larger interest of certain interested parties.
The Kashmir dispute must be resolved in its own right, as a case of Kashmiri peoples unfettered right of self- determination, a right that has been denied to the people of Jammu and Kashmir for many decades. It should be taken as an issue of a nation, forcibly divided, oppressed and denied basic humane rights, not of a territorial dispute, and a bone of contention between the two countries.
By taking this approach we do not only think of Kashmiri regions disturbed by the on going armed struggle, but also take the State of Jammu and Kashmir as whole being disputed. We ought to look for a solution of the whole State, not find a solution based on districts and regions because of the trouble in those places. If unfortunately we followed this route then it would surely lead to more trouble and chaos in future.
Those people who wish to resolve this dispute must also realise that by attempting to find a solution on regional bases, hence forcing a division of the State, is tantamount to sowing seeds for future trouble and instability. Also they need to understand that this approach of dealing the dispute as a territorial one, would not only be unjust and denial of rights to the people of Kashmir, but it would also not provide much desired security and stability in the region.
It is unfortunate that some of those who are entrusted to resolve the dispute do not have basic understanding of it; and what makes it more difficult is their arrogance and allusion that they know it all. They wrongly assume that they have monopoly in wisdom and refuse to learn, listen to anything that is different to their view, or make any effort to acquaint themselves to the ground realities.
Kashmir belongs to the Kashmiri people, and they are principal party to the dispute with inalienable right and a ‘title’. India and Pakistan on the other hand, have ‘claim’ to the State of Jammu and Kashmir because of being our neighbours, and because of their national interest. They are party to the dispute because of their de facto control of parts of the State. Pakistan had claim to state of Junagadh, in fact, this state acceded to Pakistan, and Pakistan accepted that accession, but just because Pakistan had no physical control over any part of the state that claim is no longer there.
Similarly present day Bangladesh was yesterdays East Pakistan, an integral part of state of Pakistan, but when West Pakistan lost physical control of its integral part, they abandoned their claim over that territory, and no one speaks about it as a Pakistani territory any more. So it is the physical control of parts of the state on which Pakistan rests its case on Kashmir; and India rests its case on the provisional accession, validity of which has been in dispute ever since.
Pro Kashmiri stand
Both countries wanted to get Kashmir and worked out different strategies for this, so both presented the Kashmir case as it suited their ‘national interest’, not what suited the people of Kashmir. Both established their puppet governments in the areas under their respective controls, and also set up their “A” and “B” teams, which either propagated Indian point of view or Pakistani point of view.
The Kashmiri voice was simply not present; there were no platforms where the people of Kashmir could present their case. Those Kashmiris who were ‘provided’ with an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Kashmiri people had either Indian or Pakistani baggage with them, and that certainly did not help the matter. This resulted in confusion at every level, and the Kashmir was seen as a territorial dispute between the contestants.
It is because of this confusion and lack of clarity that despite losing more than 50,000 lives, at international level the Kashmir dispute is seen as a ‘matter between India and Pakistan’, which they have to resolve bilaterally. In other words Kashmir dispute is seen through eyes of either Islamabad or New Delhi, and those Kashmiris who were trying to put forward the Kashmiri perspective were, until very recently, dismissed as being ‘anti movement’.
No matter what Pakistani and Kashmiris leaders say for public consumption, when it comes to discuss the solution of Kashmir, at international level term of reference are not UN resolutions but Shimla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. This means these so-called specialists occupying seats in ‘Foreigners Office’ have done a serious damage to the cause of Kashmir.
Some people think India is to be blamed for all the ills in Kashmir, therefore, all criticism should be targeted against India; others think ‘source of trouble is Pakistan’, and they only criticise Pakistan. Both these approaches are wrong. We can spend rest of our lives yelling against India on every street corner in every city of the world, and it wouldn’t make iota of difference to the Kashmir dispute, if anything members of the international community could see this approach as ‘Pakistani sponsored’, and that would not only take steam out of this but also create problems for Pakistan.
We need to have a balanced approach, but when someone tries to have this and endeavours to put forward a view that is against the policy of Islamabad, certain quarters in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir swing into action, and make wild allegations. These people claim to have monopoly over wisdom and loyalty, simply fail to distinguish between a government and a state. In their view a criticism against the Kashmir policy of a Pakistani government, especially made by a Kashmiri, is opposition to the state of Pakistan, hence regarded as a treasonable act.
As noted above, the world knows a Pakistani view on Kashmir and they also know an Indian version; and during my struggle for the cause of an independent Kashmir, I have tried to give a different perspective in my speeches, articles and books.
The present book, ‘Kashmir needs change of heart’, consists of my articles, written during course of my struggle since June 2004 for the Kashmir cause. These articles are on various aspects of the struggle and readers would note that I have not supported either Indian or Pakistani view - point. I have attempted to have a balanced approach, and have not gone out of way to criticise or demonise one contestant at the expense of the other; and in doing so I have tried to ensure that I project the Kashmiri point of view, and be pro Kashmir rather than be pro Pakistan or pro India.
Do not hide truth
The environment in which we are living and conducting our activities for the unification and complete independence of entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, it is a tall order to keep a balanced approach and continue with the work because of severe pressures and coercion. It is because of this, at times, I had to defend my approach and react to events as I thought appropriate and in the best interest of our ideology.
I must also point out to the readers that I am one of the founders of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, and have held various senior posts, including the posts of General Secretary and President for UK & Europe. I started my political struggle in 1973, when I was only a teenager; and that my struggle is not post 1990 when people witnessed a mushroom growth of Jihadi and other organisation and ‘freedom fighters’.
This mushroom growth was artificial, and more appropriately it was engineered with certain tasks in mind, and people were handsomely ‘rewarded’ for setting up these organisations and carrying forward an agenda which in essence was communal, anti people and deeply divisive. In nutshell, this was not a Kashmiri agenda and it attacked and destroyed social fabrics of the Kashmiri society, and ideals of tolerance, peace and harmony appeared thing of the past.
My friends advise me not to ‘stick out’ my head as it could land me in hot water, but I think I have a duty to pass on the knowledge I have gained after years of research and hard work. I have been told again and again to keep my work and research to myself, in other words sit on the information I have. Whereas Islam says do not hide truth in layers of lies, and that it is crime to conceal knowledge. Prophet Mohammed PBUH said, "He who is asked about something he knows and conceals it, will have a bridle of fire put on him on the Day of Resurrection" (Narrated by Abu Hurairah (r.a.a). Collected by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah and al-Hakim).
I believe Allah Almighty has put me in a privileged position where I had an opportunity to educate myself and gain knowledge on Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations. Now is it correct way to thank Allah for his kindness to me by concealing truth, telling lies and holding back facts, just because there are powerful groups in society who don’t like what I do? In my pinion the best way to thank is to ‘educate’ others and disseminate information that people are better informed; and when it comes to taking some decisions they are not in dark.
I do not expect every one to agree with point of view I have expressed in these articles, but I hope that they will respect my right to hold an opinion and express it. A writer is a product of society and environment he lives in, and reacts to situation or situations he encounters, and readers do not always have advantage of knowing that background.
Despite this I hope that my new book would give readers a different perspective, it would give them information which they might not have; and which powerful groups with great vested interest don’t like them to have, as it challenges their stand on Kashmir. To me it is Jihad to speak out against oppression and injustice, especially when powerful and influential people are in favour of keeping people ‘ignorant’. It is encouraging to note that I am not alone in this Jihad as more and more people are joining it.
I hope that after reading this book, readers will have better understanding of the Kashmir dispute; and that they will support Kashmiri peoples unfettered right of self – determination. I also hope that, as always, I will have some feedback from my readers that I can improve myself.
Change of heart
Whereas world politics had changed with disintegration of the Soviet Union, and especially after the fall of Twin Towers, but we in South Asia were slow to acknowledge these changes and make appropriate changes to our policies. With heads in sand we were happy to continue with the same policies, which meant more confrontation and hatred for each other; and which nearly brought South Asia edge to a nuclear disaster.
However it is encouraging to note that situation in Jammu and Kashmir and in South Asia is also changing fast. If we want to make a positive contribution to our communities and to the region we live in, then we will have to make changes to our approach in problem solving. We cannot continue dialogue with guns pointing at each other, never mind solving sensitive issues.
With entrenched positions and fingers at triggers, we have only caused death, destruction and have brought pain and misery to the people we were supposed to serve and make happy. If we continue with the same mind- set, then we don’t need a rocket scientist to tell us our fate.
But I am sure that won’t happen as we are thinking people, and have the ability to solve our problems without use of gun and outside help. This approach will require change of mind and change of heart; and I hope that we will change our mind and heart for the sake of peace, stability and prosperity of Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia.
Dr Shabir Choudhry 12 November 2005
Telfax: 0044 (0) 208 597 4782 Mobile 0044 (0) 7941 295327
Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Although situation has changed due to on going peace process, and especially after the deadly earthquake in Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan; but we must remember that at one time, Kashmir Dispute was referred as a ‘flash point’. This ‘flash point’ could have lead two hostile nuclear neighbours to full scale conventional, and possibly ‘non conventional’ armed conflict. It is argued by many that it is because of this ‘grave danger’ the Kashmir dispute has to be resolved.
No doubt the Kashmir dispute is one of the oldest, and it poses a serious threat to peace and stability of South Asia. And we Kashmiris more than anyone else want peace and stability in the region and want the Kashmir dispute to be resolved; but it should not be resolved just because the status quo is a threat to the peace of South Asia. Also that the status quo is in way of a larger interest of certain interested parties.
The Kashmir dispute must be resolved in its own right, as a case of Kashmiri peoples unfettered right of self- determination, a right that has been denied to the people of Jammu and Kashmir for many decades. It should be taken as an issue of a nation, forcibly divided, oppressed and denied basic humane rights, not of a territorial dispute, and a bone of contention between the two countries.
By taking this approach we do not only think of Kashmiri regions disturbed by the on going armed struggle, but also take the State of Jammu and Kashmir as whole being disputed. We ought to look for a solution of the whole State, not find a solution based on districts and regions because of the trouble in those places. If unfortunately we followed this route then it would surely lead to more trouble and chaos in future.
Those people who wish to resolve this dispute must also realise that by attempting to find a solution on regional bases, hence forcing a division of the State, is tantamount to sowing seeds for future trouble and instability. Also they need to understand that this approach of dealing the dispute as a territorial one, would not only be unjust and denial of rights to the people of Kashmir, but it would also not provide much desired security and stability in the region.
It is unfortunate that some of those who are entrusted to resolve the dispute do not have basic understanding of it; and what makes it more difficult is their arrogance and allusion that they know it all. They wrongly assume that they have monopoly in wisdom and refuse to learn, listen to anything that is different to their view, or make any effort to acquaint themselves to the ground realities.
Kashmir belongs to the Kashmiri people, and they are principal party to the dispute with inalienable right and a ‘title’. India and Pakistan on the other hand, have ‘claim’ to the State of Jammu and Kashmir because of being our neighbours, and because of their national interest. They are party to the dispute because of their de facto control of parts of the State. Pakistan had claim to state of Junagadh, in fact, this state acceded to Pakistan, and Pakistan accepted that accession, but just because Pakistan had no physical control over any part of the state that claim is no longer there.
Similarly present day Bangladesh was yesterdays East Pakistan, an integral part of state of Pakistan, but when West Pakistan lost physical control of its integral part, they abandoned their claim over that territory, and no one speaks about it as a Pakistani territory any more. So it is the physical control of parts of the state on which Pakistan rests its case on Kashmir; and India rests its case on the provisional accession, validity of which has been in dispute ever since.
Pro Kashmiri stand
Both countries wanted to get Kashmir and worked out different strategies for this, so both presented the Kashmir case as it suited their ‘national interest’, not what suited the people of Kashmir. Both established their puppet governments in the areas under their respective controls, and also set up their “A” and “B” teams, which either propagated Indian point of view or Pakistani point of view.
The Kashmiri voice was simply not present; there were no platforms where the people of Kashmir could present their case. Those Kashmiris who were ‘provided’ with an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Kashmiri people had either Indian or Pakistani baggage with them, and that certainly did not help the matter. This resulted in confusion at every level, and the Kashmir was seen as a territorial dispute between the contestants.
It is because of this confusion and lack of clarity that despite losing more than 50,000 lives, at international level the Kashmir dispute is seen as a ‘matter between India and Pakistan’, which they have to resolve bilaterally. In other words Kashmir dispute is seen through eyes of either Islamabad or New Delhi, and those Kashmiris who were trying to put forward the Kashmiri perspective were, until very recently, dismissed as being ‘anti movement’.
No matter what Pakistani and Kashmiris leaders say for public consumption, when it comes to discuss the solution of Kashmir, at international level term of reference are not UN resolutions but Shimla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. This means these so-called specialists occupying seats in ‘Foreigners Office’ have done a serious damage to the cause of Kashmir.
Some people think India is to be blamed for all the ills in Kashmir, therefore, all criticism should be targeted against India; others think ‘source of trouble is Pakistan’, and they only criticise Pakistan. Both these approaches are wrong. We can spend rest of our lives yelling against India on every street corner in every city of the world, and it wouldn’t make iota of difference to the Kashmir dispute, if anything members of the international community could see this approach as ‘Pakistani sponsored’, and that would not only take steam out of this but also create problems for Pakistan.
We need to have a balanced approach, but when someone tries to have this and endeavours to put forward a view that is against the policy of Islamabad, certain quarters in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir swing into action, and make wild allegations. These people claim to have monopoly over wisdom and loyalty, simply fail to distinguish between a government and a state. In their view a criticism against the Kashmir policy of a Pakistani government, especially made by a Kashmiri, is opposition to the state of Pakistan, hence regarded as a treasonable act.
As noted above, the world knows a Pakistani view on Kashmir and they also know an Indian version; and during my struggle for the cause of an independent Kashmir, I have tried to give a different perspective in my speeches, articles and books.
The present book, ‘Kashmir needs change of heart’, consists of my articles, written during course of my struggle since June 2004 for the Kashmir cause. These articles are on various aspects of the struggle and readers would note that I have not supported either Indian or Pakistani view - point. I have attempted to have a balanced approach, and have not gone out of way to criticise or demonise one contestant at the expense of the other; and in doing so I have tried to ensure that I project the Kashmiri point of view, and be pro Kashmir rather than be pro Pakistan or pro India.
Do not hide truth
The environment in which we are living and conducting our activities for the unification and complete independence of entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, it is a tall order to keep a balanced approach and continue with the work because of severe pressures and coercion. It is because of this, at times, I had to defend my approach and react to events as I thought appropriate and in the best interest of our ideology.
I must also point out to the readers that I am one of the founders of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, and have held various senior posts, including the posts of General Secretary and President for UK & Europe. I started my political struggle in 1973, when I was only a teenager; and that my struggle is not post 1990 when people witnessed a mushroom growth of Jihadi and other organisation and ‘freedom fighters’.
This mushroom growth was artificial, and more appropriately it was engineered with certain tasks in mind, and people were handsomely ‘rewarded’ for setting up these organisations and carrying forward an agenda which in essence was communal, anti people and deeply divisive. In nutshell, this was not a Kashmiri agenda and it attacked and destroyed social fabrics of the Kashmiri society, and ideals of tolerance, peace and harmony appeared thing of the past.
My friends advise me not to ‘stick out’ my head as it could land me in hot water, but I think I have a duty to pass on the knowledge I have gained after years of research and hard work. I have been told again and again to keep my work and research to myself, in other words sit on the information I have. Whereas Islam says do not hide truth in layers of lies, and that it is crime to conceal knowledge. Prophet Mohammed PBUH said, "He who is asked about something he knows and conceals it, will have a bridle of fire put on him on the Day of Resurrection" (Narrated by Abu Hurairah (r.a.a). Collected by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah and al-Hakim).
I believe Allah Almighty has put me in a privileged position where I had an opportunity to educate myself and gain knowledge on Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations. Now is it correct way to thank Allah for his kindness to me by concealing truth, telling lies and holding back facts, just because there are powerful groups in society who don’t like what I do? In my pinion the best way to thank is to ‘educate’ others and disseminate information that people are better informed; and when it comes to taking some decisions they are not in dark.
I do not expect every one to agree with point of view I have expressed in these articles, but I hope that they will respect my right to hold an opinion and express it. A writer is a product of society and environment he lives in, and reacts to situation or situations he encounters, and readers do not always have advantage of knowing that background.
Despite this I hope that my new book would give readers a different perspective, it would give them information which they might not have; and which powerful groups with great vested interest don’t like them to have, as it challenges their stand on Kashmir. To me it is Jihad to speak out against oppression and injustice, especially when powerful and influential people are in favour of keeping people ‘ignorant’. It is encouraging to note that I am not alone in this Jihad as more and more people are joining it.
I hope that after reading this book, readers will have better understanding of the Kashmir dispute; and that they will support Kashmiri peoples unfettered right of self – determination. I also hope that, as always, I will have some feedback from my readers that I can improve myself.
Change of heart
Whereas world politics had changed with disintegration of the Soviet Union, and especially after the fall of Twin Towers, but we in South Asia were slow to acknowledge these changes and make appropriate changes to our policies. With heads in sand we were happy to continue with the same policies, which meant more confrontation and hatred for each other; and which nearly brought South Asia edge to a nuclear disaster.
However it is encouraging to note that situation in Jammu and Kashmir and in South Asia is also changing fast. If we want to make a positive contribution to our communities and to the region we live in, then we will have to make changes to our approach in problem solving. We cannot continue dialogue with guns pointing at each other, never mind solving sensitive issues.
With entrenched positions and fingers at triggers, we have only caused death, destruction and have brought pain and misery to the people we were supposed to serve and make happy. If we continue with the same mind- set, then we don’t need a rocket scientist to tell us our fate.
But I am sure that won’t happen as we are thinking people, and have the ability to solve our problems without use of gun and outside help. This approach will require change of mind and change of heart; and I hope that we will change our mind and heart for the sake of peace, stability and prosperity of Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia.
Dr Shabir Choudhry 12 November 2005
Telfax: 0044 (0) 208 597 4782 Mobile 0044 (0) 7941 295327
Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)