From LOC to LOC
Dr Shabir Choudhry 26 June 2008
In presence of visiting APHC leaders, Sardar Atiq, Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir said he would like to convert Line of Control to Line of Commerce. In other words change LOC with another LOC. Is that what is their agenda? Are they here to sell division of Kashmir? Have people of Jammu and Kashmir sacrificed so much to get Line of Commerce in place of Line of Control?
It was CFL (Cease Fire Line) until it was replaced with LOC – Line of Control in 1972. Cease Fire Lime implies that fighting has stopped but the dispute over which the fighting began has not been resolved yet, hence a temporary pause in the war. Pakistan agreed to replace CFL with Line of Control after defeat of 1971, and now people only talk of LOC.
Both lines were imposed on the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and some might argue there is no difference between the two. This is not true. When dealing with borders and geography of countries one finds international boundary or Cease Fire Line in vocabulary. International boundary separates one country from the others, and cease fire line, as noted above indicates continuation of war or struggle which has been stopped.
After the war of 1965 both India and Pakistan had to withdraw to their pre war positions. That happened both in Jammu and Kashmir and on the international border, but after the war of 1971 India refused to withdraw from the Kashmiri territory which they invaded during the war, and only vacated the Pakistani territory (in the West Pakistan (East Pakistan became Bangladesh after the war), thus Line of Control came in to being.
Pakistani rulers of the time were facing difficult time, which was largely of their own making. They had lost one wing of the country; they witnessed the biggest surrender in the history with around 92,000 army personnel captured by India and around 5,000 sq miles of the Pakistani territory from the West Pakistan under the Indian occupation, not to mention territory of Jammu and Kashmir taken by India.
Morale of nation was at its lowest ebb and the only thing at Zulfqar Ali Bhutto’s disposal was his intelligence and trump card of Kashmir dispute. He used both in order to get what was in the best interest of Pakistan; but what is in the best interest of Pakistan might not be in the best interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Zulifqar Ali Bhutto agreed to change CFL with LOC. Let India keep areas of Jammu and Kashmir they took in the war of 1971. He agreed that from now onwards the Kashmir dispute will be resolved bilaterally and not to be taken to any international forum including the UN. He tacitly agreed that India can keep what they have and Pakistan will settle for what they have, although this was not written down anywhere but it was a verbal agreement between him and Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India.
Shimla Agreement was a turning point in the history of the Kashmiri struggle, and many analysts view it as a stab in the back of the Kashmiri struggle, as it made it a territorial dispute between the two countries with no reference to the UN or will of the Kashmiri people. Political manoeuvring of the mid 1970s clearly indicated that he wanted to honour his commitment to Indira Gandhi, and tried to make Azad Kashmir part of Pakistan. Also he tried to annex areas of Gilgit and Baltistan; and told Sheikh Abdullah to make some kind of arrangements with India, hence India Abdullah Accord of 1975.
Mental approach of Pakistani rulers regarding Kashmiri territory could be seen from utterance of General Zia Ul Haq, who after Indian take over of Siachin Glaicier said: why people are angry over this…not even grass grows there.
In other words territory and its sanctity is only important if grass grows there. He didn’t specify size and quality of the grass in order to attain relevant importance in eyes of the Pakistani rulers. It is different matter that afterwards Pakistan has spent billions on grass less peaks of Siachin Glacier and sacrificed thousands of soldiers; and history of these peaks and Kargil adventure will haunt rulers of Pakistan for a long time to come.
India also knew there was no grass on those peaks, and yet India fiercely fought to recover those peaks from a Pakistani incursion in 1999 and risked a full scale war or possible nuclear war? So what is important - growth of grass or dignity, honour and sanctity of territory? Some may argue that Pakistani rulers are not even concerned about their own territory so why should they be worried about a territory which is not legally their own. They were so generous that they gave part of Gilgit and Baltistan (about 2200 sq miles) to China in 1963, and feel proud that it helped to win friendship of a great neighbour.
I have serious reservations about politics of Jamaat E Islami, but I find criticism of Syed Munawar Hasan, Secetary General of Jammat E Islami, very appropriate when he strongly condemned the idea of Line of Commerce. He termed this as, ‘a calculated move to sabotage the freedom struggle of Kashmiris and reinforce the Indian stance’, which one might say is also a stance of the Pakistani rulers. He further said, ‘The proposal of converting LoC into Line of Commerce at a time when Mir Waez Omar Farooq was in Pakistan, was part of great conspiracy, which could open new vistas of operation for the agents of Indian intelligence RAW against Kashmiris’.
Pro pocket leaders of Jammu and Kashmir need to understand that State of Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity and whatever future status of the state it must remain one. Any attempts to divide it, under whatever formula, will be fiercely opposed by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Apart from that division of the State will also lead to problems for both India and Pakistan.
All those who are poisoning polity of Jammu and Kashmir with extremism, communalism and hatred must understand that wounds of partition of India on communal lines still have not been healed; and this genie, like Frankenstein, monster will also destroy them.
Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousaf Gilani in his meeting with APHC leaders assured them of Pakistan’s political and diplomatic support. Even at the peak of militancy and infiltration in early 1990s when people crossed LOC in dozens fully loaded with arms, Pakistan claimed that it only provided ‘political and diplomatic support’. We hope that this time political and diplomatic support means political and diplomatic support; and furthermore both India and Pakistan respect human rights in their respective parts of the state.
PPP Co Chair Asif Zardai and Prime Minister Gilani assured the visiting team that "The PPP will adhere to the philosophies of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto and is bound to follow them. We can’t deviate from them". If that is what they want to do then it is bad news for people of Jammu and Kashmir. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto treated Jammu and Kashmir as a jageer (estate) of Pakistan, as it was he who negotiated treaty with China in 1963 and gave away 2200 sq miles of Kashmiri territory; also it was he who signed the Shimla Agreement which gave further territory of Kashmir and make it a bilateral dispute.
As for late Benazir Bhutto is concerned during her first tenure as a Prime Minister she took off signs of Kashmir from Islamabad during Indian Prime Minister Rajiev Gandhi’s visit to Pakistan; and that sums up her love for Kashmir and her Kashmir policy. PPP has always been good at giving slogans and using name of Kashmir and playing with sentiments of the people.
We want to tell both governments that Kashmir dispute concerns our national identity and inherent right of self determination; and must not be treated as a territorial dispute. Furthermore we want the Kashmir dispute to be resolved through a process of dialogue in which the principal party to the dispute- people of Jammu and Kashmir must be made part of the process.
Both governments also need to acknowledge this fact that APHC, united or divided, only represents some sections of Muslims of the Valley, hence must not be projected or taken as a representative of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Monday, 23 June 2008
They are back in Islamabad
They are back in Islamabad
Dr Shabir Choudhry 23 June 2008
Unity is strength, we are told, but that is only half true. If unity is based around some agreed principles and all concerned are honest and dedicated people then surely it is a source of strength and motivation. But if unity is forged on behest of some foreign agency or imposed upon divided leaders with competing and contradictory interests then it is ‘marriage of convenience’ or business enterprise which will ultimately disappoint people.
APHC was united at one time, and many were led to believe that it was representative of the Kashmiri people, reality however was that they represented those who established them and funded them. Sentiments of the Valley Muslims regarding India aside, the APHC did not even represent Muslims of the Valley. It was a brain child of agencies and stalwarts of APHC, despite all odds, ‘bravely’ championed the cause of the parent organisation, even at the cost of interest of the Kashmiri people.
Conflicting interests and contradictory stand resulted in acrimony, allegations and split. Shabir Shah was expelled from APHC for crime of meeting an American diplomat. Yasin Malik also said good bye to the fragile alliance. Divisions or more precisely personal interests and rivalry intensified and resulted in the APHC having two groups, one headed by Syed Ali Gilani and the other by Mir Waiz Omer Farooq.
In Kashmir every leader claims to represent the majority, even when they know that they cannot even muster two dozen people. Similarly both groups of APHC claimed to represent the majority of the people, and were very generous in abusing each other and calling the other faction ‘anti movement.’
Apparently pay masters and other well - wishers tried to unite them but obstinate attitude and big ego frustrated all the efforts. Then all of sudden on eve of their trip to Islamabad both groups got ‘united’, as nothing had happened. Many wonder around what principles they got together, and moreover which group is ‘anti movement’? Both groups claimed that the other group was ‘anti movement’, could you please tell the bewildered nation which group, in reality was ‘anti movement’ and what soda or water (Aaab e Zam Zam or ganga jal they have used to purify the group which was ‘anti movement’. We would like to borrow this tonic that we can use it Azad Kashmir as well.
Is it not strange that a Kashmiri leader who has always ensured that Kashmiris in general and Kashmiri nationalists in particular don’t get united, even they have expressed happiness over this extra ordinary event of ‘holi alliance’. No one cared to ask him what about unification of his own party which is in many groups mainly due to his autocratic and unconstitutional actions which he claimed were in the larger interest of the organisation and movement.
Also is it not strange that those who are in good books of Islamabad were awarded with passports by India that they can visit Islamabad? This happened at the time of their last visit and it happened again. Does it mean that establishments of both countries have tacit agreement to reward good boys of the movement?
One wonders who are these good boys of the movement and what do they do to deserve this special treatment that Indian establishment issue passports in contravention of their laws. Take example of Yasin Malik who was among the first to pick up a gun. I don’t have details what he did with his gun and how many people he killed, but there are 23 criminal cases pending against him. People still don’t know what happened to his gun, but when he was released from a ‘farm house’ where he was kept during his detention he was a changed man who preached non violence. And India had no problem issuing him a passport, despite the provisions of the Passport Act of 1967 prohibiting it.
Because of large concentration of army in Kashmir, and for this India gets a lot of pressure from human rights organisations and the international community. Claim was that this concentration of army was causing problems for people and restricting their right to travel and right to assemble.
Shrewd Indian policy makers decided to tackle this matter sensibly; hence we witnessed the ‘signature campaign’. In this campaign groups of people headed by Yasin Malik travelled from village to village and town to town to get signatures of people. This helped India to prove that, despite a large army and war against ‘terrorism’ in Jammu and Kashmir, right to travel and right to assemble was there for those who did not carry and use guns.
India wanted to convey this to the West and human rights organisations that governments in Paris, London and Washington would also challenge and kill those who carry guns with intention of using them, and if India is doing that, especially when there is militancy going on for the past so many years then what is wrong with that.
After successful completion of ‘Signature Campaign’ Yasin Malik was given a passport and allowed to travel to Pakistan where he had exhibition and presented these signature to the Pakistani government. Yasin Malik got a protocol in Pakistan which he never dreamt of. He had meetings with senior politicians and with those who promote and control these politicians.
Of course apart from Yasin Malik other stalwarts of the APHC headed by Mir Waiz, who were in good books of Islamabad were issued passports by India and allowed to visit Pakistan. All these leaders spent most of their time in Pakistan, a country which illegally occupies parts of Jammu and Kashmir’s territory, and never visited Gilgit and Baltistan which has been left to the mercy of Pakistani bureaucrats since 1947.
This campaign helped to clean India’s image to some extent, but more needed to be done because of human rights abuse perpetrated since 1989. Many still thought that right of expression, right to travel and right to assemble was in jeopardy in Kashmir because of the large army presence, so once again Yasin Malik’s services were required, hence a start of a new campaign – ‘safre azadi’.
Yasin Malik and his entourage travelled to every corner of the Valley with hundreds of people- they travelled at night during the day and with lamps. He addressed hundreds of rallies and meetings where people in thousands were present, and not a single gun was fired by troops; no one stopped him or arrested anyone, and no one was killed.
Once again a clear message was sent to the world that if people wanted to use their right of expression, right to travel and right to assemble there is no problem in Jammu and Kashmir provided people don’t carry guns and resort to violence. India could not have achieved this goal without this ‘safre azadi’. Apart from other rewards once again he was issued a passport and sent across to Pakistan where he again had exhibition to boast his ‘achievement’.
In view of some Kashmiri analysts Pakistani establishment played a key role in dividing APHC- divided leaders are easy prey of agencies. Apart from that they wanted to prove how mean, immature and selfish were Kashmiri leaders that even at this critical juncture of their history they were at each other’s throat and building their own castles with no care for the suffering people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Since the new government has taken power in Pakistan role of secret agencies has reduced considerably. Pakistan is reviewing its policy on Kashmir and has said good bye to the policy of General Musharaf. New policy requires a new strategy; and new strategy has a considerable political input as well. Militancy in Jammu and Kashmir will increase and to support and justify this, political activities will be organised inside and outside Kashmir.
Pakistani government thought these leaders are still useful and best thing is to forge unity among them that they could be used effectively in new scheme of things on the issue of Kashmir. So these ‘leaders’ were told if they wanted to visit Pakistan, and moreover wanted continuation of Islamabad’s support then come here as one team. Yasin Malik has also assured them to join APHC, which he will join soon.
Apart from that elections in Jammu and Kashmir are around the corner, and like in the past, task of Yasin Malik and APHC is to oppose them. Their role is to disrupt elections that people cannot elect their representatives to help people resolve their everyday problems. These leaders know very well that in any fair and free election they cannot win, and this fact was acknowledged by Shabir Shah in a meeting with a Western human rights activist.
Yasin Malik has left Islamabad with new advice, new contract and new tasks. APHC leaders are still here, and will get their briefing and their contracts and tasks. Islamabad has serious economic problems but it is believed that they are still very generous to people of Indian side of Kashmir. These leaders always leave Islamabad happy, satisfied and many times richer. May Allah SWT help us?
Writer is a political activist, analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 23 June 2008
Unity is strength, we are told, but that is only half true. If unity is based around some agreed principles and all concerned are honest and dedicated people then surely it is a source of strength and motivation. But if unity is forged on behest of some foreign agency or imposed upon divided leaders with competing and contradictory interests then it is ‘marriage of convenience’ or business enterprise which will ultimately disappoint people.
APHC was united at one time, and many were led to believe that it was representative of the Kashmiri people, reality however was that they represented those who established them and funded them. Sentiments of the Valley Muslims regarding India aside, the APHC did not even represent Muslims of the Valley. It was a brain child of agencies and stalwarts of APHC, despite all odds, ‘bravely’ championed the cause of the parent organisation, even at the cost of interest of the Kashmiri people.
Conflicting interests and contradictory stand resulted in acrimony, allegations and split. Shabir Shah was expelled from APHC for crime of meeting an American diplomat. Yasin Malik also said good bye to the fragile alliance. Divisions or more precisely personal interests and rivalry intensified and resulted in the APHC having two groups, one headed by Syed Ali Gilani and the other by Mir Waiz Omer Farooq.
In Kashmir every leader claims to represent the majority, even when they know that they cannot even muster two dozen people. Similarly both groups of APHC claimed to represent the majority of the people, and were very generous in abusing each other and calling the other faction ‘anti movement.’
Apparently pay masters and other well - wishers tried to unite them but obstinate attitude and big ego frustrated all the efforts. Then all of sudden on eve of their trip to Islamabad both groups got ‘united’, as nothing had happened. Many wonder around what principles they got together, and moreover which group is ‘anti movement’? Both groups claimed that the other group was ‘anti movement’, could you please tell the bewildered nation which group, in reality was ‘anti movement’ and what soda or water (Aaab e Zam Zam or ganga jal they have used to purify the group which was ‘anti movement’. We would like to borrow this tonic that we can use it Azad Kashmir as well.
Is it not strange that a Kashmiri leader who has always ensured that Kashmiris in general and Kashmiri nationalists in particular don’t get united, even they have expressed happiness over this extra ordinary event of ‘holi alliance’. No one cared to ask him what about unification of his own party which is in many groups mainly due to his autocratic and unconstitutional actions which he claimed were in the larger interest of the organisation and movement.
Also is it not strange that those who are in good books of Islamabad were awarded with passports by India that they can visit Islamabad? This happened at the time of their last visit and it happened again. Does it mean that establishments of both countries have tacit agreement to reward good boys of the movement?
One wonders who are these good boys of the movement and what do they do to deserve this special treatment that Indian establishment issue passports in contravention of their laws. Take example of Yasin Malik who was among the first to pick up a gun. I don’t have details what he did with his gun and how many people he killed, but there are 23 criminal cases pending against him. People still don’t know what happened to his gun, but when he was released from a ‘farm house’ where he was kept during his detention he was a changed man who preached non violence. And India had no problem issuing him a passport, despite the provisions of the Passport Act of 1967 prohibiting it.
Because of large concentration of army in Kashmir, and for this India gets a lot of pressure from human rights organisations and the international community. Claim was that this concentration of army was causing problems for people and restricting their right to travel and right to assemble.
Shrewd Indian policy makers decided to tackle this matter sensibly; hence we witnessed the ‘signature campaign’. In this campaign groups of people headed by Yasin Malik travelled from village to village and town to town to get signatures of people. This helped India to prove that, despite a large army and war against ‘terrorism’ in Jammu and Kashmir, right to travel and right to assemble was there for those who did not carry and use guns.
India wanted to convey this to the West and human rights organisations that governments in Paris, London and Washington would also challenge and kill those who carry guns with intention of using them, and if India is doing that, especially when there is militancy going on for the past so many years then what is wrong with that.
After successful completion of ‘Signature Campaign’ Yasin Malik was given a passport and allowed to travel to Pakistan where he had exhibition and presented these signature to the Pakistani government. Yasin Malik got a protocol in Pakistan which he never dreamt of. He had meetings with senior politicians and with those who promote and control these politicians.
Of course apart from Yasin Malik other stalwarts of the APHC headed by Mir Waiz, who were in good books of Islamabad were issued passports by India and allowed to visit Pakistan. All these leaders spent most of their time in Pakistan, a country which illegally occupies parts of Jammu and Kashmir’s territory, and never visited Gilgit and Baltistan which has been left to the mercy of Pakistani bureaucrats since 1947.
This campaign helped to clean India’s image to some extent, but more needed to be done because of human rights abuse perpetrated since 1989. Many still thought that right of expression, right to travel and right to assemble was in jeopardy in Kashmir because of the large army presence, so once again Yasin Malik’s services were required, hence a start of a new campaign – ‘safre azadi’.
Yasin Malik and his entourage travelled to every corner of the Valley with hundreds of people- they travelled at night during the day and with lamps. He addressed hundreds of rallies and meetings where people in thousands were present, and not a single gun was fired by troops; no one stopped him or arrested anyone, and no one was killed.
Once again a clear message was sent to the world that if people wanted to use their right of expression, right to travel and right to assemble there is no problem in Jammu and Kashmir provided people don’t carry guns and resort to violence. India could not have achieved this goal without this ‘safre azadi’. Apart from other rewards once again he was issued a passport and sent across to Pakistan where he again had exhibition to boast his ‘achievement’.
In view of some Kashmiri analysts Pakistani establishment played a key role in dividing APHC- divided leaders are easy prey of agencies. Apart from that they wanted to prove how mean, immature and selfish were Kashmiri leaders that even at this critical juncture of their history they were at each other’s throat and building their own castles with no care for the suffering people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Since the new government has taken power in Pakistan role of secret agencies has reduced considerably. Pakistan is reviewing its policy on Kashmir and has said good bye to the policy of General Musharaf. New policy requires a new strategy; and new strategy has a considerable political input as well. Militancy in Jammu and Kashmir will increase and to support and justify this, political activities will be organised inside and outside Kashmir.
Pakistani government thought these leaders are still useful and best thing is to forge unity among them that they could be used effectively in new scheme of things on the issue of Kashmir. So these ‘leaders’ were told if they wanted to visit Pakistan, and moreover wanted continuation of Islamabad’s support then come here as one team. Yasin Malik has also assured them to join APHC, which he will join soon.
Apart from that elections in Jammu and Kashmir are around the corner, and like in the past, task of Yasin Malik and APHC is to oppose them. Their role is to disrupt elections that people cannot elect their representatives to help people resolve their everyday problems. These leaders know very well that in any fair and free election they cannot win, and this fact was acknowledged by Shabir Shah in a meeting with a Western human rights activist.
Yasin Malik has left Islamabad with new advice, new contract and new tasks. APHC leaders are still here, and will get their briefing and their contracts and tasks. Islamabad has serious economic problems but it is believed that they are still very generous to people of Indian side of Kashmir. These leaders always leave Islamabad happy, satisfied and many times richer. May Allah SWT help us?
Writer is a political activist, analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
To view other articles see my blog: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
Monday, 16 June 2008
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Geneva Conference and self determination
Geneva Conference and self determination
Dr Shabir Choudhry 05 August 2006
I have received a number of emails as a result of my last article, 'If not self determination then what'. Some people have accused me of not telling the whole truth regarding the Geneva Conference on self determination organised by Majid Tramboo. I believe there are many aspects of this conference and no one individual knows the whole truth.
I knew some aspects of this conference and mentioned it in passing as intention was not to discuss the conference but to tell people that Majid Tramboo and some others have been working on this hidden agenda for many years. However other people looked at it from different angle, and had different source of information. Dr Nazir Gilani seems to have more information on the subject, and he has eloquently presented his view point in his article ' Self-determination and last vestiges of good conscience' and has educated us all.
At that time we in JKLF were told by Majid Tramboo that the conference was funded by IHRAAM, some money was paid by participants and some other NGOs also made financial contribution. At no time he told us that the secret agency of one country (or both) was behind this. We believed that he has done some fund raising for this conference which was on self determination and not specifically on Kashmir.
However about two years ago in the cafeteria of UN Commission on Human Rights, in an informal meeting where Abbas Butt, Shaukat Kashmiri and others were also present, this conference and its funding came under discussion. I can vouch that information provided by Dr Nazir Gilani with regard to funding of this conference is same to that revealed to us in that discussion by some one present.
The Conference was 'managed' by Mr McNaghton, an American who apparently worked for Majid Tramboo. Some people claim that he was appointed there as OSD (Officer on Special Duty) otherwise why an educated American travel all the way from America and 'work' for 'Tramboo Partnership' which received more red letters than enquiries about immigration which they claimed to specialise in.
Moreover Mr McNaughton did not have a law degree, and had no knowledge or experience of English law and specially immigration law, so one wonders what exactly was he doing in Tramboo Partnership? It is learnt that it was Mr McNaughton who went to see the 'gentleman' from the other side at late night and exchanged bags.
Abbas Butt and I could be accused of being silent on the subject when he was in JKLF, and only shouted foul when he was expelled on charges of betraying the JKLF and the movement. Fact of the matter is that we always gave him benefit of doubt as in private he always assured us on life of his children that he was loyal to the ideology of united and independent Kashmir; and that he was extracting benefits from the Pakistanis for the sake of JKLF Srinagar which desperately needed help.
Azmat Khan and few others did not trust him and thought that he was using name of JKLF to personal gains; Abbas Butt, Mohammed Younis and I were among those who sincerely believed him. However cat came out of bag when in that conference he asked me to remove the phrase united and independent Kashmir as it would upset Abudullas (code name for ISI people at that time, I heard they have got a new code now) who were present in the conference.
Their official presence and acknowledgment to this effect (it was expected that they will send some politician or political activist on their pay role) was news to me and others. I said to him that as a JKLF President I am guardian of JKLF constitution and ideology and could not change that phrase, as it is foundation of our ideology.
It is also true that Dr Nazir Gilani chaired one session of the conference and replaced Rt. Hon. Gerald Kaufman MP as a Moderator in one workshop . It was in this conference Dr Nazir Gilani coined his famous phrase that India and Pakistan have 'claim' on Jammu and Kashmir and we have a 'title'. The conference was well organised and must have achieved targets set out by those who funded it.
It is amazing that how some people have changed their political colours and ideology, and yet they are projected by some as 'leaders' and 'nationalists'. While we were discussing this matter in London one political analyst said it is wrong to accuse them of changing ideology, as they never had any ideology. They were business men, with skills to sell everything that brought them good profit.
As in any business one cannot sell the same product all the time. According to demand and changed business environment product kept on changing, and they adapted their position and selling skills accordingly. Of course from time to time these business men had to be sent on refresher courses held in various parts of the world, including some courses in Brussels, Washington, Islamabad and New Delhi.
One can disagree with the product they are selling, but cannot challenge their business skills. In early 1990s if they successfully sold militancy and self determination, now they can discard these items and sell peace and self governance. To the bad fortune of Kashmiris and the movement they were projected as 'leaders' of the people of Jammu and Kashmir at that time; and they are still promoted as such.
Right of self determination is basic human right, and it is corner stone of Kashmiri struggle. True many new interpretations are given to this concept; and Pakistan's version is that Kashmiris should only be allowed to choose between India and Pakistan; hence denying them right to become independent.
When Pakistan formulated this policy in 1948, thinking at that time was that Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim majority and if they were given only two choices Muslim majority will opt for Pakistan. Even at that time this policy was a risky one, as Sheikh Abdullah was a popular leader and under terms of the UN resolutions India could have kept some of her forces in the State; and in view of this scenario referendum could have gone against Pakistan.
Many analysts agree that fearing undesirable outcome in proposed future plebiscite, Pakistani officials refused to vacate areas under its control, which they were supposed to do under the UN resolution of 1948. Pakistani government's desire to get Kashmir might not have changed but Pakistan, its geography, its culture and its attraction as a Muslim State which could provide peace, stability, dignity and prosperity to its citizens certainly has changed.
And in view of Pakistan's present situation, where there is no democracy, no political stability, rise of extremism, no sense of security, military expedition in Balochistan and Wazirstan; and above the way people of Jammu and Kashmir are treated in Gilgit and Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, one wonders how many people would voluntarily like to vote to join Pakistan.
It looks that Musharaf government has, at last, realised that it is not possible to get whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir ; and after this realisation they have introduced new concepts of self governance and autonomy in hope that Kashmiri people will buy one of them as substitute for self determination. The Government of Pakistan has instructed its international sales people to prepare new wrapping to make the proposals more acceptable to the people. Please, Allah help the Kashmiri people.
Writer is Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF, Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs and author of many books on Kashmir. He could be reached at: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 05 August 2006
I have received a number of emails as a result of my last article, 'If not self determination then what'. Some people have accused me of not telling the whole truth regarding the Geneva Conference on self determination organised by Majid Tramboo. I believe there are many aspects of this conference and no one individual knows the whole truth.
I knew some aspects of this conference and mentioned it in passing as intention was not to discuss the conference but to tell people that Majid Tramboo and some others have been working on this hidden agenda for many years. However other people looked at it from different angle, and had different source of information. Dr Nazir Gilani seems to have more information on the subject, and he has eloquently presented his view point in his article ' Self-determination and last vestiges of good conscience' and has educated us all.
At that time we in JKLF were told by Majid Tramboo that the conference was funded by IHRAAM, some money was paid by participants and some other NGOs also made financial contribution. At no time he told us that the secret agency of one country (or both) was behind this. We believed that he has done some fund raising for this conference which was on self determination and not specifically on Kashmir.
However about two years ago in the cafeteria of UN Commission on Human Rights, in an informal meeting where Abbas Butt, Shaukat Kashmiri and others were also present, this conference and its funding came under discussion. I can vouch that information provided by Dr Nazir Gilani with regard to funding of this conference is same to that revealed to us in that discussion by some one present.
The Conference was 'managed' by Mr McNaghton, an American who apparently worked for Majid Tramboo. Some people claim that he was appointed there as OSD (Officer on Special Duty) otherwise why an educated American travel all the way from America and 'work' for 'Tramboo Partnership' which received more red letters than enquiries about immigration which they claimed to specialise in.
Moreover Mr McNaughton did not have a law degree, and had no knowledge or experience of English law and specially immigration law, so one wonders what exactly was he doing in Tramboo Partnership? It is learnt that it was Mr McNaughton who went to see the 'gentleman' from the other side at late night and exchanged bags.
Abbas Butt and I could be accused of being silent on the subject when he was in JKLF, and only shouted foul when he was expelled on charges of betraying the JKLF and the movement. Fact of the matter is that we always gave him benefit of doubt as in private he always assured us on life of his children that he was loyal to the ideology of united and independent Kashmir; and that he was extracting benefits from the Pakistanis for the sake of JKLF Srinagar which desperately needed help.
Azmat Khan and few others did not trust him and thought that he was using name of JKLF to personal gains; Abbas Butt, Mohammed Younis and I were among those who sincerely believed him. However cat came out of bag when in that conference he asked me to remove the phrase united and independent Kashmir as it would upset Abudullas (code name for ISI people at that time, I heard they have got a new code now) who were present in the conference.
Their official presence and acknowledgment to this effect (it was expected that they will send some politician or political activist on their pay role) was news to me and others. I said to him that as a JKLF President I am guardian of JKLF constitution and ideology and could not change that phrase, as it is foundation of our ideology.
It is also true that Dr Nazir Gilani chaired one session of the conference and replaced Rt. Hon. Gerald Kaufman MP as a Moderator in one workshop . It was in this conference Dr Nazir Gilani coined his famous phrase that India and Pakistan have 'claim' on Jammu and Kashmir and we have a 'title'. The conference was well organised and must have achieved targets set out by those who funded it.
It is amazing that how some people have changed their political colours and ideology, and yet they are projected by some as 'leaders' and 'nationalists'. While we were discussing this matter in London one political analyst said it is wrong to accuse them of changing ideology, as they never had any ideology. They were business men, with skills to sell everything that brought them good profit.
As in any business one cannot sell the same product all the time. According to demand and changed business environment product kept on changing, and they adapted their position and selling skills accordingly. Of course from time to time these business men had to be sent on refresher courses held in various parts of the world, including some courses in Brussels, Washington, Islamabad and New Delhi.
One can disagree with the product they are selling, but cannot challenge their business skills. In early 1990s if they successfully sold militancy and self determination, now they can discard these items and sell peace and self governance. To the bad fortune of Kashmiris and the movement they were projected as 'leaders' of the people of Jammu and Kashmir at that time; and they are still promoted as such.
Right of self determination is basic human right, and it is corner stone of Kashmiri struggle. True many new interpretations are given to this concept; and Pakistan's version is that Kashmiris should only be allowed to choose between India and Pakistan; hence denying them right to become independent.
When Pakistan formulated this policy in 1948, thinking at that time was that Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim majority and if they were given only two choices Muslim majority will opt for Pakistan. Even at that time this policy was a risky one, as Sheikh Abdullah was a popular leader and under terms of the UN resolutions India could have kept some of her forces in the State; and in view of this scenario referendum could have gone against Pakistan.
Many analysts agree that fearing undesirable outcome in proposed future plebiscite, Pakistani officials refused to vacate areas under its control, which they were supposed to do under the UN resolution of 1948. Pakistani government's desire to get Kashmir might not have changed but Pakistan, its geography, its culture and its attraction as a Muslim State which could provide peace, stability, dignity and prosperity to its citizens certainly has changed.
And in view of Pakistan's present situation, where there is no democracy, no political stability, rise of extremism, no sense of security, military expedition in Balochistan and Wazirstan; and above the way people of Jammu and Kashmir are treated in Gilgit and Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, one wonders how many people would voluntarily like to vote to join Pakistan.
It looks that Musharaf government has, at last, realised that it is not possible to get whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir ; and after this realisation they have introduced new concepts of self governance and autonomy in hope that Kashmiri people will buy one of them as substitute for self determination. The Government of Pakistan has instructed its international sales people to prepare new wrapping to make the proposals more acceptable to the people. Please, Allah help the Kashmiri people.
Writer is Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF, Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs and author of many books on Kashmir. He could be reached at: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)