Speech of Dr Shabir Choudhry in a conference in Geneva 23 September 2008.
Mr President, friends and colleagues aslamo alaykam
I am grateful to Dr Charles Graves and Interfaith International for organising this important conference at a time when a lot is happening in South Asia. Terrorist activities in both India and Pakistan are on increase with alarm bells ringing in many quarters around the world. The Kashmiri struggle which many thought had seen its peak and was now seen under control has once again made headlines, and people call this new wave of protest a Kashmiri intifada.
The topic of this conference is “Kashmir Issue, Terrorism and Human Rights”; and some speakers have spoken on the topic before me. Violence and terrorism are not new to human society; in fact, they are as old as human civilisation. But it is only after 9/11 that world opinion has dramatically changed against terrorism. If there was no 9/11 we might have seen Pakistan, the US and some other countries, in one way or the other still supporting terrorist groups in various parts of the world.
Today people associate terrorism with Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, in other words Alqaeeda and Taliban. One wonders who are God fathers of Osama and Mullah Omar and their groups. Who supported and promoted Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. When it suited both America and Pakistan they presented them as heroes and real mujahideen fighting the Russians. But when these Mujaheedens trained and armed by these countries decided not to play their game any more and wished to promote more jihad and militancy they were branded as bad boys.
Taliban is taken as a fundamentalist or a terrorist, but at one time it meant students who studied Islamic studies in religious schools. No religious school in Pakistan had skills and weapons to teach students in modern warfare or how to use tanks and heavy military equipment. Of course this was done by the Pakistan army and that is why a Pakistani Home Minister of the People Party government once said, ‘Taliban are our boys’.
These ‘boys’ were trained to accomplish a mission in Afghanistan and that was to control the volatile region that Pakistan can have a ‘strategic depth’- a name given to the policy of westward expansion by the Pakistan army in order to counter India. This could have given Pakistan a significant influence over Afghanistan and central Asia (not to mention Kashmir).
America also had interest in this if the Taliban were to provide stability in Afghanistan. Central Asian countries of Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan natural gas reserves of more than 236 trillion cubic feet. American oil companies wanted to build a pipeline that would transport oil from Central Asia through Afghanistan and ending at the Makran coast in Pakistan. The Wall Street Journal of 23 May 1997 declared and I quote: "the main interests of American and other economic elites is making Afghanistan a prime trans- shipment route for the exporting of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources……like them or not….the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history". Unquote
Taliban could not bring about much needed stability in Afghanistan, but Pakistan and the US succeeded in creating their own Frankenstein which did not hesitate to attack its creators. Pakistan with help and support of the US created a terrorist infrastructure to fight the Russians; and after their withdrawal from Afghanistan the US walked away as for them mission was accomplished. But ambitious and religiously motivated Pakistani agencies continued to use these ‘terrorist nurseries’ to support and promote violence to advance what they conceived as a Pakistani interest with the US turning their eyes other way.
This policy might have helped Pakistani agencies to advance their political and strategic agenda for some time but they didn’t realise that one day it will back fire. I personally spoke to senior Pakistani officials in mid 1990s, and requested them to abandon their policy of bringing jihadi warriors from other countries in Kashmir, as their presence was damaging our cause and changing the fundamental character of Kashmiri struggle. I also told them that one day they will have to pay heavy price for promoting politics of communalism, extremism and hatred, but they did not listen, and accused me of being anti Pakistan, anti jihad, anti Islam and pro India.
Where ever there is terrorism or armed struggle it surely has more than one impact on society: it seriously damages local economy and frightens investors and tourists. Victims are generally ordinary people and it gives excuse to both militants and armed forces to violate human rights; and above all it creates a class of people who make this has a business. These merchants of blood ensure that violence and terrorism continue and that they keep on getting rewards from this human tragedy.
General Musharaf is rightly accused of many wrong doings. His policies like policies of General Zia ul Haq will prove to be disastrous for Pakistan. He is also accused of playing double in the war on terrorism. His proposals on Kashmir were designed to divide Kashmir on religious lines, but the peace process, confidence building measure, and cease fire along the LOC have provided some relief to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially those living near the line of control.
His proposals on Kashmir were disliked and opposed by true nationalists and by all those who regarded the state as one political entity; but those who have commercialised the Kashmiri struggle saw an opportunity to make some more money and tried to sell this idea to the people, hence stand exposed in front of people. I hope that after general Musharaf his proposals on division of the State will be discarded and people of Kashmir will not allow these merchants to use the Kashmir dispute to further their commercial interests.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly divided since 1947, and human rights violations take place on both sides of the divide. It is natural wherever there is armed rebellion human rights abuse takes place; hence we witnessed human rights abuse on the Indian side of the divide committed by both state and non state actors. Whether human rights abuse is committed by militants or the people in uniform, generally victims are innocent people.
Every state has main responsibility of protecting life, honour and property of citizens, and the Maharaja of Kashmir’s provisional accession was based on this assumption that once he accedes to India the above pledge would be honoured. But what we see is that life, honour and property is not safe in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact in many cases they were targeted to punish people who had opposing political views. If the State actors are not personally responsible for these acts of violence perpetrated against civilians the state is still accountable as it is endowed with duty to protect life, liberty, honour and property of the people.
It must be pointed out here that State of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India was provisional and had to be ratified by the people. It is unfortunate that people of Jammu and Kashmir never had an opportunity to exercise their right to determine future of the State; and this is mainly because of competing interests of both India and Pakistan. However over the past years there have been some positive steps taken by both India and Pakistan to ease tension on borders and to create conducive environment to strengthen social, cultural and economic ties.
While appreciating these confidence building measures, I emphasis that more needs to be done and both countries need to take more Kashmir specific measures. They need to understand that war, militancy or proxy war is not sensible or viable option, and past experience and history is witness to this. Also it must be understood that politics of communalism, extremism and hatred might help their policy to make some immediate gains but in long run it will back fire and result in more violence and terrorism, so forces which preach violence and communalism must be controlled.
Apart from that it must be understood that Status quo is not an option either. Status quo means not only denial of right of self determination to the Kashmiri people which is the root cause of the problem, but also it means the continuation of the problem with commercial, political and strategic interest of many groups, which often result in killings, torture and violations of the fundamental human rights. Furthermore it means that both countries remain hostage to the Kashmir dispute and hold their progress and continue to spend huge resources to compete with each other, hence depriving their people of social advancement.
Also status quo means that because of acrimony, animosity and unending conflict between Pakistan and India, the region will remain unstable and world will remain under the threat of nuclear horror. Therefore a peaceful settlement of the dispute is the only option. Dialogue is the only way forward, but in this dialogue the main party to the dispute people of Jammu and Kashmir must also be present.
It must not be the case that India and Pakistan decide something on Kashmir and then impose that on us, as people will not accept it. This was even voiced by President of Pakistani Administered Kashmir Raja Zulqarnain Khan when he was asked on18 June 2007, about a claim of Pakistani foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri that Pakistan and India have almost reached an accord over the Kashmir dispute. Raja Zulqarnain Khan said and I quote: ‘Pakistan’s Foreign Office had neither taken him into confidence nor briefed him about negotiations with India since his assuming office last year. AJK president warned the Pakistani leadership that any agreement with India without the involvement of the Kashmiri people would not be acceptable.’ Unquote. If pro Pakistan leaders are not prepared to accept this kind of attitude and solution then one can imagine the response of other Kashmiris.
A survey was conducted both in India and Pakistan by WorldPublicOpinion.org during October and November of 2007, in which it was revealed and I quote: ‘that half or more are open to a range of possible outcomes for Kashmir other than it being part of their respective countries. On neither side is there strong majority opposition to Kashmir becoming an independent country or dividing Kashmir between Pakistan and India. Indians and Pakistanis show a readiness to have the Kashmiri people decide their fate. If a majority of all Kashmiris were to choose independence, a majority of Indians and Pakistanis would find such independence at least tolerable.’ unquote
This shows a change of attitude among people of India and Pakistan on the controversial issue of Kashmir. This flexibility was not there some years ago. It means people on both sides feel that continued hostility over Kashmir is not in the best interest of their countries and in the best interest of the region. We need to build on this and build constituency of peace, harmony and tolerance. If we want to make progress and compete with challenges of the 21st century then we must learn to live side by side, and think of region of South Asia as whole. This is the only way to defeat forces of communalism, terrorism and hatred.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Spokesman, Kashmir National Party
Telfax: 0044 (0) 208597 4782/ mobile: 0044 (0) 7790942471
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Sunday, 31 August 2008
New Phase of Kashmiri struggle
New Phase of Kashmiri struggle
Dr Shabir Choudhry 31 August 2008
People of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered for many decades; and their struggle for right of self – determination and national identity has seen many twists and turns. The new and probably the last phase of this long struggle has begun.
It is claimed that the new struggle is similar to the ‘Palestinian intifada’; and is peaceful in nature and was not led by any leadership but by the ordinary people. In this new struggle ordinary people - truck drivers fruit growers, fruit sellers, shop keepers etc, who were hitherto not part of the struggle are taking a lead role; and ‘leaders’ were obliged to take part in these processions to make themselves relevant.
The previous phase which started in 1988/9 had many dimensions and many phases within it. Some claim this militant phase ‘internationalised’ the Kashmir dispute, but it also brought suffering and disaster to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Sad thing is that despite all the suffering, deaths, torture, rapes and destruction the Kashmir dispute is still viewed as a bilateral dispute which has to be resolved by India and Pakistan.
The present uprising has astonished many Kashmir watchers and some think the authorities were also taken by surprise. But some experts think there is more than that to this uprising. Local Kashmiris I have spoken to claim that it is truly indigenous movement, but similar claims were made about the uprising of 1989, which was later proved that it was sponsored from outside.
Indian authorities thought they had probably seen the worst in Jammu and Kashmir and situation was gradually returning to some kind of normalcy. The peace process, although we Kashmiris were not part of it and it did not bring any tangible results to the solution, brought some relief to the people, especially to those living in border areas.
So to the Indian policy makers there was no need to make any concessions or to take any concrete steps to resolve the dispute. They perhaps thought that they can play for time until such time when situation is favourable to them or when Pakistan is in deep trouble, and has no time and resources left to continue tinkering with the Kashmir dispute; or even worse, when Pakistan because of political contradictions and internal divisions disintegrates as a nation state.
As a political analyst I want to read between the lines and try to see what is behind the headlines. I wonder if it is just the issue of transfer of land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board or something else behind it. Or is it just an excuse to give this matter a religious flavouring that people could be provoked and motivated to take extreme actions in name of religion both in the Valley and in Jammu?
SAHB was established by a Jammu and Kashmiri government of Farooq Abdullah and rightly or wrongly the land was also transferred by a Jammu and Kashmir Cabinet headed by Ghulam Nabi Azad. Apparent purpose of this land transfer was to provide facilities to visitors that pilgrimage is made easier, which will encourage more people to visit the Shrine. Tourism whether religious or leisure brings money and creates jobs and supports local economy; and when there is widespread unemployment in the Valley why oppose actions which will ultimately promote tourism and help to end unemployment?
In the past militants threatened to stop Amarnath Yatra which is clearly against teachings of Islam. Those who stopped religious festivals and adopted violent methods for it had no interest in the local economy or welfare of the people as they were mercenaries- those who are paid to execute a mission for monetary gains. Similarly APHC leaders and other leaders have no worries about bread and butter as they know they have accumulated enough wealth that their 5/6 generations don’t need to worry about their kitchen.
Those who have vested interest in affairs of Jammu and Kashmir, and want to maintain the status quo by ensuring that the Kashmir pot continues to boil, knew very well that the New World Order DOES NOT approve militancy and terrorism. They knew Kashmir pot could not continue to boil by use of gun for too long. A new strategy was desperately needed for this, and I indicated this in June 2008, in article: ‘They are back in Islamabad’.
It must be noted here that some kind of trouble or low level insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir suits many, which could be broadly termed as vested interest. This term vested interest encompass all those who, one way or the other, have benefited from this struggle and suffering of the people, and they are on both sides of the divide and include some members of the Kashmiri Diaspora. This ‘benefit’ could be in form of wealth, power, status, undue publicity etc, and beneficiaries include people in politics, militant groups, religious groups, army and corridors of power and policy makers. Peace, stability and resolution of the Kashmir dispute is not in the interest of those who have made it a commercial enterprise.
Space for extremists
With militancy on decline and some kind of gradual normalcy returning to the Jammu and Kashmir, although still around half million armed personnel were there, political space for extremists was declining. Same was the case for the politics of APHC. They felt that days of their politics were numbered, and they would be badly exposed in the next elections which were just around the corner. They also knew that the people ignored calls of boycott at the time of the last election even situation was much worse than what it was in June 2008.
Similarly appeal of extremist politics in Jammu was on decline. Secular minded people and members of the Kashmiri civil society in Jammu and the Valley opposed forces of communalism, extremism and hatred. Extremists both in Jammu and the Valley wanted to create a political space for themselves by playing communal and regional cards.
The issue of land transfer has provided the opportunity to the extremists to assert themselves both in Jammu and in the Valley. They have used religion and regional grievances to make space for their politics, and it looks that extremists are in the driving seat in both regions, and space for secular minded people and members of the civil society is declining.
One can understand the disappointment of people with the progress of the peace process. One can also appreciate their frustration and alienation, not to mention the trauma and suffering they have endured since 1988/9; but does that mean we give in to forces of extremism? Does it mean that members of the civil society remain silent spectators and let extremists call shots in politics of Jammu and Kashmir?
People have once again expressed their feelings that they are not happy with the status quo, and I for one will welcome this peaceful struggle; but I am deeply concerned with the communalism and regionalism embedded in this new phase of the struggle. If this trend of communalism and regionalism is not checked soon my fear is that it will tarnish our struggle and perhaps lead to disintegration of the State on communal lines. Already there are talks that Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir should be divided in to three administrative units.
One Kashmir watcher said the new phase of the struggle may be peaceful, but tactics of the authorities are same as they were in 1989/90. It looks either the authorities have not learnt anything from the two decades old militant struggle or they have deliberately let the situation escalate. It is mind-blowing to think that authorities let the situation reach a certain point before taking any action, which is generally violent and result in human rights abuse and killings.
Authorities knew by being a silent spectator it only encourages the movement to have a snow ball affect. They also knew that by adopting harsh measures, as were adopted in 1989/90, they will breed more violence and further alienate people. People show their resentment and dissatisfaction by holding large peaceful processions, but that must not be construed as a support for Pakistan, as some Pakistani leaders are claiming.
They wave Pakistani flags to taunt and tease India, as they know Indian authorities will dislike it, but it doesn’t mean they want to join Pakistan. People of Jammu and Kashmir know what is going on in Pakistan. They know F16 and helicopters are in action every day to kill and destroy those Pakistanis who are demanding their rights and identity. It is wrong of Pakistani leaders to assume that Kashmiri struggle is for ‘completion of Pakistan’, when we know Pakistanis are working hard to destroy the remaining Pakistan.
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: http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Dr Shabir Choudhry 31 August 2008
People of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered for many decades; and their struggle for right of self – determination and national identity has seen many twists and turns. The new and probably the last phase of this long struggle has begun.
It is claimed that the new struggle is similar to the ‘Palestinian intifada’; and is peaceful in nature and was not led by any leadership but by the ordinary people. In this new struggle ordinary people - truck drivers fruit growers, fruit sellers, shop keepers etc, who were hitherto not part of the struggle are taking a lead role; and ‘leaders’ were obliged to take part in these processions to make themselves relevant.
The previous phase which started in 1988/9 had many dimensions and many phases within it. Some claim this militant phase ‘internationalised’ the Kashmir dispute, but it also brought suffering and disaster to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Sad thing is that despite all the suffering, deaths, torture, rapes and destruction the Kashmir dispute is still viewed as a bilateral dispute which has to be resolved by India and Pakistan.
The present uprising has astonished many Kashmir watchers and some think the authorities were also taken by surprise. But some experts think there is more than that to this uprising. Local Kashmiris I have spoken to claim that it is truly indigenous movement, but similar claims were made about the uprising of 1989, which was later proved that it was sponsored from outside.
Indian authorities thought they had probably seen the worst in Jammu and Kashmir and situation was gradually returning to some kind of normalcy. The peace process, although we Kashmiris were not part of it and it did not bring any tangible results to the solution, brought some relief to the people, especially to those living in border areas.
So to the Indian policy makers there was no need to make any concessions or to take any concrete steps to resolve the dispute. They perhaps thought that they can play for time until such time when situation is favourable to them or when Pakistan is in deep trouble, and has no time and resources left to continue tinkering with the Kashmir dispute; or even worse, when Pakistan because of political contradictions and internal divisions disintegrates as a nation state.
As a political analyst I want to read between the lines and try to see what is behind the headlines. I wonder if it is just the issue of transfer of land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board or something else behind it. Or is it just an excuse to give this matter a religious flavouring that people could be provoked and motivated to take extreme actions in name of religion both in the Valley and in Jammu?
SAHB was established by a Jammu and Kashmiri government of Farooq Abdullah and rightly or wrongly the land was also transferred by a Jammu and Kashmir Cabinet headed by Ghulam Nabi Azad. Apparent purpose of this land transfer was to provide facilities to visitors that pilgrimage is made easier, which will encourage more people to visit the Shrine. Tourism whether religious or leisure brings money and creates jobs and supports local economy; and when there is widespread unemployment in the Valley why oppose actions which will ultimately promote tourism and help to end unemployment?
In the past militants threatened to stop Amarnath Yatra which is clearly against teachings of Islam. Those who stopped religious festivals and adopted violent methods for it had no interest in the local economy or welfare of the people as they were mercenaries- those who are paid to execute a mission for monetary gains. Similarly APHC leaders and other leaders have no worries about bread and butter as they know they have accumulated enough wealth that their 5/6 generations don’t need to worry about their kitchen.
Those who have vested interest in affairs of Jammu and Kashmir, and want to maintain the status quo by ensuring that the Kashmir pot continues to boil, knew very well that the New World Order DOES NOT approve militancy and terrorism. They knew Kashmir pot could not continue to boil by use of gun for too long. A new strategy was desperately needed for this, and I indicated this in June 2008, in article: ‘They are back in Islamabad’.
It must be noted here that some kind of trouble or low level insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir suits many, which could be broadly termed as vested interest. This term vested interest encompass all those who, one way or the other, have benefited from this struggle and suffering of the people, and they are on both sides of the divide and include some members of the Kashmiri Diaspora. This ‘benefit’ could be in form of wealth, power, status, undue publicity etc, and beneficiaries include people in politics, militant groups, religious groups, army and corridors of power and policy makers. Peace, stability and resolution of the Kashmir dispute is not in the interest of those who have made it a commercial enterprise.
Space for extremists
With militancy on decline and some kind of gradual normalcy returning to the Jammu and Kashmir, although still around half million armed personnel were there, political space for extremists was declining. Same was the case for the politics of APHC. They felt that days of their politics were numbered, and they would be badly exposed in the next elections which were just around the corner. They also knew that the people ignored calls of boycott at the time of the last election even situation was much worse than what it was in June 2008.
Similarly appeal of extremist politics in Jammu was on decline. Secular minded people and members of the Kashmiri civil society in Jammu and the Valley opposed forces of communalism, extremism and hatred. Extremists both in Jammu and the Valley wanted to create a political space for themselves by playing communal and regional cards.
The issue of land transfer has provided the opportunity to the extremists to assert themselves both in Jammu and in the Valley. They have used religion and regional grievances to make space for their politics, and it looks that extremists are in the driving seat in both regions, and space for secular minded people and members of the civil society is declining.
One can understand the disappointment of people with the progress of the peace process. One can also appreciate their frustration and alienation, not to mention the trauma and suffering they have endured since 1988/9; but does that mean we give in to forces of extremism? Does it mean that members of the civil society remain silent spectators and let extremists call shots in politics of Jammu and Kashmir?
People have once again expressed their feelings that they are not happy with the status quo, and I for one will welcome this peaceful struggle; but I am deeply concerned with the communalism and regionalism embedded in this new phase of the struggle. If this trend of communalism and regionalism is not checked soon my fear is that it will tarnish our struggle and perhaps lead to disintegration of the State on communal lines. Already there are talks that Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir should be divided in to three administrative units.
One Kashmir watcher said the new phase of the struggle may be peaceful, but tactics of the authorities are same as they were in 1989/90. It looks either the authorities have not learnt anything from the two decades old militant struggle or they have deliberately let the situation escalate. It is mind-blowing to think that authorities let the situation reach a certain point before taking any action, which is generally violent and result in human rights abuse and killings.
Authorities knew by being a silent spectator it only encourages the movement to have a snow ball affect. They also knew that by adopting harsh measures, as were adopted in 1989/90, they will breed more violence and further alienate people. People show their resentment and dissatisfaction by holding large peaceful processions, but that must not be construed as a support for Pakistan, as some Pakistani leaders are claiming.
They wave Pakistani flags to taunt and tease India, as they know Indian authorities will dislike it, but it doesn’t mean they want to join Pakistan. People of Jammu and Kashmir know what is going on in Pakistan. They know F16 and helicopters are in action every day to kill and destroy those Pakistanis who are demanding their rights and identity. It is wrong of Pakistani leaders to assume that Kashmiri struggle is for ‘completion of Pakistan’, when we know Pakistanis are working hard to destroy the remaining Pakistan.
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: http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Sunday, 17 August 2008
New trend in Kashmiri struggle
New trend in Kashmiri struggle
Dr Shabir Choudhry 17 August 2008
Situation in Pakistan is bothering everyone who has any interest or link with this region; and what worries people is that no one seems to be in control of the situation there, and no one knows future of the country. The situation started getting from bad to worse with Pakistan’s entry in the ‘war on terror’, which in view of many Pakistani experts was not Pakistan’s war, and if anything Pakistani agencies had their own history and experience of promoting and exporting this business.
Like politics of Pakistan it is difficult to predict future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the on going struggle. The State is multi religious and multi ethnic; and has competing interests from various political, religious and armed groups. Politics of the State is controlled from outside of the State boundaries and people of the state suffer as a result of this control and interference.
In June when Yasin Malik and APHC leaders went to Islamabad for new ‘instructions’ and a new ‘mandate’, I wrote in article titled, ‘They are back in Islamabad’: ‘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.’
Since June we have seen many changes: rise in infiltration, rise in militancy, serious and violent agitation with strong communal flavour - first in the Valley then followed by in Jammu, and political conferences organised by pro Islamabad Kashmiris in various capitals of the world. This communal aspect of the Kashmir polity is so worrying that it could create situation similar to that of 1947.
Apart from that a new and interesting development is taking place on the Pakistani side of the divide, where the local people in the Neelam Valley are demonstrating against increased presence and activities of the militants. According to BBC report of 17 August 2008, this is the second such demonstration in the area in the past six weeks. The local people closed their shops and protested in hundreds on Saturday 16th in Athmaqaam in the Neelam Valley, and demanded that activities of these militants should be controlled as this could result in cross border shelling which could make life hell for the local people.
Munir Sharafat advocate on behalf of the demonstrators said, that for the past number of weeks we have noticed increased activities of these militants. Their facial features, language and behaviour tell us that they are not Kashmiris. We are seriously concerned about their presence, as it makes us vulnerable and potential target of the Indian retaliation. He said we have enjoyed peace since November 2003 and don’t want the hostilities to resume.
The demonstrators informed Deputy Commissioner about activities of these militants and potential threat they pose to the people of the area. Before the cease fire between India and Pakistan on the LOC, Neelam Valley was the worst hit area where hostilities are fierce and more frequent because of the terrain and close proximity of the rival forces which are only divided by the small river Neelam.
Some months ago one commentator said Kashmir dispute has been removed from the back burner as both countries are occupied with other priorities. But now Jammu and Kashmir is on fire with very dangerous trends. A Russian journalist in his email to me asked: ‘What is at heart of the recent escalation of conflict? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that 40 hectares of land could have stirred the communities to the boiling point. But then, I'm not an expert on the region, regrettably’.
So what is really behind this present uprising which some believe could be as nasty as the uprising of the 1989/90, if not worse? Is it that people are frustrated with the on going peace process, although it has brought peace to the region and better understanding between the both countries, but for the people of Jammu and Kashmir there are no tangible outcome of talks spread over many years.
Apart from that both countries still have paid no attention to the repeated demand of the Kashmiri people that they want to be part of the process that they can present their case and safeguard their interest. Also people feel that they been let down by their leadership, as they have no road map for solution of the dispute and they are busy with their personal gains and rewards with little or no attention to the problems of the suffering people.
When people are on streets and hold violent demonstrations that is not a sign of popularity of APHC leaders. All it shows is that people are not satisfied with the status quo - they are not happy with what India is doing, they are not happy with the government in Jammu and Kashmir, they are not happy with their leaders, they are not happy with large concentration of army, they are not happy with activities of the militants, they are not happy with lack of opportunities and unemployment; and demonstration is one way to show their anger and frustration.
Both India and Pakistan have their own game plan and agenda on Kashmir. Pakistan under General Musharaf a few years ago showed serious desperation and a clear change of policy on Kashmir. It looked he was desperate to have a ‘solution’ to have another feather in his cap to tell the world and his own countrymen that he has finally resolved the long standing dispute which was a source of instability in South Asia and which has held back our progress.
Because of his determination, drive and somersault on Kashmir many predicted that the Kashmir dispute would be ‘resolved’ by 2007. I was among those who discarded this claim, as in my view India would use General Musharaf to achieve maximum but would not make a deal on Kashmir with a man in uniform. Indian policy was to drag it on and take heat out of the militancy and rebellion. They have experience of dragging on talks for years and decades without giving anything in return.
But those Indian policy makers who thought that they can win the day by dragging their feet were wrong. They thought that the worst is over in Kashmir, and they can wrap up things by some window dressing and by some cosmetic changes. Perhaps they also thought that the other party to the dispute was sincere and both would jointly crush ‘terrorism’ and eradicate violence for ever, forgetting that both have contradictory claims on Kashmir and divergent interests both in South Asia and in the wider world. Interests of the parties and rules of game can change with changing situation and that is what has happened.
Things don’t always work out as we plan or expect them to happen. India had full control of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir for decades and very popular leaders sincerely helped them to make progress in Jammu and Kashmir. Then question is what went wrong? We can say Pakistani agencies also had hand in the matter but Indian policy makers also need to have a serious appraisal of their Kashmir policy, as one can only put so much under the carpet or continue to blame others.
Kashmir dispute is a serious matter although some have made a business out of it; and it needs serious and sincere attention. It has to be understood in its true perspective and appropriate strategy needs to be in place to resolve it. If we continue to play with sentiments of the people and continue to treat it as a territorial dispute or a religious matter then we could have another partition on communal lines.
We must remember that wounds of the communal partition which took place in 1947 have not been healed yet, and some people have let the communal genie out of a bottle again, and fear is that it will claim many innocent lives and destroy peace and harmony in the State. Those who believe in humanity, liberal and democratic rights for all, need to tell all concerned that Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity, and we would not allow division of the State; and that our struggle is for unification and independence.
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
Dr Shabir Choudhry 17 August 2008
Situation in Pakistan is bothering everyone who has any interest or link with this region; and what worries people is that no one seems to be in control of the situation there, and no one knows future of the country. The situation started getting from bad to worse with Pakistan’s entry in the ‘war on terror’, which in view of many Pakistani experts was not Pakistan’s war, and if anything Pakistani agencies had their own history and experience of promoting and exporting this business.
Like politics of Pakistan it is difficult to predict future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the on going struggle. The State is multi religious and multi ethnic; and has competing interests from various political, religious and armed groups. Politics of the State is controlled from outside of the State boundaries and people of the state suffer as a result of this control and interference.
In June when Yasin Malik and APHC leaders went to Islamabad for new ‘instructions’ and a new ‘mandate’, I wrote in article titled, ‘They are back in Islamabad’: ‘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.’
Since June we have seen many changes: rise in infiltration, rise in militancy, serious and violent agitation with strong communal flavour - first in the Valley then followed by in Jammu, and political conferences organised by pro Islamabad Kashmiris in various capitals of the world. This communal aspect of the Kashmir polity is so worrying that it could create situation similar to that of 1947.
Apart from that a new and interesting development is taking place on the Pakistani side of the divide, where the local people in the Neelam Valley are demonstrating against increased presence and activities of the militants. According to BBC report of 17 August 2008, this is the second such demonstration in the area in the past six weeks. The local people closed their shops and protested in hundreds on Saturday 16th in Athmaqaam in the Neelam Valley, and demanded that activities of these militants should be controlled as this could result in cross border shelling which could make life hell for the local people.
Munir Sharafat advocate on behalf of the demonstrators said, that for the past number of weeks we have noticed increased activities of these militants. Their facial features, language and behaviour tell us that they are not Kashmiris. We are seriously concerned about their presence, as it makes us vulnerable and potential target of the Indian retaliation. He said we have enjoyed peace since November 2003 and don’t want the hostilities to resume.
The demonstrators informed Deputy Commissioner about activities of these militants and potential threat they pose to the people of the area. Before the cease fire between India and Pakistan on the LOC, Neelam Valley was the worst hit area where hostilities are fierce and more frequent because of the terrain and close proximity of the rival forces which are only divided by the small river Neelam.
Some months ago one commentator said Kashmir dispute has been removed from the back burner as both countries are occupied with other priorities. But now Jammu and Kashmir is on fire with very dangerous trends. A Russian journalist in his email to me asked: ‘What is at heart of the recent escalation of conflict? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that 40 hectares of land could have stirred the communities to the boiling point. But then, I'm not an expert on the region, regrettably’.
So what is really behind this present uprising which some believe could be as nasty as the uprising of the 1989/90, if not worse? Is it that people are frustrated with the on going peace process, although it has brought peace to the region and better understanding between the both countries, but for the people of Jammu and Kashmir there are no tangible outcome of talks spread over many years.
Apart from that both countries still have paid no attention to the repeated demand of the Kashmiri people that they want to be part of the process that they can present their case and safeguard their interest. Also people feel that they been let down by their leadership, as they have no road map for solution of the dispute and they are busy with their personal gains and rewards with little or no attention to the problems of the suffering people.
When people are on streets and hold violent demonstrations that is not a sign of popularity of APHC leaders. All it shows is that people are not satisfied with the status quo - they are not happy with what India is doing, they are not happy with the government in Jammu and Kashmir, they are not happy with their leaders, they are not happy with large concentration of army, they are not happy with activities of the militants, they are not happy with lack of opportunities and unemployment; and demonstration is one way to show their anger and frustration.
Both India and Pakistan have their own game plan and agenda on Kashmir. Pakistan under General Musharaf a few years ago showed serious desperation and a clear change of policy on Kashmir. It looked he was desperate to have a ‘solution’ to have another feather in his cap to tell the world and his own countrymen that he has finally resolved the long standing dispute which was a source of instability in South Asia and which has held back our progress.
Because of his determination, drive and somersault on Kashmir many predicted that the Kashmir dispute would be ‘resolved’ by 2007. I was among those who discarded this claim, as in my view India would use General Musharaf to achieve maximum but would not make a deal on Kashmir with a man in uniform. Indian policy was to drag it on and take heat out of the militancy and rebellion. They have experience of dragging on talks for years and decades without giving anything in return.
But those Indian policy makers who thought that they can win the day by dragging their feet were wrong. They thought that the worst is over in Kashmir, and they can wrap up things by some window dressing and by some cosmetic changes. Perhaps they also thought that the other party to the dispute was sincere and both would jointly crush ‘terrorism’ and eradicate violence for ever, forgetting that both have contradictory claims on Kashmir and divergent interests both in South Asia and in the wider world. Interests of the parties and rules of game can change with changing situation and that is what has happened.
Things don’t always work out as we plan or expect them to happen. India had full control of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir for decades and very popular leaders sincerely helped them to make progress in Jammu and Kashmir. Then question is what went wrong? We can say Pakistani agencies also had hand in the matter but Indian policy makers also need to have a serious appraisal of their Kashmir policy, as one can only put so much under the carpet or continue to blame others.
Kashmir dispute is a serious matter although some have made a business out of it; and it needs serious and sincere attention. It has to be understood in its true perspective and appropriate strategy needs to be in place to resolve it. If we continue to play with sentiments of the people and continue to treat it as a territorial dispute or a religious matter then we could have another partition on communal lines.
We must remember that wounds of the communal partition which took place in 1947 have not been healed yet, and some people have let the communal genie out of a bottle again, and fear is that it will claim many innocent lives and destroy peace and harmony in the State. Those who believe in humanity, liberal and democratic rights for all, need to tell all concerned that Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity, and we would not allow division of the State; and that our struggle is for unification and independence.
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, 14 August 2008
Kashmiri struggle in 2008
Kashmiri struggle in 2008
Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 August 2008
New phase of the Kashmiri struggle or whatever we want to call it in view of communalism, proxy war and terrorism, has been going on since 1947; and yet we people of Jammu and Kashmir have not been able to put our priorities right. We have not been able to differentiate between freedom and occupation. We have also failed to understand designs of both countries on Kashmir, and formulate appropriate policies to promote and advance a Kashmiri interest.
In view of the above can we make a valid claim to get independence and be recognised as a free nation and play our due role in comity of nations, especially when what are known as Kashmiri leaders, at best have been acting as puppets of either one country or the other and promoting and defending interest of either India or Pakistan?
Despite lack of democracy and encroachment of civil liberties the State of Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity in 1947. People of the State irrespective of their religious and cultural affiliations regarded themselves as Kashmiris, distinctly different from India and Pakistan; and wanted to maintain that difference.
Today the unfortunate State is forcibly divided in many parts, and people of the State are divided on religious, cultural, regional and ethnic lines. These divisions have never been so deep and so frightening in the history of the State, and it looks that those powers who are behind these moves are paving the way for the division of the state on communal and regional lines.
Call it armed struggle, jihad, terrorism or a proxy war it destroyed fundamental character of the Kashmiri society, and Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination. This armed struggle which was initiated, supported and promoted by secret agencies of Pakistan resulted in human rights violations and deepened the divisions in the Kashmiri society.
In this struggle a Pakistani gun and agenda was implemented by using a Kashmiri shoulder. It was presented to us by Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership as a Kashmiri struggle for liberation; and with hindsight we see that we Kashmiris were used as a raw material in this proxy war, and it added to our misery and suffering.
A few days ago a ‘friend’ who is still part of controversial nationalist group of JKLF invited me to take part in a picket outside an Indian High Commission on 15th August. According to him it was to demonstrate that India got independence on this date and they have occupied our country - Jammu and Kashmir. I said to him that Pakistan got independence one day before India, and Pakistan has also occupied some parts of Jammu and Kashmir; wouldn’t it be better to have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission first followed by one outside the Indian High Commission.
This friend said, how can we have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission, they are helping us against Indian occupation, can’t you see how the Indian army has killed innocent people who were peacefully proceeding towards LOC. I said to him that I condemned this brutal killing. There was no need to kill and torture people like that, but the Pakistani army did the same thing in1992 and more than 8 innocent people lost their lives.
I explained to him that in 1992 the JKLF people tried to cross the LOC from the AJK side and they were also innocent and wanted to proceed to the LOC peacefully, they were killed by the Pakistani army. Prior to this tragedy, National Students Federation members who were trying to cross the LOC were also killed and tortured by the Pakistan army. When it comes to enforcing ‘law and order’ or enforcing ‘writ of government’ army is trained to kill and torture, as it is happening in Jammu and Kashmir and in Swat, Balochistan, North West Frontier and FATA; or as it happened when Red Mosque was invaded and destroyed in name of enforcing ‘writ of government’.
I further said India virtually lost Kashmir Valley in 1990/1, however despite other heavy handedness India did not use helicopter gun ships or air force against Muslim militants; in Pakistan on the other hand helicopter gun ships and F 16 are regularly used to target alleged Muslim ‘terrorists’ in which innocent Pakistani Muslims are killed and their houses are destroyed. If you need any further evidence how Pakistani forces behave when asked to deal with ‘rebels’ or with those who demand rights then read history of East Pakistan or Bangladesh; or even ask members of Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front how they were treated in 1970/1 during investigations regarding Ganga Hijacking.
I said without being pro this or anti that one can see a nation whose leadership takes pride in ‘selling’ their (Pakistani) sons and daughters for sake of American dollars, just take example of Dr Afia Sadiqqi who was arrested in Karachi with her three young children and has ended up in America, and where - about of her three young children is still not known. Do you expect any mercy or better treatment from rulers and establishment of this country? If they treat their own people like butchers and regard them as an economic commodity don’t expect that they will treat us Kashmiris differently.
Knowledge of this friend was limited and he was having difficulty in justifying his argument, so he surrendered by saying that he could not compete with me in knowledge and argument. He said he was a loyal member of the JKLF and wanted to follow the party decision and the JKLF leaders. I appreciated his ‘loyalty’ but added that loyalty of his leaders is not with the JKLF or its ideology. Their loyalty is with agencies of our neighbours who reward them handsomely.
I said decision to hold a picket outside an Indian High commission was taken else where but only endorsed in your meeting. Your leadership discussed it with relevant quarters, agreed certain terms and conditions and then brought this issue to your meeting to be approved. Normally committee of personal and party loyalists do not disagree with any decision which is presented to them as approved by the top leadership, especially there is always hundred per cent unanimity when any actions is related to India.
This friend agreed with almost everything I said, but added that ‘you have always been critical of top JKLF leadership and Pakistan. And now that I have left the JKLF I should not criticise JKLF and its policies, as it hurts us and that we will also criticise you and make allegations against you’.
Whether he or some one else criticise me or not it is immaterial, what is important is the attitude of the Kashmiri people and especially that of ‘nationalist’ parties. It is unfortunate to note that despite this long struggle, sacrifices, and suffering on massive scale we as a nation have not been able to decide our priorities. We Kashmiris still have not been able to decide who is enemy of our independence and who is deceiving us in name of religion and brotherhood. It is unfortunate that many of us still view Kashmir dispute in the context of Muslims and non Muslims, and accept whatever is presented to us by media and organisations controlled by Islamabad.
My colleagues and I have always regarded Jammu and Kashmir as one political entity, and have promoted cause of united and independent Kashmir, and advanced non - communal politics as Kashmir dispute is not a religious one. But it is unfortunate to note that in 2008 we Kashmiris are more divided and more communalised then we were in 1947; and gulf between the regions and communities is widening.
Jammu and the Valley have different priorities and are playing in hands of those who want to play a religious card in order to divide the people on communal lines and advance their politics. Ladakh apart from the ‘Kargil war’ has not bee affected by the militancy; and has different agenda and has no interest with what is going on in other two regions. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan have no contact with each other and have different priorities and interests. People of Azad Kashmir, forgetting their own miseries and problems are seemed to be more concerned with what goes on across the LOC, and virtually accept everything what is presented to them by the Pakistani media.
By promoting religious politics are we not playing in hands of extremists who want to justify Two Nations Theory that Muslims and non Muslims cannot live together, hence pave way for division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious lines.
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
Dr Shabir Choudhry 13 August 2008
New phase of the Kashmiri struggle or whatever we want to call it in view of communalism, proxy war and terrorism, has been going on since 1947; and yet we people of Jammu and Kashmir have not been able to put our priorities right. We have not been able to differentiate between freedom and occupation. We have also failed to understand designs of both countries on Kashmir, and formulate appropriate policies to promote and advance a Kashmiri interest.
In view of the above can we make a valid claim to get independence and be recognised as a free nation and play our due role in comity of nations, especially when what are known as Kashmiri leaders, at best have been acting as puppets of either one country or the other and promoting and defending interest of either India or Pakistan?
Despite lack of democracy and encroachment of civil liberties the State of Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity in 1947. People of the State irrespective of their religious and cultural affiliations regarded themselves as Kashmiris, distinctly different from India and Pakistan; and wanted to maintain that difference.
Today the unfortunate State is forcibly divided in many parts, and people of the State are divided on religious, cultural, regional and ethnic lines. These divisions have never been so deep and so frightening in the history of the State, and it looks that those powers who are behind these moves are paving the way for the division of the state on communal and regional lines.
Call it armed struggle, jihad, terrorism or a proxy war it destroyed fundamental character of the Kashmiri society, and Kashmiri struggle for right of self determination. This armed struggle which was initiated, supported and promoted by secret agencies of Pakistan resulted in human rights violations and deepened the divisions in the Kashmiri society.
In this struggle a Pakistani gun and agenda was implemented by using a Kashmiri shoulder. It was presented to us by Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership as a Kashmiri struggle for liberation; and with hindsight we see that we Kashmiris were used as a raw material in this proxy war, and it added to our misery and suffering.
A few days ago a ‘friend’ who is still part of controversial nationalist group of JKLF invited me to take part in a picket outside an Indian High Commission on 15th August. According to him it was to demonstrate that India got independence on this date and they have occupied our country - Jammu and Kashmir. I said to him that Pakistan got independence one day before India, and Pakistan has also occupied some parts of Jammu and Kashmir; wouldn’t it be better to have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission first followed by one outside the Indian High Commission.
This friend said, how can we have a demonstration outside Pakistani High Commission, they are helping us against Indian occupation, can’t you see how the Indian army has killed innocent people who were peacefully proceeding towards LOC. I said to him that I condemned this brutal killing. There was no need to kill and torture people like that, but the Pakistani army did the same thing in1992 and more than 8 innocent people lost their lives.
I explained to him that in 1992 the JKLF people tried to cross the LOC from the AJK side and they were also innocent and wanted to proceed to the LOC peacefully, they were killed by the Pakistani army. Prior to this tragedy, National Students Federation members who were trying to cross the LOC were also killed and tortured by the Pakistan army. When it comes to enforcing ‘law and order’ or enforcing ‘writ of government’ army is trained to kill and torture, as it is happening in Jammu and Kashmir and in Swat, Balochistan, North West Frontier and FATA; or as it happened when Red Mosque was invaded and destroyed in name of enforcing ‘writ of government’.
I further said India virtually lost Kashmir Valley in 1990/1, however despite other heavy handedness India did not use helicopter gun ships or air force against Muslim militants; in Pakistan on the other hand helicopter gun ships and F 16 are regularly used to target alleged Muslim ‘terrorists’ in which innocent Pakistani Muslims are killed and their houses are destroyed. If you need any further evidence how Pakistani forces behave when asked to deal with ‘rebels’ or with those who demand rights then read history of East Pakistan or Bangladesh; or even ask members of Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front how they were treated in 1970/1 during investigations regarding Ganga Hijacking.
I said without being pro this or anti that one can see a nation whose leadership takes pride in ‘selling’ their (Pakistani) sons and daughters for sake of American dollars, just take example of Dr Afia Sadiqqi who was arrested in Karachi with her three young children and has ended up in America, and where - about of her three young children is still not known. Do you expect any mercy or better treatment from rulers and establishment of this country? If they treat their own people like butchers and regard them as an economic commodity don’t expect that they will treat us Kashmiris differently.
Knowledge of this friend was limited and he was having difficulty in justifying his argument, so he surrendered by saying that he could not compete with me in knowledge and argument. He said he was a loyal member of the JKLF and wanted to follow the party decision and the JKLF leaders. I appreciated his ‘loyalty’ but added that loyalty of his leaders is not with the JKLF or its ideology. Their loyalty is with agencies of our neighbours who reward them handsomely.
I said decision to hold a picket outside an Indian High commission was taken else where but only endorsed in your meeting. Your leadership discussed it with relevant quarters, agreed certain terms and conditions and then brought this issue to your meeting to be approved. Normally committee of personal and party loyalists do not disagree with any decision which is presented to them as approved by the top leadership, especially there is always hundred per cent unanimity when any actions is related to India.
This friend agreed with almost everything I said, but added that ‘you have always been critical of top JKLF leadership and Pakistan. And now that I have left the JKLF I should not criticise JKLF and its policies, as it hurts us and that we will also criticise you and make allegations against you’.
Whether he or some one else criticise me or not it is immaterial, what is important is the attitude of the Kashmiri people and especially that of ‘nationalist’ parties. It is unfortunate to note that despite this long struggle, sacrifices, and suffering on massive scale we as a nation have not been able to decide our priorities. We Kashmiris still have not been able to decide who is enemy of our independence and who is deceiving us in name of religion and brotherhood. It is unfortunate that many of us still view Kashmir dispute in the context of Muslims and non Muslims, and accept whatever is presented to us by media and organisations controlled by Islamabad.
My colleagues and I have always regarded Jammu and Kashmir as one political entity, and have promoted cause of united and independent Kashmir, and advanced non - communal politics as Kashmir dispute is not a religious one. But it is unfortunate to note that in 2008 we Kashmiris are more divided and more communalised then we were in 1947; and gulf between the regions and communities is widening.
Jammu and the Valley have different priorities and are playing in hands of those who want to play a religious card in order to divide the people on communal lines and advance their politics. Ladakh apart from the ‘Kargil war’ has not bee affected by the militancy; and has different agenda and has no interest with what is going on in other two regions. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan have no contact with each other and have different priorities and interests. People of Azad Kashmir, forgetting their own miseries and problems are seemed to be more concerned with what goes on across the LOC, and virtually accept everything what is presented to them by the Pakistani media.
By promoting religious politics are we not playing in hands of extremists who want to justify Two Nations Theory that Muslims and non Muslims cannot live together, hence pave way for division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on religious lines.
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, 24 July 2008
Why I said good bye to JKLF?
Why I said good bye to JKLF?
Dr Shabir Choudhry 24 July 2008
Time and again people ask me why I left JKLF, or more precisely, why we dissolved the JKLF. They know I have worked hard for the party and jeopardised my future ambitions and academic career because of the JKLF and its ideology. After working so hard and making so many sacrifices why on earth I left the JKLF and became part a of new and smaller party Kashmir National Party.
Friends and colleagues have every right to ask these questions. People in public life must be open to criticism and accountability, as no one is above law or criticism. One reason why the JKLF has lost its appeal and is in many small groups is that there is no system of accountability in the party. Those who become Chair, even ad-hoc one, assumes that he is infallible and must remain in that position without any criticism or accountability.
Those who advocated accountability and transparency and wanted to strengthen institutions within the party that the party can flourish were projected as ‘agents’ and enemies of the party. These leaders became ‘Chair’ with idea of holding this title for life. When it becomes difficult to cling on as a result of opposition within the party, then either expel those ‘rebels’ or make structural changes and create another post which can give same unrivalled and unquestioned powers.
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front was established in 1977 in England. I was among those who helped to set up this ‘unfortunate’ organisation and played vibrant and leading role to advance its ‘cause’. Despite differences and controversies and some what ‘rebellious’ attitude I remained among the senior and prominent leaders of the JKLF.
In my opinion there was nothing wrong in JKLF and its ideology, and until 1988 everyone worked sincerely to advance cause of the party which was based on democracy, liberalism and secularism with high level of importance attached to individual dignity and equality to all citizens of the State. Ideological and tactical change came with expulsion of then JKLF Chairman from England.
Frustrated, heart broken and disillusioned Chairman became easy prey of Pakistani secret agencies, hence a change of JKLF ideology. He secretly agreed to play their game of launching a ‘proxy war’ in the Valley which was presented as a war of liberation to us and the people of Kashmir. Result of this ideological somersault was unleashing of communalism, extremism, sectarianism, regionalism and violence, which later on Pakistani President said was ‘terrorism’, and that he would not allow it to continue from territory under his control.
It is a long and complicated story and one needs more than one volume to encompass all aspects of this ‘struggle’, ‘terrorism’ or a ‘proxy war’. My aim is just to enlighten people that the name of JKLF was maligned with kidnapping, innocent killings, extortions, promoting communalism, regionalism, nepotism, tribalism and advancing interest of our neighbours at the expense of interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Many including me were seriously concerned about this, and we fought our corner within the organisation to put things right, but those who were giving dictations to the top JKLF leadership and those who directly benefited from this were too strong. Their personal interest demanded that this trend continues that they can reap benefits with both hands.
When the JKLF Chairman caused another split in 1995, once again ‘in the larger interest of the JKLF’, a new Chairman was announced from Srinagar on ad hoc basis (after thirteen years he still continues to hold that position, and no elections of any kind have taken place). Many hoped that the young man might put things right, but he proved to be no better than the old man - the other Chair, and both wanted to continue the same policies and were in competition to win favours of secret agencies. Net result of this was more splits within the JKLF ranks. Senior members either became inactive or they formed their own groups.
Furthermore the name of JKLF was further blackened with open flirting with secret agencies of both countries. If one leader of JKLF managed to get his photo taken with General Musharaf the other will try to outmanoeuvre him by getting his photo taken with Musharaf and the Indian Prime Minister. If one manages a ride in a land cruiser the other will try to get a ride in a helicopter provided by our occupiers.
General Musharaf presented a number of proposals for resolution of Kashmir dispute, and they all were revolved around division of the State on communal lines. Kashmiris who loved their mother land strongly criticised this, but one JKLF leader said Musharaf has shown his ‘love and affection towards Kashmiri people’ by presenting these proposals. Furthermore this leader or businessman highly appreciated Musharaf’s ‘courage and wisdom to offer new and creative thoughts’.
How can one remain in the fold of JKLF in situation like this, especially when one has loyalty to ideology of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir, and not to these leaders who are exploiting sentiments of the people? For ordinary citizens it was the name of JKLF which was sacrosanct, and now when its name is associated with corruption, communalism and hatred it is name of JKLF which is blackened.
The JKLF group with which I associated myself had highest number of founding members, and we all believed that the JKLF ideology has been hijacked, and its top leaders have betrayed the JKLF ideology. The present day JKLF ideology is similar to that of Muslim Conference with difference that the Muslim Conference leaders have guts to openly say that they are pro Pakistan and that they are pro Muslim and don’t believe in nationalist politics.
We strongly believed that the JKLF had lost its direction, and that its top leaders had their own agenda which had nothing to do with unification and independence of the State. Despite that we continued with our efforts to put the party back on ideological track, but once we realised that these top leaders are incorrigible and their followers either feel their leaders are infallible, or have no sense of right and wrong, we decided to say good bye to the JKLF.
We founders of the JKLF strongly believed in right of expression, accountability and equality for all. We advocated struggle and politics based on principles and democratic ideals and this could not continue in the kind of political environment created by tyrants within the JKLF. Curbs on right of expression, regionalism, tribalism and political suffocation encouraged and promoted within the party by the top leaders meant that only opportunists, flatterers, collaborators and yes men could survive in that kind of organisation.
I am not suggesting that there are no sincere members left in the JKLF. Still there are some honest, hard working and dedicated people in various groups of the JKLF. Either these people don’t know game plan of their leaders or they don’t realise that the struggle has been transformed into a business, and those with better business skills are having upper hand in this competition; or they still hope that with some miracle will change things for the better.
It was not easy for me to say good bye to the party I worked for so earnestly. Founding members of the JKLF decided to dissolve the party more than a year ago, as it no longer advanced the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir, but I was dragging my feet and kept on delaying its implementation; but for how long- I also had to accept the ground reality and with heavy heart closed the chapter of the JKLF.
Our new party- Kashmir National Party is making a new start. We have a strategy in place and dedicated team which wants to advance politics of toleration, accountability and promote and protect rights and privileges of all citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. What progress we will make in a political culture which supports corruption, hypocrisy, communalism, regionalism and interests of our neighbours remains to be seen.
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
Dr Shabir Choudhry 24 July 2008
Time and again people ask me why I left JKLF, or more precisely, why we dissolved the JKLF. They know I have worked hard for the party and jeopardised my future ambitions and academic career because of the JKLF and its ideology. After working so hard and making so many sacrifices why on earth I left the JKLF and became part a of new and smaller party Kashmir National Party.
Friends and colleagues have every right to ask these questions. People in public life must be open to criticism and accountability, as no one is above law or criticism. One reason why the JKLF has lost its appeal and is in many small groups is that there is no system of accountability in the party. Those who become Chair, even ad-hoc one, assumes that he is infallible and must remain in that position without any criticism or accountability.
Those who advocated accountability and transparency and wanted to strengthen institutions within the party that the party can flourish were projected as ‘agents’ and enemies of the party. These leaders became ‘Chair’ with idea of holding this title for life. When it becomes difficult to cling on as a result of opposition within the party, then either expel those ‘rebels’ or make structural changes and create another post which can give same unrivalled and unquestioned powers.
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front was established in 1977 in England. I was among those who helped to set up this ‘unfortunate’ organisation and played vibrant and leading role to advance its ‘cause’. Despite differences and controversies and some what ‘rebellious’ attitude I remained among the senior and prominent leaders of the JKLF.
In my opinion there was nothing wrong in JKLF and its ideology, and until 1988 everyone worked sincerely to advance cause of the party which was based on democracy, liberalism and secularism with high level of importance attached to individual dignity and equality to all citizens of the State. Ideological and tactical change came with expulsion of then JKLF Chairman from England.
Frustrated, heart broken and disillusioned Chairman became easy prey of Pakistani secret agencies, hence a change of JKLF ideology. He secretly agreed to play their game of launching a ‘proxy war’ in the Valley which was presented as a war of liberation to us and the people of Kashmir. Result of this ideological somersault was unleashing of communalism, extremism, sectarianism, regionalism and violence, which later on Pakistani President said was ‘terrorism’, and that he would not allow it to continue from territory under his control.
It is a long and complicated story and one needs more than one volume to encompass all aspects of this ‘struggle’, ‘terrorism’ or a ‘proxy war’. My aim is just to enlighten people that the name of JKLF was maligned with kidnapping, innocent killings, extortions, promoting communalism, regionalism, nepotism, tribalism and advancing interest of our neighbours at the expense of interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Many including me were seriously concerned about this, and we fought our corner within the organisation to put things right, but those who were giving dictations to the top JKLF leadership and those who directly benefited from this were too strong. Their personal interest demanded that this trend continues that they can reap benefits with both hands.
When the JKLF Chairman caused another split in 1995, once again ‘in the larger interest of the JKLF’, a new Chairman was announced from Srinagar on ad hoc basis (after thirteen years he still continues to hold that position, and no elections of any kind have taken place). Many hoped that the young man might put things right, but he proved to be no better than the old man - the other Chair, and both wanted to continue the same policies and were in competition to win favours of secret agencies. Net result of this was more splits within the JKLF ranks. Senior members either became inactive or they formed their own groups.
Furthermore the name of JKLF was further blackened with open flirting with secret agencies of both countries. If one leader of JKLF managed to get his photo taken with General Musharaf the other will try to outmanoeuvre him by getting his photo taken with Musharaf and the Indian Prime Minister. If one manages a ride in a land cruiser the other will try to get a ride in a helicopter provided by our occupiers.
General Musharaf presented a number of proposals for resolution of Kashmir dispute, and they all were revolved around division of the State on communal lines. Kashmiris who loved their mother land strongly criticised this, but one JKLF leader said Musharaf has shown his ‘love and affection towards Kashmiri people’ by presenting these proposals. Furthermore this leader or businessman highly appreciated Musharaf’s ‘courage and wisdom to offer new and creative thoughts’.
How can one remain in the fold of JKLF in situation like this, especially when one has loyalty to ideology of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir, and not to these leaders who are exploiting sentiments of the people? For ordinary citizens it was the name of JKLF which was sacrosanct, and now when its name is associated with corruption, communalism and hatred it is name of JKLF which is blackened.
The JKLF group with which I associated myself had highest number of founding members, and we all believed that the JKLF ideology has been hijacked, and its top leaders have betrayed the JKLF ideology. The present day JKLF ideology is similar to that of Muslim Conference with difference that the Muslim Conference leaders have guts to openly say that they are pro Pakistan and that they are pro Muslim and don’t believe in nationalist politics.
We strongly believed that the JKLF had lost its direction, and that its top leaders had their own agenda which had nothing to do with unification and independence of the State. Despite that we continued with our efforts to put the party back on ideological track, but once we realised that these top leaders are incorrigible and their followers either feel their leaders are infallible, or have no sense of right and wrong, we decided to say good bye to the JKLF.
We founders of the JKLF strongly believed in right of expression, accountability and equality for all. We advocated struggle and politics based on principles and democratic ideals and this could not continue in the kind of political environment created by tyrants within the JKLF. Curbs on right of expression, regionalism, tribalism and political suffocation encouraged and promoted within the party by the top leaders meant that only opportunists, flatterers, collaborators and yes men could survive in that kind of organisation.
I am not suggesting that there are no sincere members left in the JKLF. Still there are some honest, hard working and dedicated people in various groups of the JKLF. Either these people don’t know game plan of their leaders or they don’t realise that the struggle has been transformed into a business, and those with better business skills are having upper hand in this competition; or they still hope that with some miracle will change things for the better.
It was not easy for me to say good bye to the party I worked for so earnestly. Founding members of the JKLF decided to dissolve the party more than a year ago, as it no longer advanced the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir, but I was dragging my feet and kept on delaying its implementation; but for how long- I also had to accept the ground reality and with heavy heart closed the chapter of the JKLF.
Our new party- Kashmir National Party is making a new start. We have a strategy in place and dedicated team which wants to advance politics of toleration, accountability and promote and protect rights and privileges of all citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. What progress we will make in a political culture which supports corruption, hypocrisy, communalism, regionalism and interests of our neighbours remains to be seen.
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
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Communalising Jammu and Kashmir
Communalising Jammu and Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry 07 July 2008
All those who want to divert attention from real issues, communalise the Kashmiri polity and divide the State on communal lines should be cheerful and in victorious mood because controversial Land Transfer to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) has hit the nail on head. This allotment and subsequent cancellation over shadowed all other issues and deepened the communal divide in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
When I look at any issue relating to State of Jammu and Kashmir I leave my religious, ethnic and regional affiliations aside and analyse the issue as a Kashmiri nationalist and not as a religious extremist disguised as a nationalist. Apart from that I try to equate that with role and policy of the other occupier of the State and see if there is any difference in their approach and method.
Call it competition, rivalry or tension it has always been there between Jammu and the Valley; and in this competition most of the time people of the Valley, known as Kashmiris have had upper hand. The leadership of the Valley, from pro India to pro Pakistan and pro Independence disagrees on every issue, even they disagree on when to celebrate Eid, but get ‘united’ when there is a tug of war with Jammu.
The word Kashmir not only means the Valley but it also symbolises the State of Jammu and Kashmir, although some sections of the State resent this and don’t want to be called Kashmiris. Similarly some Valley people do not regard people of Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan as Kashmiris.
The Valley despite having overwhelming Muslim majority has deep divisions, and militancy and ‘jihadi politics’ have further deepened these divisions because aim of those who launched ‘jihadi forces in Kashmir was to intensify divisions by communalising Kashmiri politics and society.
Amarnath yatra is not something new. Amarnath caves are one of the most famous shrines in Hinduism which are located at the altitude of 12,760 ft about 88 miles away from Srinagar. Over the years it has become a popular pilgrimage destination for Hindus, which attract about 400,000 during the festive season. There are two routes to the Cave one is via Pahalgam and the other is via Baltal.
Until recently, before the Jihadi politics destroyed religious and cultural harmony in Jammu and Kashmir, people welcomed tourists and religious tourists (Yatries) because of cultural and religious reasons. It is Islamic teaching to respect religion of others and not to destroy or harm their shrines or their followers.
Amarnath Yatra was conducted by State Tourism Department and Dharamarth Trust jointly, but in 2000 Farooq Abdullah set up the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board that devotees could be properly looked after during their journey.
Apart from the religious harmony this manifested, it was also a valuable source of income which is generally associated with any kind of tourism be it religious tourism or cultural and leisure. Religious beliefs aside, Amarnath Yatra is like Pakistan looking after Sikh Yatries visiting various places in Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia looking after Muslims when they go for Umra and Hajj. These visits bring communities closer to each other; and also boost local economy by provide employment and development.
The Cabinet of Jammu and Kashmir government, which is elected and was a coalition government decided to transfer 40 acres of forest land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board that they can set up temporary shelters and other facilities for Hindu pilgrims. Leaving aside whether it was a good decision or bad one, it was taken by a cabinet after some consultation with relevant departments; and initial opposition to this was not religious in nature but some environmental concerns. Some environmental experts believed that this would affect region's delicate ecological balance.
Environment issues are important to human life but people pay little attention to this. It is obvious when new roads are built or other devlopments take place green areas or forest land are destroyed, as was the case in the construction of a road linking Poonch to Rajouri, but no environmentalist group spoke against it. Similarly when developmental projects are initiated in the Valley forest land or green belts are destroyed, but there were no protests like we have seen over the land which government claims was ‘barren and inhospitable’.
This make people believe that leaders in Jammu and Kashmir were using the issue to divide the State on communal lines. Religion is the only issue over which people will get agitated and sacrifice their lives, so religious sentiments were injected in this with idea of deepening the gulf between Muslims and Hindus on one hand and between Jammu and the Valley on the other hand. This land transfer was projected as a direct ‘attack on the Muslim character of the Valley’, which would leave a ‘permanent Hindu footprint in the inhospitable mountain range’. The protesters claimed they wanted to protect our ‘land, identity, ecology and our age old tradition of human values’.
APHC leaders and other leaders who have always avoided ballot which is internationally recognised method of proving political credibility, have always been keen on disrupting the democratic process on behest of outside forces, were having serious problems with regard to their political standing. Their recent Islamabad Yatra was supposed to provide them with new ideas and new incentive, but they were still wondering how to revitalise their political life, then just out of blue came the issue of allotment- blessing in disguise for the struggling leaders.
These leaders, fresh with a new ‘mandate’ and new tasks felt energetic and wanted to prove their worth, and government of Jammu and Kashmir foolishly provided the opportunity to them to assert their positions and further communalise politics of Jammu and Kashmir. Divisions between Jammu and the Valley and between Muslims and Hindus were never so deep before this controversial issue of Land Transfer.
The reaction to this land transfer was very fierce, reminiscent of protests of early 1990s, which crippled the Valley and some people also lost their lives. These protests not only unnerved the Jammu and Kashmir government but also got New Delhi worried; hence a hasty retreat and cancelled the land transfer. PDP was not only part of the coalition but also part of the controversial decision, panikked and deepened crises further by withdrawing its support to the State government leaving the ruling INC as a minority in the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly.
This retreat was a clear victory for those who championed opposition to this land transfer, but it seriously annoyed Hindu extremists who converged to Jammu and protested against cancellation of the land transfer. Protests in Jammu are also very hostile and have communalised the polity of Jammu which has worried all those who believe in peace and harmony and unity of the State.
This land transfer and its subsequent cancellation have caused enormous damage to the social fabric of the society. It has caused colossal economic damage to a fragile economy, and moreover it gave a new lease of life to APHC leaders who were fast losing their credibility and standing. Communalisation of the Kashmiri politics will only strengthen hands of those who are against unification and independence of the State, and I hope that common sense prevails and peace returns in Jammu.
APHC leaders and their mentors want to present them as leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, but their interest is only confined to the Valley. They need to be reminded that boundaries of the State which they claim to represent stretch outside the Valley. And one such area is called Azad Kashmir where WAPDA, a Pakistani organisation established to cater for interest of Pakistan, illegally acquired vast area of Mirpur and constructed a Dam known as Mangla Dam in which entire city of Mirpur and adjacent areas were drowned. It uprooted tens of thousands of local people in 1967, and some of them are still not being properly compensated and settled.
Pakistan is not constructing dams inside Pakistani territory to meet its water and energy shortage, but WAPDA is upraising the Mangla dam which will uproot more than one hundred and twenty thousand people. I would like to see APHC leaders speaking against that and arranging protests against this illegal and forced construction. Only by speaking for rights of all parts of the State they can make claim to represent 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: http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Dr Shabir Choudhry 07 July 2008
All those who want to divert attention from real issues, communalise the Kashmiri polity and divide the State on communal lines should be cheerful and in victorious mood because controversial Land Transfer to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) has hit the nail on head. This allotment and subsequent cancellation over shadowed all other issues and deepened the communal divide in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
When I look at any issue relating to State of Jammu and Kashmir I leave my religious, ethnic and regional affiliations aside and analyse the issue as a Kashmiri nationalist and not as a religious extremist disguised as a nationalist. Apart from that I try to equate that with role and policy of the other occupier of the State and see if there is any difference in their approach and method.
Call it competition, rivalry or tension it has always been there between Jammu and the Valley; and in this competition most of the time people of the Valley, known as Kashmiris have had upper hand. The leadership of the Valley, from pro India to pro Pakistan and pro Independence disagrees on every issue, even they disagree on when to celebrate Eid, but get ‘united’ when there is a tug of war with Jammu.
The word Kashmir not only means the Valley but it also symbolises the State of Jammu and Kashmir, although some sections of the State resent this and don’t want to be called Kashmiris. Similarly some Valley people do not regard people of Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan as Kashmiris.
The Valley despite having overwhelming Muslim majority has deep divisions, and militancy and ‘jihadi politics’ have further deepened these divisions because aim of those who launched ‘jihadi forces in Kashmir was to intensify divisions by communalising Kashmiri politics and society.
Amarnath yatra is not something new. Amarnath caves are one of the most famous shrines in Hinduism which are located at the altitude of 12,760 ft about 88 miles away from Srinagar. Over the years it has become a popular pilgrimage destination for Hindus, which attract about 400,000 during the festive season. There are two routes to the Cave one is via Pahalgam and the other is via Baltal.
Until recently, before the Jihadi politics destroyed religious and cultural harmony in Jammu and Kashmir, people welcomed tourists and religious tourists (Yatries) because of cultural and religious reasons. It is Islamic teaching to respect religion of others and not to destroy or harm their shrines or their followers.
Amarnath Yatra was conducted by State Tourism Department and Dharamarth Trust jointly, but in 2000 Farooq Abdullah set up the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board that devotees could be properly looked after during their journey.
Apart from the religious harmony this manifested, it was also a valuable source of income which is generally associated with any kind of tourism be it religious tourism or cultural and leisure. Religious beliefs aside, Amarnath Yatra is like Pakistan looking after Sikh Yatries visiting various places in Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia looking after Muslims when they go for Umra and Hajj. These visits bring communities closer to each other; and also boost local economy by provide employment and development.
The Cabinet of Jammu and Kashmir government, which is elected and was a coalition government decided to transfer 40 acres of forest land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board that they can set up temporary shelters and other facilities for Hindu pilgrims. Leaving aside whether it was a good decision or bad one, it was taken by a cabinet after some consultation with relevant departments; and initial opposition to this was not religious in nature but some environmental concerns. Some environmental experts believed that this would affect region's delicate ecological balance.
Environment issues are important to human life but people pay little attention to this. It is obvious when new roads are built or other devlopments take place green areas or forest land are destroyed, as was the case in the construction of a road linking Poonch to Rajouri, but no environmentalist group spoke against it. Similarly when developmental projects are initiated in the Valley forest land or green belts are destroyed, but there were no protests like we have seen over the land which government claims was ‘barren and inhospitable’.
This make people believe that leaders in Jammu and Kashmir were using the issue to divide the State on communal lines. Religion is the only issue over which people will get agitated and sacrifice their lives, so religious sentiments were injected in this with idea of deepening the gulf between Muslims and Hindus on one hand and between Jammu and the Valley on the other hand. This land transfer was projected as a direct ‘attack on the Muslim character of the Valley’, which would leave a ‘permanent Hindu footprint in the inhospitable mountain range’. The protesters claimed they wanted to protect our ‘land, identity, ecology and our age old tradition of human values’.
APHC leaders and other leaders who have always avoided ballot which is internationally recognised method of proving political credibility, have always been keen on disrupting the democratic process on behest of outside forces, were having serious problems with regard to their political standing. Their recent Islamabad Yatra was supposed to provide them with new ideas and new incentive, but they were still wondering how to revitalise their political life, then just out of blue came the issue of allotment- blessing in disguise for the struggling leaders.
These leaders, fresh with a new ‘mandate’ and new tasks felt energetic and wanted to prove their worth, and government of Jammu and Kashmir foolishly provided the opportunity to them to assert their positions and further communalise politics of Jammu and Kashmir. Divisions between Jammu and the Valley and between Muslims and Hindus were never so deep before this controversial issue of Land Transfer.
The reaction to this land transfer was very fierce, reminiscent of protests of early 1990s, which crippled the Valley and some people also lost their lives. These protests not only unnerved the Jammu and Kashmir government but also got New Delhi worried; hence a hasty retreat and cancelled the land transfer. PDP was not only part of the coalition but also part of the controversial decision, panikked and deepened crises further by withdrawing its support to the State government leaving the ruling INC as a minority in the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly.
This retreat was a clear victory for those who championed opposition to this land transfer, but it seriously annoyed Hindu extremists who converged to Jammu and protested against cancellation of the land transfer. Protests in Jammu are also very hostile and have communalised the polity of Jammu which has worried all those who believe in peace and harmony and unity of the State.
This land transfer and its subsequent cancellation have caused enormous damage to the social fabric of the society. It has caused colossal economic damage to a fragile economy, and moreover it gave a new lease of life to APHC leaders who were fast losing their credibility and standing. Communalisation of the Kashmiri politics will only strengthen hands of those who are against unification and independence of the State, and I hope that common sense prevails and peace returns in Jammu.
APHC leaders and their mentors want to present them as leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, but their interest is only confined to the Valley. They need to be reminded that boundaries of the State which they claim to represent stretch outside the Valley. And one such area is called Azad Kashmir where WAPDA, a Pakistani organisation established to cater for interest of Pakistan, illegally acquired vast area of Mirpur and constructed a Dam known as Mangla Dam in which entire city of Mirpur and adjacent areas were drowned. It uprooted tens of thousands of local people in 1967, and some of them are still not being properly compensated and settled.
Pakistan is not constructing dams inside Pakistani territory to meet its water and energy shortage, but WAPDA is upraising the Mangla dam which will uproot more than one hundred and twenty thousand people. I would like to see APHC leaders speaking against that and arranging protests against this illegal and forced construction. Only by speaking for rights of all parts of the State they can make claim to represent 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: http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Thursday, 26 June 2008
From LOC to LOC
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)