Extremists pose a serious threat to peace in South Asia
Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 April 2012
Text of speech made by Dr Shabir Choudhry as a Chief Guest in a seminar arranged by Pakistan Kashmir Friendship Association, Accrington in England.
Mr Chairman, Deputy Chair of the Council, Councillors and other sisters and brothers aslam o alaeykam and good after noon. I want to thank leaders of Pakistan Kashmir Friendship Association and President of Kashmir National Party, Sarwar Hussain for inviting me to this important seminar and express my views on the topic of Kashmir.
Mr Chairman, although title of this seminar is Kashmir, but before I discuss the Kashmir dispute, I briefly want to talk about creation of Pakistan, because when you talk about Kashmir, you cannot leave out role of Pakistan in Kashmiri politics; and when you discuss Pakistan and the problems the country encounters, it is difficult to avoid the name of Kashmir.
It is claimed that Pakistan was created in name of religion; and because Jammu and Kashmir is a majority Muslim State, therefore, it should have become part of Pakistan. That is not true; as Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States, including the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It must be noted that the British Raj in India consisted of two units, namely the British India and Princely India; whereas the former was directly ruled, the latter enjoyed semi autonomous status. The Rulers of the Princely States were allies of the British and under different treaties they accepted the British Paramountcy.
The Two Nations theory, whatever its value after the fall of East Pakistan, and after the separatist trends within the present Pakistan, was only applicable to the British India. The Rulers of Princely States had a choice to accede to either India, accede to Pakistan or negotiate some new terms with India and Pakistan.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a constitutional expert. He knew the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States; and that is why before the establishment of Pakistan he never asked Kashmir’s inclusion in Pakistan. When people asked him a question about future of Kashmir and other Princely States, he said:
“Constitutionally and legally, the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the termination of Paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly, the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain independent. In the last case, they enter into such arrangements or relationship with Hindustan or Pakistan as they may choose.”
Mohammed Ali Jinnah demonstrated this policy by accepting accession of Junagarrh’s accession to Pakistan, even though this State had overwhelming non Muslim majority; and if the Two Nations Theory was applicable to the Princely States then this State would have automatically become part of India. Similarly, on question of Hyderabad, Mohammed Ali Jinnah supported Ruler of this State’s right to remain independent, even though this State also had overwhelming non Muslim majority; and if the Two Nations Theory was applicable to the Princely States then Hyderabad should also have automatically joined India.
Mr Chairman, from these examples it is clear that the State of Jammu and Kashmir was not part of the Two Nations Theory. If we look at the history of Pakistan since 1947, it clearly shows that no serious attempt was made to make Pakistan an Islamic country; however, the rulers of Pakistan very sincerely served the interests of the West. Moreover their policies and treatment resulted in serious deprivation, resentment and anger among the people of East Pakistan; and that resulted in separation of East Pakistan because people could not put up with injustice and oppression and majority of Pakistanis became Bangladeshis and abandoned the country created in name of Islam.
The British wanted to end their direct rule of India, and they granted independence to India and Pakistan. But because the State of Jammu and Kashmir did not join either India or Pakistan before 15 August 1947 and after lapse of the British Paramountcy on this date, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became an independent country. Some people argue that Kashmir was not recognised as an independent country; therefore, it was not an independent country.
That is not true. Israel is an independent country and Pakistan and some Arab countries still have not recognised Israel, but that does not change the fact that Israel is an independent country. Our independence did not last very long because rulers of Pakistan tried to take over Jammu and Kashmir by force; and they sent tribal warriors in name of Jihad to invade Jammu and Kashmir. This attack took place on 22 October 1947; and the Ruler of Kashmir had no choice but to seek help from India. India refused to help unless the Maharajah acceded to India.
In order to save his country and people from the tribal warriors, the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India, which was provisionally accepted and had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. We people of Jammu and Kashmir had three possible choices: either to ratify the Provisional Accession, reject it or possibly negotiate its terms and conditions.
Fact, however, is that we people of Jammu and Kashmir never had an opportunity to express our opinion on this issue. On behalf of Kashmir National Party I want to declare that we are legally not part of India or part of Pakistan. We are the main party to the Kashmir dispute, and it is we who suffer most; yet we are not even part of any negotiations on Kashmir.
How sad that leaders and bureaucrats of India and Pakistan meet and discuss our future, without taking us in to confidence. We are mature and sensible people; and we know what is best for us and for our future generations. In this regard we don’t need any lessons from bureaucrats of the two countries to tell us what is good for us. Our struggle is not religious in nature. Our struggle is political in nature; and those who are presenting it as a religious struggle are dividing the State of Jammu and Kashmir in name of religion.
Our State – Jammu and Kashmir has regions dominated by either followers of one religion or the other; and than within Islam there are regions dominated by either one Muslim sect or the other, and any formula based on religion will divide the entire State on religious, sectarian and ethnic lines and endanger peace and stability of the entire region. It will also result in dividing the families and tribes and regions causing enormous problems for the people of the entire region.
Mr Chairman, this region has experienced one division in name of religion in 1947; and not only people of the entire region are still suffering because of that, but in some ways many other countries are also paying price for that division, as people in name of religion are advancing - and in some cases imposing their personal and political agenda on the society. That practise is against teachings of Islam; and sad thing is that people are using name of Islam to give bad name to our religion. Islam teaches tolerance, peace, love and respect for others; and these people in name of religion preach intolerance, violence and hatred.
Apart from that, these religious extremists pose a serious threat to stability and future of Pakistan. They have given a bad name to Pakistan and have presented Pakistan as an ‘epic centre of global terrorism’. These fanatics are not only threat to Pakistan, but they are also a serious threat to peace and stability of the entire region. We have no choice but to fight back for peace and stability of our region; and for the future of coming generations.
I want to make it clear to all that my struggle and struggle of my colleagues like Abbas Butt, Sarwar Hussain, Asim Mirza, Raja Zahoor Ahmed, Chaudhry Shoaib and many others is not for any kind of accession with one country or the other. Our struggle is for our national identity. We want freedom from oppression and injustice. We want equality and justice for all. We want Kashmir where all citizen of the former Princely State can live in peace and harmony; and where rule of law prevails and where no citizen is unfairly treated because of his religious, political and ethnic background.
We envisage a society where citizens of Jammu and Kashmir can practise their religion according to their beliefs. I believe Allah SWT has not given me this right to impose my religion on others by force. Islam does not believe in spreading Islam by force. Tragedy is that any one who espouses this kind of society and this kind of future for Kashmir and South Asia, a powerful lobby supported by extremists become active and declare that person anti Islam and Indian agent.
I hope people present in this hall, Kashmiris, Pakistanis and the British will support us in our struggle to win our independence and establish a society based on the above ideals. Mr Chairman, I thank you for your patience.
Writer is a political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.
Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com
www.k4kashmir.com
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
My reply to Gene Rossano
My reply to Gene Rossano
Friend, you are dealing with people who do not accept logic. Some of those who oppose me represent forces of extremism, violence and hatred; and where ever there is extremism, violence and hate there is no space for common sense and logic.
Anyone who supports me, he is accused of being either my paid agent or agent of India. I am surprised they have not accused you yet.
When I reply to one question they come up with three more. I have no time for people who defy logic and feel proud of their ignorance. Every thing I do or say I support that with a reference or a source or circumstantial evidence. A few neutral people asked me to reply to their questions. I told them that I will be only wasting my time. Anyhow, after their repeated request I wrote my reply with a title of: My explanation to people with common sense, link: http://k4kashmir.com/?p=7481
When that well wisher asked one of them, are you satisfied with a reply of Dr Shabir Choudhry? He was told; no because we don’t read anything written by him. How can you explain anything to people with this kind of mindset?
Another critic made some illogical allegations and this was my reply, and of course he has not replied. At the end of this reply are questions asked from them, and they have no moral courage to reply to them
Sabir Gul Sahib Aslamo alaykam 10 April 2012
1. Please note the following; we have to see things in the context when they happened. Most of JKLF members don’t know history of JKLF and what happened and at what time. It was Azmat Khan and Abid Hashmi who were expelled by Amanullah Khan. In JKLF there is a procedure to expel people. Someone sitting in Rawalpindi, and without knowing full facts and without giving a right to defend to members cannot expel anyone from Britain. When Amanullah Khan did this, I protested against this decision as it was unconstitutional. I was not expelled by Amanullah Khan for any wrong doing, but for disobeying that decision. You can confirm that from Azmat Khan.
2. As for issue with Yasin Malik is concerned, I have given full details that it was issue over upraising of Mangla Dam and my speech at the UN Human Rights Commission; and Yasin Malik was under pressure from Pakistan to take action against me. He asked Abbas Butt to do it, when Abbas Butt refused to do it he sent Farooq Papa from Canada to do it. It was totally unconstitutional. What I was doing I had full support of Executive Council and that is why they issued a statement in our support.
3. As for Nazam Bhatti is concerned, anyone who knows anything about political parties knows that a Zonal President cannot expel any Central leader. In any case Nazam Sahib left KNP on 25th March 2012. Asim Mirza asked these questions from them read them. Nazam Bhatti and Masoom Ansari Sahib cannot reply to anyone of the. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with me, but these are the facts.
From Mohammed Asim
3 questions from chief organiser of KNP to masoom ansari saab:
1. masoom ansari saab, when u resign from KNP membership on 23/02/2012, did u send ur resignation to zonal president or chairman of KNP?
In my knowledge u sent ur resignation to chairman of KNP bcz u know that the zonal president does not have the authority to accept ur resignation.
Surely, if the zonal president does not have authority to accept ur resignation then also he wouldnt have the authority to dismiss members of the central committee!
2. In ur resignation u said that u want to resign bcz u think its time to unite for the bigger cause of independence, however recently u said that shabir chaudhry's actions have caused u to resign. The allegations ur making now against shabir chaudhry are new to our ears, none of these have been raised before at any central committee meeting in his presence, so on what basis are u making allegations now?
3. Lastly, i know u are a muslim so can u put ur hand on Quran and say that on 28/03/2012 u didnt call chairman of KNP with the proposal to join hands with JKLF. and could u say with honesty that u didnt tell chairman that yaseen malik is a double agent between india and pakistan? and when chairman asked u why we should join hands with them if u saying this, could u swear that u didnt say we should join with them in order to stop yaseen malik from his double agency, and chairman said this was a good joke?
Friend, you are dealing with people who do not accept logic. Some of those who oppose me represent forces of extremism, violence and hatred; and where ever there is extremism, violence and hate there is no space for common sense and logic.
Anyone who supports me, he is accused of being either my paid agent or agent of India. I am surprised they have not accused you yet.
When I reply to one question they come up with three more. I have no time for people who defy logic and feel proud of their ignorance. Every thing I do or say I support that with a reference or a source or circumstantial evidence. A few neutral people asked me to reply to their questions. I told them that I will be only wasting my time. Anyhow, after their repeated request I wrote my reply with a title of: My explanation to people with common sense, link: http://k4kashmir.com/?p=7481
When that well wisher asked one of them, are you satisfied with a reply of Dr Shabir Choudhry? He was told; no because we don’t read anything written by him. How can you explain anything to people with this kind of mindset?
Another critic made some illogical allegations and this was my reply, and of course he has not replied. At the end of this reply are questions asked from them, and they have no moral courage to reply to them
Sabir Gul Sahib Aslamo alaykam 10 April 2012
1. Please note the following; we have to see things in the context when they happened. Most of JKLF members don’t know history of JKLF and what happened and at what time. It was Azmat Khan and Abid Hashmi who were expelled by Amanullah Khan. In JKLF there is a procedure to expel people. Someone sitting in Rawalpindi, and without knowing full facts and without giving a right to defend to members cannot expel anyone from Britain. When Amanullah Khan did this, I protested against this decision as it was unconstitutional. I was not expelled by Amanullah Khan for any wrong doing, but for disobeying that decision. You can confirm that from Azmat Khan.
2. As for issue with Yasin Malik is concerned, I have given full details that it was issue over upraising of Mangla Dam and my speech at the UN Human Rights Commission; and Yasin Malik was under pressure from Pakistan to take action against me. He asked Abbas Butt to do it, when Abbas Butt refused to do it he sent Farooq Papa from Canada to do it. It was totally unconstitutional. What I was doing I had full support of Executive Council and that is why they issued a statement in our support.
3. As for Nazam Bhatti is concerned, anyone who knows anything about political parties knows that a Zonal President cannot expel any Central leader. In any case Nazam Sahib left KNP on 25th March 2012. Asim Mirza asked these questions from them read them. Nazam Bhatti and Masoom Ansari Sahib cannot reply to anyone of the. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with me, but these are the facts.
From Mohammed Asim
3 questions from chief organiser of KNP to masoom ansari saab:
1. masoom ansari saab, when u resign from KNP membership on 23/02/2012, did u send ur resignation to zonal president or chairman of KNP?
In my knowledge u sent ur resignation to chairman of KNP bcz u know that the zonal president does not have the authority to accept ur resignation.
Surely, if the zonal president does not have authority to accept ur resignation then also he wouldnt have the authority to dismiss members of the central committee!
2. In ur resignation u said that u want to resign bcz u think its time to unite for the bigger cause of independence, however recently u said that shabir chaudhry's actions have caused u to resign. The allegations ur making now against shabir chaudhry are new to our ears, none of these have been raised before at any central committee meeting in his presence, so on what basis are u making allegations now?
3. Lastly, i know u are a muslim so can u put ur hand on Quran and say that on 28/03/2012 u didnt call chairman of KNP with the proposal to join hands with JKLF. and could u say with honesty that u didnt tell chairman that yaseen malik is a double agent between india and pakistan? and when chairman asked u why we should join hands with them if u saying this, could u swear that u didnt say we should join with them in order to stop yaseen malik from his double agency, and chairman said this was a good joke?
Comments in my support by a person I have never met
Comments in my support by a person I have never met
Gene Rossano Iftikhar Khan whenever I see someone trying to destroy the credibility of another I wonder, what is their motivation. Wheneever I see name calling or see labels applied, or unsupported / undocumented charges tacked against another I wonder where is the supporting evidence. When anyone is working to deminish the value of anohers credentials which are in the public record, I wonder why has that person kepy their credetials hidden. Credibility comes from making completely supported and documented charges against another not simply by slinging mud pies at the barn. If you are to have standing in any community you will need to greatly improve the documentation and credentials side of your presentations. As a foreigner looking in, I have reviewed Shabir Choudhry's credentials and they appear almost mpeccable. I have reviewed several of his presentations and the are always documented in full with names, dates, attendees, and often times giving extensive background on each person commented upon. You might try to emulaye his style and high character of not slandering anyone because that is the sure sign of no value.
Gene Rossano I do not pretend to know any of the answers to the issues of J&K including the questions about Shabir Choudhry or his accusers. From my foreign and distant observations over many many months, perhaps even a year or more Sabir Choudry always seems to state where his information comes from and from whom. Most often he provides dates and circumstances. It is difficult to give credence to his detractors who most often are simply calling him bad names and accusing him of misc. nonsencse without providing sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to give credence to their claims or detractions. Until such person steps forward and presents him or herself in the same very professional manner and capacity as Sabir Choudry, none will ganer any support form any reasonably inteligent foreigners who are quite necesary to generate world support for a free and independent J&K.
Gene Rossano To clarify things Mumtaz Mirza and Naz Noor, I am not defending Sabir Choudry. I am imploring everyone addressing the subject of J&K to present their views in a comprehensive, intelligent manner supported by the proper facts. Right or wrong, good or bad, Sabir Choudry does this virtually every time he puts pen to paper.
Further, I said, “I do not pretend to know any of the answers to the issues of J&K including the questions about Shabir Choudhry or his accusers. From my foreign and distant observations over many many months, perhaps even a year or more Sabir Choudry always... seems to state where his information comes from and from whom. Most often he provides dates and circumstances.
It is difficult to give credence to his detractors who most often are simply calling him bad names and accusing him of misc. nonsense without providing sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to give credence to their claims or detractions.
I did not say that I “don't know and don't wanna know “. I am and have been making a very concerted effort to learn and to stay abreast of the matters of J&K while gathering up information on the “accurate” history of J&K.
I believe in freedom and independence without the Church, any church, religion or religious group either ruling or controlling the process of government or the people governed.
I support causes such as that of J&K as I have supported the cause of the green movement in Iran. In so doing it is always most difficult to get at the “truth”, what ever the “truth” really is, which often times lies in the eyes of the the beholder.
One thing that is quite helpful in digging for the truth is to read positive statements supported with names, dates, locations, and other types of verifiable data.
Most often the truth cannot be found within crude, rude, finger pointing, name calling, label affixing unsupported statements. These types of statements must always be completely discounted to a value of zero as they provide no substantial evidence upon which decisions made after verification and research of all information can be accomplished.
As a point of information I own and operate the smallest dry cleaning and laundering “drop shop” in the world. People drop off soiled garments. I send them to a processing plant in another city. The plant cleans the garments and ships them back to me. My customers pick up their clean garments within about three days. On my my end, I do everything. I have no employees. I am not rich nor do I ever anticipate that I will be.
I have a moral and ethical responsibility to stand up and speak out on issues from my backyard to issues like J&K. The risk is not a part of the equation.
This is part of my community responsibility. Today my community embraces the entire world and all nations within it.
Mumtaz Mirza Gene Rossano If you don't know and don't wanna know then why you butted in? People who work for agencies they always well organised and well documented as they have financial and professional support behind them.
Naz Noor Gene Rossano I find this strange you are in every forum defending Shabir while every one else is telling all his real face, when you don't know about Kashmiri politics you should not defend wrong doers.
Gene Rossano Iftikhar Khan whenever I see someone trying to destroy the credibility of another I wonder, what is their motivation. Wheneever I see name calling or see labels applied, or unsupported / undocumented charges tacked against another I wonder where is the supporting evidence. When anyone is working to deminish the value of anohers credentials which are in the public record, I wonder why has that person kepy their credetials hidden. Credibility comes from making completely supported and documented charges against another not simply by slinging mud pies at the barn. If you are to have standing in any community you will need to greatly improve the documentation and credentials side of your presentations. As a foreigner looking in, I have reviewed Shabir Choudhry's credentials and they appear almost mpeccable. I have reviewed several of his presentations and the are always documented in full with names, dates, attendees, and often times giving extensive background on each person commented upon. You might try to emulaye his style and high character of not slandering anyone because that is the sure sign of no value.
Gene Rossano I do not pretend to know any of the answers to the issues of J&K including the questions about Shabir Choudhry or his accusers. From my foreign and distant observations over many many months, perhaps even a year or more Sabir Choudry always seems to state where his information comes from and from whom. Most often he provides dates and circumstances. It is difficult to give credence to his detractors who most often are simply calling him bad names and accusing him of misc. nonsencse without providing sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to give credence to their claims or detractions. Until such person steps forward and presents him or herself in the same very professional manner and capacity as Sabir Choudry, none will ganer any support form any reasonably inteligent foreigners who are quite necesary to generate world support for a free and independent J&K.
Gene Rossano To clarify things Mumtaz Mirza and Naz Noor, I am not defending Sabir Choudry. I am imploring everyone addressing the subject of J&K to present their views in a comprehensive, intelligent manner supported by the proper facts. Right or wrong, good or bad, Sabir Choudry does this virtually every time he puts pen to paper.
Further, I said, “I do not pretend to know any of the answers to the issues of J&K including the questions about Shabir Choudhry or his accusers. From my foreign and distant observations over many many months, perhaps even a year or more Sabir Choudry always... seems to state where his information comes from and from whom. Most often he provides dates and circumstances.
It is difficult to give credence to his detractors who most often are simply calling him bad names and accusing him of misc. nonsense without providing sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to give credence to their claims or detractions.
I did not say that I “don't know and don't wanna know “. I am and have been making a very concerted effort to learn and to stay abreast of the matters of J&K while gathering up information on the “accurate” history of J&K.
I believe in freedom and independence without the Church, any church, religion or religious group either ruling or controlling the process of government or the people governed.
I support causes such as that of J&K as I have supported the cause of the green movement in Iran. In so doing it is always most difficult to get at the “truth”, what ever the “truth” really is, which often times lies in the eyes of the the beholder.
One thing that is quite helpful in digging for the truth is to read positive statements supported with names, dates, locations, and other types of verifiable data.
Most often the truth cannot be found within crude, rude, finger pointing, name calling, label affixing unsupported statements. These types of statements must always be completely discounted to a value of zero as they provide no substantial evidence upon which decisions made after verification and research of all information can be accomplished.
As a point of information I own and operate the smallest dry cleaning and laundering “drop shop” in the world. People drop off soiled garments. I send them to a processing plant in another city. The plant cleans the garments and ships them back to me. My customers pick up their clean garments within about three days. On my my end, I do everything. I have no employees. I am not rich nor do I ever anticipate that I will be.
I have a moral and ethical responsibility to stand up and speak out on issues from my backyard to issues like J&K. The risk is not a part of the equation.
This is part of my community responsibility. Today my community embraces the entire world and all nations within it.
Mumtaz Mirza Gene Rossano If you don't know and don't wanna know then why you butted in? People who work for agencies they always well organised and well documented as they have financial and professional support behind them.
Naz Noor Gene Rossano I find this strange you are in every forum defending Shabir while every one else is telling all his real face, when you don't know about Kashmiri politics you should not defend wrong doers.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Confusion about ideology of Pakistan, Dr Shabir Choudhry
Confusion about ideology of Pakistan
Dr Shabir Choudhry 09 April 2012
Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan could not survive the experiments the Pakistani politicians, establishment and the army were doing with this country, which was established in holy name of Islam. However, many historians and analysts strongly believe that the real purpose of establishing this country was not to advance cause of Islam but to divide the Muslims of the Indian Sub Continent; and serve the interest of the West, which rulers of Pakistan have sincerely done since 1947.
If we impartially study and analyse the tragic history of Pakistan since 1947, and the services the ruling class have rendered to the West, (of course they have done that for material and political gains) there is a lot of sense in the above contention. Soon after the establishment of Pakistan, its founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah gave a different message to what he and his Muslim League had been espousing. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, while addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 said:
"You are free, free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan…. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State". 1
This statement of Mohammed Ali Jinnah clearly demonstrates that he did not want a theocratic or Islamic State; and that name of Islam was only used to motivate Muslim masses for establishment of Pakistan. To support that view point, I produce another reference. After the Punjab disturbances in 1953, Justice Munir was appointed the head of court enquiry to find out the reasons for this. In his report:
'Justice Munir reached the conclusion that Jinnah believed in the equality of all citizens without regard to religious differences. He believed that religion should not interfere in political matters because religion is a matter of personal faith. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a modern Muslim national state'. 2
It is sad that 63 years after the establishment of Pakistan, people of Pakistan; and especially thinkers and writers are still debating as to why Pakistan was created. This debate unfortunately has been taken over or dominated by those who opposed the creation of Pakistan. One view is that those forces which could not win political wisdom of Mohammed Ali Jinnah; and they are now taking revenge from the State he established by creating chaos and by promoting hatred and intolerance.
Despite lofty claims that Pakistan was created in name of Islam and came in to being in holy month of Ramadan, and was to prove a fort of Islam, wrong policies, injustice and selfish attitude of politicians and rulers resulted in break up of Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan. Religion alone did not prove to be strong enough to hold Pakistan together, because those who were at the helm of affairs lacked vision and leadership qualities; and oppressed and suffering people wanted to have their own way. Nayyer Khan, in his article Coup against secularism wrote:
‘Mujeeb was disliked by the establishment not only on account of his being an Ultra-Nationalist; but also a Secularist and a Socialist. It was unambiguously stated in Awami League’s manifesto that the Fundamentals of Pakistan’s constitution would be Secular, besides con-federal……The fall of East Pakistan not only saw the loss of the Eastern half of Pakistan; but also the lost opportunity of making Pakistan a secular country – a potential development that would have not only saved it from the disaster that it is presently going through; but also the much bigger one foreseeable ahead, when the Taliban may finally take over Pakistan. 3
Although wrong policies of the ruling elide of Pakistan resulted in humiliating defeat for Pakistan; however, rulers of Pakistan and the Pakistani elite did not learn any lessons from this great tragedy. Policies enacted in late 1970s and 1980s are here to haunt Pakistan; and have seriously endangered stability, prosperity and future of the remaining Pakistan.
It is not that people of Pakistan are not intelligent and loyal to their country; but tragedy is that those responsible for formulating Pakistan’s policy and endowed with the responsibility of defending frontiers of the country are still living in the past. Their thinking and mindset has not changed. Perhaps some of them mentally still live in the Cold war era; and still their thinking and actions are influenced by politics of that period.
It is true that history is never true reflection of the past events; and even an article or a book on current affairs do not accurately reflect true situation, as we all have different views and tend to espouse those views. However, tragedy is that in Pakistan deliberate efforts are officially made to hide facts and systematically spread lies, extremism and hatred; and that has deeply divided the society on religious, regional and sectarian lines.
Most of the problems of Pakistan are created by selfish rulers and religious parties known as Ghairat Brigade, who lack support at the ballot box, but want to impose their agenda by using name of religion. They erroneously believe that they are the only people who are loyal and sincere with Pakistan; and only they know what needs to be done to make Pakistan stable, prosperous and strong. However, fact is that their policies have divided the Pakistani society, created economic chaos and given a bad name to Pakistan at the international level.
It is widely believed that this so-called Ghairat Brigade or religious groups were financed by CIA to create a situation to suit American addenda or their future plans. This relationship was cemented after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and CIA under the code name of Operation Cyclone devised a programme to arm, train, and finance the ‘Afghan jihad’.
After the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan, these Jihadi groups and infrastructure created to support the Afghan jihad became very powerful and started to influence and dominate politics of Pakistan. They felt so strong and confident that they believed it was their divine right to export jihadi groups and their brand of Islam to other countries, which brought havoc to Pakistan and alienation of Pakistan at the international level.
These religious groups oppose democracy. They oppose fundamental rights for all citizens of Pakistan. They defy logic. Above all, they think they have right to issue edicts who is a Muslim and who is loyal to Pakistan; and who is a traitor. They even think they can command to kill anyone by declaring him/her as anti Islam or anti Pakistan. In other words, according to their teachings and practise anyone could be declared anti Islam or anti Pakistan and killed; and no evidence is required and no arguments against that are tolerated.
Policies of these groups are not only against teaching of Islam; but surely they are also against peace, democracy and security of Pakistan and the region. Quran teaches tolerance, peace and respect for others; yet these extremists preach intolerance, violence and hatred. Holy Quran says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error;” (2:256).
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan also rejected religious intolerance; and after creation of Pakistan preached peace and coexistence of all communities. In his speech in February 1948 he clearly rejected theocracy: “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”
This mindset that Pakistan was created to advance the cause of Islam and activities of religious groups have not only harmed stability of Pakistan; but they have also very seriously damaged the Kashmiri struggle. If we want to resolve the Kashmir dispute and also provide stability to Pakistan then powers that be have to control these extremists.
1. Source: Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, vol 1 no 2, 11 August 1947, page 20
2. Source: 'Report of the Court of Inquiry', pages 203-232, Justice Munir Ahmed.
3. Viewpointonline.net 11 December 2011
4. Religious extremism in Pakistan, by Wasimul Haque, The Friday Times, http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/blog.php?blogstory=37
Writer is a political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry 09 April 2012
Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan could not survive the experiments the Pakistani politicians, establishment and the army were doing with this country, which was established in holy name of Islam. However, many historians and analysts strongly believe that the real purpose of establishing this country was not to advance cause of Islam but to divide the Muslims of the Indian Sub Continent; and serve the interest of the West, which rulers of Pakistan have sincerely done since 1947.
If we impartially study and analyse the tragic history of Pakistan since 1947, and the services the ruling class have rendered to the West, (of course they have done that for material and political gains) there is a lot of sense in the above contention. Soon after the establishment of Pakistan, its founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah gave a different message to what he and his Muslim League had been espousing. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, while addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 said:
"You are free, free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan…. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State". 1
This statement of Mohammed Ali Jinnah clearly demonstrates that he did not want a theocratic or Islamic State; and that name of Islam was only used to motivate Muslim masses for establishment of Pakistan. To support that view point, I produce another reference. After the Punjab disturbances in 1953, Justice Munir was appointed the head of court enquiry to find out the reasons for this. In his report:
'Justice Munir reached the conclusion that Jinnah believed in the equality of all citizens without regard to religious differences. He believed that religion should not interfere in political matters because religion is a matter of personal faith. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a modern Muslim national state'. 2
It is sad that 63 years after the establishment of Pakistan, people of Pakistan; and especially thinkers and writers are still debating as to why Pakistan was created. This debate unfortunately has been taken over or dominated by those who opposed the creation of Pakistan. One view is that those forces which could not win political wisdom of Mohammed Ali Jinnah; and they are now taking revenge from the State he established by creating chaos and by promoting hatred and intolerance.
Despite lofty claims that Pakistan was created in name of Islam and came in to being in holy month of Ramadan, and was to prove a fort of Islam, wrong policies, injustice and selfish attitude of politicians and rulers resulted in break up of Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan. Religion alone did not prove to be strong enough to hold Pakistan together, because those who were at the helm of affairs lacked vision and leadership qualities; and oppressed and suffering people wanted to have their own way. Nayyer Khan, in his article Coup against secularism wrote:
‘Mujeeb was disliked by the establishment not only on account of his being an Ultra-Nationalist; but also a Secularist and a Socialist. It was unambiguously stated in Awami League’s manifesto that the Fundamentals of Pakistan’s constitution would be Secular, besides con-federal……The fall of East Pakistan not only saw the loss of the Eastern half of Pakistan; but also the lost opportunity of making Pakistan a secular country – a potential development that would have not only saved it from the disaster that it is presently going through; but also the much bigger one foreseeable ahead, when the Taliban may finally take over Pakistan. 3
Although wrong policies of the ruling elide of Pakistan resulted in humiliating defeat for Pakistan; however, rulers of Pakistan and the Pakistani elite did not learn any lessons from this great tragedy. Policies enacted in late 1970s and 1980s are here to haunt Pakistan; and have seriously endangered stability, prosperity and future of the remaining Pakistan.
It is not that people of Pakistan are not intelligent and loyal to their country; but tragedy is that those responsible for formulating Pakistan’s policy and endowed with the responsibility of defending frontiers of the country are still living in the past. Their thinking and mindset has not changed. Perhaps some of them mentally still live in the Cold war era; and still their thinking and actions are influenced by politics of that period.
It is true that history is never true reflection of the past events; and even an article or a book on current affairs do not accurately reflect true situation, as we all have different views and tend to espouse those views. However, tragedy is that in Pakistan deliberate efforts are officially made to hide facts and systematically spread lies, extremism and hatred; and that has deeply divided the society on religious, regional and sectarian lines.
Most of the problems of Pakistan are created by selfish rulers and religious parties known as Ghairat Brigade, who lack support at the ballot box, but want to impose their agenda by using name of religion. They erroneously believe that they are the only people who are loyal and sincere with Pakistan; and only they know what needs to be done to make Pakistan stable, prosperous and strong. However, fact is that their policies have divided the Pakistani society, created economic chaos and given a bad name to Pakistan at the international level.
It is widely believed that this so-called Ghairat Brigade or religious groups were financed by CIA to create a situation to suit American addenda or their future plans. This relationship was cemented after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and CIA under the code name of Operation Cyclone devised a programme to arm, train, and finance the ‘Afghan jihad’.
After the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan, these Jihadi groups and infrastructure created to support the Afghan jihad became very powerful and started to influence and dominate politics of Pakistan. They felt so strong and confident that they believed it was their divine right to export jihadi groups and their brand of Islam to other countries, which brought havoc to Pakistan and alienation of Pakistan at the international level.
These religious groups oppose democracy. They oppose fundamental rights for all citizens of Pakistan. They defy logic. Above all, they think they have right to issue edicts who is a Muslim and who is loyal to Pakistan; and who is a traitor. They even think they can command to kill anyone by declaring him/her as anti Islam or anti Pakistan. In other words, according to their teachings and practise anyone could be declared anti Islam or anti Pakistan and killed; and no evidence is required and no arguments against that are tolerated.
Policies of these groups are not only against teaching of Islam; but surely they are also against peace, democracy and security of Pakistan and the region. Quran teaches tolerance, peace and respect for others; yet these extremists preach intolerance, violence and hatred. Holy Quran says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error;” (2:256).
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan also rejected religious intolerance; and after creation of Pakistan preached peace and coexistence of all communities. In his speech in February 1948 he clearly rejected theocracy: “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”
This mindset that Pakistan was created to advance the cause of Islam and activities of religious groups have not only harmed stability of Pakistan; but they have also very seriously damaged the Kashmiri struggle. If we want to resolve the Kashmir dispute and also provide stability to Pakistan then powers that be have to control these extremists.
1. Source: Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, vol 1 no 2, 11 August 1947, page 20
2. Source: 'Report of the Court of Inquiry', pages 203-232, Justice Munir Ahmed.
3. Viewpointonline.net 11 December 2011
4. Religious extremism in Pakistan, by Wasimul Haque, The Friday Times, http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/blog.php?blogstory=37
Writer is a political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com
Murder of Lone Sahib--who is next? Shabir Choudhry
Some people, as good foot soldiers praise their ‘leaders’ in public; but in private call them ‘agents’ of those who occupy state of Jammu and Kashmir. Furthermore, they always give comments after the event has taken place and try to claim they are wise people; and accuse others without any real or even circumstantial evidence. I, on other hand, give my comments on time and keep record of what I do and what others do – stories about so called ‘wise men; and ‘freedom fighters’ could be released when appropriate. However, this is what I wrote on death of Abdul Ghani Lone at that time.
Murder of Lone Sahib--who is next?
Shabir Choudhry, London
For past six months I have not written anything, not because I have run out ideas but because I was told not to. My articles were disliked in certain circles and pressure was applied through different channels. I am a staunch supporter of right of expression and if this right is taken away from individuals, then this means we are moving towards a totalitarian society. And I for one would not like to live in that society; and nor I want to help and impose it on freedom loving people.
Despite that I agreed not to use this right even though it is so close to my heart, because I was told that my writings were creating 'problems'. What I regarded as facts and expressed them that people could make informed decisions were seen differently by people with different agenda to mine. And it is not prudent, I was told, to bite the hand that feeds, or criticise those who are 'helping' us, so I had to suppress my urge to comment and write on events which were directly related to the Kahsmiri struggle and future of South Asia.
Then came the Dubai meeting on which I was tempted to write but I persuaded myself that I should follow advice of my friends and keep my mouth shut as it is in the interest of the 'struggle'; may be it is in personal interest as well not to make too many enemies. Then came the unfortunate killing of Lone Sahib, which, like me, shocked many around the world. This cowardly act was strongly condemned by everywhere (I am sure there would be some to commend it as well), as people thought this has added fuel to the tension in the region.
Lone Sahib was a towering figure in the Kashmiri politics and his murder is a great loss to the Kashmiri Movement and the Kashmiri politics. He wanted independence for his people and believed that the Kashmir dispute should be resolved through a process of dialogue. He advocated peace but did not ascribe to the political process pursued by the government of India. He believed in liberal and democratic values, and was considered as a moderate voice. But for some it was important to silence this voice which preached moderation.
This murderous act greatly upset me because of two reasons: one, we lost a politician who was courageous and strongly believed in democratic values, second it gave a very strong and direct message to all those who believed in democratic values and advocated moderation.
In private conversations with my colleagues and friends I strongly condemned this murder, but was not sure whether to issue any statement or write about it. Yesterday a friend came to see me and we discussed Lone Sahib's murder and the present situation in Kashmir and tension on the border. When he learnt that I have not issued any statement because of the reasons explained above, he said this submissive attitude also gives two signals: either we are condoning this cowardly act of murder or we are too cowards to speak against this. He said it is criminal negligence to sit at home in silence, and let forces of extremism triumph. If we all decide to remain quiet then that is tantamount to giving a green signal to those who do not believe in plural society. It is to encourage them to impose their own agenda on the society, and silence all those who oppose their point of view.
I tried to put forward my reasons for remaining quiet, but this further infuriated him. He said JKLF started this present struggle in 1989, and you were a General Secretary at that time; and now when more than 70,000 people have died, Kashmiri women have been raped and gang raped, people have suffered custodial deaths, thousands are still languishing in jails and all the fabrics of a civil society have been destroyed, for one reason or the other you people want to sit at home. It is criminal of you to behave like this. You people will not be forgiven on the day of judgement. He further said there are sectarian forces that want to eliminate centuries old tradition of tolerance in Kashmir, and silence all forms of opposition. They want to have a society where right of expression is denied to the people, and by remaining quiet at this critical juncture of our history you people are helping these forces.
Similar things were said to me by another friend who is a member of another Kashmiri organisation which believes in united and independent Kashmir. This friend said these things before the murder of Lone Sahib. I told him that I am playing a leading role in the political and diplomatic work of the JKLF, but in the 'larger interest' I have to remain silent. He also told me that it was criminal negligence of me to remain silent in order to safeguard my personal interests.
But this friend who came to see me after the murder of Lone Sahib further said, you JKLF people cannot escape responsibility. When the Movement was at its peak and wanted your leadership skills and directions you people started fighting among yourselves. You have weakened the independence movement by being in different groups, and by remaining silent you people are clearing the way for others.
He said Lone Sahib is not the first moderate Kashmiri leader to be killed. Before him Dr Guru, Mir Waiz Farooq, Dr Ashahi, Jalil Andrabi, Dr Ghulam Ahmed Wani and many others were killed for the same crime of being moderates and standing up for what they believed in. All those who advocate moderation and speak of independence and mutual coexistence are targets. He said if we the silent majority remain quiet and do not rise to challenge then Lone Sahib won't be the last leader to be killed by unknown assassin. He said it is for us Kashmiris to decide what kind of society we want to have in Kashmir. A society which believes in liberal and democratic values, and where there is tolerance and respect for each other; or a society which is based on non Kashmiri culture of non tolerance, and where people with different views are killed and harassed by extremists.
There was a lot of sense in what he was saying and as a member of JKLF, I also strongly believe in pluralism and adhere to liberal and democratic principles. He had his own theory about the killers of Lone Sahib, and vigorously advocated that it was connected with the Dubai meeting. He said Lone Sahib has been saying for some time that outside militants should leave Kashmir because they are damaging our struggle, and he had to pay a price for this.
I told him that whereas I strongly condemn this barbaric act, it is not prudent to point fingers of blame without concrete evidence. I share this view that presence of foreign militants in Kashmir, if still there are any, could be counter productive. And I have also been speaking against this for some time, but we must remember that the struggle started as an indigenous movement and that the majority of militants are still Kashmiris.
He said I remember you wrote a series of articles on this topic a few years ago, but if you had been in Kashmir you would have been among the 70 thousand Kashmiri victims of the struggle. We discussed various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle and agreed that the State of Kashmir is multi ethnic and multi religious, and only honourable solution of the dispute is to let Kashmir emerge as a united and independent State.
If religious extremists and sectarian elements have their way in Kashmir then the State would be divided on religious and sectarian lines; and it would engulf both India and Pakistan as well. South Asia needs peace and stability in order to meet challenges of 21st century. And People of South Asia deserve much better than what they have, and they could surely do without a war between India and Pakistan. It is in the interest of all concerned to resolve the Kashmir dispute by a process of dialogue rather than by use of gun or missiles. END
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Web: www.k4kashmir.com
http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.co.uk/
Murder of Lone Sahib--who is next?
Shabir Choudhry, London
For past six months I have not written anything, not because I have run out ideas but because I was told not to. My articles were disliked in certain circles and pressure was applied through different channels. I am a staunch supporter of right of expression and if this right is taken away from individuals, then this means we are moving towards a totalitarian society. And I for one would not like to live in that society; and nor I want to help and impose it on freedom loving people.
Despite that I agreed not to use this right even though it is so close to my heart, because I was told that my writings were creating 'problems'. What I regarded as facts and expressed them that people could make informed decisions were seen differently by people with different agenda to mine. And it is not prudent, I was told, to bite the hand that feeds, or criticise those who are 'helping' us, so I had to suppress my urge to comment and write on events which were directly related to the Kahsmiri struggle and future of South Asia.
Then came the Dubai meeting on which I was tempted to write but I persuaded myself that I should follow advice of my friends and keep my mouth shut as it is in the interest of the 'struggle'; may be it is in personal interest as well not to make too many enemies. Then came the unfortunate killing of Lone Sahib, which, like me, shocked many around the world. This cowardly act was strongly condemned by everywhere (I am sure there would be some to commend it as well), as people thought this has added fuel to the tension in the region.
Lone Sahib was a towering figure in the Kashmiri politics and his murder is a great loss to the Kashmiri Movement and the Kashmiri politics. He wanted independence for his people and believed that the Kashmir dispute should be resolved through a process of dialogue. He advocated peace but did not ascribe to the political process pursued by the government of India. He believed in liberal and democratic values, and was considered as a moderate voice. But for some it was important to silence this voice which preached moderation.
This murderous act greatly upset me because of two reasons: one, we lost a politician who was courageous and strongly believed in democratic values, second it gave a very strong and direct message to all those who believed in democratic values and advocated moderation.
In private conversations with my colleagues and friends I strongly condemned this murder, but was not sure whether to issue any statement or write about it. Yesterday a friend came to see me and we discussed Lone Sahib's murder and the present situation in Kashmir and tension on the border. When he learnt that I have not issued any statement because of the reasons explained above, he said this submissive attitude also gives two signals: either we are condoning this cowardly act of murder or we are too cowards to speak against this. He said it is criminal negligence to sit at home in silence, and let forces of extremism triumph. If we all decide to remain quiet then that is tantamount to giving a green signal to those who do not believe in plural society. It is to encourage them to impose their own agenda on the society, and silence all those who oppose their point of view.
I tried to put forward my reasons for remaining quiet, but this further infuriated him. He said JKLF started this present struggle in 1989, and you were a General Secretary at that time; and now when more than 70,000 people have died, Kashmiri women have been raped and gang raped, people have suffered custodial deaths, thousands are still languishing in jails and all the fabrics of a civil society have been destroyed, for one reason or the other you people want to sit at home. It is criminal of you to behave like this. You people will not be forgiven on the day of judgement. He further said there are sectarian forces that want to eliminate centuries old tradition of tolerance in Kashmir, and silence all forms of opposition. They want to have a society where right of expression is denied to the people, and by remaining quiet at this critical juncture of our history you people are helping these forces.
Similar things were said to me by another friend who is a member of another Kashmiri organisation which believes in united and independent Kashmir. This friend said these things before the murder of Lone Sahib. I told him that I am playing a leading role in the political and diplomatic work of the JKLF, but in the 'larger interest' I have to remain silent. He also told me that it was criminal negligence of me to remain silent in order to safeguard my personal interests.
But this friend who came to see me after the murder of Lone Sahib further said, you JKLF people cannot escape responsibility. When the Movement was at its peak and wanted your leadership skills and directions you people started fighting among yourselves. You have weakened the independence movement by being in different groups, and by remaining silent you people are clearing the way for others.
He said Lone Sahib is not the first moderate Kashmiri leader to be killed. Before him Dr Guru, Mir Waiz Farooq, Dr Ashahi, Jalil Andrabi, Dr Ghulam Ahmed Wani and many others were killed for the same crime of being moderates and standing up for what they believed in. All those who advocate moderation and speak of independence and mutual coexistence are targets. He said if we the silent majority remain quiet and do not rise to challenge then Lone Sahib won't be the last leader to be killed by unknown assassin. He said it is for us Kashmiris to decide what kind of society we want to have in Kashmir. A society which believes in liberal and democratic values, and where there is tolerance and respect for each other; or a society which is based on non Kashmiri culture of non tolerance, and where people with different views are killed and harassed by extremists.
There was a lot of sense in what he was saying and as a member of JKLF, I also strongly believe in pluralism and adhere to liberal and democratic principles. He had his own theory about the killers of Lone Sahib, and vigorously advocated that it was connected with the Dubai meeting. He said Lone Sahib has been saying for some time that outside militants should leave Kashmir because they are damaging our struggle, and he had to pay a price for this.
I told him that whereas I strongly condemn this barbaric act, it is not prudent to point fingers of blame without concrete evidence. I share this view that presence of foreign militants in Kashmir, if still there are any, could be counter productive. And I have also been speaking against this for some time, but we must remember that the struggle started as an indigenous movement and that the majority of militants are still Kashmiris.
He said I remember you wrote a series of articles on this topic a few years ago, but if you had been in Kashmir you would have been among the 70 thousand Kashmiri victims of the struggle. We discussed various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle and agreed that the State of Kashmir is multi ethnic and multi religious, and only honourable solution of the dispute is to let Kashmir emerge as a united and independent State.
If religious extremists and sectarian elements have their way in Kashmir then the State would be divided on religious and sectarian lines; and it would engulf both India and Pakistan as well. South Asia needs peace and stability in order to meet challenges of 21st century. And People of South Asia deserve much better than what they have, and they could surely do without a war between India and Pakistan. It is in the interest of all concerned to resolve the Kashmir dispute by a process of dialogue rather than by use of gun or missiles. END
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Web: www.k4kashmir.com
http://www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.co.uk/
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Why we separated from JKLF Yasin Group, Dr Shabir Choudhry
Why we separated from JKLF Yasin Group
Dr Shabir Choudhry 07 April 2012
By and large, I have been ignoring allegations and campaign spearheaded by some TDH’s (Tome, Dick and Harry’s) who are fuelled by passions of tribalism and secret agencies. The main objective of these proxies is to create confusion and discredit me and my colleagues that we are distracted from our real work of presenting the Kashmir dispute in its right perspective; and show the world that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is occupied and human rights abuses take place on both sides of the divide.
As a matter of policy I don’t confront the proxies and mercenaries; and although it is difficult and more challenging, but I like to directly take on those on whose behest these proxies operate. However, when neutral and some serious people ask why we separated from the JKLF Yasin Malik, it is only appropriate that I provide them the required information.
When Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik accused each other of being Indian and Pakistani agents, at that time we were working as an independent group of JKLF and decided to support Yasin Malik. We knew what Amanullah Khan was and were fully aware of his contacts with forces that were using the people of Kashmir as a raw material to keep the Kashmir pot boiling; but because we didn’t know much about Yasin Malik and he was ‘released’ from Prison (later on we learnt that he was ‘released’ from a Farm House near New Delhi where his ‘new training’ took place), we thought he could be the right man.
When I was elected President of the JKLF, my colleagues and I actively asserted our plan in action, that although the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, but our struggle is on the Pakistani side of the divide. We also forcefully asserted that there was no military solution to the Kashmir dispute; and that the struggle was not religious in nature.
Our campaign was strongly opposed by the lobby that was behind the militancy; and was controlling and managing the ‘struggle’ against India, as they did not want attention to be diverted to the prevailing situation in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. They asked Yasin Malik to control the situation. They were more worried about my writings and they, through Yasin Malik imposed a restriction on me that I should not write anymore on Kashmir. I was allowed to write on every other topic, but not on Kashmir; and if I wanted to get something published on Kashmir I should get it checked from pro Yasin committee of three people which included a man who has only seen colleges and universities from outside.
This was insult to my intellect; knowledge and all the research I have done on Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations, so I decided not to write anymore. I started writing again when Abdul Ghani Lone was brutally murdered, and I said to myself, to remain quiet on this anymore will be a criminal act; and I actively started exposing culprits and those who made the Kashmiri struggle a lucrative business.
Once they realised that they cannot control me and my colleagues, Yasin Malik and the lobby behind him tried to have a vote of no confidence against me; but they could not even get the required members of the Central Committee to propose a vote of no confidence.
When Abbas Butt succeeded me as the President, they tried to pressurise him to control me. They accused me for ‘damaging the Kashmiri struggle’. Under pressure from them and in order to satisfy them and to find out facts, Abbas Butt set up a Committee and appointed Zubair Ansari its Chairman. The Committee after a thorough research and after looking at my articles concluded that Dr Shabir Choudhry is a true nationalist and was actively promoting the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir; and that they could not find anything in these articles which is against the JKLF constitution or written ideology.
While all this was going on I made a speech in the UN Human Rights Commission against Mangla Dam upraising and exposed how Pakistan was exploiting our resources and drowning our towns, our villages, our history and graves of our love ones. Perhaps that was the final straw. The powers that be could not take anymore. We have evidence of very reliable authority that they bluntly told Yasin Malik to control the situation or else….?
Yasin Malik once again asked Abbas Butt to take some actions against me - Dr Shabir Choudhry. Abbas Butt and I have always worked as a team; and all the policies I pursue are discussed and jointly agreed; so he knew what I was doing was right in accordance with the JKLF constitution and ideology; and genuine requirements of Movement for united and Independent Jammu and Kashmir, so he could not find any reason to take any action against me.
Abbas Butt is a man with strong nerve, and he resisted all the pressure. Once Yasin Malik realised that he was not going to take any action, he sent Farooq Papa from Canada; and he announced that he was expelling Abbas Butt and Dr Shabir Choudhry from the JKLF. Farooq Papa or even Yasin Malik had no legal write to expel an elected President and a Central leader. In a telephone conversation with Abbas Butt, Yasin Malik later on confirmed that he was sunder pressure to either take this action or pick up dead bodies of his two senior colleagues in Srinagar. Sensible readers and Kashmir watchers can work out who could be pressurising Yasin Malik, as Mangla Dam is situated in Azad Kashmir and we were opposing its upraising.
However, this unconstitutional action was unanimously rejected by the JKLF Executive Council; and relevant sections of the Executive Council decision are produced below:
JKLF Executive Council fully supports Abbas Butt and Dr Shabir Choudhry.
17 April 2003 Birmingham
After split in JKLF ranks in Srinagar and subsequent news items that JKLF President Mr Abbas Butt and Chairman Diplomatic Committee Dr Shabir Choudhry were expelled by a man known as Farooq Papa, urgent meeting of the Executive Council was called in Birmingham, England.
The Executive Council meeting was presided by Mr Abbas Butt, who gave full back ground to the events, and what had happened at Geneva after our interventions; and how some people known as officials and 'mouth piece' of these officials approached us. The Executive Council examined the whole situation and after detailed discussion unanimously declared:
1. That it has full confidence in Mr Abbas Butt as the President and in Dr Shabir Choudhry as the Chairman Diplomatic Committee; and that both leaders would continue in their respective positions until there is an election in UK & Europe which could take place between July 2003 and July 2005.
2. That individual concerned, Farooq Papa, had no legal, constitutional or moral role in this matter. Members of JKLF UK and Europe could only be expelled either by the President or Executive Council; again after making a charge sheet against the person concerned and after giving him full right of defence.
2.A Every decision has to be taken legally and constitutionally, and not even the Chairman or any of his colleagues have this right to expel. If he has a valid complaint against a member, then he could ask the President or Central Committee to look in to the matter and take appropriate action according to the laws of the party. NO individual is above the law and no individual has a right to impose his will on the party and behave like a dictator. We have opposed illegal and unconstitutional measures which damaged the party and nationalist movement in the past and we would do it again.
2.B The Executive Council said that there is no such thing as a Revolutionary Supreme Command Council in the JKLF. This body ended when the JKLF declared to end militancy and concentrate on peaceful struggle. With end to militancy resulted in termination of all Commanders, their Chiefs, command and control. So it is amazing for us to hear of this obsolete body.
2.C The Executive Council reiterated its stand that the JKLF is a democratic organisation with its roots in the public, and democratic values embedded in history and tradition; and would not be a party to any undemocratic move in the party, be it related to passing the constitution or expulsion of any member.
3. That the expulsion of Majid Tramboo by Mr Abbas Butt was legal and constitutional, and the Executive Council upholds this decision as the person concerned was given many warnings in the past and had actively and consistently worked against JKLF ideology and party leadership. Furthermore the person concerned did not pay his monthly subscription and despite reminders refused to pay his membership fee.
Apart from the above, I am producing my speech made at the UN Human Rights Commission which infuriated relevant authorities in Pakistan and they ordered Yasin Malik to take action against us.
Mangla Dam and Pakistan, Dr Shabir Choudhry’s speech at the UN under agenda item 5
Prevention of discrimination and indigenous peoples.
It has become habit of us Kashmiris to criticise with full force whatever India does wrong in Kashmir; and turn blind eye when Pakistan does something wrong. It is partly due to this wrong policy of Kashmiris that we are still forcibly divided and continue to suffer.
We should learn to call spade a spade, and criticise both governments on their Kashmir policies and human rights abuses in their respective parts of Kashmir. By only criticising India and by ignoring wrong doings of Pakistan we have played in to hands of Pakistani agencies who wanted to give this message that it is only Indian side of Kashmir which is disputed and Kashmiris on Pakistani side of the divide are happy with Pakistan.
The government of Pakistan built a dam known as the Mangla Dam in a disputed territory of Azad Kashmir. The construction of the dam was fiercely opposed by the local people of Mirpur, but this opposition was ruthlessly put down by Punjab Constabulary and militia; and the projected was completed in 1967.
The dam uprooted more than 20,000 families, and people were forced to leave their homes and graves of their love ones. They were told that in order to meet water and energy need of Pakistan this dam has to be built; but they were promised that they will be compensated generously for this sacrifice.
Some of the things promised to them are as follows:
• Alternative residential plots
• Compensation for loss of business
• Alternative allotments for loss of irrigational land
• Free electricity
• Free Water supply
• A railway station and a railway line connecting Mirpur with national rail network of Pakistan
• 50% quota for employment
• Royalty for the dam to be paid to Azad Kashmir government
It is unfortunate to note that most of the promises were not honoured by Pakistan. To date not a single penny has been given as a royalty, electricity people of Mirpur get is of poor quality and expensive, there is no railway line or railway station in Mirpur or anywhere in Azad Kashmir, there is inadequate supply of drinking water and still there are more than 8,000 families who did not get their allotments.
And thousands of people who got allotments in various parts of Pakistan were unable to get possession of land; and because of intimidation and discriminatory treatment of the local people and local administration, were forced to return back to Mirpur.
Mr Chairman
The above scenario should be compared with the construction of the Tarbela Dam in Pakistan which was constructed after the Mangla dam. Of course construction of this dam also uprooted families and villages, but they were properly compensated and resettled. The government of North West Frontier had a written Agreement with the WAPDA (Water And Power Development Authority), and used its power and influence to implement in letter and spirit. Evidence of this could be seen by news release of the WAPDA issued on 27 June 2003, which reads, and I quote:
‘WAPDA, in spite of its financial limitations, discharged its full and final liability towards Net Hydel Profit to the North West Frontier Province, well ahead of the fiscal year closure date June 30, 2003….According to the details, Article 161(2) of the Constitution provides for payment of Net Hydel Profit to the provinces. The amount due to be paid to NWFP for the year 2002-03 as fixed by the Government of Pakistan comes to Rs. 6 billion.
WAPDA has been regularly paying Net Hydel Profit to the Government of NWFP in spite of its financial problems. It may be recalled that for the years 1991-92 to 2001-2002 the North West Frontier Province received an amount of Rs. 65.662 billion against the projected amount of Rs. 57.425 billion. In other words, the Province has received Rs. 8.237 billion in excess during the above mentioned period.’
Mr Chairman
WAPDA Chairman is boasting that they have paid 8.237 billion Rupees in excess to the provincial government of North West Frontier and that is a share of profit for the Tarbela dam. We have a dam in Mirpur for which not a single penny has been paid to the government of Azad Kashmir since 1967.
Income from the Mangla Dam is around 7 billion Rupees per annum, and the dam has been operational and making profit for the Pakistani authorities for past 36 years. And if we multiply then we get a figure of 252 billion, and that is what government of Pakistan owes to Azad Kashmir, but there is no hope of receiving that because Pakistani officials treat Azad Kashmiris differently and less favourably.
Mr Chairman
This situation is to be compared with the fact that planning for the Mangla dam and Kala Bagh dam started around same time in early 1950s. Both proposed constructions were opposed by the local people. Despite opposition of people of Mirpur a dam was completed in 1967; but for Kala Bagh dam despite millions spent in different studies and plans, as to date not a foundation brick is laid down due to fierce opposition from the local people and some powerful land lords.
Our opposition was put down by force; but their opposition was not put down by force but attempts have been made to offer them generous compensations. This shows how we the people of Azad Kashmir are treated differently and less favourably.
Mr Chairman
It looks that the British government of undivided India had more respect and care for the people of Kashmir. Upper Jhelum Canal was constructed in 1914; this canal before entering what is now Pakistani territory near Sarai Alamgir, runs through a Kashmiri territory.
The British Government of the time negotiated an agreement with the Maharaja government, and it had a number of benefits for the people of Kashmir, including payment of royalty of 1.7 million Rupees annually. Despite difficult times during the World Wars and recessions of 1930s, this amount was regularly paid by the Punjab government of the time to the Maharaja government every year.
After the partition of India these areas which are irrigated by the Upper Jhelum Canal became a part of Pakistan, and since that no money is being paid to the government of Azad Kashmir which Pakistan claims to be the legitimate government representing the whole of Kashmir.
Salient points of the agreement between the British Government and the Maharaja government are as follows:
1. For the Upper Jhelum Canal the Maharaja will give his land free, but it will be treated as a State territory and any land not used for the canal purposes will be returned to the State.
2. The government of Punjab will pay yearly compensation for the land affected, equal to revenue generated by this land.
3. The people of Kashmir will have right to use water free of any charge to irrigate their land.
4. The people of Kashmir will have right to construct mills or other grinding factories run by the use of water as a source of energy.
5. Government of Punjab will at their own expenses construct bridges along the rout of the canal that people of Kashmir can easily cross with their livestock and cattle carts.
6. If due to flood or other damage caused by the canal to property or crops in Kashmir, the government of Punjab will be responsible to pay compensation for that.
7. The government of Punjab will pay compensation for all buildings, property or wells affected by the canal construction.
8. Any material brought in for the construction of the canal from outside of the State, the government of Punjab will have to pay royalty on each item.
9. The State government allows the Punjab government to build different residential and other commercial buildings to facilitate the construction work, but they will have to pay for any land used for such purpose.
10. Before the start of the work a clear rout of the canal has to be finalised ensuring that place of worship of any religion is not affected.
11. And people working on the canal will respect local laws and customs, and will not bring any item for consumption which is not permitted in the State.
Mr Chairman
With passage of time all dams lose their ability to store water, but proper maintenance helps to overcome this problem. The Mangla dam had life of over
De -silting of the dams
Also Pakistani government owes millions of Rupee in rent which is due to government of Azad Kashmir for the State property situated in different parts of Pakistan. Before the Parturition of India, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir received annual rent for his properties from the then British Indian governments, and this only stopped after Pakistani government took over these properties.
Mr Chairman I thank you for your patience.
Dr Shabir Choudhry 07 April 2012
By and large, I have been ignoring allegations and campaign spearheaded by some TDH’s (Tome, Dick and Harry’s) who are fuelled by passions of tribalism and secret agencies. The main objective of these proxies is to create confusion and discredit me and my colleagues that we are distracted from our real work of presenting the Kashmir dispute in its right perspective; and show the world that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is occupied and human rights abuses take place on both sides of the divide.
As a matter of policy I don’t confront the proxies and mercenaries; and although it is difficult and more challenging, but I like to directly take on those on whose behest these proxies operate. However, when neutral and some serious people ask why we separated from the JKLF Yasin Malik, it is only appropriate that I provide them the required information.
When Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik accused each other of being Indian and Pakistani agents, at that time we were working as an independent group of JKLF and decided to support Yasin Malik. We knew what Amanullah Khan was and were fully aware of his contacts with forces that were using the people of Kashmir as a raw material to keep the Kashmir pot boiling; but because we didn’t know much about Yasin Malik and he was ‘released’ from Prison (later on we learnt that he was ‘released’ from a Farm House near New Delhi where his ‘new training’ took place), we thought he could be the right man.
When I was elected President of the JKLF, my colleagues and I actively asserted our plan in action, that although the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, but our struggle is on the Pakistani side of the divide. We also forcefully asserted that there was no military solution to the Kashmir dispute; and that the struggle was not religious in nature.
Our campaign was strongly opposed by the lobby that was behind the militancy; and was controlling and managing the ‘struggle’ against India, as they did not want attention to be diverted to the prevailing situation in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. They asked Yasin Malik to control the situation. They were more worried about my writings and they, through Yasin Malik imposed a restriction on me that I should not write anymore on Kashmir. I was allowed to write on every other topic, but not on Kashmir; and if I wanted to get something published on Kashmir I should get it checked from pro Yasin committee of three people which included a man who has only seen colleges and universities from outside.
This was insult to my intellect; knowledge and all the research I have done on Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations, so I decided not to write anymore. I started writing again when Abdul Ghani Lone was brutally murdered, and I said to myself, to remain quiet on this anymore will be a criminal act; and I actively started exposing culprits and those who made the Kashmiri struggle a lucrative business.
Once they realised that they cannot control me and my colleagues, Yasin Malik and the lobby behind him tried to have a vote of no confidence against me; but they could not even get the required members of the Central Committee to propose a vote of no confidence.
When Abbas Butt succeeded me as the President, they tried to pressurise him to control me. They accused me for ‘damaging the Kashmiri struggle’. Under pressure from them and in order to satisfy them and to find out facts, Abbas Butt set up a Committee and appointed Zubair Ansari its Chairman. The Committee after a thorough research and after looking at my articles concluded that Dr Shabir Choudhry is a true nationalist and was actively promoting the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir; and that they could not find anything in these articles which is against the JKLF constitution or written ideology.
While all this was going on I made a speech in the UN Human Rights Commission against Mangla Dam upraising and exposed how Pakistan was exploiting our resources and drowning our towns, our villages, our history and graves of our love ones. Perhaps that was the final straw. The powers that be could not take anymore. We have evidence of very reliable authority that they bluntly told Yasin Malik to control the situation or else….?
Yasin Malik once again asked Abbas Butt to take some actions against me - Dr Shabir Choudhry. Abbas Butt and I have always worked as a team; and all the policies I pursue are discussed and jointly agreed; so he knew what I was doing was right in accordance with the JKLF constitution and ideology; and genuine requirements of Movement for united and Independent Jammu and Kashmir, so he could not find any reason to take any action against me.
Abbas Butt is a man with strong nerve, and he resisted all the pressure. Once Yasin Malik realised that he was not going to take any action, he sent Farooq Papa from Canada; and he announced that he was expelling Abbas Butt and Dr Shabir Choudhry from the JKLF. Farooq Papa or even Yasin Malik had no legal write to expel an elected President and a Central leader. In a telephone conversation with Abbas Butt, Yasin Malik later on confirmed that he was sunder pressure to either take this action or pick up dead bodies of his two senior colleagues in Srinagar. Sensible readers and Kashmir watchers can work out who could be pressurising Yasin Malik, as Mangla Dam is situated in Azad Kashmir and we were opposing its upraising.
However, this unconstitutional action was unanimously rejected by the JKLF Executive Council; and relevant sections of the Executive Council decision are produced below:
JKLF Executive Council fully supports Abbas Butt and Dr Shabir Choudhry.
17 April 2003 Birmingham
After split in JKLF ranks in Srinagar and subsequent news items that JKLF President Mr Abbas Butt and Chairman Diplomatic Committee Dr Shabir Choudhry were expelled by a man known as Farooq Papa, urgent meeting of the Executive Council was called in Birmingham, England.
The Executive Council meeting was presided by Mr Abbas Butt, who gave full back ground to the events, and what had happened at Geneva after our interventions; and how some people known as officials and 'mouth piece' of these officials approached us. The Executive Council examined the whole situation and after detailed discussion unanimously declared:
1. That it has full confidence in Mr Abbas Butt as the President and in Dr Shabir Choudhry as the Chairman Diplomatic Committee; and that both leaders would continue in their respective positions until there is an election in UK & Europe which could take place between July 2003 and July 2005.
2. That individual concerned, Farooq Papa, had no legal, constitutional or moral role in this matter. Members of JKLF UK and Europe could only be expelled either by the President or Executive Council; again after making a charge sheet against the person concerned and after giving him full right of defence.
2.A Every decision has to be taken legally and constitutionally, and not even the Chairman or any of his colleagues have this right to expel. If he has a valid complaint against a member, then he could ask the President or Central Committee to look in to the matter and take appropriate action according to the laws of the party. NO individual is above the law and no individual has a right to impose his will on the party and behave like a dictator. We have opposed illegal and unconstitutional measures which damaged the party and nationalist movement in the past and we would do it again.
2.B The Executive Council said that there is no such thing as a Revolutionary Supreme Command Council in the JKLF. This body ended when the JKLF declared to end militancy and concentrate on peaceful struggle. With end to militancy resulted in termination of all Commanders, their Chiefs, command and control. So it is amazing for us to hear of this obsolete body.
2.C The Executive Council reiterated its stand that the JKLF is a democratic organisation with its roots in the public, and democratic values embedded in history and tradition; and would not be a party to any undemocratic move in the party, be it related to passing the constitution or expulsion of any member.
3. That the expulsion of Majid Tramboo by Mr Abbas Butt was legal and constitutional, and the Executive Council upholds this decision as the person concerned was given many warnings in the past and had actively and consistently worked against JKLF ideology and party leadership. Furthermore the person concerned did not pay his monthly subscription and despite reminders refused to pay his membership fee.
Apart from the above, I am producing my speech made at the UN Human Rights Commission which infuriated relevant authorities in Pakistan and they ordered Yasin Malik to take action against us.
Mangla Dam and Pakistan, Dr Shabir Choudhry’s speech at the UN under agenda item 5
Prevention of discrimination and indigenous peoples.
It has become habit of us Kashmiris to criticise with full force whatever India does wrong in Kashmir; and turn blind eye when Pakistan does something wrong. It is partly due to this wrong policy of Kashmiris that we are still forcibly divided and continue to suffer.
We should learn to call spade a spade, and criticise both governments on their Kashmir policies and human rights abuses in their respective parts of Kashmir. By only criticising India and by ignoring wrong doings of Pakistan we have played in to hands of Pakistani agencies who wanted to give this message that it is only Indian side of Kashmir which is disputed and Kashmiris on Pakistani side of the divide are happy with Pakistan.
The government of Pakistan built a dam known as the Mangla Dam in a disputed territory of Azad Kashmir. The construction of the dam was fiercely opposed by the local people of Mirpur, but this opposition was ruthlessly put down by Punjab Constabulary and militia; and the projected was completed in 1967.
The dam uprooted more than 20,000 families, and people were forced to leave their homes and graves of their love ones. They were told that in order to meet water and energy need of Pakistan this dam has to be built; but they were promised that they will be compensated generously for this sacrifice.
Some of the things promised to them are as follows:
• Alternative residential plots
• Compensation for loss of business
• Alternative allotments for loss of irrigational land
• Free electricity
• Free Water supply
• A railway station and a railway line connecting Mirpur with national rail network of Pakistan
• 50% quota for employment
• Royalty for the dam to be paid to Azad Kashmir government
It is unfortunate to note that most of the promises were not honoured by Pakistan. To date not a single penny has been given as a royalty, electricity people of Mirpur get is of poor quality and expensive, there is no railway line or railway station in Mirpur or anywhere in Azad Kashmir, there is inadequate supply of drinking water and still there are more than 8,000 families who did not get their allotments.
And thousands of people who got allotments in various parts of Pakistan were unable to get possession of land; and because of intimidation and discriminatory treatment of the local people and local administration, were forced to return back to Mirpur.
Mr Chairman
The above scenario should be compared with the construction of the Tarbela Dam in Pakistan which was constructed after the Mangla dam. Of course construction of this dam also uprooted families and villages, but they were properly compensated and resettled. The government of North West Frontier had a written Agreement with the WAPDA (Water And Power Development Authority), and used its power and influence to implement in letter and spirit. Evidence of this could be seen by news release of the WAPDA issued on 27 June 2003, which reads, and I quote:
‘WAPDA, in spite of its financial limitations, discharged its full and final liability towards Net Hydel Profit to the North West Frontier Province, well ahead of the fiscal year closure date June 30, 2003….According to the details, Article 161(2) of the Constitution provides for payment of Net Hydel Profit to the provinces. The amount due to be paid to NWFP for the year 2002-03 as fixed by the Government of Pakistan comes to Rs. 6 billion.
WAPDA has been regularly paying Net Hydel Profit to the Government of NWFP in spite of its financial problems. It may be recalled that for the years 1991-92 to 2001-2002 the North West Frontier Province received an amount of Rs. 65.662 billion against the projected amount of Rs. 57.425 billion. In other words, the Province has received Rs. 8.237 billion in excess during the above mentioned period.’
Mr Chairman
WAPDA Chairman is boasting that they have paid 8.237 billion Rupees in excess to the provincial government of North West Frontier and that is a share of profit for the Tarbela dam. We have a dam in Mirpur for which not a single penny has been paid to the government of Azad Kashmir since 1967.
Income from the Mangla Dam is around 7 billion Rupees per annum, and the dam has been operational and making profit for the Pakistani authorities for past 36 years. And if we multiply then we get a figure of 252 billion, and that is what government of Pakistan owes to Azad Kashmir, but there is no hope of receiving that because Pakistani officials treat Azad Kashmiris differently and less favourably.
Mr Chairman
This situation is to be compared with the fact that planning for the Mangla dam and Kala Bagh dam started around same time in early 1950s. Both proposed constructions were opposed by the local people. Despite opposition of people of Mirpur a dam was completed in 1967; but for Kala Bagh dam despite millions spent in different studies and plans, as to date not a foundation brick is laid down due to fierce opposition from the local people and some powerful land lords.
Our opposition was put down by force; but their opposition was not put down by force but attempts have been made to offer them generous compensations. This shows how we the people of Azad Kashmir are treated differently and less favourably.
Mr Chairman
It looks that the British government of undivided India had more respect and care for the people of Kashmir. Upper Jhelum Canal was constructed in 1914; this canal before entering what is now Pakistani territory near Sarai Alamgir, runs through a Kashmiri territory.
The British Government of the time negotiated an agreement with the Maharaja government, and it had a number of benefits for the people of Kashmir, including payment of royalty of 1.7 million Rupees annually. Despite difficult times during the World Wars and recessions of 1930s, this amount was regularly paid by the Punjab government of the time to the Maharaja government every year.
After the partition of India these areas which are irrigated by the Upper Jhelum Canal became a part of Pakistan, and since that no money is being paid to the government of Azad Kashmir which Pakistan claims to be the legitimate government representing the whole of Kashmir.
Salient points of the agreement between the British Government and the Maharaja government are as follows:
1. For the Upper Jhelum Canal the Maharaja will give his land free, but it will be treated as a State territory and any land not used for the canal purposes will be returned to the State.
2. The government of Punjab will pay yearly compensation for the land affected, equal to revenue generated by this land.
3. The people of Kashmir will have right to use water free of any charge to irrigate their land.
4. The people of Kashmir will have right to construct mills or other grinding factories run by the use of water as a source of energy.
5. Government of Punjab will at their own expenses construct bridges along the rout of the canal that people of Kashmir can easily cross with their livestock and cattle carts.
6. If due to flood or other damage caused by the canal to property or crops in Kashmir, the government of Punjab will be responsible to pay compensation for that.
7. The government of Punjab will pay compensation for all buildings, property or wells affected by the canal construction.
8. Any material brought in for the construction of the canal from outside of the State, the government of Punjab will have to pay royalty on each item.
9. The State government allows the Punjab government to build different residential and other commercial buildings to facilitate the construction work, but they will have to pay for any land used for such purpose.
10. Before the start of the work a clear rout of the canal has to be finalised ensuring that place of worship of any religion is not affected.
11. And people working on the canal will respect local laws and customs, and will not bring any item for consumption which is not permitted in the State.
Mr Chairman
With passage of time all dams lose their ability to store water, but proper maintenance helps to overcome this problem. The Mangla dam had life of over
De -silting of the dams
Also Pakistani government owes millions of Rupee in rent which is due to government of Azad Kashmir for the State property situated in different parts of Pakistan. Before the Parturition of India, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir received annual rent for his properties from the then British Indian governments, and this only stopped after Pakistani government took over these properties.
Mr Chairman I thank you for your patience.
Energy from Azad Kashmir, Zulfiqar Abbasi
Energy from Azad Kashmir Zulfiqar Abbasi
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Pakistanis have welcomed the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to scrap the Rental Power Projects set up through non-transparent and questionable deals, providing electricity at the extremely high rates of Rs35-40/unit. These power purchase agreements were signed and executed overnight and advance payments worth billion of rupees were promptly made. The sweetheart deals were concluded on incredibly generous terms. This happened while private-sector hydel developers of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir had been standing queued up for 16 years offering hydroelectric power at less than Rs2/unit after their loan repayment period, and yet they were not given the power purchase agreement facility by the government and its subsidiary entities which enjoyed absolute monopolies.
The government of Pakistan announced it hydroelectricity policy in 1995 for private-sector developers offering a tariff per unit of 4.7 US cents, which today amounts to just Rs4.27/unit. Around 30 companies from all over the world turned up to set hydel Projects in the private sector comprising 3,000 MW. Since Wapda cash strapped, this policy was the best option for the country as all the hydel projects were to be transferred back to the government free of cost after being in the private sector for 25 years. But the policy was scornfully dumped by the then chairman of Wapda, Gen (r) Zulfiqar Ali Khan and finance minister Ishaq Dar, who found the tariff of 4.7 US cents very high.
Holding back hydel development in the private sector under this lame excuse, space for oil-based thermal projects and RPPs was created by Wapda. which argued that in the absence of political consensus on water-storage projects Wapda can’t generate hydel electricity. As an interim solution a number of thermal and rental projects were inducted into the system, and this is affecting our national economy now. As a matter of fact, 70 percent of hydel projects need no storage dams to generate cheap, affordable and renewable hydel energy at an average cost of Rs2/KW after their debt servicing.
Unfortunately, political disagreement over construction of water reservoirs in Pakistan has provided room for highly influential oil trading lobbies to push for thermal projects, landing the national power sector into crisis with no solution in sight in the foreseeable future. The shooting oil prices are swelling our circular debt, increasing electricity tariffs and closing our options for thermal generation.
In this gloomy national scenario Azad Kashmir is emerging as a saviour for Pakistan’s power sector, developing small hydel projects and mega-projects such as raising of Mangla Dam to 1,300 MW and Neelum-Jhelum to 969 MW in Public sector, Patrind 148 MW, Kohala 1,100 MW, Karot 700 MW and Azad Pattan 640 MW in the private sector. These are already under process.
The competitive advantage of Azad Kashmir over Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit and Baltistan (carrying the same hydel potential) is its nearby location, as rivers Jehlum, Neelum and Poonch, together with their tributaries, are located at a proximity of 50 to 150 kilometers from the national grid with the huge hydel potential of 18,000 MW.
In addition to the ongoing projects, there are many other projects including Mahl 550 MW, Dudhnyal 550 MW, Chakothi 500 MW, Ashkot 250 MW, Sehra 350 MW, Kotli and Gulpur 250 MW and Rajdhani 126 MW, with a number of smaller projects at different stages of implementation which can be developed and inducted into the system shortly.
Development of 8,000-MW hydel projects in Azad Kashmir can turn around Pakistan’s power sector and revive Pakistan’s industry and economy. The government needs to facilitate private-sector developers and set in place Transmission Ways from the valleys of Jehlum, Neelum and Poonch up to the national grid to pick the generated power into the national grid. Development of hydel industry in Azad Kashmir may also bring the much-needed investment of $20-25 billion in the country through the private sector, which may inject new blood to our sinking economy. Azad Kashmir, with a domestic demand of only 350 MW, can send the rest of the energy to the national grid in Pakistan reviving the struggling industry and sharply increasing exports as a result.
The dozens of small hydel projects below 50 MW with a cumulative capacity of 2,000 MW could have been developed and inducted in the national grid in the shorter term of two to three years but have been stalled due to smaller issues awaiting resolutions by the government of Pakistan. The issues include tariff determination, issuance of sovereign guarantee for project financing and signing of power purchase agreement which can be resolved within days and weeks but are pending since 1995 as the ministry of water and power is not showing adequate interest despite being apprised many a time.
Under the prevalent law, the government enjoys monopoly over transmission and distribution of electricity and no private project can be set up or operated unless given access to the national grid by the federal entities such as Wapda, NTDC, CPPA, DISCOS and PEPCO. The irony of the situation is that these monopolistic organisations which went running all the way to sign agreements with the RPPs to purchase electricity at Rs35 to 40/unit seem uninterested in purchasing hydel energy at Rs2/unit after their debt servicing from small hydel projects.
The time has come to undertake serious and decisive steps by the ministry of water and power to promote private-sector hydro power industry, so as to ward off serious crises by following an integrated plan in the country with focus on Azad Kashmir. The pending issues of tariff determination, sovereign guarantees for financing and PPA signing must be resolved forthwith, and all those responsible for inordinate delays on these counts must be taken to task.
The government and State Bank must ensure that local banks and DFIs make special allocations for hydel projects and advance money for this purpose, making no viable hydel project suffer for financing. Industrial units based on captive hydro projects must be given special incentives to set up sustainable industry.
The writer is the president of the Hydroelectric Power Association (HEPA).
Email: kohsarhydro@gmail.com
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Pakistanis have welcomed the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to scrap the Rental Power Projects set up through non-transparent and questionable deals, providing electricity at the extremely high rates of Rs35-40/unit. These power purchase agreements were signed and executed overnight and advance payments worth billion of rupees were promptly made. The sweetheart deals were concluded on incredibly generous terms. This happened while private-sector hydel developers of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir had been standing queued up for 16 years offering hydroelectric power at less than Rs2/unit after their loan repayment period, and yet they were not given the power purchase agreement facility by the government and its subsidiary entities which enjoyed absolute monopolies.
The government of Pakistan announced it hydroelectricity policy in 1995 for private-sector developers offering a tariff per unit of 4.7 US cents, which today amounts to just Rs4.27/unit. Around 30 companies from all over the world turned up to set hydel Projects in the private sector comprising 3,000 MW. Since Wapda cash strapped, this policy was the best option for the country as all the hydel projects were to be transferred back to the government free of cost after being in the private sector for 25 years. But the policy was scornfully dumped by the then chairman of Wapda, Gen (r) Zulfiqar Ali Khan and finance minister Ishaq Dar, who found the tariff of 4.7 US cents very high.
Holding back hydel development in the private sector under this lame excuse, space for oil-based thermal projects and RPPs was created by Wapda. which argued that in the absence of political consensus on water-storage projects Wapda can’t generate hydel electricity. As an interim solution a number of thermal and rental projects were inducted into the system, and this is affecting our national economy now. As a matter of fact, 70 percent of hydel projects need no storage dams to generate cheap, affordable and renewable hydel energy at an average cost of Rs2/KW after their debt servicing.
Unfortunately, political disagreement over construction of water reservoirs in Pakistan has provided room for highly influential oil trading lobbies to push for thermal projects, landing the national power sector into crisis with no solution in sight in the foreseeable future. The shooting oil prices are swelling our circular debt, increasing electricity tariffs and closing our options for thermal generation.
In this gloomy national scenario Azad Kashmir is emerging as a saviour for Pakistan’s power sector, developing small hydel projects and mega-projects such as raising of Mangla Dam to 1,300 MW and Neelum-Jhelum to 969 MW in Public sector, Patrind 148 MW, Kohala 1,100 MW, Karot 700 MW and Azad Pattan 640 MW in the private sector. These are already under process.
The competitive advantage of Azad Kashmir over Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit and Baltistan (carrying the same hydel potential) is its nearby location, as rivers Jehlum, Neelum and Poonch, together with their tributaries, are located at a proximity of 50 to 150 kilometers from the national grid with the huge hydel potential of 18,000 MW.
In addition to the ongoing projects, there are many other projects including Mahl 550 MW, Dudhnyal 550 MW, Chakothi 500 MW, Ashkot 250 MW, Sehra 350 MW, Kotli and Gulpur 250 MW and Rajdhani 126 MW, with a number of smaller projects at different stages of implementation which can be developed and inducted into the system shortly.
Development of 8,000-MW hydel projects in Azad Kashmir can turn around Pakistan’s power sector and revive Pakistan’s industry and economy. The government needs to facilitate private-sector developers and set in place Transmission Ways from the valleys of Jehlum, Neelum and Poonch up to the national grid to pick the generated power into the national grid. Development of hydel industry in Azad Kashmir may also bring the much-needed investment of $20-25 billion in the country through the private sector, which may inject new blood to our sinking economy. Azad Kashmir, with a domestic demand of only 350 MW, can send the rest of the energy to the national grid in Pakistan reviving the struggling industry and sharply increasing exports as a result.
The dozens of small hydel projects below 50 MW with a cumulative capacity of 2,000 MW could have been developed and inducted in the national grid in the shorter term of two to three years but have been stalled due to smaller issues awaiting resolutions by the government of Pakistan. The issues include tariff determination, issuance of sovereign guarantee for project financing and signing of power purchase agreement which can be resolved within days and weeks but are pending since 1995 as the ministry of water and power is not showing adequate interest despite being apprised many a time.
Under the prevalent law, the government enjoys monopoly over transmission and distribution of electricity and no private project can be set up or operated unless given access to the national grid by the federal entities such as Wapda, NTDC, CPPA, DISCOS and PEPCO. The irony of the situation is that these monopolistic organisations which went running all the way to sign agreements with the RPPs to purchase electricity at Rs35 to 40/unit seem uninterested in purchasing hydel energy at Rs2/unit after their debt servicing from small hydel projects.
The time has come to undertake serious and decisive steps by the ministry of water and power to promote private-sector hydro power industry, so as to ward off serious crises by following an integrated plan in the country with focus on Azad Kashmir. The pending issues of tariff determination, sovereign guarantees for financing and PPA signing must be resolved forthwith, and all those responsible for inordinate delays on these counts must be taken to task.
The government and State Bank must ensure that local banks and DFIs make special allocations for hydel projects and advance money for this purpose, making no viable hydel project suffer for financing. Industrial units based on captive hydro projects must be given special incentives to set up sustainable industry.
The writer is the president of the Hydroelectric Power Association (HEPA).
Email: kohsarhydro@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)