Let us start India bashing again

Let us start India bashing again Dr Shabir Choudhry 21 February 2012 Subject of Politics is largely related to opinions and views of people; hence it is divisive and controversial. Despite that, some people insist that when I write on this topic I should avoid controversial things and forge unity. Is that possible? In my view it is not possible to be in politics and still avoid controversy. It is like claiming that someone had a shower, but his body was still dry. One can, perhaps, avoid controversy by being hypocrite. Hazrat Ali (Radi Allah Tahla) said, ‘that person is a hypocrite who has no enemies, because he does not speak truth’. This reminds me of a story whenAmericaand the World economy was in deep recession in 1930s; and the then American President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced a new economic policy called New Deal. Of course there were many against this policy; and one economic expert of the opposition came to see him and spoke against his policy. President Roosevelt listened to him carefully and said you are right. After he left another person belonging to his party came and praised his policy and courageous stand to get out of the recession. President Roosevelt smiled at him and said you are right. His wife was listening to both conversations; and when this visitor left she said both visitors had opposing views and you agreed with them both. Is this not hypocrisy? President Roosevelt smiled at his wife and said you are also right. The present militant struggle supported by Pakistani agencies started in 1988/89. Like any other struggle it had ups and down; situation was so bad at one time thatIndiaalmost lost control of theValleyofKashmir. However, blunders committed by those who were controlling the militancy from across the LOC; and those in the field calling the shots, allowed India to gradually turn the tide. Situation became so desperate that those controlling the militancy and who claimed that they worked hard to ‘hookIndia’ inKashmirquagmire had to bring jihadi warriors from other countries and they were called ‘guest militants’. I and my colleagues started our struggle in 1970s. Most people at that time compromised with the status quo over theKashmirdispute. However, when militancy started some people discoveredKashmirin 1990s, and while ordinary people suffered, for some it was a lucrative business. Those cyber warriors, charged with strong tribal sentiments and misplaced loyalties and who are spending all their time to defame me and my struggle for secular, democratic and independent Jammu and Kashmir were no where to be seen all these years. However, two months ago, just like seasonal birds, known as ‘fasli bateray in Urdu’ they emerged from some where to target me and malign me without providing any evidence. They were fully charged with tribal loyalty, and some other factors also helped them to mount very blunt, aggressive and illogical attack against me. Attack of these cyber warriors was so forceful that it unnerved some of my close friends and well wishers, even though the attack was primarily against me. It looked that if they can break down me (Dr Shabir Choudhry), their mission is accomplished; and their ‘Kashmirliberated’. However, those who are pulling strings from behind need to know that one can only cause nuisance with help of seasonal birds and foot soldiers, but cannot win any war. Anyhow, in view of this fierce and uncivilised attack, my friends and well wishers suggested that even though our struggle is on the Pakistani side of the divide, but still you must not write anything to expose Pakistani policy onKashmir; and only targetIndia. Many close colleagues advised me not to write on controversial things in future to avoid criticism. When I questioned them does that mean: No more criticism on what Pakistan does in so called Azad Kashmir, what they do in Gilgit Baltistan and what they do to the Kashmir dispute and the people of Jammu and Kashmir on the other side of the LOC; No more criticism on Jihadi groups and religious groups who promote religious intolerance and create culture of fear and intimidation in all parts ofJammu and Kashmir; No more criticism on Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Muslim League (N) and other Pakistani political parties operating in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan to promote a Pakistani interest, exploit our resources and to teach us how to be good slaves of Pakistan; No more criticism on Muslim Conference and religious parties that promoteKashmir’s accession toPakistanin name of religion; and some promote religious intolerance. I said to them, should we abandon our struggle against injustice, extremism and hatred just because that will generate controversy and invite some criticism. If that is your motto then we might as well disband our party, buy a praying mate and beads; and find a mosque closer to our homes and close our eyes to every injustice and unfairness that goes in our society. After listening to what I had to say, most of them had no reply, however one of them said: ‘Sir we are not writers or scholars like you. We didn’t mean that. We were only concerned about you because you were being unfairly attacked from all sides; and some people were using degrading language against you.’ Perhaps these friends were sincere with their advice, as they did not want me to get in hot water because of what I write or say. As ‘Indiabashing’ is popular and gets praise and good rewards, they, as well – wishers wanted me to be rewarded and get a ‘loyalty certificate’. However, what they need to know is that I do this because I honestly and sincerely believe that it is in the best interest of people ofJammu and Kashmir– they need to be aware of hidden enemies; and I don’t do it for any praise or any rewards. I appreciate their care and concern for me, but what they didn’t know is that I don’t write under pressure. I don’t write to please people or get a ‘loyalty tag’ from anyone. I don’t need a loyalty certificate, especially from the people whose own loyalty to State ofJammu and Kashmirand the people is highly questionable. Furthermore, I started a nationalist struggle as a teenager in 1973; and don’t need any lessons on nationalism, especially from those who are promoting ‘nationalism’ prepared and nurtured in GHQ of Pakistan and carefully preached by their secret agencies. How could it be a ‘national struggle’ when that struggle is started against one occupier with active help and support of the other occupier? To rub salt in wounds of true nationalists, who ever oppose this secret treaty between some ‘nationalist leaders’ and secret agencies of Pakistan or expose them are labelled as ‘agents’; and those who follow the script are promoted as ‘patriots’ and ‘nationalist leaders’. I will be the last person to say thatIndiais not responsible for human rights violations inJammu and Kashmir; and I have said that many times. In fact, I have written two booklets on that topic; but some people want us to repeat those acts in a parrot like fashion, and totally ignore what goes on in Pakistani occupiedKashmirand in Gilgit Baltistan. Apart from that overwhelming majority of Kashmiri political activists, Pakistani agencies, Pakistani media and Pakistani political parties actively highlight Indian human rights abuses. They totally ignore plight of the people ofKashmirliving on the Pakistani side of the divide, some one has to expose Pakistani policy onKashmiras well to show that we are also occupied and that these areas are also disputed. Now let us do some ‘Indiabashing’ in light of historical facts.Jammu and Kashmirhad a Standstill Agreement withPakistan. Pakistani government violated that Agreement and stopped essential supplies toKashmirin second week of October 1947. Shall we condemnIndiabecausePakistanviolated this Agreement? Pakistanonce again violated that Agreement and on 22 October managed a military attack onKashmirwhich resulted in death and destruction of thousands of innocent people. Thousands of Kashmiri women were kidnapped and sold in various parts ofPakistan. Shall we condemnIndiafor this unprovoked attacked onJammu and Kashmircarried out byPakistan? This unprovoked attack ofPakistanforced the Ruler of Jammu andKashmirto seek help fromIndia, which resulted in a ‘Provisional accession’ withIndia; and we lost our newly acquired independence. Shall we condemnIndiabecausePakistanattackedKashmirand we lost our independence? Some Kashmiri nationalists announced a ‘Provisional government’ of Kashmiron 4th October 1947 to pursue a cause of democratic and independent Jammu and Kashmir. On 24th October 1947, Pakistani government, in name of reorganisation took charge of this government and installed their puppets, who have loyally promoted a Pakistani interest to date. This wasPakistan’s first attempt to blockKashmir’s path to independence, shall we condemnIndia for this? When theKashmirdispute was taken to the UN, it was known as ‘Jammu and Kashmirproblem’, obviously meaning a problem related to State ofJammu and Kashmir. It was changed to ‘IndiaandPakistanproblem’ on request ofPakistan, making it a territorial issue betweenIndiaandPakistan. Shall we condemnIndiabecausePakistanchanged the name and madeKashmira territorial dispute rather than an issue of right of self determination of a Kashmiri nation? UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948used the following words: ‘The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people’. As these words implied an independent Kashmir, Pakistan suggested the following: ‘The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;..’ This change was proposed byPakistanand adopted in the next UNCIP Resolution passed on5 January 1949; and it blocked the option of an independentJammu and Kashmir. Shall we condemnIndiabecausePakistanblocked an option of an independentKashmir? The UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948 stated: ‘As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.’ The Resolution askedIndia to withdraw ‘bulk’ of troops fromKashmir; and becausePakistan feared losing a plebiscite if held under those conditions so they refused to withdraw their troops, hence continuation of the dispute and our miseries. Shall we condemnIndia becausePakistan refused to withdraw their troops in line with the UNCIP Resolution? Because of Pakistan’s refusal to withdraw her troops and military alliances with America, Soviet Russia sided with India; and after getting support of a Super Power with a Veto power in the Security Council, India changed its stand on Kashmir and called it an ‘integral part’ of India. Who do we blame for our miseries and for makingKashmirdispute part of the Cold War politics? In early 1950s, and again in 1963,Pakistanagreed to partition the State ofJammu and Kashmir, provided they got the Valley or a big chunk of the territory from there, clearly showing that both countries were only interested interritoryofJammu and Kashmir. Similarly both countries practically partitionedJammu and Kashmirin the Simla Agreement of 1972; and the Cease Fire Line was changed to Line of Control. Both countries agreed that future ofJammu and Kashmirwill be decided byPakistanandIndia, clearly blocking any role for the people ofJammu and Kashmirand for any role for a third party; or even any role for the UN Security Council. Despite that Pakistani governments fool people in name of UN Resolutions. Shall we condemnIndiabecausePakistanhas camouflaged its territorial ambitions in name of religion and brotherhood? My contention is criticiseIndiawhereIndiais wrong; but also criticisePakistanwhere they have stabbed theKashmircause because of their territorial greed. I have never supported India’s claim on Kashmir; I have never condoned human rights abuses in Kashmir; I have never said, I wanted to be part of India; my emphasis is that my struggle is on this side of the LOC and not in Srinagar. Those who are occupied by India they can spend all their time criticising India and struggling against India, it DOES NOT worry me; but why some Kashmiris and especially so called ‘nationalists’ get tummy pain when I speak against the country which occupies me. Pakistani government and their agencies urge people ofJammu and Kashmirto focus all their energies to exposeIndia; and many Kashmiris influenced by this policy also demand that we should only talk ofIndia’s wrong doings. How much more can you expose India, there are many reports on human rights abuses compiled by some Indian and some international organisations. There is a vibrant local media and international media to high light all wrong doings. Apart from that India has put its cards on table by calling Kashmir its ‘integral’ part; in other words there appears to be no ambiguity on India’s Kashmir policy, wrong as it is. Should we not spend some time and resources to exposePakistan– a country which is advancing its territorial interests and depriving people ofKashmir’s right to independence by using name of religion? I sincerely believe that my struggle is on the Pakistani side of the divide; and those who are urging us to focus all our attention againstIndiaor go to the other side to liberate that side are directly or indirectly playing in hands of Pakistani agencies. Those who are occupied by India have every right to struggle against that occupation; what I request is, please give me the same right that I struggle against the country that occupies me. I understand in view of powerful vested interest and massive propaganda, to pursue this policy is to invite wrath of powerful groups, but I am not going to abandon this struggle just because of harsh criticism and difficulties. I know there are many who like what I do, but they are not in a position to come out to support me because of serious reprisals; however, I hope there will be some in future to take the torch and continue with the journey. 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

Conspiracy against Kashmir National Party

Conspiracy against Kashmir National Party Dr Shabir Choudhry 29 June 2012 Kashmir National Party is comparatively a new party; but it has left a lasting mark on thinking of the Kashmiri politics. It courageously articulated policies that were logical and practical and were best to promote true nationalist struggle for unification and liberation of the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir For example: The KNP said the Kashmiri struggle was not religious or jihad of Muslims against other ethnic groups of Jammu and Kashmir; There was no military solution to the Kashmir dispute and that the struggle should be peaceful, as the gun has only brought disaster to the people and the Kashmiri polity; and it would give excuse to the occupiers to crush us; The entire State of Jammu and Kashmir was disputed and enslaved; and those who are occupied by India should struggle against that occupation and those who are occupied by Pakistan should struggle against the Pakistani occupation; The KNP strongly advocated that those who advocated this policy that all of us should first liberate the Valley was a policy given by one occupier and fundamental objective of that policy was to focus attention over there and keep attention away from the areas occupied on this side of the Line of Control. These policies were obviously disliked and strongly opposed by people and groups with vested interest; and those who made this struggle in to a business. First they started a malicious campaign against the KNP senior leaders by levelling illogical and totally baseless allegations against them. Later on they encouraged and manipulated a split in the ranks of the KNP by using tribalism as a weapon. Some people, once again, were manipulated in name of ‘unity’. The KNP leaders, and even those who subsequent left the KNP strongly believed that there could be no unity with them because they were not sincere with the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir and were only advancing the interests of secret agencies. Despite these strong views some people were wooed to leave the KNP in name of unity; and KNP Treasurer wrote the following letter to the KNP Chairman Abbas Butt and sent me a copy of that: from: QuicPrint quicprint@btinternet.com reply-to: QuicPrint to: DrShabirChoudhry, AbbasButt date: 23 February 2012 14:21 subject: Resignation salam I, Muhammad Masoom Ansari, am resigning from the membership of KNP. And I have no relations to this party any more. I think this is the need of the time that we should be united for the bigger cause which is (independance) of the Kashmir and we all should forget our internal disagreements and should be united. The aim of my life is to struggle for the (independance) for the Kashmir and i will continue in my rest of my life. Wasalam Muhammad Masoom Ansari Author of this letter, as one can see from the letter, is not that educated. He is very gullible and one phone call from call can change his thinking, hence his role was confined to collection of funds in the KNP, as he is not dishonest in these matters. His other colleagues who left the KNP also had a meeting with the KNP Chairman in presence of Zubair Ansari, who is their relative. They said they wanted to leave the KNP. The KNP Chairman said if you have decided to leave I could not stop you; but let us depart like civilised people and as friends – no one will issue any statements. It was agreed that these two people will also leave the KNP; and they will go as friends and without causing any bitterness. Perhaps, when they discussed this matter with those who were pulling the strings from behind, they were told you are fools by leaving peacefully, and without causing problems. You have to do something to damage the KNP; and credibility of its top leadership. So a conspiracy was hatched to expel me by making allegations and by saying that what Dr Shabir Choudhry was writing and promoting, was causing problems in the KNP and in the movement; and that was why some people left – reference was the above letter of resignation. The Zonal President of KNP expelled me, and as he had no such right to do that, the Chairman challenged his statement. The Zonal President issued another statement saying that he had expelled the Chairman as well. This was like a foot constable expelling IG Police. Many people laughed at this absurd statement. The former KNP Treasurer was appointed the new ‘Chairman’ of 3 men of ‘rebel’ KNP. If people see the letter of resignation of the KNP former Treasurer, it does not say that he left the KNP because of my policies; if anything he sent me his resignation. If a Zonal President was legally allowed to expel anyone then he would have been in a position to accept resignations as well. Both KNP Zonal President and the Treasurer lived in Birmingham and they are relatives as well, yet the Treasurer did not send his resignation to the Zonal President, because he knew he was not the person to accept or reject resignations of the Central leaders. He had no right to expel any central leaders. There is a procedure in place to expel people. First, a charge sheet is given to the person concerned. He is given a right to defend himself in the Supreme Council. The letter of resignation also speaks volumes about thinking, personality and character of the individuals involved – they voluntarily left the KNP, and then on instructions of someone agreed to become a ‘Chairman’ of a ‘rebel’ party. Those who were pulling strings from behind wanted to create problems for the KNP. They knew the people they were using did not have what it takes to become a leader or a true political activist. In any case, they had no desire to promote them as leaders, so within few weeks they realised that three men bandwagon could not continue in the name of the KNP; and cause the real KNP anymore damage, especially when all three of them were not educated, and were not capable of speaking to media or send out statements. Hired people could only do so much. So they were told to join another party, which they did without any hesitation, and they called it a ‘merger’; and the biggest achievement of the past decades. The fact that this 3 men ‘merger’’ was given so much publicity itself shows that there was a lobby with a vested interest to damage the KNP and its struggle. They were propagating that the KNP had merged. Even today, on 29 June 2012, someone from the Valley of Kashmir asked me if the KNP had finished and if I also had ‘merged’. My reply is, no, we have not merged. How can we merge with those who have caused so much damage to the struggle of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir; who have communalised the nationalist struggle; and who were used as proxies by one occupier against the other occupier and called it a ‘nationalism’ to confuse people. We are here to stay and expose all those who have betrayed our Movement and those who have run it like a business and caused enormous miseries to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. After these 3 people left and ‘merged’, within a week the KNP Chairman went to Birmingham and set up very active branch. In the meeting, there were more than 80 people present. Those who left the KNP were never in a position to muster so many people in any meeting. The KNP Birmingham branch President Basharat Khan Raja is very dedicated and active man, and within days he has made his presence felt; and we hope he will help us to promote the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. I know some people don’t like me because what I promote; and I am their main target. I know for sure, what I promote is demand of the genuine struggle for an independent Jammu and Kashmir. People who want the status quo to continue can manipulate or fool some simple people; but they cannot manipulate everyone. More and more people are appreciating our message and I am moved by the fact that none Kashmiris are also appreciating what we do. After reading my views on Jammu and Kashmir, a non- Kashmir, Gene Rossano, whom I have never met in my life, wrote on 24 June 2012: ‘Such truth is wonderful to read! All interested in the future freedom and independence of Jammu and Kashmir should read, understand and preach this same doctrine….It is refreshing to witness the truth from dedication. Your detractors never seem to be able to muster up any truth or facts so they become like barking dogs behind a strong and high fence, noisy with big teeth but no threat whatsoever. Please continue your most important work on behalf of your people in J&K….You are absolutely correct. I completely understand the concept and the meaning of a “mission”. Happy to be associated with you, Shabir Choudhry!’ These words are much more to me then criticism of some hired people. Gene Rossano is not a Kashmiri, and he has no axe to grind. He has no personal agenda on situation of Jammu and Kashmir, but after reading and analysing different comments and articles on the subject he came to the conclusion that what we promoted was the correct policy and the way forward to resolve the Kashmir dispute; and counter those who promote petty interests and encourage extremism, violence and hatred. He expressed his happiness to be associated with us, my hat off to him for speaking truth and for providing us this moral support, when many were sitting on the fence watching. Our message is loud and clear, despite all the problems and hurdles created by those who are threatened by our policies, the KNP is here to stay and fight for the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Long live struggle for democratic, liberal and an independent jammu and Kashmir and long live KNP. 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

Human rights abuses in Kashmir – issue of mass graves

Human rights abuses in Kashmir – issue of mass graves Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 July 2012 Documentary shown on the British TV Channel 4 at 11.10pm on Tuesday 10 July 2012 was harrowing tale of human right abuses perpetrated by para military forces in Kashmir. Although a lot of what had happened has been compiled by different human rights organisations; and highlighted in Kashmir, India and at the international level, still it was distressing to see and hear what trauma my countrymen had to endure. No one can deny that human rights have taken place in Kashmir. But reading about these tragic events is one thing, and going through them or witnessing them is totally another. I am sure the documentary made by a Kashmiri human rights activist Parvaiz Imroz has done a great service to promote and protect human rights in the Valley of Kashmir; and the British TV Channel has also obliged us by showing tragic stories of human rights abuses. I am sure many Kashmiri people were in tears after seeing that and listening to the horror stories, at least my wife and children were. Sad thing is that these human rights abuses were committed by para – military forces that were allowed to enter Jammu and Kashmir to protect dignity, honour and property of the people; and by a government that claims to be the biggest democracy and believes in promotion and protection of human rights. It must be recalled that when the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was attacked by the tribesmen supported by Pakistan, he requested India for help; and that help was only provided after India obtained ‘provisional accession’ from the beleaguered Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. In reply to the Maharaja’s request, India’s Governor General Lord Mountbatten wrote: ‘In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people. Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness’ appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people.’ Indian forces are not only under obligation to protect human life and dignity because of this ‘provisional accession’; but also because of the obligations ordained in the UNCIP Resolutions. In addition, India has a duty to protect and promote human rights as a signatory to the UN Charter; but what we witness is a clear violation of these obligations and disrespect for human rights regime, at least in the Valley of Kashmir. Some people point out that the army is in Kashmir because of the militants; and wherever army is sent to deal with militancy, insurgency and unrest human rights violations are bound take place. The counter argument is that the militancy and unrest started because the Indian government failed to honour its obligations; and frustrated people resorted to violence. The Indian government’s view is that they are dealing with Pakistani trained ‘terrorists’ who were trained for the purpose of disrupting peace and stability of Kashmir, and communalise Kashmiri culture of tolerance and co – existence. True, militants were trained and sent by Pakistan; but in early years of the conflict, majority of the militants were local disgruntled youths. Later on, of course, non – Kashmiris took over the militancy; and they did enormous damage not only to the cause of Kashmir; but also they shattered social fabric of the Kashmiri society. The Indian government also point out that these militants are mainly responsible for deaths because they start acts of violence in heavily populated areas; and when ‘security forces’ fight back these ‘terrorists’, innocent people get killed in cross firing. Furthermore, they claim ‘terrorists’ kill and torture those who refuse to cooperate with them. Whereas, one can find some truth in the above, but the fact remains it is the responsibility of the government to maintain peace and protect life, dignity and property of the people. Call them militants or ‘terrorists’, they are not signatory to the UN Charter to protect and promote human rights; or have any obligation under the UNCIP Resolutions. If militants or ‘terrorists’ with weapons are killed in some encounter, then one can see some justification, as both parties were armed and ready to kill each other; but what justification is there to kill non – combatant civilians and rape women? According to Parvaiz Imroz more than ‘8,000 Kashmiri non-combatants had vanished from army custody in a state the size of Ireland – four times more than disappeared under Pinochet in Chile.’ Cathy Scott – Clark in a report published in Guardian London on 9 July 2012 notes: ‘Imroz widened his search, mapping almost 1,000 locations. He was shocked by the implications. Indian law requires that the police probe every violent death and that corpses be identified. But in the village of Bimyar, white-haired Atta Muhammad Khan came forward to describe how he had been forced to inter 203 unidentified bodies under cover of the night – men whose identities and crimes were unstated. “Some corpses were disfigured. Others were burnt. We did not ask questions.” It was a similar story in Kichama village, where the lawyer mapped 235 unmarked graves and in Bijhama, where 200 more unidentified corpses had been interred. In Srinagar, Imroz’s team alerted the government’s State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). “We suspected the missing of Kashmiris were buried at these secret sites,” he said, publishing a report, Facts Under Ground.’ As a Kashmiri I feel angry and frustrated because my countrymen are victims of human rights abuses; and sad thing is that those who committed these abuses are roaming free, as they are protected by certain laws. I and my party, Kashmir National Party condemn all the human rights abuses; and demand for abrogation of those laws that culprits could be punished and human rights abuses could be stopped. Can any Indian or pro India Kashmiri justify all the above abuses? India claims Kashmir belongs to them because of that ‘provisional accession’. If one, for a moment, accepts this contention, then technically people of Jammu and Kashmir are Indians; question, however, arises, is this how civilised and democratic countries treat their own ‘citizens’ The above brutalities could not be justified under the pretext that Pakistan sent trained ‘terrorists’ to Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan have tragic history of animosity, confrontation and competition; the question is why should we people of Jammu and Kashmir become raw materials in their contest to defeat each other? I agree, the prime responsibility of every government is to protect human life, dignity, honour and property; and if some people in name of right to protest or right to self – determination endanger life, dignity and property of citizens, the authorities have to step in to protect that. However, they have no right or mandate to trample all the above ideals just because they have guns and they are immune from any prosecution because of certain laws. The authorities in Kashmir have certain obligations; and they cannot turn a blind eye to all these human rights abuses; and still claim to be champions of democracy and human rights. They have to act and act fast to stop these human rights abuses. The Pakistani establishment, in order to equal a score against India, used sentiments of disgruntled and angry Kashmiri youths and created chaos in Kashmir that resulted in death of a generation and massive human rights abuses. The question is why people of Gilgit Baltistan are victims of human rights abuses when there is no Indian backed militancy going on there. Similarly, there is no Indian backed militancy going on in Pakistani occupied Kashmir; and yet people are denied of fundamental human rights; and they also suffer human rights abuses. A friend and old colleague of JKLF from Nottingham (England) Isahaq Sahib phoned me a few days ago and complained why people of Azad Kashmir want to liberate Indian occupied Kashmir, when we are occupied by Pakistan on this side? He said, ‘Our first responsibility must be to get independence from Pakistan; and then help our brother across the LOC.’ He further said, ‘Those who gave us this policy that we should liberate the Indian occupied Kashmir were not sincere with us’. I request both India and Pakistan to respect human rights of people of Jammu and Kashmir; and acknowledge this fact that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, and that there could be no peace and stability in the region without resolving the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people. 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

Human rights abuses in Kashmir – another perspective

Human rights abuses in Kashmir – another perspective Dr Shabir Choudhry 14 July 2012 In response to my article, Human rights abuses in Kashmir – issue of mass graves, I had some very good feedback. Many praised the article for being informative and balanced. A few boasted that I changed my stance under pressure. Question is pressure of what, and from whom? I don’t work under pressure. It is my natural instinct to resist pressure; and defend my rights and rights of others. In any case, who cares for a few fake IDs and non-entities; and those who have discovered Kashmir and issues related to human rights in the past six months. I am politically a mature person with a track record of working for the cause of people of Jammu and Kashmir since 1973. I have confronted all sorts of pressures in life; and by grace of Almighty, I have weathered all political storms; and have managed to survive all conspiracies, back stabbings, nefarious campaigns, unfounded allegations and propaganda. No one can defeat a dedicated and sincere soldier determined to promote independence of Jammu and Kashmir; and determined to oppose forces of extremism, regionalism and violence. Anyhow, I would like to produce an email message sent to me by Mr Nafees Muhammad. I will not give out his location because I don’t want him to get in to any trouble. He writes; Dr Saheb ‘You have been working on Kashmir issue for a long time and you do take up different topics related to this subject and shed light on them from your own perspective. I do get your emails regularly and go through them as much as the time permits me. The issue you raised is very pertinent, but there is another aspect of this problem. Jihadists have also murdered several thousand people in Kashmir. Do you or any other site has the data as to how many Kashmiris were the victims of Jihadi terrorism and how many were the victims of military operations? Also the number of Jihadi criminals were among the casualties of military operations. I think we can’t include deaths of criminals with the civilians. Do you agree?’ Mr Nafees Mohammad also wrote about what was happening in various parts of Pakistan in name of Jihad and what was the army response to this, and how it was affecting the civilian population. Thrust of his argument was that in name of Jihad innocent people are killed and tortured; and the army in name of ‘military operations’ were also killing people. Mr Nafees Mohammad may have very valid points about the situation in Pakistan, but there are many who don’t want to talk about human rights committed there either by military or by non -state actors in name of jihad, simply because they regard Pakistan as a ‘fort of Islam’; and this ‘fort’ must not get any negative publicity as it tarnishes their image and affect their agenda. Apart from that, some Muslims only agitate human rights issues when culprits are non – Muslims and Muslims are victims; and when Muslim are butchering their fellow Muslim brothers they like to remain quiet or look to other side. So, it is prudent to leave on one side what goes on in Pakistan, even though that affects us more; and only concentrate what goes on in Kashmir controlled by India. I discussed and strongly opposed human rights abuses perpetrated by the Para – military forces in Kashmir in my last article; but fact remains that human rights abuses are not only committed by people in uniform. People roaming around in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir with guns in their hands are also responsible for human rights abuses. These jihadi warriors could be characterised in to Kashmiri Jihadis, and non – Kashmir Jihadis. Acts of violence committed by the local Jihadis could be understood, as they feel enslaved by India; and feel all avenues of peaceful struggle were exhausted; however, non – Kashmiri jihadi warriors fall in to different category; and in view of many critics they are ‘mercenaries’ trained and armed by Pakistan to commit acts of violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Some people would surely get angry because I have used the word ‘mercenary’, as in their view, these people are in Kashmir to perform religious duty of ‘jihad’. All the jihadi warriors are handsomely paid; and apart from the generous payment, they enjoy a special status in society and enjoy other perks, especially when they return after serving their time in Kashmir. Now, let us see how mercenaries are described, and see if this definition fits the role of these Jihadis in Kashmir: The Special Rapporteur of UN Human Rights Commission Geneva (resolutions 1995/5 and 1996/ 113), as quoted in Mercenaries and the Criminalisation of a Peoples Movement, page 2) Mr Enrique Bernales Ballestros said: “Mercenaries exist, and they are not a small number of individuals; they are groups of professionals selling their skill in war and violence; they are also criminal organisations, and represent an international blight devoted to perpetuating acts of violence which ruin human lives, create material losses and hamper economic activity……Mercenaries generally deny that this is what they are, claiming altruistic, ethnic, ideological or religious motives in order to disguise the true nature, according to international law, of their role…… Mercenary activity is paid. Hired mercenaries attack and kill for financial gains, in a country or conflict which is often alien to their own nationality…….He usually adopts ideologies which are extremist, radical and distinctly intolerant, but he commits criminal acts against the most basic rights of persons and of peoples because he is directly motivated by financial gain”. The above definition is self- explanatory; and I am sure many will agree that it applies to activities of many jihadi warriors operating in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan. Another documentary shown on the British TV Channel 4 some years ago also showed different aspects of the human rights abuses. This documentary showed Kashmiri people were killed and injured, and their houses destroyed by the Pakistani shelling. Some Kashmiris on camera told that they were in very difficult situation, if they helped the militants then they have to face wrath of the men in uniform; and if they don’t support the militants then they are harassed and tortured by militants; and in some cases killed on suspicion of being Indian agents. Critics of Jihadi warriors accuse most of them being uneducated, intolerant and unaccountable lot, who would commit any kind of violence to promote their ideology and sectarian interest, as witnessed in various parts of Pakistan where religious shrines and places of worship were targeted to kill people belonging to certain religious sects. Jammu and Kashmir was not immune from acts of violence carried out by these extremists to eliminate followers of other religions and religious sects. Some Jihadi warriors belonging to ‘Salafi’ and ‘Wahhabi’ sects of Islam do not regard Sunni Brailvi and Shias as Muslims, and justify their killings and destruction of their places of worship. I know, many people will either find Indian, Israeli or American hand behind these tragic acts; but fact remains that culprits or those who actually commit these acts of religious terrorism are Muslims and claim to be performing a religious duty. Some of them even say they are ‘purifying’ Islam. So when looking at sources of human rights abuses one cannot ignore this aspect of terrorism and human rights abuses. The biggest casualties the JKLF suffered, especially in early 1990s, were at the hands of the jihadi warriors, of course, all this changed when Yasin Malik was released in 1995 and he abandoned militancy. Local Kashmiri journalists confirm that militants and especially jihadi militants were also responsible for human rights abuses and torture in Jammu and Kashmir; however, they could not be held responsible for mass graves. In India, there are laws to protect people in uniform that they can crush militancy and anyone suspected of being associated with militancy or militants without any fear of repercussions. Despite that the army of every country have strict discipline and a system of accountability. However, most militants – jihadis or others – have very little formal education, no system of discipline or accountability; and after getting guns and some training to commit violence they feel unable to control newly acquired power and status and commit all sorts of acts. However, it must be pointed out that it is the responsibility of the government to maintain law and order, and protect life, liberty and property of citizens. Thomas Hobbes in his famous book ‘Leviathan’ talks of a ‘social contract’ which citizens make and surrender certain rights to the Sovereign in return for peace and stability. Citizens expect the government to provide peace and stability and enforce laws, as this right is not vested with militant groups. It is the government that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and other Covenants, and promises to protect and promote human rights. The state must not use its power to inflict pain and misery on people; or allow any armed groups to commit acts of violence and abuse human rights. If armed groups are committing acts of violence and inflicting pain and misery on people, still government is responsible for this because they had an obligation to protect life, liberty, property and honour of citizens; and if they cannot do that they have no right to rule. 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

Some facts about Resolution of Muslim Conference, 19 July 1947

Some facts about Resolution of Muslim Conference, 19 July 1947 Dr Shabir Choudhry Muslim Conference makes much of its Resolution passed on 19 July 1947; and deliberately twists facts to suit their agenda. Sad thing is that they want to impose that resolution fraudulently passed by around hundred people motivated by religious zealots. The following is from my Mphil research: Kashmir and the Partition of India. Although the Muslim Conference was considered as a puppet political organization of the Muslim League, it was not, ideologically, a united party, Choudhry Ghulam Abbas and his followers wanted the State to become part of Pakistan, whereas, Choudhry Hameedullah and his influential friends wanted it to become a sovereign state. After the arrest of Choudhry Ghulam Abbas the party was involved in internal politics; both Choudhry Hameedullah and Mir Waiz claimed the position of Acting President. These internal squabbles further weakened the already meagre and disorganized party. Later, in his autobiography, Choudhry Ghulam Abbas confirmed that he had appointed Choudhry Hameedullah as his successor. At the time when Choudhry Ghulam Abbas was behind the walls of the Kathua prison, Choudhry Hameedullah Khan as the acting President of the Muslim Conference, addressing a press Conference in a leading hotel in Jammu on 28th May 1947 declared: ‘Accession to Pakistan would be unpleasant to Hindus while accession to India will disturb Muslims. Therefore, we have decided not to enter into any controversy either with India or Pakistan. The second thing we have decided in that we should try to acquire independence for the State. The third question now before us is, what would be the position of the Maharaja? We have never been lacking in showing loyalty and resects for him and it is because of this attachment that we did not support the Quit Kashmir Movement, although in one way it was a natural movement. We, therefore, felt that we should try to find out a solution which will maintain the position of the Maharaja Bahadur, while at the same time; it should also satisfy the praja. The best solution that we have found is that the Maharaja should become a constitutional King, as is the position in many other countries. The fourth thing that we have decided is that we should have a Constituent Assembly of our own to draft our constitution. The Muslim League has already boycotted the Constituent Assembly (British Assembly). Therefore its proposed constitution cannot satisfy Muslims because it must have been prepared by hundred per cent Hindus. If our four representatives sat in this Assembly, they would just be wasting their time.’ The statement further said: ‘I have the support of all important leaders of the Muslim Conference and Choudhry Ghulam Abbass Khan has himself expressed agreement with this proposal. A representative convention of the Muslim Conference will be called within a month, where the proposal will be unanimously adopted. This solution, therefore, should be considered as the official policy of the Muslim Conference. The Muslim League has not given us this solution, nor are we presenting it to deceive the Hindus. We have arrived at this solution in all honesty and after taking into account the local situation. The only connection that the Muslim league has with it is that its past and present policy of non-intervention in Indian States has strengthened us. I would like to say in all honesty that we have had no talks in this connection with any leader or worker of the Muslim League, and that Hindus should also give up being led by the Congress. The best thing for us all is that the League and the Congress should leave us undisturbed and that we should give up both the parties. When we say that we want to separate ourselves from Hindustan and Pakistan, we mean that we want to be friends with both of them, but we do not want to be influenced by either of them. We should have political as well as economic relations with both. We think that we will have good relations with Pakistan and, in the presence of the ruling Hindu dynasty; we will also have good relations with India.’1 The leadership summoned a meeting of the Working Committee on 18th July 1947. The meeting was to be followed by a Convention next day in Srinagar. The Working Committee unanimously endorsed the Statement made by the Acting President and adopted a resolution calling upon the Maharaja to declare the state’s independence, and assuring him of the party’s whole- hearted support and co-operation. It must be noted that a Working Committee (or Executive Committee in some organizations) is the cream of any political party and it normally consists of the party’s most senior and dedicated members. The Working Committee of the Muslim conference unanimously adopted a resolution of the State’s complete independence. It becomes apparent that the senior-most members of the Muslim Conference, who worked their way up to become members of the working committee and who had political awareness, carefully considered the future of the state and came to the conclusion that complete independence was the most honourable and acceptable solution for all communities. As expected, this resolution was to cause bitterness in some quarters, especially among those rights – wing factions led by Mir Waiz Yousaf Shah. On the following day, 19th July 1947, the party’s Convention was to take place. It was not a Convention in the sense where political parties selects delegates and invite them. There were no invitations sent, nor delegates selected; news of the Convention was published in a newspaper. Since there were no invitations, virtually anyone could have walked in. According to Yousaf Saraf, who was also a member of the Muslim Conference; ‘without Mir Waiz the party hardly existed in srignar.’2 Mir Waiz was a religious leader and had some religious following. Since the so- called Convention was held in Srinagar, the nerve centre of politics, it was no problems for Mir Waiz to muster fifty or sixty people. When the so-called ‘Convention’ began, according to Yousaf Saraf, who was present, there were about one hundred people in attendance. They were not necessarily all politically conscious or even members of the Muslim Conference, because there were no invitations given out. Most of the people were called by Mir Waiz Yousaf Shah and were his religious followers, rather than political followers. Anyway, when the resolution for ‘Independence’ was put forward, Yousaf Saraf moved a counter – resolution for accession to Pakistan. Highly exciting and religiously motivated speeches were made in favour of accession to Pakistan and the majority of those present had more religious influence than political consciousness. As a result, the counter – resolution won the day. It would be wrong to criticize these people for doing what they did; the whole Sub- Continent of India was at that time under the influence of religious fanaticism. Social life and political strategies were determined by religious beliefs. Hindus and Muslims were cutting each other’s throats in the name of religion. And politics was based on religion. Anyhow, the Independence resolution was defeated and this so-called ‘convention’ passed an Accession to Pakistan resolution; it was on the basis of this resolution that the Muslim Conference wanted to accede to Pakistan. The text of the resolution is as follows: ‘The inhabitants of the Princely States of the Sub-Continent had hoped that they would achieve the objectives of national freedom shoulder to shoulder with the inhabitants of British India, But unfortunately, whereas the inhabitants of British India achieved freedom with the partition of the Sub-Continent, the Third June Plan has strengthened the hands of the rulers of the Princely States. So long as these autocrats do not bow before the demands of time, the future of the inhabitants of Indian States will remain bleak. Under these circumstances only three alternatives are open to the inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir State- namely, accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or the establishment of a free and independent state. After carefully considering the position, this Convention of the Muslim Conference has reached the conclusion that accession of the state to Pakistan is absolutely necessary in view of the geographic, economic, linguistic, cultural and religious considerations –because Muslims constitute 80% of the State’s population. All the major rivers of Pakistan have their source in the State, whose inhabitants are strongly connected with the people of Pakistan through religious, cultural and economic relations. The Convention strongly demands of the Maharaja that the people of Kashmir should be given complete internal autonomy and that he should treat himself as constitutional Head of State and set up a representative Legislative Assembly while handing over the portfolios of defence, foreign affairs and communications to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan’.3 Whatever the motives behind it, the resolution was passed by this so-called ‘Convention’. The future history of the State was destined to be influenced by it. It not only showed the weak discipline of he Muslim Conference, and its internal splits, but it also further divided the Muslims of the State. It is claimed that the Muslim League High Command wished this to happen and this is why, contrary to the official party line, this resolution was put forward. It is also claimed (by the then Acting President, Choudry Hameedullah Khan) that he adopted the independence policy after consulting Mr. Jinnah. These are two conflicting claims. Circumstantial evidence indicates that Choudry Hameedullah’s claim was true. It is strengthened by a statement made by Mr. Jinnah on 11th July 1947, that the Maharaja had three options open to him: accession to Pakistan, accession to India or independence. Mr. Jinnah, rather than asking the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan, acknowledged his right to become a sovereign ruler. This indicates that Mr. Jinnah personally had no objection to the State’s independence, and he encouraged Choudry Hameedullah Khan and Professor Ishaque when they visited him. On the other hand, Mr. Jinnah refused to have a meeting with Sardar Ibrahim (the Chief Whip of the Muslim Conference, and a staunch supporter of the proposal to Pakistan) despite the fact that Ghazanfar Ali Khan, the Central Minister, and Mian Amir-ud-Din, the mayor of Lahore, endeavoured to bring about the meeting. If Mr. Jinnah wanted the State to accede to Pakistan, he surely would have granted a visit to Sardar Ibrahim, who was pro-Pakistan, and a rising star in the party, especially after the resolution was passed. All this suggests that Mr. Jinnah, rather than oppose an independent Kashmir, lent it his support to it. His far-sighted eyes looked upon it as an emerging buffer State which could have an important role in this strategically important region. But there were other influential people who wanted the State’s accession to Pakistan at all costs. Their quest, malicious activities and imperialist designs need careful examination and thorough research. References 1. Al-Islah 5th June, 1947; Saraf, op. cit., Vol. 1, p.707. 2. Saraf, Justice Y., op. cit., Vol. 1, p.679. 3. Ibid., Vol. 1, p.711.

My message on Kashmir is simple

My message on Kashmir is simple Dr Shabir Choudhry 26 July 2012 My message on Kashmir dispute is simple; but despite this, many people either don’t understand it, or don’t want to understand it. My message is State of Jammu and Kashmir is not part of India or Pakistan. Our country is occupied and forcible divided; and we have to struggle against this occupation and forced division. Areas under the occupation of Pakistan were further divided by the government of Pakistan. One area of more than 4,000 square miles was called Azad Kashmir; and the other area of more than 28,000 square miles was called Northern Areas. This area was further divided and about 2200 square miles was given to China in 1963 to have friendly relations with that country. In my honest opinion, Pakistan did all that to ensure that we people of Jammu and Kashmir under their control remain divided, oppressed and enslaved. Despite this fact, some of us feel that the areas under occupation of Pakistan are free and people enjoy good quality of life; and what needs to be done is to fight for the liberation of the area occupied by India. Pakistani ruling elite has been clever that they, in name of religion and brotherhood, persuaded many people of Jammu and Kashmir that because of religious affinity they should join Pakistan, even though when East Pakistan could not remain part of Pakistan because of this religious affinity. Furthermore, despite religious affinity, the Federal Government of Pakistan did not hesitate to attack Balochistan four times and deprived people of Pakistan of their fundamental social and political rights. The ruling elite did not even care how they treated the people of Gilgit Baltistan, who were forcibly enslaved and ruled with draconian laws; and shouted about wrong doings on the Indian side of the occupation, and urged the people of Jammu and Kashmir to rise up against India. Those Kashmiris who acted as puppets of the Pakistani elite hailed Pakistan second only to Makkah; and propagated that they should become part of this land of pure where everything was rosy. Sad thing is that those Kashmiris who were using slogan of Kashmiri nationalism were also wooed to forget about what was going on in areas under Pakistan and practically became soldiers of Pakistan to wage a war against India to liberate Kashmir under India. This policy was propagated by India and the International Community as a ‘proxy war’; and the Kashmiri people suffered because of this wrong policy. I acknowledge that due to political immaturity, under influence of our leadership and widespread propaganda, I also supported this wrong policy, believing that it was the right policy. However, later on, in mid 1990s we came to know that people of Jammu and Kashmir were, once again, used to protect and promote Pakistani interest; and we clearly expressed our disagreement and opposed this policy. I and my colleagues had to pay a big price for this change of policy; and continue to do so. Just because we, at one time under influence of our leadership, supported a wrong policy on Kashmir, does it mean that under available new information we have no right to rectify our past mistakes; and tell people what is being done in name of Kashmiri nationalism and Kashmiri liberation? There are many examples in Islamic history where people followed a policy of opposing Islam or opposing an Imam; and after discovering truth they became the biggest supporters of Islam and the Imam. I am referring to Hazrat Umer Bin Khataab who fiercely opposed Islam, but after finding truth of Islam became among the biggest defenders of Islam; and Hazrat Hur who was a commander of the army of Yazeed, and after realising that policy of Yazeed was wrong and Hazrat Imam Hussain was an innocent and was on the right path, sided with the Imam, even though they were heavily outnumbered and would be martyred. A few days ago, I communicated with a Kashmiri from District Bhimber and who belongs to JKSLF. He supported the JKLF policy on Kashmir, and I opposed it. He appreciated my services for the JKLF and the struggle for an independent Kashmir; and wanted to know why I left the JKLF. I gave him documentary evidence of what happened during that time and proved what blunders the JKLF leadership committed in name of the JKLF and independence. He, like many other people of the JKLF, was not aware of the JKLF history as I know it. He supported militancy to liberate Kashmir from India. He even supported militants to be trained and sent from the Pakistani side of the Kashmir. However, he acknowledged that both India and Pakistan were occupiers. I asked him what if some people from Jammu come to Bhimber with guns and other weapons to liberate us; or train some local people to fight against the Pakistani occupation. Any armed activity would be brutally crushed by army of Pakistan stationed in Azad Kashmir; as India did on the other side. It would result in human rights abuses, arrests, torture, killings and even rapes, would you support the people of Bhimber to continue to get guns and militants from Jammu to liberate us? He immediately said he would not support this policy. I asked him why. He said because it would be disastrous for the local people. I said the policy of sending guns and militants to the other side is also disastrous for the people living there; and just because it affects people on the other side and not us, some people continue to support this policy of sending guns and militants. Luckily he understood the logic of this. I said, no one denies about the human rights abuses that have taken place on the Indian side; but the question is, did this start before we sent the guns and militants or after. Before the militants were sent in 1988, the problems of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by India were of different nature. It was the militant struggle that resulted in human rights abuses of this scale; and provided a reason to men in uniform to get in to our streets, houses and bedrooms. I discussed this conversation with my friend Abbas Butt and Chairman of KNP. He said what differences this conversation has made. The man will still be part of the party which introduced this policy and caused havoc in Kashmir. He said we people are not ready for independence yet. Some of us are unable to differentiate between independence and slavery. Still some of us don’t know who is our friend and foe. Some of us still don’t know if we want some kind of accession or independence. Some of us still don’t know if our struggle is religious or political. What Abbas Butt has said makes a lot of sense. Despite all the sacrifices we are nowhere near our goal of independence; if anything, the dispute has been made more complicated and those who occupy us are in much stronger position. On the other hand, we people of Jammu and Kashmir are more divided and have become weaker. Call me what suits you, but as a writer, thinker and one of the leader of the Kashmiri struggle for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir, my role is to say what is true and not what people want to hear. A leader leads; and is not lead by people. Even some friends have advised me that I should change my policy because many people are not understanding it or accepting it. I don’t believe in changing policy just because people do not understand it. Prophet Nooh preached for many hundred years; and he only managed to convert less than hundred people – vast majority was against him, even though his message was correct and method of dispensing that message was also correct. People criticised him, but he did not change his message. Just because he did not get many people converted to Islam, can critics say he should have changed his message or his method of conveyance to please people or be popular with them? His job was to pass on the message; and he did that honestly and efficiently. I am not even equal to dust of shoes of the Prophets, but I am trying to follow the footsteps of prophets- speaking truth and passing on the message which I sincerely believe is true. My job is to provide accurate information. I believe in the following: The entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed and it is occupied; Human rights abuses take place in all parts of Jammu and Kashmir with varying degrees; and I condemn all human rights abuses; The Kashmir dispute is not a religious in nature and there is no danger to Islam in Jammu and Kashmir. It is a political struggle; and we must not bring religion in to this, as it makes it more complicated and spreads hatred and intolerance; I still believe Jammu and Kashmir must become independent, as accession to India or Pakistan is not in our national interest; However, our struggle is on the Pakistani side of the divide; in other words those who are occupied by India should struggle against India and those who are occupied by Pakistan should struggle against the Pakistani occupation. 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

Kashmir dispute and role of neighbours

Kashmir dispute and role of neighbours Text of speech of Dr Shabir Choudhry delivered in a seminar arranged by Kashmir National Party in Watford on 29 July 2012. Mr Chairman, friends and colleagues Aslamo alaikam I congratulate the KNP leadership for arranging this seminar in holy month of Ramadan, when traditionally most Kashmiris take a break from political activities because of fasting. This shows the commitment of the KNP leaders and workers to the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. Topic of the seminar is interesting, and surely it needs more than ten minutes to properly explain roles of our neighbours. There is an old saying that one can choose friends, but cannot choose neighbours. We are lucky to have a beautiful country which is situated in strategically very important region; but we are unfortunate to have bad neighbours. Beauty of our country, its resources and its strategic location could have been our great strength if we were independent; but these three factors have proved to be our worst enemies, because our neighbours have imperial designs and they want to occupy us and exploit our resources. Jammu and Kashmir is a landlocked State. Our neighbours are India, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan. We are surrounded by three nuclear states and we live in very unstable and volatile region. The unresolved Kashmir dispute is very serious threat to peace, security and stability of the entire region. Out of these four neighbours Afghanistan government has not provided us any trouble since their rule was ended by the Sikhs in 19th century; however, some people from there joined the attack on Jammu and Kashmir arranged and supported by Pakistan in October 1947. The other giant neighbour, China has, by and large, remained neutral for many years; however, they captured Aksai Chin in a war with India in 1962. From then onwards they showed more interest in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir; and in 1963 they signed a treaty with Pakistan and in name of border adjustment managed to obtain about 2200 square miles of our territory from Gilgit Baltistan. This gift of Pakistan to China helped Pakistan to win a friendship of China; and it provided China with access to outside world and it also helped China to link this territory with Aksai Chin. On the international level China supported the Pakistani stand on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, wrong as it was; and they had little regard for the emancipation or wishes of the people who were forcibly divided by India and Pakistan. This support of China for the Pakistani stand on Kashmir had its ups and downs, but China remained a good friend of Pakistan; and helped them with various projects including construction of the Karakorum Highway which links both countries by road. However, over the past decade China has taken very profound interest in affairs of Gilgit Baltistan, and in name of development projects and exploration have their strong civilian and military presence in this important region. It appears that government of Pakistan and some Kashmiri leaders are trying to cut out some role for China in the Kashmir dispute, which is unfortunate and could prove to be disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir and the region. Mr Chairman The third neighbour of Jammu and Kashmir is Pakistan, which had a Standstill Agreement with the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. The government of Pakistan violated the Standstill agreement and managed a tribal invasion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which resulted in death of thousands of innocent people; and forced the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to seek help from India, the fourth neighbour of Kashmir. India provided help after gaining a ‘provisional accession’ from the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir; and the Indian forces landed in Kashmir on 27th October 1947. Both India and Pakistan wanted to make Jammu and Kashmir part of their country; and fought their first war over control of this state. No country could win the war and the war resulted in division of Jammu and Kashmir. While the war was going on, India approached the UN Security Council for help under Article 35 of the UN Charter. The Security Council passed many Resolutions on Kashmir, some were passed before the UN Commission for India and Pakistan reached the region to investigate the matter, and some were passed afterwards; however, two Resolutions known as UNCIP Resolutions are fundamental to understanding of the Kashmir dispute, as they explain which country had to do what to resolve the Kashmir dispute. The UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948 stated and I quote: (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State. (2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. Unquote To date Pakistan has not vacated those areas as demanded by the Security Council Resolution; and of course no progress on the proposed UN plebiscite. Later on in mid 1950s, when Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO military alliances against the Communist bloc, unfortunately Kashmir dispute became part of the ‘Cold war’; and after obtaining the Soviet backing India declared Kashmir to be its ‘integral part’. India pursued to get Kashmir in name of democracy and on the bases of this provisional accession. Pakistan, on the other hand, tried to get Kashmir in name of religious affinity and brotherhood. India called Kashmir its ‘integral part’ and Pakistan called it ‘Sha Rag’ – meaning jugular vein. Both countries wanted more territory to advance their national and strategic interests; welfare of people of Jammu and Kashmir was not their priority. There is a long list of blunders that have been committed in name of Kashmir with disastrous results for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but time does not allow me to give details. During the early years of the dispute India talked about rights of people, but after mid 1950s India put its cards on table and declared Kashmir its ‘integral part’. Pakistan on the other hand continued to fool people of Jammu and Kashmir and people of Pakistan in name of Islam and brotherhood; and pursued their imperial agenda on Kashmir with disastrous consequences for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and which endangered peace and stability of the region. In other words Pakistani governments disguised their agenda on Kashmir in name of Islam, and continue to do so; and it is unfortunate that many Kashmiris still do not understand their hidden agenda and imperial aims. In view of one Kashmiri nationalist, “India is our open enemy, and Pakistan is our hidden enemy. It is for people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide whether they want to use their time and resources to expose deeds of hidden enemy or the enemy that is already exposed”. Furthermore, Pakistani governments went out of their way to ensure that Kashmir dispute is seen as a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan; and not as an issue of a nation seeking independence. They curtailed people of Jammu and Kashmir’s right to independence by limiting the choice to become either part of India or Pakistan. Apart from that, Pakistan government agreed in article 6 of the Simla Agreement of 1972 that India and Pakistan will take the final decision on Kashmir dispute by bilateral talks, hence no role for the people of Jammu and Kashmir in this matter. Sad thing is that the Pakistani officials still fool us and people of Pakistan by giving this impression that the UN and its Resolutions have a role in determining the future of Jammu and Kashmir. I conclude by urging the people of Jammu and Kashmir to understand policies of all three countries that occupy our territory; and not be fooled in name of religion. Imperialists have no religion. Their policy is to occupy, exploit and make profits; and that is what they are doing. We are occupied, forcibly divided, exploited; but sad thing is that instead of understanding the real situation and formulating appropriate policies to fight this occupation we are fighting each other, hence strengthening the hold of those who occupy us. Mr Chairman thank you for your patience.