http://wntv.uk/dr-shabir-choudhry-kashmir-national-party-uk/
Monday, 24 October 2016
Sunday, 23 October 2016
Memorandum presented to Nawaz Sharif Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan on Black Day
Memorandum
presented to Nawaz Sharif Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan on
Black Day London 23 October 2016
Dear brother in
Islam, Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan may Allah’s
mercy be on you.
1. Whereas, as you know, Islam associates great importance on honouring
agreements; it is sad to note that Islamic Republic of Pakistan openly and
aggressively violated the
Standstill Agreement which the Maharaja
Hari Singh, as an independent Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State concluded with
Pakistan. Almighty Allah
commands:
‘Oh people of faith, honour your
pledges’. 1
2. Whilst Islam rightly attaches great
importance on saving human life and saving dignity of women and old, it pains
me to point out that those who attacked our motherland – Jammu and Kashmir on
22 October 1947, looted and plundered our cities, villages and
killed innocent people, burnt our shops and houses, kidnapped women and raped
them. It adds to our suffering that all this was done in name of Islam and
jihad.
We are sure you know Islam says: If you kill one innocent human being
that is as if you have killed the entire humanity. During this unprovoked
aggression which was designed to capture Kashmir, tens of thousands of innocent
people of Jammu and Kashmir were mercilessly butchered; even women and old were
not spared.
We wonder who will be held responsible for all these killings, rapes,
kidnappings and forced conversions on the Day of Judgement. Our beloved Prophet Mohammed Peace Be
Upon Him commanded:
‘Do not break your pledges, do not mutilate dead bodies, and do not kill
children’. 2
3. Although Islam
says respect rights of neighbours, however, we sadly note that our Muslim neighbour,
contrary to the
teaching of Islam and civilised behaviour, has always exploited us, abused us,
created problems for us, curbed our fundamental rights; and initiated such
policies that aggravated the already bad situation and added to our misery and
suffering.
4. Being strongly of the opinion that all our current problems are related to that unwise and
unwarranted attack of 22 October 1947; as it forcibly divided our State and we
suffer on the both sides of the divide. Our land became a battleground for
competing interests of our mighty neighbours, namely India, Pakistan and China,
in which we suffer.
5. Note with regret
that, despite our suffering and a great human and economic loss of Pakistan,
Jammu and Kashmir and India, Pakistan has not abandoned its obsession to
capture Kashmir by force.
6. Urge you to
reconsider rationale of this policy which is imperialist in nature. If you are
a true well-wisher of people of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir,
then please stop export of extremism, terrorism, religious intolerance and
hatred to areas of Jammu and Kashmir State; and grant fundamental rights to the
people which live under your control in so called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit
Baltistan.
7.
Request
you to revisit teaching of Islam with regard to equality and fairness. If still
you feel we are not equal to you, citizens of Pakistan, then, at least,
consider us human beings and let us live with honour and dignity. Unite both
areas of Jammu and Kashmir State; and let us be masters of our land and
resources.
We look forward to hearing a positive reply
from you.
References:
1.
Holy
Quran, Sura Almahida, section 1
2.
Hadees
narrated by Hazrat Buraydah in Muslim Shareef and quoted in Islam and
sanctity of Human Life, page 9
People from Jammu, Srinagar and various parts of Pakistani Administered
Kashmir participated in the demonstration.
Representatives of
the following parties signed the memorandum:
Organisation Name signature
1/ Kashmir National
Party Abbas Butt
2/ JKLF Nazam
Bhatti
3/ UKPNP Zulfqar Khan
4/JKPNP Tahir Bostan
5/Friends of
JK Ejaz Pracha
6/ Voice of
Jammu Yogish Sharma
Issued by Dr Shabir
Choudhry: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Friday, 21 October 2016
Why is Pakistan letting itself Colonised by China?
|
Why is Pakistan letting itself Colonised by China?
21 October 2016
International Monetary Fund's
latest warning on CPEC has sent ripples in Pakistan's political class. Soon
after the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s assessment on CPEC, lawmakers
from the upper house of Pakistan expressed fear that the CPEC could turn into
another East India Company if the country's interests were not actively
protected.
Last year in April, Chinese
President Xi Jinping rolled out his most ambitious project China Pakistan
Economic Corridor (CPEC) with the initial investment of 46 billion-dollar.
The CPEC investment is one of China's biggest ever outside the country.
Soon after the announcement,
Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said that the $46 billion CPEC would
be a "game-changer" for the country as well as for the entire South
Asia region. Sharif's statement underlines the geopolitical significance of
this project not only for Pakistan but also for the South Asian giant.
But, the first real assessment by
an international financial global organization has raised serious doubts
about the long-term impact of the Chinese investment in Pakistani economy. IMF
has warned in its latest report that the repayment obligations that come with
the investment will be serious for the country.
Moreover, Beijing stands to gain more as the CPEC will essentially make it easier for China to import oil, gas and other resources from Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran via the port and an extensive land route in Pakistan.
However, Pakistan has got its own
share of problems that will force Nawaz Sharif to walkover the IMF's warning
and look forward to the Chinese investment. Here's why:
Weak Economy
As per the State Bank of Pakistan,
country's total foreign debt and liabilities has piled up to Rs 74 trillion,
which is a record high in the history of Pakistan. Till 2013, the total debt
of the country stood at $61.9 billion, which was the first financial year of
Nawaz Sharif's government.
Pakistan badly needs huge foreign
investment as the current situation is quite disappointing. The State Bank of
Pakistan statistics showed that country's overall foreign private
investment (FPI) plunged by 55 per cent to $405.5 million during
July-February 2015-16 from $898.3 million in the same period last year.
This drastic decline was due to a massive outflow of $345 million from the equity market during the period. Nawaz Sharif knows that terrorism has severely affected country's prospects of foreign investment. And in such turbulent time, he is in no position to back off from the 46 billion-dollar project which is three times the total FDI Pakistan has got in the last decade. India's Rise ::
Pakistan's relations with the
United States has virtually ebbed over a period of last one decade. And,
during the same period India's economy has done fairly well. Last year, India
replaced China as the fastest growing major economy in the world.
According to Delhi's Central
Statistics Office, India's economic growth is now expected to hit the high
of 7.6 per cent in year 2016. India's last year's quarterly growth was in
line with expectations at 7.3 per cent which outstripped China's 6.9 per
cent.
All troubles aside, India's
economic growth could be the most worrying factor. India is one of the
biggest purchasers of arms in the world and Pakistan will be deeply worried
with its neighbour's military prowess exceeding its own. China also sees
partnering with Pakistan as an effective strategy to counter India's rise in
the region.
"Much of what we have seen in
the strengthened China-Pakistan alignment in the last decade is a reaction
to the rise of India. China's move to invest in Pakistan has been
purely geopolitical and it's policy has been driven by power political
criteria," writes Andrew Small in his book - The China-Pakistan Axis.
Energy Crisis
Pakistan has also been gripped by severe
energy crisis for some years with parts of the country facing acute
electricity shortage. In most of the places electricity cut goes for up to 20
hours a day. The country has an installed electricity capacity of 22,797
megawatts (MW), but production stands at a dismal 12,000 MW. China has
announced $34.4 billion for power projects in Pakistan.
Poverty
What is more serious of all is
acute poverty in Pakistan. A little less than half the population of Pakistan
comes under poverty line. At least four out of 10 Pakistanis are living in
acute poverty with the population of Balochistan faring the worst among the
provinces. Pakistan's first-ever official report on multidimensional
poverty states that 38.8 per cent of Pakistan's population lives in poverty.
A majority of the rural population 54.6 per cent lives in acute poverty.
|
Monday, 17 October 2016
ISIS leaders look to Pakistan for refuge, By MADHAV NALAPAT
ISIS leaders look to Pakistan for refuge
By MADHAV NALAPAT 15 October, 2016
Several serving and retired Pakistan army officers are in West Asia,
training the fighters of ISIS and other like-minded organisations.
More than 300 serving officers of the
Pakistan army and over 2,000 retired officers have in the past been, or are in,
West Asia, “training fighters of ISIS and other like-minded organisations” in
their war against the governments of Iraq and Syria, claim analysts working
exclusively on tracking that particular complex of terror organisations. They
say that “elements (of the Pakistan army) are taking leave and going under
assumed identities to Iraq and Syria to conduct such training”.
In the past, such activities also
took place in Jordan, Turkey and Qatar, but over the past year, Amman, Doha and
Ankara have become wary of groups of fighters, who, for long, were using their
territories for training and recuperation. Training is given “in the handling
of communications equipment, interception of signals and the handling of
explosives”.
The analysts spoken to claim that
“more than money, it is ideological fervour that is motivating such Pakistani
volunteers” and that assistance to ISIS is taking place “despite opposition
from a few senior officers in the military”, who, however, have so far declined
to punish the volunteers (training ISIS, Al Nusra and other such groups) “for
fear of sparking a revolt in their ranks, where hundreds of officers and tens
of thousands of other ranks are sympathetic to ISIS”. Hence, it has not been a
surprise that almost all recent attacks by ISIS-affiliated “lone wolves” have
had a Pakistan connection. An example is the recent terror attack in New York
and New Jersey during the week after the anniversary of 9/11.
Oddly, the United Nations Security
Council has yet to take up and get implemented India’s two decades-old proposal
for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, although it is hoped
that Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi will be able to get the UN
leadership to agree to ratify this essential legal move in the battle against terror.
Despite efforts by the Barack Obama
administration and its regional allies to slow down the Syria-Iran-Russia
advance against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the takeover of
Aleppo by the troika is calculated to take place by mid-November. Alarmed at
the advance of the Iraqi army and the irregulars backing its thrust into Mosul,
President Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is “seeking a Jarabalus” in Mosul. In
that Syrian town, ISIS fighters switched their label to become “moderate opposition
fighters” and are now protected by the Turkish army. In that garb, they expect
to recuperate from recent losses and get back into the battlefield against the
US and its European allies, the way the Taliban did in Afghanistan just two
years after getting rescued by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) wing of
the Pakistan army in Kunduz and other locations in 2001. Over the past five
months, and now in his final days in office, President Obama has once again
handed over the keys of foreign policy to Hillary Clinton, who through
Secretary of State John Kerry is following a policy of seeing the
Damascus-Moscow-Tehran combination as a bigger immediate threat to US than ISIS
and other jihadi groups operating in the region. This is despite the spread of
these organisations into Europe and North America. Preparatory to a US military
challenge to Moscow and Tehran in Syria, following an expected victory by the
Democratic Party nominee in the 8 November 2016 Presidential elections, a
demonisation of Russia and of Vladimir Putin has begun through the media. The
expectation is that as President, Hillary Clinton will be able to get even a
Republican-controlled House of Representatives as well as the US Senate on her
side, should there be actual combat on a limited scale between the US and
Russian militaries in a regional theatre that has witnessed bloodshed on a
scale not seen since the Vietnam War. Such a conflict between Russia and the US
could escalate in such a manner as to provide an escape hatch for elements of the
ISIS leadership, which is facing the loss of territorial outposts in Iraq and
Syria because of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Russia together with a strong and
largely separate showing by the Kurds, despite the relative lack of assistance
given to these fighters by the Obama administration, which is very respectful
of the views of Doha, Riyadh and Ankara in such matters.
However, those tracking the
activities of ISIS in Iraq and Syria say that the organisation is still nervous
of a “November Upset” in the US elections that would bring Donald J. Trump into
the White House. The Republican Party nominee has publicly endorsed a strategy
of going along with Iran and Syria to battle ISIS. Taking a view from history,
those such as John Kerry who see the troika fighting ISIS as the primary foe,
may be compared to British and French leaders in the 1930s who saw Adolf Hitler
as a lesser evil than Joseph Stalin, while Trump may be compared to President
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who from the start of his tenure in office saw Hitler as
the main foe and was willing to ally with (and assist) Moscow in its battle
against Nazified Berlin. Contrary to the views expressed in US media, it is
Trump and not Clinton that ISIS and Al Nusra fear, given the Republican
nominee’s persistence in placing ISIS at the core of US security threats,
rather than Moscow and Tehran, the way the Clinton team does. Trump has also
distanced himself from the soft line of both the Bush and Obama administrations
on Pakistan, with “action” thus far against that country’s terror factories
being largely limited to words designed to soothe policymakers in Delhi and
excite the media in India into reporting that Washington has finally “gone
against” Islamabad.
Washington’s longstanding softness
towards Pakistan is despite the fact that numerous terror groups are based in
Pakistan and have the protection of the Pakistan army. These include
Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Tehreek-e-Jafferia, Al
Qaeda, Siphah-e-Sahaba, Al Badr, Harkat-ul-Ansar, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen,
Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi and the Jamaat Al Fuqra. National
Security Advisor of Pakistan, Sartaz Aziz has himself admitted that terrorists
(mainly from Afghanistan) “by 2007-08 had covered most of the tribal areas.
They killed the tribal leaders, then they started establishing their
communications networks, IED factories, suicide training centres.” According to
Aziz, during the past 15 years, Pakistan has lost more than $100 billion as
well as the lives of over 10,000 security personnel. However, the fact is that
not just the civilian leadership of Pakistan but the military as well, which is
unable to act against such activities in an all out manner, because of the fact
that since 1979, “mujahids” were openly trained in Pakistan for the Afghanistan
and later the India theatre. From 1989 onwards, the cadre which later became
known as the Taliban, began to get trained by the ISI in camps in Pakistan,
mainly in the North West Frontier Province as well as in Pakistan Occupied
Kashmir.
Given the toxicity associated with
ISIS, in a (for that organisation) worst case scenario for it, such as the wresting
from it of Mosul, Aleppo and afterwards Raqa, it is likely that a “Turkish
solution” will be found for its dilemma, in that much of its cadre would, for
the record, switch their allegiance to the so-called “moderate fighting forces”
that in reality are (besides the Kurds) little other than ISIS and Al Nusra
elements in disguise. Analysts warn than elements in the Pakistan army, who
subscribe to the ideology of ISIS, are “busy locating places in Pakistan that
can be used to shelter leadership elements of ISIS”, the way Osama bin Laden
was protected by the military in Pakistan since his escape from Afghanistan
after 9/11 and his execution by US SEALS in 2011. “Already about 26 leadership
elements of ISIS have been identified and steps are under way to get them to
Pakistan through the Afghan border”, an analyst revealed, warning that India
needs to “prepare for this new threat, as it is certain that the Pakistan
military will make operations against India the condition for sheltering
elements of the ISIS leadership” in Pakistan.
Sunday, 16 October 2016
Civil Military relations in Pakistan are no clearer, Saneela Jawad
Civil Military
relations in Pakistan are no clearer, Saneela Jawad
“Security and foreign
policy is not in the civilian leaders’ control. The very fact that the
army, which in other countries is part of the government, is spoken of in
Pakistan as a separate and superior institution to the government in Pakistan
tells us everything,” said
Haqqani.
Pakistan’s security and military policy are covered in
ambiguity. The civil-military relationship has been a roller coaster ride for
many years and instead of changing the policies of the country the government
is not doing anything about improving its relations with its neighbouring countries
that have been falling apart due to this lack of clarity.
Not only that, it has drawn criticism from allies like
Afghanistan and the United States increasing the rift between the civil and
military leadership threatening the long-term diplomatic strain.
Pakistan’s increasing isolation from its neighbouring countries
has also shown the need for clearer policies.
Its variation between ‘good and bad Taliban’ and accusations
that Pakistan supports the Haqqani Network is a direct threat to peace and
stability in the region. Two years into Zarb-e-Azb, the state policy with
regard to the Haqqani Network is still not clear.
Former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani
while talking to DNA said that Pakistan’s security establishment has always had
a certain ambiguity in its policies. Not only that, it presents its policy
different to the domestic audience than it does to the rest of the world.
“Pakistan would like its people to believe that the sole threat
to them comes from India and that the Pakistani military is capable of handling
this threat along with its allies (in earlier years the US, now the Chinese and
maybe even the Russians),” he said in an email interview.
The deteriorating ties with the US further decreased Pakistan’s
importance as an ally to Washington after the US Congress debated on whether
Islamabad is a friend or foe and thus, decided to decrease its economic and
military aid given to Pakistan to fight ‘terrorism’.
Public opinion about Pakistan has also had an impact on policy.
According to a Pew poll, only 10 percent of Americans trust Pakistan and only
22 percent of Pakistanis have a favourable view of the United States.
Similarly, Pakistan, now, is facing one of the biggest
challenges ever. Ever since the purported ‘surgical strikes’ on terror camps in
Azad Jammu and Kashmir launched by Indian troops, Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi has been threatening to destroy Pakistan. Not only that, New
Delhi has intimidated Islamabad with a water war.
Because of Indian lobbying, two US Congressmen have proposed a
bill to have Pakistan declared a ‘terrorist state’.
“Pakistan is a nuclear state, so the US will make sure not to
put it under sanctions as its necessary for the US to stay connected with
Pakistan to work on nuclear non-proliferation,” said academic Qamar Cheema
while talking to DNA.
“Hard sanctions are not imminent and this is not the first time
that the United States is talking about declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of
terrorism,” said Haqqani.
Similarly columnist and a senior politician Ayaz Amir while
talking to DNA stated that sanctions are too extreme of an option.
Additionally, the tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan had
earlier caused clashes among the armed forces from both sides suggesting that
the relationship between the two regions is filled with disagreements.
The lack of clearer approach in policy matters as such raises
questions about the government’s competence. Why hasn’t the government been
able to reach a consensus on a strategy regarding counterterrorism?
“Pakistan has continuously been blamed for the US failure to
pacify the situation with Afghanistan. Due to the lack of state policies
Pakistan has always been put in the spotlight,” says Amir.
Kabul has repeatedly blamed Islamabad for all its woes and
snubbing it in every international forum. Not only that, the Afghan government
increased the transit tax on Pakistani goods by 100 per cent, which caused the
transporters to go on a strike, which has created a crisis situation across
borders.
Furthermore, the fact that Pakistan’s power structure is
dominated by military suggests how there is little room for the civilian
leadership to alter the state policy.
“You cannot blame the army for expanding their area, but in
order for civilians to dominate an area of their own they need to get their
priorities right,” said Ayaz.
Pakistan must develop a strategic and effective diplomacy to
deal with the issues. The internal rift between the government and the civilian
authority is the reason for the isolation of the country as it gives freedom to
the non-state actors against whom action must be taken. In addition to
that, Haqqani said, “Pakistan’s neighbours and the international community want
to know why Pakistan is willing to target only some terrorist groups –the ones
that wreak havoc inside Pakistan –but not others, especially those that attack
in Afghanistan and India.”
Despite its success, Operation Zarb e Azb has targeted some
terrorists, but only those that attack the Pakistani state.
“The Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani, that target Afghans and
Americans, and the Lashkar e Taiba and Jaish e Mohammad, that target Indians,
have faced no action,” Haqqani added.
This suggests that Pakistan needs to take action against all
terrorist groups to end the perception about ambiguity in its views on
terrorism.
Furthermore, Civilian leadership cannot afford to make essential
improvements in defining what truly is best for the nation or not.
“Security and foreign policy is not in the civilian leaders’
control. The very fact that the army, which in other countries is part of the
government, is spoken of in Pakistan as a separate and superior institution to
the government in Pakistan tells us everything,” said Haqqani.
Lastly, the need for leadership in Pakistan to set their
priorities right is very important. Not only that, the need for a realist
foreign policy should not be overlooked. The idea of a civilian control should
only be considered if the leadership understands what needs to be focused on.
We have to battle for our security, however, we ought not to
make India the end all and be the greater part of our presence.
Monday, 10 October 2016
Maharaja Hari Singh, last Ruler of an independent Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Shabir Choudhry
Maharaja Hari Singh, last Ruler of
an independent Jammu and Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry 10 October 2016
I am grateful to ‘Voice
of Dogras’ for inviting me to speak on the occasion of birthday of Maharaja
Hari Singh, the last Ruler of an independent Jammu and Kashmir State. This
function is to be held in the British Parliament on 10 October 2016.
Due to family
commitments, I am unable to personally take part in this important function;
however, I promised Madam Manu Khajuria, Chair of ‘Voice of Dogras’ that I will
send my message in writing.
Chair, Friends and
colleagues
All those who have
made some contribution to history are controversial people; and Maharaja Hari
Singh is no exception to this. The fact that he is a controversial figure is
tantamount to acknowledging that he has made some contribution to the history
of Jammu and Kashmir and the region; and which is still considered to be
significant.
Critics of Maharaja
Hari Singh
Maharaja Hari
Singh’s critics could be characterised as follows:
1/ People of the
Valley of Kashmir erroneously think they are the chosen people; and people
belonging to other regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are inferior to
them. Since Maharaja Hari Singh belonged to Jammu, they never accepted him as an
equal, or even a ‘Kashmiri’, hence the Quit Kashmir Movement against the
Maharaja, at a crucial time when important decisions were being made in whole
of the Indian Sub Continent.
At this important
juncture of history, people and the ruling elite of Jammu and Kashmir must have
been on the same page to safeguard interests of the Jammu and Kashmir State;
alas some political aspirants had other ideas which were detrimental to the
interests of the State.
2/ Muslims of the
State, in Particular Muslims of the Valley of Kashmir regarded him as a ‘biased’
Hindu Dogra; and examined his Rule from religious perspective. Most literature
against the Dogra rule or Hari Singh was produced by the Muslims of the Valley
which had religious and regional bias.
This literature, to
a large extent, had inbuilt bias against Hari Singh and his administration; and
many people of Pakistan, Pakistani occupied Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and the
Kashmir Valley were and still are influenced by that literature.
3/ Other critics of
Hari Singh view his administration in the light of the Western democracies of
21st century. Little they know what were the political, economic and
social conditions of the people in the British India, and especially in the
Princely India. All these approaches to evaluate his rule and his legacy are
wrong, as they will reach wrong conclusions.
Was he a communal
Ruler?
We have to analyse
his rule and achievements under the prevailing political, economic and social
conditions of that time. Moreover, we should examine his administration as a
Ruler of a multi religious and multi ethnic State; and not as a follower of a
particular religion.
He may not appear a
democrat, especially if we see his rule in the light of democracy we see in
Britain or in the Western Europe; but he was far ahead of other Princely Rulers
of India. He was the first Ruler to grant Assembly to the people of Jammu and
Kashmir.
Among the biggest
criticism against the Maharaja Hari Singh are events which culminated in to the
tragic event of 13 July 1931, in which more than 21 innocent citizens got
killed and injured. And because of these events people label him as ‘anti
Muslim’. His officials could have been too harsh with Muslims, and there were
heavy taxes imposed on Muslims, which generated resentment and hatred against
his rule, especially in 1947 when religious sentiments were running very high.
But is it not true
that officials even in 21st Century democracies, at times, treat
people harshly and exhibit anti certain community actions? Are we not
complaining about taxes and high prices on various items used in everyday life
in 21st century? In other words people always complain about
inequality and unfair treatment in every society. This is not to suggest that
officials of the Maharaja were pious people and they were not biased or
oppressive. Muslim subjects strongly felt that they were treated unfairly and
that they were burdened with heavy taxes which resulted in resentment and anti
Dogra sentiments.
Anyhow, before we comment
on the events in which Muslim sentiments were very seriously injured, thinking
people need to see why these four incidents happened at that particular time.
No one can trace any such incidents before 1930/31 or after this.
Then question
arises why these events happened at that time. Why sentiments of Muslims were
hurt. Can people remember there was a Round Table Conference in London in 1930?
This is where the British asked the Maharaja to lease areas of Gilgit to the
British that they could check the Soviet Russia’s activities from there.
As a loyal son of
the soil, the Maharaja refused. The British made it apparent that they did not
like this rather rebellious attitude of the Maharaja Hari Singh; and that there
would be a political price for this.
At that time Prime
Minister of Jammu and Kashmir was a British gentleman called Mr Wakefield. His
services could be utilized to teach Hari Singh a lesson, hence four communal
incidents in which Muslim sentiments were very profoundly hurt. Colonel Tej K Tikoo, commented in the
following words:
‘Clipping the
Maharaja’s wings would serve their immediate purpose. Besides, it would serve
its other strategic purpose; coerce him to submit to the British demand for
lease of Gilgit, the all important strategic outpost in the Great Game.’ The Prime
Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Wakefield, ‘was ideally placed to implement the
conspiracy on the ground’. 1
It looks he completed his task effectively.
These communal
events, bad and undesirable as they were, were orchestrated systematically to
inflame religious passions of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and in the British
India. They held the Maharaja Hari Singh responsible for these communal events,
and were determined to overthrow him. In this struggle, Muslims of Punjab were
supporting them.
It
is true, the Muslims were politically suppressed and economically strangled,
but was that not the case in the rest of India too; and there were other
reasons why they were behind, one reason was their refusal to learn English and
lack of cooperation with the British who were, at that time, masters of India.
Abdul
Qadeer was an employee of an English army officer, who was on holiday in
Kashmir, staying in a house boat in the Nasim Bagh. When the Muslims were
killed as a result of firing, and their passions were running very high. When
the crowd was emotionally charged, out of nowhere, Abdul Qadeer Khan appeared
on the scene and delivered a powerful speech to inflame passions of the
Kashmiri Muslims. He said:
‘Muslim
brethren! The time has now come when we should meet force by greater force to
put an end to the tyrannies and brutalities to which you are subjected; nor
will they solve the issues of disrespect to Holy Quran to your satisfaction.
You must rely upon your own strength and wage a relentless war against
oppression’. Pointing his finger towards the palace, he thundered: ‘Raze it to
the ground’. 2
Abdul
Qadeer Khan was arrested and imprisoned, but not many people know that under
the pressure of the British he was released secretly. Important point was he
came, played his role brilliantly, created the chaos which the British wanted;
and disappeared.
Glancy
Commission
After
the tragic killings of 13 July, The All India Kashmir Committee was established
to support Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir and lobby the British on their behalf.
They conducted a successful campaign to exert pressure on the British to
intervene to stop the killing of innocent people. Due to internal and external
pressure the Maharaja appointed a Commission, which was known as the Glancy
Commission.
The
Commission had the task of looking into the grievances of the community groups
in the State, particularly the Muslims, who had serious complaints against the
Government. The Maharaja also promised that once the Commission had completed
its task, he would hold a conference under the chairmanship of Mr. Glancy, to
consider constitutional reforms.
The
Commission completed its task and presented the report on 22nd March
1932, and made 12 recommendations, of which these are the important ones:
- That certain Muslim religious shrines should
be restored to Muslims;
- Complete religious liberty should be enjoyed
by every class and community;
- A special inspector of Mohammedan education
should be appointed and the number of Muslim teachers increased;
- All communities should receive a fair share
of Government appointments;
- All vacancies should be properly advertised;
- There should be decentralised power so that
ministers could function properly;
- Certain taxes should be abolished and
industrial development should receive the urgent attention of the
Government.
Conclusion
In my opinion Hari
Singh was a true nationalist. His vision and care for his subjects could be
seen from the fact that in order to protect interests of his subjects he
introduced State Subject Laws in 1927, that no non Kashmiri can buy any land in
Jammu and Kashmir.
It is sad to note
that whereas, India, by and large, has respected State Subject Laws, Pakistan
has openly contravened these laws, especially in Gilgit Baltistan where tens of
thousands of Pakistanis have settled; and a large areas of the region are
leased to rich Pakistanis who are plundering our natural resources.
He exhibited
statesmanship by dealing and having very tough negotiations with great and
clever leaders of that time, for example, people like Mohammed Ali Jinnah,
Pandit Nehru, Mahtama Gandhi, Mountbatten, and Sheikh Abdullah etc. He must
have had strong nerves to put up with the pressure of Muslim League, Indian
National Congress, Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Jammu and Kashmir
National Conference, and Mountbatten who were forcing him to either accede to
Pakistan or India. He did not surrender to this pressure; and as a loyal and
brave son of the soil, he protected the interests of Jammu and Kashmir State;
and opted to remain independent.
He wanted to
preserve his independence which he gained after lapse of the British
Paramountcy on 15 August 1947. As the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, he
concluded a Standstill Agreement with the government of Pakistan. He also
offered India a Standstill Agreement. India did not refuse to sign the
Standstill Agreement; but wanted to discuss this matter further.
It must be
remembered that he was the first Princely Ruler to establish the Constituent
Assembly. He was gradually giving away his powers to the people and the Assembly
when, Pakistan, in violation of the Standstill Agreement, attacked State of
Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October 1947. If there was no tribal invasion, it was
more than likely that Jammu and Kashmir would have been an independent country
with a constitutional monarchy.
When he was forced
by the Tribal attack to seek help from India, in his letter to Mountbatten,
Governor General of an independent India he wrote: ‘so
that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and
property and the looting of the Mahura power house,...The number of women who
have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed.... I have no option but to
ask for help from the Indian Dominion... . I have accordingly decided to do so,
and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The
other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this
basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained. This alternative I
will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have
life to defend my country...’ 3
If one impartially
read these sentences, one can see his pain on the destruction and loss of life
of his Subjects. No matter what was attitude of some of his officials, this
letter shows he cared for his people, whether they were Muslims or non Muslims.
In my opinion, the
biggest tribute to his rule is that even his Muslim critics also demand
protection under the State Subject Laws, be they are in Srinagar, Jammu, and
Muzaffarabad or in Gilgit. Furthermore, majority of the people seeking
unification and independence of Jammu and Kashmir demand all the areas of the
State of which he was the last Ruler.
References:
1/ Kashmir:
Its Aborigines and Their Exodus p 133
By Colonel Tej K Tikoo
2/
Justice Yusuf Saraf, Kashmiris Fight For Freedom, Vol. 1, p.374.
3/
Maharaja Hari Singh’s letter to Mountbatten written on 26 October 1947
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Chairman Institute
of Kashmir Affairs
Writer, TV anchor
and author of dozens of books on Jammu and Kashmir and India Pakistan
relations.
Tel: 07790 942471
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Contesting Kashmir, by Dr Niaz Murtaza.
Contesting Kashmir, by Dr Niaz Murtaza.
GIVEN the ulterior agendas of global powers like the US, the UN record
of resolving the status of contested domains is poor. Eritrea, Kashmir,
Palestine, East Timor and Western Sahara’s fates languished at the UN for
decades. Eritrea and East Timor gained freedom, not primarily due to the UN or
even their freedom forces, but because their occupiers — Ethiopia and Indonesia
— collapsed temporarily.
The cases of Kashmir, Palestine and Western Sahara, occupied by strong,
US-allied states, remain unresolved. Other freedom drives with mixed popular
support in strong states — eg in Turkey, India and Pakistan — have not even
made it to the UN agenda.
But some states got freedom without ever being on the UN agenda. Nearly
a dozen did so easily, but only because the ex-USSR collapsed. Bangladesh
became free with the helping hand of a powerful neighbour; Kosovo only after
relentless US bombing of Serbia. Showing maturity which often eludes even
democracies, Sudan’s autocratic regime let South Sudan go, despite little new
external pressure.
History has lessons for India and Pakistan.
This history has lessons for India and Pakistan. Those for Pakistan are
immediate. No strong state has ceded land recently to its arch enemy through
bilateral or multilateral talks or overt or covert war. Afghanistan’s freedom
came not from the fabled bravery of the ‘mujahideen’ but USSR’s lack of
emotional investment there and the creeping collapse of communism. India is a
rising, not decaying, power and is emotionally invested strongly in Kashmir.
Thus, the chances of India ceding Kashmir due to bilateral or multilateral
talks or covert or overt war are near zero.
Yet talks are the best bet even if they do not ensure success. They
allow Pakistan to escape global rebuke for and the domestic blowback from
hosting militants. Decades of space for anti-India and Afghan militants has not
given India-held Kashmir freedom or Pakistan strategic depth in Afghanistan
against India. It has boosted India’s global portrayal of Kashmir as a
terrorism case. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, it has ironically given India
strategic depth against Pakistan in Afghanistan. For this, our physical and
ideological defenders must be held accountable. But their accountability in
Pakistan is even less than that of corrupt politicians.
We may chafe at the silence of Western democracies at Indian atrocities
in Kashmir. But it may help reduce the hurt if we remember that Western powers
also remained largely silent when we committed atrocities in Dhaka since we
were a US ally then, as India is today. In fact, they also remain largely
silent even today at atrocities in Balochistan.
But of course tens of thousands of people do not periodically take to
the streets shouting “azadi, azadi” in Quetta as they do in Srinagar, making
silence on Kashmir more odious. Terrorism involves killing civilians. So which
is terrorism and more condemnable: the killing of 18 soldiers in Uri or the
killing of 80-plus civilians elsewhere in India-held Kashmir?
The lessons for India are less immediate, yet crucial. Yes, there is
little chance of it losing Kashmir soon. Yet, its Kashmir position is largely based
on might-is-right rather than ethics, logic or legality. No major power accepts
its position of endlessly referring to Kashmir as its integral part, not even
its close regional allies Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The world still considers
it disputed territory despite India’s growing global clout, reflecting the
absence of even an inch of progress despite decades of Indian efforts. That
principles are closer to Pakistan’s basic position on Kashmir (but not its
current strategies) is refreshing for a state whose policies are so often
unprincipled.
The lack of alternative views on Kashmir in more democratic India is
odd. Pakistani liberals critique their country’s security policies far more
openly despite greater risks here. Forget hawks, even Indian liberals argue
cockily that Pakistan cannot liberate Kashmir, implicitly accepting the lack of
principles in India’s position. The knee-jerk response to this jingoism is that
neither can India liberate Azad Kashmir or the part controlled by China.
A more sensible response is that even if the world does not run mainly
on principles, they are not entirely absent from the global political calculus.
As India becomes a bigger power and more aligned with Western democracies, such
an absence of principles will bite. The process can be hastened if Pakistan
reins in militants, for the global focus will then be on Indian atrocities.
Ironically, Pakistan itself is delaying this outcome.
But ultimately India will realise that territories do not become one’s
integral part by repeated unilateral declarations but by local and global
acceptance. To gain global legitimacy for its Kashmir claims, it will
eventually have to talk with Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Not the aggression of
the hawk but the patience of its cousin eagle, as shown so well by China on
Taiwan, will serve Pakistan more in contesting Kashmir.
The writer heads INSPIRING Pakistan, a progressive policy unit.
Published in Dawn October 11th, 2016
http://www.dawn.com/news/1289284/contesting-kashmir
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)