DO NOT ignite fire of communalism again.

DO NOT ignite fire of communalism again.

 

Some people always oppose everyone from Maharaja Gulab Singh to Hari Singh, but want that State which they established. Their main agenda is to fabricate facts, tell lies to mislead and confuse nationalists of Jammu and Kashmir, hence serve the interests of Islamic Pakistan.

 

The new issue is 6 November and 22 October 1947, even though both events are totally different.

 

On 22 October Pakistan violated a written agreement, and attacked a neighbouring country to occupy it. As a direct result of this military adventure Jammu and Kashmir was forcibly divided, and we are still suffering on both sides of the divide since 1947.

 

On 6 November 1947, there were riots in Jammu, which many claim was a ‘revenge’ of what Pakistan and Muslims did after 22 October 1947. In riots, people from both sides are killed. In the case of Jammu city and adjacent areas Muslims were in a minority, and more Muslims were killed than non-Muslims.

 

It must be noted that riots in Jammu started in the third week of August 1947, when Non-Muslims uprooted from the Pakistani Punjab (Sialokot and adjacent areas) reached Jammu; and the majority community took ‘revenge’ of what Muslims of Pakistani Punjab did to their co-religionists.

 

These riots were controlled to a large extent, but the fire started by Pakistan and some collaborators on 22 October reignited the riots in Jammu.

 

I do not condone any riots or killing of innocent people. I strongly condemn it, but please DO NOT ignite fire of communalism again. 

More than 23,000 Shia Muslims in Pakistan killed since 1963, according to new documentary.

More than 23,000 Shia Muslims in Pakistan killed since 1963, according to new documentary.       Jessica Aya Harn 28th October 2019

 

“How can one feel safe when as soon as you step out of [your] home, you see it written, ‘Shias are infidels, you kill them and you enter into Paradise’, written on every single street?”

Edit: August and September of 2020 has seen a renewed attack on Shia Muslims within Pakistan. Thousands of anti-Shia protesters recently gathered in the city of Karachi, with many openly showing ties to Sunni extremist groups like Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam and Sipah-e-Sahaba, which has documented links to the killing of hundreds of Shia Muslims over the past few years. This anti-Shia rally was linked to a serious of blasphemy accusations against a number of prominent Shia leaders across Pakistan, after a televised broadcast of an Ashura procession allegedly showed participants making negative remarks about certain Islamic figures. Many are fearing a renewed increase in sectarian violence and killings, as extremism continues to grapple pockets of the population and the vulnerable continue to suffer without government protection. 

A new documentary by Now This has highlighted the horrifying reality for many Shia Muslims in Pakistan: more than 23,000 have reportedly been killed for their beliefs since 1963, with experts claiming that this number is far likely to be even higher than local news outlets admit.

In Pakistan, Shia Muslims make up around 20% of the population, and while the country is tragically home to some of the worst sectarian violence in the world, in 2017 alone 95% of sectarian killings and violence worldwide was focused solely on Shia Muslims. The 15 minute documentary by NowThis travelled to Pakistan to uncover some of the reasons why the targeted violence against Shia Muslims is so extreme in the country:

Speaking to many who have lost family members and friends to targeted killings simply for being Shia Muslim, reporter Zahra Haider spoke to one young university student, whose father was killed in a targeted shooting during the holy month of Muharram. He spoke of the harsh reality of living in Pakistan as a Shia Muslim:

How can one feel safe when as soon as you step out of [your] home, you see it written, ‘Shias are infidels, you kill them and you enter into Paradise’, written on every single street? We have to protect ourselves, although its a basic right we should have from the government.”

Although relatively unknown, the very founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was a Shia Muslim himself. Establishing independence in 1947 after partition from India with the British withdraw from their colonial hold on India, Pakistan was created as a sanctuary state for Muslims. Initially proud of the fact the founder was Shia, from a minority group, while many others who were part of the new government came from other minority sects such as the Ahmadis, Hindus, and Christians of the country, many have pointed towards the irony of how Pakistan is now treating its religious minorities. Hassan Abbas, a US academic, spoke of how Pakistan is now failing its own citizens:

The Shia community [can] see that they are being targeted, but they are not listened to. The very idea of Pakistan is at stake. The idea of Pakistan was a pluralist nation…the modern-day Pakistan is defying its own idea of pluralism, equality, and democracy…it was supposed to be a sanctuary for Muslims.”

Anti-Shia rhetoric began to grow heavily starting in the 1980s, when Saudi Arabia started building and endorsing madrasas, or religious schools, in Pakistan. These religious schools taught extreme fundamentalism, a form of extreme Wahhabism, to poor children in Pakistan who otherwise could not afford a more standardized education. Religious extremists and fundamentalists have come out of these schools, and have become part of the problem of a growing movement of political parties targeting Shia Muslims.

Sectarian hate-groups like the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat and the banned (but still active) terrorist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi actively promote and preach anti-Shia rhetoric, with many calling on ordinary Sunni Muslims to kill and target Shia Muslims wherever they may be. The government of Pakistan continues to turn a blind eye, and according to Human Rights Watch, allows members of the banned hate group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi to even be pardoned from prison.

I don’t think the situation is getting any better in Pakistan for Shia Muslims. And not only Shia Muslims. Its the same for Ahmadis. Its the same for Hindus. Its the same for everyone, for every minority in Pakistan.”

While this documentary is an important step towards highlighting the horrifying reality for many Shia Muslims and religious minorities within Pakistan, it remains to be seen what the local government, as well as the international community, will do in order to combat the growing sectarian extremism within the region. As Shia Muslims continue to be killed for simply being Shia, it remains imperative on all our parts to remain informed, tolerant, and active towards protecting the Islamic values of peace and diversity.

https://themuslimvibe.com/muslim-current-affairs-news/more-than-23000-shia-muslims-in-pakistan-killed-since-1963-according-to-new-documentary?fbclid=IwAR2D6XpHh6eODubgVFUW5uteBL6yBLhpdNtpdfk56q7ZYDR_T_7Xa0prE7s

Pakistani action in Gilgit Baltistan is illegal and unconstitutional.

Pakistani action in Gilgit Baltistan is illegal and unconstitutional.

Dr Shabir Choudhry      03 November 2020

 

Selected Prime Minister of Pakistan’s decision to make Gilgit Baltistan a ‘fifth province’ of Pakistan is illegal and unconstitutional; and clearly against the UN Security Council Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

 

This decision has proven that Pakistan was never a well-wisher, an advocate or an Ambassador of the people of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani designs became apparent when they violated the Standstill Agreement and launched a military operation to occupy Kashmir on 22 October 1947.

 

The Pakistani policy on Jammu and Kashmir has always been that of an imperial power. However, they were shrewd enough to use the name of religion to fool people of Pakistan and people of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

Once again, Pakistan is fooling people in the name of development. Balochistan is a province of Pakistan, what development have they made there? They have looted and plundered resources of Balochistan to enrich themselves, and people of Balochistan are suffering immensely.

 

If they wanted to empower people of Gilgit Baltistan and carry out development programmes, they could have done that in 73 years of their occupation. To develop a region, one doesn’t need constitutional changes. What is required for development and to empower people is a clean heart and will, which is absent.

 

If Imran Khan had any sympathy with people of Gilgit Baltistan, then he could have declared to abolish Schedule Four, which restricts fundamental rights of the people; and other anti-people laws which allow secret agencies to curb fundamental rights of the people.

 

Imran Khan could have declared to release all political prisoners, like Baba Jan and dozens of other people imprisoned for demanding fundamental rights.

 

He could have declared that people of Gilgit Baltistan will have a big say in the CPEC projects, and that they will be empowered and appropriately trained and educated to play an important role in matters related to the CPEC.

 

Additionally, he could have declared that Gilgit Baltistan will have royalty of dams and the CPEC projects that the local people can benefit.

 

By doing what they have done in Gilgit Baltistan, and in Jammu and Kashmir, they have totally exposed themselves. People of Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistani occupied Jammu and Kashmir should take note of this and formulate appropriate policies to fight back Pakistani imperialism.

 

What suffering people of Jammu and Kashmir have endured since 1947, and especially after 1988, that is as a direct of wrong policies of Pakistan, and we need to learn from that.

 

People of Pakistani occupied Jammu and Kashmir need to understand Pakistani collaboration in messing up the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and subsequently ‘resolving’ future of other regions. After they have finished with Gilgit Baltistan, their next target will be so-called Azad Kashmir.

 

In view of the looming threat, the Prime Minister of so called Azad Kashmir needs to formulate appropriate policies, and may consider visiting Britain where more than one million citizens of Azad Kashmir reside.

 

Dr Shabir Choudhry

President Foreign Affairs Committee of United Kashmir Peoples National Party.

Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Twitter :@drshabir

What constitutes Anti Pakistan?

 What constitutes Anti Pakistan? 

Dr Shabir Choudhry 25 June 2006 

It was perhaps in 1974 when I was first called 'anti Pakistan'. My crime, as always has been, was to criticise Pakistani policies on Kashmir. Kashmir is my homeland, and love of homeland is part of my faith as was said by our beloved Prophet PBUH after migrating from Makkah to Madina. 

State of Jammu and Kashmir, its future and welfare of the people is close to my heart. As a loyal son of soil, whether I live there or not, it is my duty to work for its liberation, its better future, its stability and for the welfare of its inhabitants irrespective of their social, cultural or religious affiliations. 

In order to fulfil this obligation I will use all my talent, knowledge and contacts to advance this cause; and for this 'crime' if some Pakistanis and some of my fellow citizens, on instructions of agencies or on their own accord call me 'anti Pakistan', then this is price worth paying. It should be a duty of every loyal and sincere citizen of Jammu and Kashmir to advance above goals, but if for whatever reason they cannot accomplish this task, or join this 'jihad' then they should not create problems for those who want to do this. 

Since 1974, I have seen many ups and downs. I have educated myself, met many diplomats, politicians and other experts in fields of politics, philosophy and law, but I have never understood meaning of this phrase, 'anti Pakistan', as envisaged by these people. In my honest opinion, I have never been 'anti Pakistan', but I have always been pro Kashmir, and by being pro Jammu and Kashmir my first priority is to protect interests of Jammu and Kashmir; as it is the first priority of Pakistanis to protect their national interest. 

It is, however, unfortunate that national interest of Pakistan is much lower down on the priority list of many Pakistanis; and they should not make Kashmiri nationalists scapegoat for their shortfall. In view of some Pakistanis it is appropriate for them to even work against the state of Pakistan and still claim the title of being a 'loyal Pakistanis'; and if a Kashmiri dares to criticise wrong Kashmir policy of Pakistan they get angry just like Jageerdars (landlords) get angry over daring question of his serfs. 

How unfortunate that those who opposed the very idea of Pakistan, opposed tooth and nail its creation, have now assumed a role of 'Qazi' to issue fatwas (edicts) who is loyal Pakistani and who is not. It is widely believed that those who opposed creation of Pakistan are the ones who are bent upon destroying Pakistan. They created instability, projected communalism and regionalism, and introduced gun culture with private armies to kill and intimidate opponents; and tragedy is that they are still considered as 'loyal Pakistanis', just because they have assumed monopoly over wisdom and Islam, and have army of volunteers to harass individuals, groups and even undemocratic governments. 

It was these people coupled with some other groups who created situation that East Pakistan was dismembered. Pakistan not only lost its eastern wing, but also its reputation and pride was also suffered; and more than ninety thousand prisoners of war were taken by India. 

Those responsible for that tragedy are not considered as 'anti Pakistan', but those Kashmiris who are well-wishers of Pakistan are called 'anti Pakistan' because they sincerely believe that for the peace, stability and prosperity of not only India and Pakistan but of South Asia lies in both countries leaving Jammu and Kashmir to let it become a bridge of peace. 

Those who are responsible for invading their own capital time and again, are not considered as 'anti Pakistan'. Those who were responsible for gun culture, Ohjari Camp, Kargil fiasco and many other blunders are still regarded as loyal Pakistanis. Those who wrote letters to the American Congress to stop aid and military fighters to Pakistan were not considered as 'anti Pakistan'; in fact they were promoted to rule the country. Those who high jacked Pakistani planes were not considered anti Pakistan; and those who declared that they will return to Pakistan on ‘Indian tanks’ were not taken as 'anti Pakistan'. On their return they were promoted and made Ministers. Those Pakistanis who hold demonstrations and seminars in different parts of the world to expose Pakistan and its weaknesses are not taken as 'anti Pakistan', but if I criticise a wrong Kashmir policy of Pakistan, I am instantly declared as 'anti Pakistan'. In view of this can anyone tell me what action constitutes 'anti Pakistan'? 

I was on a live TV programme last week and viewers asked me about elections in 'Azad Kashmir' (which in practise is a Pakistani colony). They also asked me about issues regarding Mangla dam/Basha Dam, Kashmir Council and Gilgit and Baltistan. All these matters are directly associated with Pakistan, and as a leading writer and 'expert' on the subject, I explained Pakistan's role in all these matters. While we were still on air we received some calls from viewers who accused me of being 'anti Pakistan'. They could not challenge any information I put forward while explaining Pakistan's role in these matters, but as is the practise, they think criticism by a Kashmiri on Pakistani policy is tantamount to opposing Pakistani state. They also asked me why I didn't criticise India. 

Hang on a minute; be sensible before you jump to label anyone with being 'anti Pakistan'. It was Pakistan who built Mangla dam against wishes of the local people, how could I criticise India for that. It is Pakistan who is again uprooting more than one 

lakh people by upraising the Mangla dam. There is clear opposition from the local people who would be uprooted twice just to meet water needs of Pakistan, and how could I criticise India for this? 

It is Pakistan which imposed Act 1974 on Azad Kashmir, and which has given all the powers to Pakistan, so much so that all senior officers in Azad Kashmir are Pakistanis directly appointed by Pakistan. It is this Act which demands people to declare their loyalty to Pakistan before fighting elections or before taking any government post. It is this Act which DOES not allow people to contest elections if they declare their loyalty to Kashmir. And please, before you issue a fatwa (edict) against me, tell me how I could criticise India for wrong doings of Act 74. 

We appreciate Pakistan's water and energy needs and for that we ask them to build dams inside Pakistan; and just because Pakistanis cannot agree to complete a dam inside their territory which is for the welfare and prosperity of Pakistan, it does not mean that they uproot us citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. Be it construction of Basha Dam or upraising of Mangla dam, they both lie in the Kashmiri territory, and construction of these dams is against the will of the local people and against the State Subject Ordinance. 

I want to ask these 'muftis' who have nothing else to do apart from causing mischief and sowing seeds of communalism and hatred to tell me how can I accuse India if Pakistan is uprooting people by building dam in Gilgit and Baltistan (Basha Dam). People of Gilgit and Baltistan are deprived of basic human rights there, even some Pakistani journalists call this as the 'last colony on earth', and can these 'muftis' tell me how can I criticise India for lack of human rights or whatever wrong is happening in this part of the world. 

India and the Indian statecraft DO NOT consist of angels. They are responsible for human rights violations on that side of the LOC, and there is plenty of evidence about human rights abuse there; but does it mean that we give free hand to bureaucrats of Islamabad to do whatever pleases them. Does it also mean that we put all wrong doings of Pakistan in the basket of India, and tell the world that everything here is rosy? 

We have made this mistake once, and we are not that stupid to do it again even if that means being labelled as 'anti Pakistan'. 

If this narrow-mindedness and bigotry was only coming from those with vested interests and from those whose role in society is to teach hatred and communalism then it would not have hurt me that much, as I know their myopic view and business like mentality. But it is unfortunate to note that this criticism is also coming from those who claim to be champions of human rights, and those who are educated and have lived in Western democracies for some decades. 

Throughout my life, despite odds I chose to fight against injustice; and I have suffered because of this principled stand. I strongly believe that it is my right to speak against forced and illegal upraising of Mangla Dam; It is my right to speak against illegal construction of Basha dam; it is my right to speak against wrong policies of Pakistani governments, be they are in Gilgit and Baltistan, Azad Kashmir or to do with the Kashmir dispute in general. 

And in exercise of these rights, if some people with tunnel vision and undemocratic values choose to call me 'anti Pakistan ', then so be it. I am not ashamed of what I am doing, if anything, I am proud of my struggle for human rights for all and injustice against none. I am proud to be fighting for liberal and democratic values. I am proud to be fighting for unification and complete independence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Also I am proud to be fighting against those who promote extremism, sectarianism, hatred and violence. Despite these allegations and opposition my struggle for transparency, accountability, tolerance and just society will continue. 

Email: drshabirchoudhry@hotmail.com 

Is China a Fourth Party to Jammu and Kashmir dispute?

 Is China a Fourth Party to Jammu and Kashmir dispute? Dr Shabir Choudhry 28 October 2020 

Up till 26 October 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was one political entity. After that, Jammu and Kashmir’s sovereignty was compromised because a Muslim neighbour, Pakistan, despite the Standstill Agreement, attacked on Jammu and Kashmir to occupy it. 

The turmoil and the desperate situation created by Pakistan forced the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir to accede to India on three subjects, namely Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication. 

In reality, after the accession on these Subjects, the issue was between people of Jammu and Kashmir and India; and Pakistan was not even a party to this. However, Pakistan became a party when the Security Council demanded to know what the country had to say on very serious charges of aggression, killings, abductions, looting and arson in Jammu and Kashmir; and that Pakistan must stop its aggression and human rights violations. 

In other words, Pakistan did not become a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute because of any legal right or a title, but because of the occupation of certain parts of Jammu and Kashmir. 

Although Pakistan was perceived as an ‘aggressor’ in Jammu and Kashmir, hence the demand of the UN Security Council of 13 August 1948, that Pakistan must vacate all areas occupied by them in their aggression; however, it seems that Pakistani aggression was rewarded as the country refused to withdraw, and still has strong hold on areas they occupied. 

Although we people of Jammu and Kashmir claim that we are the principal party to the dispute, and that we should have the final say on the future of the State, however, gradually the will and interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir were pushed on one side, and ‘national interests’ of India and Pakistan became dominant in discussions on future of the divided State. Sadly, no leader of Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to be part of any discussions on Jammu and Kashmir. 

This means, in theory there are three parties to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, but in practise, India and Pakistan are the parties which take decisions on various matters related to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute; and even about our lives, wars and 

future of the divided State. 

Even when China occupied Aqsai Chin in 1962, China was not taken as another party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. That is why, when Pakistan gifted around 5,000 KM from Shaksam Valley, Gilgit, to China, they had a treaty on this. Article 6 of The boundary agreement between china and Pakistan of 1963 says: 

‘The two Parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China, on the boundary as described in Article Two of the present Agreement, so as to sign a formal Boundary Treaty to replace the present agreement: Provided that in the event of that sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of this agreement and the aforesaid Protocol shall be maintained in the formal Boundary Treaty to be signed between the Peoples Republic of China and Pakistan’. 

After this gift and many more concessions in Gilgit Baltistan, China started supporting Pakistani narrative on Jammu and Kashmir, wrong as it was. Because of a long proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir, and other serious terrorism related matters, Pakistan faced many problems at the international level, and the Chinese help was always there to save Pakistan. 

Pakistan provided safe havens to terrorists; and China provided safe haven to Pakistani policy whenever it was in hot water. This partnership is getting stronger and more troublesome for neighbours, and even some other countries in other regions. 

During military rule of General Musharaf, Pakistan was under tremendous pressure, and as a result Musharaf Government made a number somersaults on Jammu and Kashmir dispute. 

General Musharaf assured the Pakistani army, the people of Pakistan, and of course their followers in Jammu and Kashmir that Pakistani army was invincible, and could easily defeat any military adventure from India. 

However, General Musharaf and the top military brass knew the bitter reality that, they could not hold on to the Indian attack in a conventional war for more than 4-5 days. Their strategy for that was to use nuclear bombs, which are for deterrent and not to be used in the battlefield, unless they wanted unexplainable mutual destruction. 

Musharaf regime, and those who followed him (Zardari government and Sharif government) actively pursued their policy of upgrading their missile system and nuclear bombs. They succumbed to Beijing for more and more economic and military assistance. A number of mineral rich areas were leased to China, and China was allowed to complete mega projects in Pakistan, and in areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their control. 

Later on, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor made Pakistan almost a client state of Pakistan, which allowed China to call shots in economic, strategic, defence and international issues. 

China helped and supported Pakistan at international level; and with time Pakistan became more subservient and compliant. Pakistan’s this role was not appreciated by many countries. This role of a client state did not suit a country with very large army and nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery system. 

Many experts believe that there is an agreement between Beijing and Islamabad that in case of a full scale war with India, defence of Gilgit Baltistan, so called Azad Kashmir and Gwadar will be in hands of China. 

Apart from that, Pakistan and China have agreed that in the final disposition of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, China will also be a party, as Beijing has huge economic, strategic and defence interests associated with these areas. 

With China being a fourth party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute will become unresolvable, resulting in more problems for the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and the region. 

It is sad to not that even after 73 years, some citizens of Jammu and Kashmir do not understand that Pakistan has their own interests, and liberty and welfare of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in not their priority. They fail to understand that a country which tramples democratic values and do not respect human rights of Pakistani citizens, cannot give fundamental rights to territories that are not legally part of Pakistan. 

In future China will become more aggressive, and will pursue its economic, military and strategic agenda more forcefully. This means more tension and instability in South Asia, East China Sea, South China Sea and possibly in Middle East and Balkans. 

Writer is a renowned writer and author of many books. He is also President Foreign Affairs Committee of UKPNP; and Chairman South Asia Watch, London. 

Email: Drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com Twitter: @Drshabir 

Difference between 22 and 27 October? Dr Shabir Choudhry

 

 Difference between 22 and 27 October? Dr Shabir Choudhry 

London 22 October 2017. 

It is sad that under the propaganda and distorted history taught to citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, some of us are still greatly influenced by narratives of our occupiers. This confusion is further aggravated by their foot soldiers and ‘face book’ scholars. 

Crown Representative Lord Mountbatten in his Address to a Special Full Meeting of the Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947said: 

‘Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom-technically and legally they become independent.’ 1 

Also, on the status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah asserted on 7 June 1947: 

“Constitutionally and legally, the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the termination of Paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly, the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain independent. In the last case, they enter into such arrangements or relationship with Hindustan or Pakistan as they may choose.” 2 

Mohammed Ali Jinnah demonstrated with his action that the Two Nations Theory flawed as it was, did not apply to the Princely States. The State of Junagarh had around 80% non - Muslim majority with a Muslim Ruler. If the Two Nations Theory was applicable to the Princely States then this Princely State should have automatically become part of India. But because the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a Governor General of Pakistan accepted its accession to Pakistan. 

Despite these clear facts some people try to confuse the issue by saying that Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Pakistan because of the Two Nations Theory. 

There are other historical facts, which people try to confuse. After lapse of the British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent on 15 August 1947. 

The Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir sent two telegrams to India and Pakistan with the same text, which reads and I quote: 

“Standstill Agreement” 

“Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreement with Union of India/Pakistan on all matters on which there exists arrangements with the outgoing British India Government.” 

The Government of Pakistan happily accepted the Standstill Agreement and replied back on 15 August 1947, which reads: 

“The Government of Pakistan agrees to have Standstill Agreement with Jammu and Kashmir for the continuation of existing arrangements …”. 

Some people wrongly propagate that the Government of India rejected the Standstill Agreement. This is not true. In reply to Prime Minister Kak’s telegram, the Government of India wrote back in the following words: 

“Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly authorised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.” 

Furthermore, some people spend extra time to distort history and confuse the issues by saying that both armies entered Jammu and Kashmir as aggressors. This is also not true. An important distinction has to be made between the armies: 

1. Pakistani troops in civilian clothes and Tribesmen entered Jammu and Kashmir by violating the Standstill Agreement; 

2. They came to Kashmir against the wishes of the Maharaja; 

3. They came there with intention of invading the State and teaching the Ruler a lesson; 

4. The Jihad warriors were told they had a licence to kill, loot and plunder, and rape and kidnap women. 

The Indian army on the other hand came to Jammu and Kashmir: 

• • On the request of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir; 
• • They came there after a treaty – Provisional accession; 
• • They came there to protect life, liberty and property of the people; 
• • They came there to drive out the invaders and protect integrity of Jammu and Kashmir. 3 

It is sad that role of the Indian troops changed with time; and they failed to honour obligations they assumed under the Provisional Agreement and under the UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. 

It is a bitter fact that troops of India, which came to save life, liberty and honour of people of Jammu and Kashmir, now have their hands red with the blood of the innocent Kashmiri people. They are responsible for committing human rights abuses. However, Pakistan gets the distinction to be the first country which attacked Jammu and Kashmir, killed innocent people, raped women and kidnaped them and then sold them in Pakistani cities. 

Some people are very eager to drag India in everything; and condemn India. They are also very enthusiastic to hold demonstrations against India. I am not against holding demonstrations against India. Nevertheless, I am against holding demonstration on 27 October and 15 August. 

In my considered opinion, 27 October cannot be a Black Day, because Indian troops came in Jammu and Kashmir on this date on the request of the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir; and after a treaty known as Provisional accession. 

Also, 15 August cannot be a Black Day for two reasons. The British Raj ended on 15 August 1947, and with that Jammu and Kashmir also became independent. It is not prudent to call that day a Black Day and to hold demonstrations. Critics can say we are holding demonstrations against our own independent day. 

Furthermore, it is not sensible to hold a Black Day demonstration when people are celebrating their Independence Day. We need to win support of Indian and Pakistani civil society; and by holding demonstrations on their Independence Day we will only hurt their sentiments and turn them against us. 

In addition, if we only hold demonstrations on the Independence Day of India and wave Pakistani flags or remain quiet on 14 August, which is Pakistan’s Independence Day, we are giving this message to the world community that we are advancing the agenda of Pakistan. 

Apart from these dates, if you want to hold a demonstration against India on the issue of human rights abuses, I am with you. I will be out there with you protesting outside the Indian High Commission; but I cannot be a party to advance the agenda of GHQ. 

References: 

1. H S Guru Raj Rao, Legal Aspects of the Kashmir problem, Page 190 

2. In a reply to a question about legal status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah clarified Muslim League’s viewpoint on 17 June 1947. 

3. Some Clarifications regarding Kashmir dispute. 

http://drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/some-clarifications-regarding-kashmir.html 

Writer is a political analyst, and author of many books and booklets. Also, he is Chairman South Asia Watch, London and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com 

What happened after Jinnah walked in to Mosque with his shoes on? The man who tried to kill Jinnah,

 

 What happened after Jinnah walked in to Mosque with his shoes on? 

The man who tried to kill Jinnah, Shakil Chaudhary 

On July 26, 1943, at approximately 1:30 pm, Mohamad Rafiq Sabir Mazangavi, a 25-year-old tall and lean man with a long beard, arrived at Jinnah’s house in Bombay and asked to meet with him. He was from Lahore's Mazang area. 

Jinnah's secretary told him that his boss was a very busy person and that he could not meet him without a prior appointment. Suddenly, Jinnah emerged from his office to speak to his private secretary. As Jinnah turned back, the young man leaped forward and punched him in the face. Jinnah was stunned. 

As he regained his balance, the young man pulled out a dagger from his waistband and pointed at Jinnah’s throat. Jinnah understood the gravity of the situation. The dagger could slit Jinnah’s throat. He grabbed the assailant’s waist with one hand and clutched the wrist holding the dagger with the other hand. 

In the meantime, the blade had cut his jaw slightly. The stunned private secretary rushed to Jinnah’s rescue and held the assailant with his both hands. The other servants came running and overpowered the assailant. 

During the course of the trial, Rafiq decided to cross-examine the witnesses himself when the victim, Jinnah, stood in the witness box, Rafiq started the cross-examination. 

Rafiq: I had sent you many letters and telegrams and you never answered them. Do you agree? 

Jinnah: I don’t know. I receive hundreds of letters every day and I travel a lot. Hence, I am unable to read all the letters. 

Rafiq: You have not clarified the meaning of Pakistan. Please clarify the word Pakistan. 

Jinnah: The meaning of Pakistan is clear to those who want to understand it. No one can explain it to those who do not want to understand it. 

Rafiq: Jinnah Sahib, is there any personal enmity between us? 

Jinnah: No. I do not think so. 

Rafiq: Then can you tell me why I attacked you? 

Magistrate: This question is unnecessary. 

Rafiq: Your honor, can I ask Jinnah Sahib what happened at the time of his daughter’s marriage? 

Magistrate: No. Not at all. 

Rafiq: Is it true that you have received hundreds of copies of the Quran as gifts?

 

Jinnah: Yes. 

Rafiq: Do you know why are gifted to you? 

Jinnah: As per the Islamic tradition, the gifting of the Quran is bestowing an honor. 

Rafiq: These copies are gifted to you so that you could quit the politics of manipulation and study the Quran and lead a better life in your old age. 

Magistrate: This is not relevant to the case. 

Rafiq: Do you remember that you had entered the Shaheedganj Mosque in Lahore with your shoes on? 

Magistrate: We are not here to condemn the behavior of Quaid-i-Azam. We are here to investigate the attempted murder of him.

 

Rafiq: You honor, Quaid-i-Azam has just said that there is no enmity between us. We have no dispute over any property or woman. then why should I attack him? 

Magistrate: All right you can proceed. 

Rafiq: You are not conversant with the real conditions of the Muslims. Have you ever thought about their poverty and illiteracy and why they turn to begging, theft, and gambling? I wanted to meet you only to ask this question. 

Rafiq: Jinnah Sahib, your lifestyle is not in accordance with the principles of Islam. Then how can you be a leader of the Muslims? 

Jinnah: You must put this question to the Muslims of the country. 

Rafiq: You are not conversant with the real conditions of the Muslims. Have you ever thought about their poverty and illiteracy and why they turn to begging, theft, and gambling? I wanted to meet you only to ask this question. (For details, see Dinkar Joshi, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah: 

The Man Behind the Curtain, Pentagon Press, 2012, pp. 259-263) 

Upon hearing the news of the murder attempt, GM Syed tried to commit suicide by jumping off the Sindh Assembly building. Syed Khair Shah, a fellow member of the assembly, saved his life. Subsequently, Mr. GM Syed fainted. 

On November 4, 1943, Rafiq was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The allegation that he was a member of the Khaksar Tahreek turned out to be false.