Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

Urstruly:

``Bayghairto, Hinduo sharam karo. ``

Bayghaiart Suar key bacchey, chillana band kar. Tera bhee yahi haal hoga Inshaallah!!!

:)

[Here are some insight into why some of the pakis (e.g HisExcellency ) in here are so full of hate for India and Hindus.]

Criticism of Indian occupation of Kashmir does not equate with hatred of India or Hindus. arjun_m and nakhok have been criticising Pakistan`s policies toward Biharis and Bangladesh. Do they hate Muslims and Pakistan? (If they do, then perhaps they don`t deserve to be on this forum).

Nobody becomes great on the basis of their religion, nationality, physical attributes, wealth or strength. Nazi Germans were a strong industrial power with perhaps the best armed forces in the world. They are also fair skinned, blue eyed and brilliant as a nation. Yet their suppression of Jews and obsession with military world domination, made them a menace to civilized society.

Nobody respects rascals. In 1971, the Pakistan Army lost the respect of its own citizens because of its suppression of Bengalis. Then Pakistan was on the wrong side of history. Now India is on the wrong side of history.

arjun_m and nakhok: Please don`t hide behind nationalism. It won`t protect you from the truth for that long. Can you deny that Indian security forces committed widespread human rights violatations in Kashmir? The entire world knows this. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has been criticising India since 1990 for human right violations. The American government, Japan, the British and even the European Union has repeatedly complained to India about these violations.

Are you going to claim that Americans, British, Japanese, Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards, Arabs also hate India and Hindus??

Indians must stand up for what they believe in. History will record the Kashmir massacres against you. If you are true nationalists, then you will take pride in rectifying India`s human rights image... instead of attacking those who criticize Indian policies as India-haters or Hindu-haters.

Indian chowkies are commiting the same mistake that Yahya Khan made: justifying oppression in the name of misplaced nationalism.

The utter bankruptcy of the shameless people funding murder and ethnic cleansing in J&K has never been more visible than today. In the past 10 days, 24 innocent people were murdered in a systematically co-ordinated mass killing carried out with planning and care. Several families were murdered in their homes by militants. Grenades were thrown in marketplaces killing women and children.

And a militant (i.e. armed man with weapons) was shot by the security forces.

Guess who is being mourned today? The militant ! A person with blood on his hands. The mass killings of civilians is celebrated by these lovers of freedom. The death of an armed thug is mourned. No wonder Pakistan and its cohort are where they are today...

[There was a stark irony about the Pakistan Movement. The Muslim majority provinces had no real need to secede from India.]

Not in the political sense. In Muslim majority provinces, Muslims controlled power but not the commerce and economy. Most of the Punjabi fuedals and Sindhi waderas were under debt to money lenders who were predominantly Hindu. All the capital in these provinces was controlled by Hindus.

This might not have been a bad thing under normal circumstances. But under British India, in a police state that was bent upon marginalizing the native population, this bred resentment between Hindus and Muslims.

You are right in observing that the vanguard of Pakistan Movement was the Muslim minority from UP and other parts of India. But these people were also politically and educationally more mature than people in Muslim majority provinces. Before 1947, there were very few universities, and colleges in Punjab and Sindh.

Punjabis have traditionally never led any movement, they prefer to follow instead. History has proven that in the last three centuries, Punjab has produced only 2 real leaders: Ranjeet Singh and then Nawaz Sharif. Since most the Punjab is part of Pakistan, I am not including Indian Punjab in this list. But if there was any noteworthy Indian Punjabi leader, please feel free to add to this list. (Bhagat Singh was a student leader, not a polticial leader).

It is therefore not surprising that a UP leader (Liaqat Ali Khan) became Pakistan`s supremo after the death of Jinnah.

FYI, Suharwardy did become Prime Minister of Pakistan for a brief period of time. Yet he was opposed by an influential Punjabi politician, Mian Mumtaz Daultana.

Daultana was more of a spoiler than a leader. A typical drawing room politician who excelled in intrigues. Many believe he was responsible for the murder of Liaqat Ali Khan.

In short, Pakistan Movement was a very strong grassroots movement even in the Muslim majority provinces. it just happens that the movement was led by Muslims from minority provinces.. because they had better political skills. Punjabi and Sindhi politicians were mostly feudals who were good second-tier leaders.

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/documents.html

The Security Council Resolution clearly states that Pakistan was to vacate its troops from the whole of the state. It also mentions, albeit indirectly, that Pakistan had consistently lied on the question of whether or not its troops were involved in the fighting in Jammu & Kashmir. Once the then Pakistani Prime Minister conceded that Pakistani troops were indeed involved, the UN had no option but to ask for their withdrawal. That the withdrawal never took place, is another story.

The truce agreement stated:

Part II, A

1. 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 Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

The truce agreement in part II, B went on to state:

1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

3. The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within its powers to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human political rights will be granted.

+++
Here`s how a DAWN article describes the genesis of the LoC:

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
27th July, 1999

Kargil - before and after

By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and possibly a bit of rape on the side.``

``Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire line.``
+++

And this is what Altaf Gauhar (the powerful information secretary in
the regime of ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan) writes about the same:

+++
The Nation
(Reprinted in Pakistan Link of 9/10/99)

Four Wars, one Assumption
Altaf Gauhar

``.....the Kashmir invasion, planned by hoardes of lawless tribesmen of the NWF, who indulged in murder and looting as they moved into the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Khurshid Anwar, an ex-army officer, who was killed in the operation, was supposed to be the main organiser of this operation. The tribesmen were assured that the Indian army was too ill-organised to offer any counter offensive, so they could fight their war of freedom without fear. No one remembered that frontier rebels do not fight wars of freedom on behalf of other people. They settle their tribal disputes through looting, murder and devastation.``
+++

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

A SHAHEED LIVES FOREVER


The only party in Kashmir who have adopted a radical approach is Kashmiri Freedom Fighters and I might add a correct one. They are the reluctant heroes who are thrown into the herodom by ruthless bayonetts and bullets of their oppressors. What choice did they have in a country where extra-judicial murder is constitutional. Those baysharam hindus who have occupied their land, kill them, rape their women and children and still claim that it is Pakistan who is spreading terrorism in their country should see this picture of Shaheed Saif-ul-Islam.

http://akhbar.urdupoint.com/03/04/04/

This picture is a proof of the extra-judicial murder of Saif-ul-Islam. Never in my life I have seen corpses stand up and reach for the throat of their murderers. But what is wrong with this picture. You can see that Shaheed`s hands are tied, which means that he was murdered in the custody of India law enforcement agencies. No one ties the hands of a corpse - but you coward bayghairat hindus listen and listen good a Shaheed never dies - your day of reckoning is near. Bayghairto, Hinduo sharam karo.

Picture has been forwarded to Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch,

If Pakistanis hate India in general and Hindus in particular, then there`s definately something wrong with Indian policies which are devised by hardliner hindus. The so called moderate hindu leaders didn`t contribute less for creating this hatred. When Pandit Nehru promised to hold plebiscite and gave assurances to Pakistani leaders that the will of Kashmiris would be given preference but acted opposited to it, then hating such people is natural. It`s not only Pakistanis who Indians for such things but all the honest people of the world hate them as well for these kinds of dirty tricks.

Hindus are not ready to change their dirty mentality but expect others to show only civilized attitude towards them.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

This is the part of the UNSC Resolution that Pakistani regimes did not honor and do not want to be reminded of:

1. 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 Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

# 236

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``British actually believed in the martial race theory.``
+++

No, they didn`t. After all, Punjab was brought into the Empire with the help of Purbaiya troops.

But it was the Purbaiya troops that proved less than dependable in 1857 while the Punjab troops stood loyally by the side of the British who realized what a mess they would have been if Purbaiyas and Punjabis had joined hands in 1857. It was in the post-1857 era that Divide et impera, and not conviction, that led the British to propound the ``martial races`` theory.

And after 1947, the ``recruitment area`` simply found it expedient to keep alive the myth of ``martial races`` by marshalling the monopoly over the big guns that they it inherited from the British days.

# 238

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Jinnah only launched the Pakistan movement when he became sure that the British were too weak to rule India for long.``
+++

HisExcellency has hit the nail on the head. If Jinnah weren`t sure, he would have gladly continued to collaborate with the British secretly as he had been doing thru much of the 1930s (see Wali Khan`s ``Facts Are Sacred``).

# 238

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Jinnah was quite aware of the backwardness of Muslims``
+++

There was a stark irony about the Pakistan Movement. The Muslim majority provinces had no real need to secede from India. Provincial chiefs like Khizr Hayat Khan of Punjab, Dr. Khan Sahib of North West Frontier Province and Surhawardy of Bengal were in control of the provincial government long before Pakistan came into being. Not surprisingly, Khizr Hayat Khan and Dr. Khan Sahib were opposed to the Pakistan Movement. Even Surhawardy realized his folly at the end, but, by then, it was too late to prevent the partition of Bengal. As soon as Jinnah got his Pakistan, he discarded Surhawardy like the rind of a squeezed lemon. The pliant Nazimuddin was brought in to become the new Muslim League chief in East Pakistan.

Muslim League politicians from the Muslim minority provinces were the most enthusiastic proponents of the Pakistan Movement. They were responding to the fears and ambitions of the aristocratic and middle class Muslims from the United Provinces and the mercantile class Muslims from the west coast. They had been alarmed by the populist agenda of the Congress, particularly of its socialist wing. They looked forward toward a fiefdom in the proposed Pakistan where it would be possible to use religion as a weapon to eliminate Hindus and Sikhs in the workplace and in commerce. It was only natural that Jinnah, from a mercantile class family from the west coast, and Liaqat Ali Khan, from an aristocratic family from United Provinces, would spearhead the Pakistan Movement.

# 238

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``What happened after Jinnah`s death cannot be blamed on him.``
+++

Jinnah laid the foundation of what followed in Pakistan. I have already posted how he had recklessly endangered the lives of minorities in East Pakistan by scapegoating the Hindus for opposition to his plans for Urdu.

And as a Governor General, he set the tone for what followed after his death. Jinnah displayed a very dictatorial disposition in the one year he was in power. ``When the time came, Jinnah opted to become the Governor General of Pakistan instead of Prime Minister because, under the Constitution, Governor General could give instructions to the Prime Minister. Jinnah, after becoming Governor General, not only appointed the Prime Minister but himself chose and appointed all the members of the Cabinet.``

``He was the President of Muslim League, and did not relinquish party presidentship even after becoming the Governor General. Thus, Jinnah accumulated all power in him as the leader of the party, head of the administration and the State, a virtual dictator.``

``He even assumed authority to take care of the government`s Kashmir and Frontier Departments.``

``As a Governor General, he caused Legislative Assembly to endorse these additional powers. He even presided over Cabinet meetings, unprecedented in parliamentary democracy. He often, without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, instructed the Provincial Governors, Ministers and Departmental Secretaries. Parliamentary norms were not applicable to Jinnah.``

``In fact, the way Jinnah ran the administration, though briefly, established the precedent to concentrate all powers in one hand and hold a number of positions by a single person, the tendency that gave birth to military autocracy in Pakistan.``

I understand that HisExcellency is not a fan of Nehru. Neither was Nixon who faulted him for socialist leanings, non-alignment etc. Nixon was always a lot more at home with ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan than he was ever with Nehru. Nevertheless, this is what Nixon wrote of Nehru in his book, ``Leaders``:

``Nehru was what Nkrumah and Soekarno were not: a charismatic revolutionary leader who was also a nation builder.....Of all the world leaders I have met, Nehru would certainly rank among the most inteligent.....He faced challeneges that would have staggered a lesser man``

``India was almost impossible to govern and that anyone succeeded in holding it together had to be a political genius. Nehru did this. He also, to his credit, insisted on the retention and development of democratic institutions, despite enormous economic and social problems and the consequent temptation to turn toward dictatorship.``

# 238

His Excellency wrote:
+++
``You have missed the point in my post #230. You tried to delegitimize Jinnah on the incoherent grounds that he never went to prison, as if going to prison would result in azaadi. Just to illustrate the inanity of that argument, I countered with the quote about Nehru`s homosexual tendencies.``
+++

It is HisExcellency who missed the point. I had very explicitly asked him to read Wali Khan`s ``Facts Are Sacred`` to find out why Jinnah was not considered ``prison material by the colonial rulers. Wali Khan based his book on the now declassified papers of the British government. He has quoted copiously from Jinnah`s secret letters to British officials. It exposes Jinnah as a collaborator with the colonial power. If HisExcellency reads ``Facts Are Sacred``, he`ll realize that that he did Jinnah a gross dis-service by calling Sheikh Abdullah (who did serve time in the Maharaja`s jail for championing the peoples` cause) a ``pliant lackey``.

+++
``Just like Nehru`s homosexual tendencies do not delegitimize him..``
+++

I am glad that HisExcellency doesn`t think that ``homosexual tendencies`` do not delegitimize a politician. But neither does ``heterosexual tendencies``!! Assuming that HisExcellwncy is correctly quoting Stanley Wolpert, I would point out to HisExcellency that Cambridge Professor Akbar S. Ahmed in his book, ``Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity The Search for Saladin`` has spun the story in the other direction by alleging ``heterosexual tendencies`` in Nehru!!

+++
``Indians believe that the British left because of Gandhi`s pressure. This a great delusion.``
+++

Much of the world believes that too!!

+++
``So lets rectify the Kashmir problem while we are living.``
+++

That exactly is the author`s contention. He/she is asking for a radical approach. His/hers suggestion ``to bring in a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border`` seems like a step in the right direction. But, unfortunately, Kashmir is just too important for protecting the Pak military`s vested interests. It would have discovered Kashmir if it hadn`t existed!