Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

#174 pmishra2

There`s no India Paakistan dispute in sindh and balochistan. moreover pakistan havn`t deployed any military in these areas to supress the population. however, pakistan govt is ready to talk with indian gov on this issue as well as hariyana if india feels a pain in some of its odd part for this. but currently it`s kashmir where india is in a painful situation. let`s take it first. ask your leader to show some courage and face the facts on the table instead of hiding behind barking dogs.

# 175

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``In the pre-election days, all these experts were predicting a clear cut victory of PPP in Sindh and Punjab, and a hung parliament in NWFP and Baluchistan. Election results proved them wrong. The PML won the most seats followed by the MMA. None of the experts could predict the rise of MMA in NWFP and Baluchistan.``

``Newspaper articles and op-ed pieces are not necessarily a true barometer of public opinion. I would suggest that you use the 2002 Election results instead.``
+++

HisExcellency is grossly mistaken. Newspaper articles and op-ed pieces are a far better barometer of public opinion than self-serving pronouncements of the military and the results of ``elections`` orchestrated by the Generals to meet the military`s principal agenda, namely, its aggrandizement.

HisExcellency cannot possibly be unaware of the shenanigans of the military rulers to mould the ``election`` results so that it could meet the military`s agenda. It wasn`t even an unrehearsed task - the military had garnered 98% of the votes in favor of the President cum COAS just a few months earlier! And to make doubly sure, the military regime issued the LFO to make a mockery of the nation`s Constitution just weeks before the ``elections``. And, needless to say, the military more or less got the reslult it wanted:

(a) The King`s party, PML - Quisling, was given enough ``wins`` to allow it to form the ruling coalition, but not enough ``wins`` to ever want to challenge the military.

(b) MMA was allowed enough wins in NWFP and Balochistan to project the military as the only institution in Pakistan that USA can depend on for support and at the same time give the military some exucuse to express inability to heed every order from Washington in its war on terrorism.

Of course it is quite another matter that some issues are so important to Washington that General Pervez Musharraf just must jump thru the hoop regardless of his excuses.

HisExcellency also wrote:
+++
``Can you explain how you concluded that people of Pakistan don`t care about Kashmir and that it is the Army that is fueling this conflict?``
+++

I have already quoted many a mainstream journalist in Pakistan (post # 97, for example) who have eloquently criticized the military regimes obsession with ``finishing the unfinished task of partition`` in Kashmir. They have, time and again, pointed out that this obsession plays to the advantage of the military and to the detriment of the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. There is absolutely no basis for HisExcellency`s assumption that, given a chance (say by the triumph of democracy), ordinary citizens of Pakistan will continue pursue a policy that allows the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the nation`s budget.

Prof. Pervez Hodobhoy of Qaid-e-Azam university, Islamabad, for example, was very specific when he accused the military of deliberately stoking tensions with India, particularly over Kashmir, to justify its hold on resources and power. Prof. Hodobhoy said, in no uncertain terms, ``Peace would be a disaster for the military.``

Finally I would like to add that I saw merit in temporal`s plea for ``Radical Approach``. ``.....to bring in a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border.`` is certainly a step in the right direction for giving peace a chance. Unfortunately, Pakistan`s military would rather give war a chance to preserve its perks and privileges at the cost of the ordinary citizens of the country. Kashmir is merely a means to the military`s ends of preserving its monopoly over resources and power.

The part of kashmir that went to China is not protested by Kashmiris. If India has any objection to it, then it can include also this issue in the plebiscite.

It is an undeniable fact of history that it was India and not the ‘people of Kashmir or their chief supporter, Pakistan, that took up the issue of Kash­mir with the United Nations Security Council and sought its indulgence under Article 35 of the United Nations Charter.

The Security Council p­assed various resolutions, incl­uding the most important of them all, the one dated 21st A­pril, 1948, which envisaged a solution of the issue of Kashmir by a free and impartial plebis­cite under UN auspices. India accepted the UN resolutions reluctantly, with the mental res­ervation that it would sabot-age them and not allow their imp­lementation because she was sure that the result of the plebiscite would be against her.

Pandit Nehru’s confide­ntial correspondence, which h­as been published from New Delhi by the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund through the co­urtesy of the Oxford University Press only last year, reveals that Nehru wrote to Abdullah in reply to the latter’s letter that Kashmir would not vote in fav­our of India in the plebiscite, on 12th January 1949. Thus only one week after the pass­age of second resolution of the UNCIP on 5th January 1949, that he agreed with Abdullah that result of plebiscite in Kash­mir would not be favourable to India, and in due course India would have to back out from it but in order to keep the UN Security Council in good mood, it was imperative to pay lip ser­vice to the plebiscite scheme because running away from that so early would make Indian position challengeable. in the world.

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

# 176

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``The pliant lackey, Shiekh Abdullah, duly obliged by declaring the inclusion of Kashmir in Indian Union in November 1949.``
+++

``The pliant lackey`` Sheikh Abdullah had a track record of championing the peoples` demands and going to jail for it in Jammu & Kashmir under the Maharaja. HisExcellency`s wrath would be better directed at the tribal militias who were unleashed on the kingdom (in violation of the standstill agreement between Pakistan and the kingdom) and who missed securing the kingdom for Pakistan only because they stopped for ``rest and recreation`` at Baramulla just 10 miles from the Srinagar airport. But, then, whatelse can you expect from mercenaries.

Naturally, the Kashmiris had a far higher regard for ``the pliant lackey`` Sheikh Abdullah than they had for the tribal militias and Pakistan regulars who had been unleashed on the kingdom to ``liberate`` it into Pakistan.

HisExcellency should also note that the 1971 genocide in East pakistan served as an eye-opener for Sheikh Abdullah. The Pakistan army had murdered three million Muslims in East pakistan to preserve its perks and privileges and it must have been truly frightening for Sheikh Abdullah to realize that this was more than the entire Muslim population of the Kashmir Valley. The 1971 war was a watershed in Sheikh Abdullah`s life. He fought elections and become the elected Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir after the eye-opening 1971 genocide in East Pakistan.

# 176

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``The pliant lackey, Shiekh Abdullah, duly obliged by declaring the inclusion of Kashmir in Indian Union in November 1949.``
+++

``The pliant lackey`` Sheikh Abdullah had a track record of championing the peoples` cause and going to jail for it in Jammu & Kashmir under the Maharaja.

This is far more than can be said of Jinnah who had unleashed the tribal militias on the kingdom. If HisExcellency is interested in ``pliant lackeys`` he might want to read ``Facts Are Sacred`` by Wali Khan.

Sheikh Abdullah spent time in Maharaja`s jails. Leaders like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad repeatedly spent time in British jails. Messrs. Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan never spent a single day in British jail.

Khan Abdul Wali Khan`s ``Facts are Sacred`` tells us why.

Wali Khan`s source is declassified documents from India Office Library in London. The tenure of secrecy for most such documents is 50 years. Jinnah`s secret letters to the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India were written in the 1930s and were declassified over the 1980s.

Predictably, Wali Khan had been criticised in Pakistan for the book. But no one, not even its government, had dared to sue him for libel or to prosecute him for blasphemy! This gives credence to his book. After
all, Pakistan is a nation where an Ahmadiya may be sent to jail merely for calling himself a Muslim and his place of worship can be demolished if he calls it a masjid, all in accordance with the laws of the land!! Wali Khan would have been in very deep trouble if it could be shown that
his book is not factual.

``Divide and Rule`` is a time-honoured tradition. All imperial powers resort to it. The British were no exception. Sometimes it was overt. During the Round Table Conference, for example, die-hard imperialists always claimed, for obvious reasons, that Gandhi did not represent the India of
the Princes, the Muslims, the ``untouchables``, the Sikhs and so on. Churchill always argued that the British were needed in India to ensure justice and to keep peace among warring factions split by religion, caste, language etc.

But many a British scheming was covert. But over the years, we have come across many a declassified document that makes no bones of the British effort to create a communal divide. Wali Khan`s allegations are based on these declassified documents from the India Office Library in London. ``Facts are Sacred`` quotes copiously from these documents.

``Kerala Congress Chief Quits

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr. 3 (NNN) : Apparently agitated over the high command’s choice of former KPCC president Thennala Balakrishna Pillai and AICC general secretary Vayalar Ravi as compromise candidate for election to the Rajya Sabha, Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee president K Muraleedharan has resigned. ``

What am I talking? The topic here is Kashmir and I`m talking about Kerala. That`s why they say that I can`t think when it`s close to 12:00. But what about those who are talikg about sindh and balochistan here?

AGGRAVATING HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN IoK.

The voice of Kashmiris is echoing continuously through out the world against atrocities and human fights violations at the hands of about seven hundred thousand Indian military and para military forces.


DATA
According to data gathered by Kashmir Liberation Cell Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir from international press/electronic media, 59195 people have been killed, 88888 injured and 90701 are arrested, where as 15189 women have been reported molested and 25403 residential houses and shops have been set on fire by Indian soldiers from July 1988 to December 1997. These figures do not include figures that have not been reported. There are hundreds of cases of untraceable victims. Therefore at least twenty percent, if not more, figures can safely be added to the figures, given above.

GANG RAPE - A WEAPON
Molestation and gang-raping of women by the Indian soldiers has become an order of the day in occupied Kashmir and is being used as a weapon against Mujahideen to demoralize them. Hundred of women were reported to have been shot-dead by Indian troops for showing resistance against molestation and gang-rape. After establishing puppet rule of Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah in 1996, India allowed its occupation forces to increase their cruelties over innocent Kashmiris in order to teach them a lesson for demanding their inalienable right of self determination.


KILLING WITH IMPUNITY
A law known as “Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act 1990, grants special powers to Armed Forces in Kashmir to kill with impunity. The Act allows a soldier to:

Arrest, without warrant, any person
Enter and search, without warrant, any premises at any time.
Fire upon or otherwise use force even to the extent of causing death, against any person.

On top of this, the Act provides protection to the members of Armed Forces against “prosecution, suit or legal proceedings” for their actions “in respect of any thing done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act”.

HisFlatulence #176

Yes, politicians wheel and deal and sign agreements. This is all part of a reasonable and democratic way of functioning. I realize that you will not understand this as you belong to an islamist state ruled by a general. You will only understand the language of force, and sadly, that has been the only path open so far.


As far as the UN stuff goes, it begins with complete withdrawal of forces from all of J&K. Why don`t you visit your chinese master first and get them to withdraw. Then work on withdrawing your own army. Restore the demographics of J&K to 1948. Then we will be ready for a plebiscite.

Otherwise, all you are doing is clothing your violence in noble words. And all the world understands that is what Pakistan stands for everywhere.

Given the history of acrimonious relations between India and Pakistan, we should leave out all past references from any discussion of Kashmir. If India will bring up 1965 or Kargil, Pakistan will bring up 1948 or 1971.

We will just end up in a spit-fest of angry grudges against each other. This will never solve the problem of Kashmir.

A better approach would be to forget the past altogether. Forget about plebiscite, forget about Simla, forget about Kashmir`s inclusion in Indian Union, forget about all elections held in Kashmir, and forget about the wars that we have fought in 1965 and 1971. Forget about Kargil, Parliament attack, Kaluchak, 9/11 and the Indian mobilization last year.

Lets start afresh by looking at the grievances of the Kashmiri people today, not 50 years ago. Human right abuses, economic stagnation, unemployment and disillusionment with Mufti Sayeed government are the major problems faced by Kashmiris. Many Kashmiris are tired of Indian occupation as well as the freedom struggle, but most still support the Jihadi operations in Kashmir. For a current assessment of India`s human rights record, visit:

http://indiatogether.org/peace/kashmir/articles/indhr.htm

What is India willing to concede to Kashmiris to address these concerns? Is India willing to reduce the strength of its forces in Kashmir? Is India willing to release all Kashmiri political prisoners?

# 176

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
UN Resolution 654 asked for a plebiscite, not Article 370 or inclusion of IoK into Indian Union.
+++

HisExcellency seems to be artfully dodging any mention of Pakistan`s responsibility for the lack of plebiscite. He well knows that it was Pakistan that failed to fulfill the pre-requisite for the plebiscite and for a very understandable reason:

It was Pakistan that was the aggressor in Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan had violated the standstill agreement it had reached with the kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir by unleashing tribal militias on the kingdom. United Nations recognized the fact that the tribal militias and the Pak army were in PoK illegally. That is why the UN had insisted on the complete withdrawl of all Pakistani forces from Jammu & Kashmir as a pre-requisite for a plebiscite.

Pakistan never fulfilled the pre-requisite. And understandably so. Pakistan was not eager for a plebiscite where the Kashmiris would get a chance to register their feeling about the ``rest and recreation`` at Baramulla of soldiers that had been unleashed by Pakistan to ``liberate`` Jammu & Kashmir into Pakistan.

Anyway, that`s history. It is futile to harp on yesterday`s solution to solving today`s problem. I want to express my agreement with the author of the article for his recommendation of a ``radical approach``. I do feel that ``.....to bring in a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border.`` would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Pak army has too much to lose by agreeing to it. Peace will not get a chance till the elected representatives of the people become the real rulers of Pakistan.

-

The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India. While Indian security forces are practicing an unprecedented reign of terror in Occupied Kashmir being widely reported world-wide; the Indian government, currently led by Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, is neither willing to negotiate the issue multilaterally—through international mediation—nor is it ready to sort it out with Pakistan through bilateral negotiations. India and Pakistan have already fought two wars over Kashmir. The exchange of fire between their forces across the Line of Control, which separates Azad Kashmir from Occupied Kashmir, is a routine affair. Now that both India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons potential, the possibility of a third war between them over Kashmir, which may involve the use of nuclear weapons, cannot be ruled out. The likely nuclear disaster in South Asia, whose cause may be Kashmir, can be averted with an intervention by the international community. Such an intervention is urgently required to put an end to Indian atrocities in Occupied Kashmir and prepare the ground for the implementation of UN resolutions, which call for the holding of a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

-

# 176

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``By including Article 370, he pretended to respect the ``special status of IoK``. ``
+++

Article 370 does give Jammu & Kashmir a special status. If PoK had anything like Article 370, it would have been more Azad than it has ever been allowed to dream of. Article 370, for example, perpetuated the ban on outsiders (from Maharaja`s time) from owing immovable property in Jammu & Kashmir. This has served to preserve the demographic mix of Jammu & Kashmir to the Kashmiris` advantage.

In PoK without the Article 370, the land quickly got swamped by outsiders. In Mirpur or Muzaffarabad, HisExcellency is far likely to hear Punjabi/Lahandi/Pothwari than Kashmiri. Today, Kashmiri is far less a language of ``Azad`` Kashmir under Pakistani occupation than of Jammu & Kashmir in India across the LoC:

(1) According to the latest census figures, only about 100,000 people in PoK (Pakistan occupied Kashmir) claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue. This compares to more than 4 million who do so on the other side of the LoC.

(2) In PoK a mere 2% of the population claim Kashmiri to be their mother tongue. In stark contrast, Kashmiri is the principal language of Jammu & Kashmir across the LoC - it is the mother tongue of nearly half the population of the state.

(3) Institute of Kashmir Studies in Muzaffarabad does some language promotion - but observers have acknowledged it to be a losing cause in PoK.

And it is just not a matter of language. HisExcellency will have very little chance of experiencing Kashmiriyat`s eclectic tradition in PoK. The Kashmiriyat tradition is alive and well across the LoC - it transcends Kashmiris` religious diversity. HisExcellency must travel across the LoC, away from the PoK`s religious homogeneity, to experience the pluralistic tradition among Kashmiris that forms the essence of Kashmiriyat.

So it is PoK that must mourn that it could have been far more Azad if it only had something akin to Article 370.

HisExcellency also wrote:
+++
``The pliant lackey, Shiekh Abdullah, duly obliged by declaring the inclusion of Kashmir in Indian Union in November 1949.``
+++

Correction. It was Jammu & Kashmir`s Assembly that validated the accession. And rightly so. Pakistan had failed to meet the pre-requisite for a plebiscite. It was clear by then that Pakistan wasn`t any more interested in Kashmir`s ``liberation`` than it was when it had unleashed tribal militias on the kingdom. The Kashmiris had first-hand experience of these militias` idea of ``rest and recreation``. Pakistan`s ruling elite had no respect for Kashmiriyat. All it wanted was some real estate - to impose PoK`s religious homogeneity on the rest of Jammu & Kashmir as well.

# 177

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``It is the Sindhi population, not the Pakistan Army or Punjabi elite that is opposing repatriation of Biharis.``
+++

The Sindhis are today a minority in their own province. To make matters worse, they have very little representation among military officers. So I can see why they may not be eager for another wave of immigration into Sindh.

But what about the rest of Pakistan? Will the military take the initiative to settle the ``Biharis`` in the ``recruitment area`` between the Indus and the Jhelum? After all, it is this ``recruitment area`` that has profited disproportionately from the military`s monopoly over power and resources.

Military officers (including General Pervez Musharraf) have been into land-grabbing on a grand scale for a long time. Instead of carrying on with the military`s tradition of carrying coal to New Castle, can`t it, for a change, do something tangible for the Pakistanis (aka ``Biharis``) who have been rotting in UN-run ``Geneva Camps`` in Bangladesh for more than three decades?

General Pervez Musharraf had been on the board of Rabita Trust, which was started for charitable work in resettling the then ``Biharis``, who wanted to be repatriated to Pakistan after the creation of Bangladesh. I don`t know how much fund was collected by the Rabita trust for the purpose over the years. But I was not very surprised to be told ruefully by a Mohajir-Pakistani acquaintance that in the post 9/11 era, the funds of that trust have been frozen by the Musharraf government on American orders because they were being misused to promote terrorism. And that, in a nutshell, spells out the real tragedy. Pakistan`s
ruling elite has never lacked in funds to promote jihad in Afghanistan or Kashmir. But they had not a penny to spare for the repatriation of the hapless ``Biharis`` !!

The ``Biharis`` continue to rot while the military officers continue merrily with their aggrandizement.

re:

[United Nations recognized the fact that the tribal militias and the Pak army were in PoK illegally. That is why it had insisted on the complete withdrawl of all Pakistani forces from Jammu & Kashmir as a pre-requisite for a plebiscite. Pakistan never fulfilled the pre-requisite and never will.]

The plebsicite resolution was passed in January 1949. In less than 4 months, Pandit Nehru started pressurizing the National Conference into subsuming Kashmir inside India`s constitutional organization. Clearly, this was a back-door maneouver to incorporate Kashmir inside the Indian Union.

When Pakistan and Kashmir people objected to this foul play, Nehru thought of a ruse. By including Article 370, he pretended to respect the ``special status of IoK``. But then he promised Premiership and financial gains to Shiekh Abdullah in exchange for inclusion in Indian Constitution. The pliant lackey, Shiekh Abdullah, duly obliged by declaring the inclusion of Kashmir in Indian Union in November 1949.

None of this was sanctioned under UN SC resolution 654. How could Pakistan withdraw from PoK when it was obvious that Nehru was trying his best to delay, circumvent and wriggle out of UN SC 654 through political wheeling-dealing with Shiekh Abdullah?

UN Resolution 654 asked for a plebiscite, not Article 370 or inclusion of IoK into Indian Union.

The consent of an individual (Sh.Abdullah) is no substitute for a plebiscite. But this is exactly what Nehru did. He was trying to interpret UN SC resolution 654 to his advantage, with total disregard for the aspirations of Kashmiri people. His ``glorious`` example has been followed by all Indian politicians to this day. And this is exactly why Kashmiris despise Indian politicians and pro-India Kashmiri leaders.

You can read the details at:
http://www.yale.edu/yira/scsy/Committees/hsc/Kashmir.pdf
http://paknews.com/art1apl-18.html