Syed Ali Safvi
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=175375
The land row and subsequent political and economic crisis have raised many a question and exploded many a myth. It has also exonerated Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s demand for a separate nation for Muslims. The father of the Indian nation, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, once said that India would be known by the way it treats its minorities.
If Gandhi were alive today, he certainly would have hung his head in shame after seeing his dream of Hindu-Muslim-Sikh unity being tethered by some Hindu fanatics who are hellbent on spreading communal animosity. It has been proven time and again that the Indian state has failed to protect its minorities. The West Bengal riots, the Delhi riots, the 1984 Sikh riots, the Babri Masjid demolition, the Baghalpur riots, the Gujarat pogrom, and hundreds and thousands of such communal riots in a span of less than 60 years have exposed the underbelly of Indian secularism. Now, the Jammu region is in the throes of a communal flare-up, and if effective measures are not taken to douse the flames, the conflagration will engulf all of India, with disastrous consequences.
Protestors in Jammu have been given a free hand, as Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) Chairman Yaseen Malik aptly put it, “Protestors are playing a friendly match with the police.” The attack on the Greater Kashmir (GK) Jammu office at Gandhi Nagar has underlined and attested to the truth in Malik’s proclamation. On the contrary, police are manhandling the protestors in the Kashmir Valley and resorting to extreme measures to quell their protests. According to a report, police in Srinagar have been using a “sophisticated and dangerous weapon” called Rudra -– which is only allowed to be used in military operations -- on the unarmed peaceful protestors. This shows that the police and paramilitary forces have been using different modus operandi in the two regions.
India boasts about its tenets of secularism and democratic values, but it is just empty rhetoric that is not reflected in the realities on the ground. The world has seen how secularism and the “age-old history” of religious tolerance were trampled upon in Gujarat by the successors of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s ‘ideology of hate’. The seeds of communal hatred were sown by the members of the Hindu Mahasabha long ago, even before the very idea of Pakistan came into being. Contrary to the common belief that Jinnah originated the two-nation theory, actually it was Savarkar who propounded the theory years before the Muslim League embraced the idea. Savarkar had commanded all the Muslims to leave ‘Bharat’ to pave the way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. When Jinnah introduced his two-nation theory, Savarkar announced, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory… It is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.” “His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.” (Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins).
So the hate campaign against Muslims was well in place even before the partition of erstwhile British India. This and many other significant factors forced Jinnah to demand a separate nation for Muslims as he believed that Muslims would not be safe in India -- a prophetic declaration indeed! There is no denying the fact that Jinnah was secular to the marrow and would never have wished to cut ties with India, but circumstances compelled him to do so. However, he had not harbored grudges against India or its leaders. He had kept his house on Malabar Hill, thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays, but destiny had something else in store for the estranged neighbors of the Asia Partition. When Nathuram Godse pumped three bullets into Gandhi, a section of the Hindu community compared him with Judas. The writing was on the wall. The divide was evident. In some areas people mourned the death of Gandhi, and in other areas they distributed sweets, held celebrations, and demanded the release of Godse. Gandhi’s crime was that he had demanded security for Muslims. The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu.
Jammu has always been a communally sensitive region compared to the Kashmir Valley. Muslims of Jammu have borne the brunt of communal hatred before when Maharaja Hari Singh, with the help of the armed bands of the extremist militant Hindu party Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), slew thousands of Muslims and forced the exodus of over 100,000 Muslims from Poonch. Interestingly, while the government is making every effort to facilitate the return of Kashmiri Pandits back to Kashmir, nothing has been done to bring back the refugees of the Jammu exodus. The authorities have miserably failed to protect the hapless Muslims in Jammu. The protestors are doing things at will, even when the so-called curfew is in place. The Hindu fanatics have wreaked havoc in Akhnur Tehsil (50 kilometers from Jammu) and the authorities are haplessly watching as mute spectators. The State of Jammu and Kashmir has reached a stage where the integrity of the state is threatened. The economic blockade imposed on the Kashmir Valley by Hindu fanatic forces has intensified the crisis. The Kashmir leadership is now exploring trade options via Muzaffarabad, something that should have been done long ago.
Anyway, “deer ayad durust ayad” (better late than never). In the wake of the road blockade, it becomes imperative for Kashmir to explore alternative road links instead of being dependent on the current insufficient linkages. Through the Jhelum Valley road, Kashmir can restore its ties with China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. And there is one more benefit. It is the only route that is free of snow in winter owing to its low elevation. Therefore, it will ensure an uninterrupted flow of traffic year-round. This route has historical significance, too. “The Jhelum Valley route was, until the partition, the easiest route from the Punjab to Kashmir. It was also convenient for those who wished to proceed towards Attock and Peshawar from Kashmir. It also must have been used for Kashmir’s trade with Persia and western Turkistan. Hiuen Tsiang and Ou-K’ong entered Kashmir from the west by this route, and it is by this route that many learned scholars and Sufis from Persia and Turkistan came to the valley.” (Kashmir under the Sultans by Mohibbul Hasan)
There are also reports in the media that in Uri protestors have threatened to cut power exports to counter the economic blockade (GK, August 9). If political parties in New Delhi, irrespective of their political ideology, do not immediately intervene and make efforts to pacify the agitators in Jammu, the State of Jammu and Kashmir could very well be divided along religious lines. Here, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is seeking to play a major role. In the run-up to Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, the party is trying to get political mileage out of the land row, but its members must make sure that the situation does not get out of control. If that happens, as one of my friends said, “We would see the Red Army in Ladakh, the Green Army in the Valley, and the Saffron Army in Jammu.” Are we ready for that?
For the saner elements in the Kashmir Valley and Jammu, it is time to show resilience and commitment to religious tolerance. They should not succumb to the pressure and most importantly they must not play into the hands of divisive forces which are hellbent on dividing the state along religious lines. For the authorities, it is like one of those bad dreams where you leave the house and discover you’re not dressed properly. Nonetheless, it is high time they pull up their socks and do what is required.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Frozen Turbulence of Kashmir
Syed Ali Safvi
The tragedy of Kashmir is that ever since the 14th century it has been ruled by outsiders. The Kashmiri heart yearns for genuine self rule and the bitter truth is that the Kashmiri leaders are no better than puppets in the hands of New Delhi.
Lot of debate is doing the rounds in the political circle of Kashmir regarding ‘self rule’. PDP patron, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, went all the way to New York to explain his party's concept of ‘self rule’. Back in the valley, National Conference blamed New Delhi for not being "clear" on the issue of self rule. The party president while addressing a press conference on November 2 , 2007 described PDP's self rule proposal as Delhi's response to NC's Autonomy. "The Autonomy resolution created ripples in New Delhi. They thought that today Farooq demands Autonomy, tomorrow he might ask for Azadi. So, within a month PDP was created to counter NC." Omer asserted.
It is a great irony that Kashmir has never been ruled (in the real sense of the word) by someone ethnically Kashmiri. Right from the 14th century onwards Kashmir has been ruled by outsiders, while the locals have only had trappings of power. The first Muslim king of Kashmir, Rinchnan, who became famous in the history as Sultan Sadruddin after embracing Islam, was not a Kashmiri but he had arrived from Tibet during the reign of King Suh Dev. Similarly Shah Mir (known by the title of Sultan Sharafud Din), the forbearer of the famous Shah-Mir dynasty which went on to produce sovereigns like Sultan Sikander (the iconoclast) and Sultan Zainul Abideen (Badshah), was not a Kashmiri. He also came to Kashmir during the time of Suh Dev. Similarly, Lankar Chak, the forbearer of Chaks, was a ruler of Dardistan and after he was defeated in a battle by his enemies he came to Kashmir. It is pertinent to mention here that seven rulers of Chak dynasty ruled upon the throne of Kashmir.
After three abortive attempts, the mighty Mughal army was finally successful in conquering Kashmir in 1586. Mughals ruled on the throne of Kashmir for 166 years. They were followed by Afghans. Afghans were followed by Sikhs and then came the Dogras. History of Kashmir bears testimony to the fact that Kashmir has never enjoyed a Self Rule. Even today nothing much has changed and it is still ruled by outsiders. The only difference is that monarchy has been replaced by democracy, but the power equation still remains the same. In the contemporary Kashmir, our domestic mainstream political leaders have only got the trappings of power while the real power has always rested with the honchos in New Delhi. This is the reason why Kashmiri leaders are unable to decide anything on their own.
When the ‘self-rule’ proposal first came to fore, Chief Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad, was quick to claim that Kashmir was already enjoying ‘self rule’. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," this is how the Chief Minister deciphered the ‘self rule’ code.
In truth it is neither a government "by the people" nor a government "of the people" when the Chief Minister says that the state government has given a mandate to the Centre to resolve the Kashmir dispute and that his government was only concerned about the "developmental work". The statement didn't come as a surprise as every one in Kashmir is aware about the stand of the Chief Minister. He is definitely more an Indian than a Kashmiri at heart.
Our state government has failed to make optimum utilization of available natural resources in the state and consequently we are forced to import virtually everything from India. Even after having three major rivers with over 20,000 megawatts of power potential, we are totally dependant on outside power which we do not have the capacity to buy.
It's a high time that the state government realizes its responsibilities and stop being a puppet government. It is the constitutional and moral responsibility for the state government to not only address the grievances of the people of state but subsequently work towards the resolution of the Kashmir imbroglio. Instead of working for ‘others’ interest, let them think of ‘Kashmir First’.
The tragedy of Kashmir is that ever since the 14th century it has been ruled by outsiders. The Kashmiri heart yearns for genuine self rule and the bitter truth is that the Kashmiri leaders are no better than puppets in the hands of New Delhi.
Lot of debate is doing the rounds in the political circle of Kashmir regarding ‘self rule’. PDP patron, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, went all the way to New York to explain his party's concept of ‘self rule’. Back in the valley, National Conference blamed New Delhi for not being "clear" on the issue of self rule. The party president while addressing a press conference on November 2 , 2007 described PDP's self rule proposal as Delhi's response to NC's Autonomy. "The Autonomy resolution created ripples in New Delhi. They thought that today Farooq demands Autonomy, tomorrow he might ask for Azadi. So, within a month PDP was created to counter NC." Omer asserted.
It is a great irony that Kashmir has never been ruled (in the real sense of the word) by someone ethnically Kashmiri. Right from the 14th century onwards Kashmir has been ruled by outsiders, while the locals have only had trappings of power. The first Muslim king of Kashmir, Rinchnan, who became famous in the history as Sultan Sadruddin after embracing Islam, was not a Kashmiri but he had arrived from Tibet during the reign of King Suh Dev. Similarly Shah Mir (known by the title of Sultan Sharafud Din), the forbearer of the famous Shah-Mir dynasty which went on to produce sovereigns like Sultan Sikander (the iconoclast) and Sultan Zainul Abideen (Badshah), was not a Kashmiri. He also came to Kashmir during the time of Suh Dev. Similarly, Lankar Chak, the forbearer of Chaks, was a ruler of Dardistan and after he was defeated in a battle by his enemies he came to Kashmir. It is pertinent to mention here that seven rulers of Chak dynasty ruled upon the throne of Kashmir.
After three abortive attempts, the mighty Mughal army was finally successful in conquering Kashmir in 1586. Mughals ruled on the throne of Kashmir for 166 years. They were followed by Afghans. Afghans were followed by Sikhs and then came the Dogras. History of Kashmir bears testimony to the fact that Kashmir has never enjoyed a Self Rule. Even today nothing much has changed and it is still ruled by outsiders. The only difference is that monarchy has been replaced by democracy, but the power equation still remains the same. In the contemporary Kashmir, our domestic mainstream political leaders have only got the trappings of power while the real power has always rested with the honchos in New Delhi. This is the reason why Kashmiri leaders are unable to decide anything on their own.
When the ‘self-rule’ proposal first came to fore, Chief Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad, was quick to claim that Kashmir was already enjoying ‘self rule’. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," this is how the Chief Minister deciphered the ‘self rule’ code.
In truth it is neither a government "by the people" nor a government "of the people" when the Chief Minister says that the state government has given a mandate to the Centre to resolve the Kashmir dispute and that his government was only concerned about the "developmental work". The statement didn't come as a surprise as every one in Kashmir is aware about the stand of the Chief Minister. He is definitely more an Indian than a Kashmiri at heart.
Our state government has failed to make optimum utilization of available natural resources in the state and consequently we are forced to import virtually everything from India. Even after having three major rivers with over 20,000 megawatts of power potential, we are totally dependant on outside power which we do not have the capacity to buy.
It's a high time that the state government realizes its responsibilities and stop being a puppet government. It is the constitutional and moral responsibility for the state government to not only address the grievances of the people of state but subsequently work towards the resolution of the Kashmir imbroglio. Instead of working for ‘others’ interest, let them think of ‘Kashmir First’.
Genesis of Kashmir dispute
Syed Ali Safvi
The last fifteen years have proved so painful for the poor Kashmiris. They are getting crushed between the two estranged neighbours of Asia; India and Pakistan. There is no escaping the fact that it is the common masses that have to undergo stiff trials and tribulations every now and then. The queries that frequently strike the mind of every common Kashmiri in general and particularly the wretched new generation of the vale, which has never witnessed peace in their native land, are that why are we being treated as slaves? Why don't we have the right to speak for ourselves? And many more.
Much has been written over Kashmir, particularly in the last fifteen years. Kashmir has been an ideal subject matter for the writers to sell out their books. But the question, however, is how far the information provided by these authors, often biased, is accurate and relevant. To understand the intricacy of Kashmir, we have to re-operate the chest of history in order to scrutinize the facts, but being impartial. There are, albeit, many factors responsible for the dispute over Kashmir, but some are indeed very substantial and merit attention. Let's explore the key factors precisely responsible for the dispute over the vale of Kashmir.
The debate concerning the future of Kashmir gained ground particularly from the days of transfer of power and the partition of British India way back in 1947. The last Viceroy of British India, Sir Lord Mountbatten's rather friendly relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru and the latter's sympathetic attitude towards Sheikh Abdullah and strong affection to what after all was his ancestral home, Kashmir was the root of all crisis, which remains very much alive nearly sixty years on. Around this emotional 'triangle' revolves the history of the Kashmir dispute.
Nevertheless, many other famous personalities of the past too played their part, but these three men ultimately were to decide the future of Kashmir and its people. The brutal and anti-Muslim regime of the Dogras, particularly the reign of Maharaja Hari Singh, who was instrumental to slay thousands of Muslims in the Poonch uprising facilitated by the Armed bands of extremist militant Hindu party in India, the Rashtrya Sevak Sang (RSS), was responsible for the splitting up of public opinion with regard to the choosing of country and the exodus of over one lakh Muslims from Poonch. In 1946, majority of the Kashmir people wanted an independent state. The two major political parties at that time, National Conference headed by Sheikh M. Abdullah and the Muslim Conference, however, had kept other options open in case the dream of independent Kashmir was not realized. Sheikh's National Conference had opened its doors for Indian accession (Sheikh Abdullah's decision might have been triggered out of his indifference towards M.A. Jinnah), while Muslim Conference, owing to its links to the Muslim League in British India, was ready with accession to Pakistan. One of the prominent writers of the contemporary world, Alastair Lamb writes, "It is to be regretted that during the crucial weeks prior to the Transfer of Power Sheikh Abdullah remained in prison and was unable either to keep in touch with the march of events or to make his own views widely clear".
To Sheikh Abdullah, the idea of independence to Kashmir appealed above all. Sheikh was virtually 'worshipped' by the people of the valley. Although, the main objectives behind Sheikh Abdullah's "Quit Kashmir" movement was the removal of Dogra rule and its replacement by an independent Kashmir, but later on he had developed strong affection towards India, or to be more specific, towards Jawaharlal Nehru, who was after all responsible for his release from the Maharaja's prison. When Jawaharlal Nehru realized the special position of Sheikh Abdullah in the state, he accordingly used Sheikh's influence as a tool in his policy of Jammu and Kashmir. This was indeed the reason why Nehru urged the release of Sheikh Abdullah and the latter's radical change from his policy of Independent Kashmir. Nevertheless, If Sheikh Abdullah would not have been in prison at the time of the Transfer of Power, even then there would not have been any change in his stand over the accession to India, since he strongly disliked M.A. Jinnah and his Muslim League. Sheikh Abdullah, nonetheless, provedto be a profitable investment for India in the long run.
Anxious Indian leaders, in Delhi, used all the political tactics to make Kashmir a part of India. The policy of India has always been to dislodge the anti-India elements in the valley. Pandit Ram Kak, Maharaja's Prime Minister, was expelled in 1947 owing to his policy of non-Indian future for the state. Even the Indian loyalist Sheikh Abdullah was not spared. Sheikh was put behind bars for his constant demand for the 'promised' autonomy. Augmentation of Pro-Indian elements in the administration supplemented the interest of Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to India. However, before he could have realized his ambition, Indian leaders were quick enough to grab the opportunity of 'invading' Kashmir.
Jawaharlal Nehru played a rather controversial part in the Pathan invasion in 1947. The purpose of sending the forces to Kashmir, as Nehru himself declared in the telegram to British Prime Minister, Attlee on 25th October, was only to encounter the advancing Pathan forces and not something designed to influence the state to accede to India. Although Nehru and Mountbatten had declared that the decision of accession must be decided according to the wishes of the people, but pragmatically that was not to be the case. There is no escaping the fact that the decision of accession to India was taken against the will and wishes of the majority of the population of the state.
There is a big controversy with regard to the 'Instrument of Accession' and it has not been clearly stated by several biased Indian narrators. The conspiracy of V.P. Menon, who drafted the letter offering Accession (which was almost certainly drafted in New Delhi without the prior consent of the Maharaja) as well as the letter of Acceptance and who along with M.C. Mahajan actually gave birth to the Accession Crisis, is hardly paid attention to. Menon and Mahajan were supposed to fly to Jammu in the afternoon of 26th October 1947 and bring the Instrument of Accession duly signed by the Maharaja to enable Indian troops to be flown to Kashmir. However, neither Menon nor Mahajan had left Delhi for Jammu on 26th October. In the words of Alastair Lamb "Menon certainly contributed to the widely held conviction that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had indeed signed up with India some hours before the first Indian regular soldiers set foot on Kashmir soil." (Incomplete Partition). It may be noted here that the then Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten had made Accession a prior condition to any sort of Indian intervention in the state. However, the fact is that, Indiantroops were flown to Srinagar well before the state of Jammu and Kashmir formally acceded to the Indian union. It now becomes apparent that India was determined to manipulate the state of Jammu & Kashmir even at the cost of the wishes of its natives. Many Indian narrators have not considered this act of extreme treachery by some egocentric Indian bureaucrats andtheir mentors. Nonetheless, no evidence is to be found whatsoever in the history about Maharaja's signing of the 'alleged' instrument of Accession (at least prior to 27th of October 1947, which is claimed).
Indians have always been effective at spreading rumors and cashing on it (at least in case of Kashmir). Indians, very skilfully, held Pakistan responsible for whatever was happening inKashmir. Indian leaders and media have perfectly attested the truth in Joseph Goebel's sayings, "frequently repeated lies have the potential of being acknowledged as the truth". Even the Governor-General, Mountbatten appeared to have accepted without question every rumour hostile to Pakistan. On the contrary, it was India which was intervening in the internal affairs of what was to all intents an independent state "in the throes of civil conflict". However, the British Government (Prime Minister Attlee's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on 26 October) and Commonwealth Relations Office had recommended India to restrain from accepting the document of Accession and discuss the question of Kashmir’s future with the Maharaja and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, nevertheless the Indians, backed by Mountbatten, who was deeply committed to a policy of Indian military activity coupled with accession, made negotiations quiet impossible. It is an admitted fact that if India had established contacts with Pakistan when the former recognized the latter's role in aiding the Azad forces, the dispute over the future of Kashmir would not have stretched so far. But, it was a conspiracy on part of Indian leaders for not consulting the Pakistan Govt. prior to dispatching forces to Kashmir. This proves the fact that the Indian side was committed to legitimize its stand on the state by hook or crook and at the same time it didn't want Pakistan to be a party to it.
All the efforts made by the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) in holding the plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir proved futile. Although, India had repeatedly pledged that the question of Kashmir's accession would be decided in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris, but the pledge is still to be honoured. India has denied the right of self determination to the people of Kashmir. The question is what it is in the resolution that irks the Indian side. Omkar Razdan writes "The will of the people of Kashmir has been held supreme in these resolutions. If this "will" is with the state of India, as the Indian media would want Indians to believe, then why do we fritter our energy in fighting a bloody proxy war in the state." (The Trauma of Kashmir).
However, with the passage of time, India has transformed Kashmir into a military camp and all the promises made to the Kashmiri people by Nehru and Mountbatten have been forgone by the successive regimes of Indian politics. More has been said than done for Kashmiris. Kashmir has, particularly in the last more than a decade, witnessed scores of soul-deadening incidents. All methods of human rights violation have been adopted by the Indian troops and the militant outfits. The brutality has put to shame the likes of Hitler and Chengez Khan. Ruthless interrogations, illegal use of forces, disappearance, rape, and custodial killings have become regular phenomena in Kashmir. Meanwhile, death of thousands of young men is upsetting the sex ratio, economy is in depression, education has gone down, child labour has become rampant, and many other social evils have cropped up. The paradise of Kashmir has not just been lost but ruined and peace in the vale has been broken into 'pieces'. Ironically, the electronic media of a democratic Indian state portrays the situation in Kashmir as 'normal'.
Common Kashmiris die a thousand deaths each day and nobody pays heed to their miseries.On the contrary they are treated merely as slaves who have been deprived of their fundamental rights. The concern of the army and militant outfits is to keep Kashmir; the means are not their concern. The militants lob grenades at security personals and in the bargain the blood of innocent Kashmiris is spilled over the green valley. Kashmiris are, as Arundhati Roy once said, "sandwiched between security forces and militants." It is a high time for all the Kashmiris, particularly the new generation to wake up and think about the prospect of Kashmir and Kashmiris. What Kashmir requires today is a leader who has no attachment with money nor the lure for power; a leader, who would be committed to bring peace to the grief-stricken valley. Unfortunately, at present there is hardly any leader worth the name and that has added to the miseries of Kashmiris.
There have been innumerable direct bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan, on or including Kashmir in the last five decades, but unfortunately all these discussions have not yielded any result, and rightly so. Robert G. Wirsing has rightly stated that "India and Pakistan are far from free to settle the Kashmir dispute in their own terms." (Kashmir in the Shadow of War).
Despite the fact that Kashmir was never a property of either India or Pakistan and there can be no question of deciding the fate of Kashmiris without their consent, Kashmiris were, ironically, ignored in the dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the Kashmir dispute. However, it is a good gesture that both the countries have realized the importance of Kashmiris representation in the dialogue process.
The problem of Kashmir would only be resolved through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. But holding of Plebiscite with only two options (union with either Indian or Pakistan) is not now acceptable to the bulk of Kashmiris. The ideal solution for Kashmiris, as Prof. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema of Pakistan asserted, would be an "independent status for the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir". Steps like starting a bus service from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad, laying down railway lines, or giving hefty economic packages won't solve the problem of Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan should make U.N Resolutions the basis of solving the problem. U.N. resolution, after all, was responsible to ultimately solve the international disputes in South Africa and Angola. India and Pakistan must keep the interest of Kashmiri people paramount and take serious and resolute initiative in order to make things better for the common mass of Kashmir and settle the Kashmir issue once and for all.
The last fifteen years have proved so painful for the poor Kashmiris. They are getting crushed between the two estranged neighbours of Asia; India and Pakistan. There is no escaping the fact that it is the common masses that have to undergo stiff trials and tribulations every now and then. The queries that frequently strike the mind of every common Kashmiri in general and particularly the wretched new generation of the vale, which has never witnessed peace in their native land, are that why are we being treated as slaves? Why don't we have the right to speak for ourselves? And many more.
Much has been written over Kashmir, particularly in the last fifteen years. Kashmir has been an ideal subject matter for the writers to sell out their books. But the question, however, is how far the information provided by these authors, often biased, is accurate and relevant. To understand the intricacy of Kashmir, we have to re-operate the chest of history in order to scrutinize the facts, but being impartial. There are, albeit, many factors responsible for the dispute over Kashmir, but some are indeed very substantial and merit attention. Let's explore the key factors precisely responsible for the dispute over the vale of Kashmir.
The debate concerning the future of Kashmir gained ground particularly from the days of transfer of power and the partition of British India way back in 1947. The last Viceroy of British India, Sir Lord Mountbatten's rather friendly relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru and the latter's sympathetic attitude towards Sheikh Abdullah and strong affection to what after all was his ancestral home, Kashmir was the root of all crisis, which remains very much alive nearly sixty years on. Around this emotional 'triangle' revolves the history of the Kashmir dispute.
Nevertheless, many other famous personalities of the past too played their part, but these three men ultimately were to decide the future of Kashmir and its people. The brutal and anti-Muslim regime of the Dogras, particularly the reign of Maharaja Hari Singh, who was instrumental to slay thousands of Muslims in the Poonch uprising facilitated by the Armed bands of extremist militant Hindu party in India, the Rashtrya Sevak Sang (RSS), was responsible for the splitting up of public opinion with regard to the choosing of country and the exodus of over one lakh Muslims from Poonch. In 1946, majority of the Kashmir people wanted an independent state. The two major political parties at that time, National Conference headed by Sheikh M. Abdullah and the Muslim Conference, however, had kept other options open in case the dream of independent Kashmir was not realized. Sheikh's National Conference had opened its doors for Indian accession (Sheikh Abdullah's decision might have been triggered out of his indifference towards M.A. Jinnah), while Muslim Conference, owing to its links to the Muslim League in British India, was ready with accession to Pakistan. One of the prominent writers of the contemporary world, Alastair Lamb writes, "It is to be regretted that during the crucial weeks prior to the Transfer of Power Sheikh Abdullah remained in prison and was unable either to keep in touch with the march of events or to make his own views widely clear".
To Sheikh Abdullah, the idea of independence to Kashmir appealed above all. Sheikh was virtually 'worshipped' by the people of the valley. Although, the main objectives behind Sheikh Abdullah's "Quit Kashmir" movement was the removal of Dogra rule and its replacement by an independent Kashmir, but later on he had developed strong affection towards India, or to be more specific, towards Jawaharlal Nehru, who was after all responsible for his release from the Maharaja's prison. When Jawaharlal Nehru realized the special position of Sheikh Abdullah in the state, he accordingly used Sheikh's influence as a tool in his policy of Jammu and Kashmir. This was indeed the reason why Nehru urged the release of Sheikh Abdullah and the latter's radical change from his policy of Independent Kashmir. Nevertheless, If Sheikh Abdullah would not have been in prison at the time of the Transfer of Power, even then there would not have been any change in his stand over the accession to India, since he strongly disliked M.A. Jinnah and his Muslim League. Sheikh Abdullah, nonetheless, provedto be a profitable investment for India in the long run.
Anxious Indian leaders, in Delhi, used all the political tactics to make Kashmir a part of India. The policy of India has always been to dislodge the anti-India elements in the valley. Pandit Ram Kak, Maharaja's Prime Minister, was expelled in 1947 owing to his policy of non-Indian future for the state. Even the Indian loyalist Sheikh Abdullah was not spared. Sheikh was put behind bars for his constant demand for the 'promised' autonomy. Augmentation of Pro-Indian elements in the administration supplemented the interest of Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to India. However, before he could have realized his ambition, Indian leaders were quick enough to grab the opportunity of 'invading' Kashmir.
Jawaharlal Nehru played a rather controversial part in the Pathan invasion in 1947. The purpose of sending the forces to Kashmir, as Nehru himself declared in the telegram to British Prime Minister, Attlee on 25th October, was only to encounter the advancing Pathan forces and not something designed to influence the state to accede to India. Although Nehru and Mountbatten had declared that the decision of accession must be decided according to the wishes of the people, but pragmatically that was not to be the case. There is no escaping the fact that the decision of accession to India was taken against the will and wishes of the majority of the population of the state.
There is a big controversy with regard to the 'Instrument of Accession' and it has not been clearly stated by several biased Indian narrators. The conspiracy of V.P. Menon, who drafted the letter offering Accession (which was almost certainly drafted in New Delhi without the prior consent of the Maharaja) as well as the letter of Acceptance and who along with M.C. Mahajan actually gave birth to the Accession Crisis, is hardly paid attention to. Menon and Mahajan were supposed to fly to Jammu in the afternoon of 26th October 1947 and bring the Instrument of Accession duly signed by the Maharaja to enable Indian troops to be flown to Kashmir. However, neither Menon nor Mahajan had left Delhi for Jammu on 26th October. In the words of Alastair Lamb "Menon certainly contributed to the widely held conviction that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had indeed signed up with India some hours before the first Indian regular soldiers set foot on Kashmir soil." (Incomplete Partition). It may be noted here that the then Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten had made Accession a prior condition to any sort of Indian intervention in the state. However, the fact is that, Indiantroops were flown to Srinagar well before the state of Jammu and Kashmir formally acceded to the Indian union. It now becomes apparent that India was determined to manipulate the state of Jammu & Kashmir even at the cost of the wishes of its natives. Many Indian narrators have not considered this act of extreme treachery by some egocentric Indian bureaucrats andtheir mentors. Nonetheless, no evidence is to be found whatsoever in the history about Maharaja's signing of the 'alleged' instrument of Accession (at least prior to 27th of October 1947, which is claimed).
Indians have always been effective at spreading rumors and cashing on it (at least in case of Kashmir). Indians, very skilfully, held Pakistan responsible for whatever was happening inKashmir. Indian leaders and media have perfectly attested the truth in Joseph Goebel's sayings, "frequently repeated lies have the potential of being acknowledged as the truth". Even the Governor-General, Mountbatten appeared to have accepted without question every rumour hostile to Pakistan. On the contrary, it was India which was intervening in the internal affairs of what was to all intents an independent state "in the throes of civil conflict". However, the British Government (Prime Minister Attlee's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on 26 October) and Commonwealth Relations Office had recommended India to restrain from accepting the document of Accession and discuss the question of Kashmir’s future with the Maharaja and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, nevertheless the Indians, backed by Mountbatten, who was deeply committed to a policy of Indian military activity coupled with accession, made negotiations quiet impossible. It is an admitted fact that if India had established contacts with Pakistan when the former recognized the latter's role in aiding the Azad forces, the dispute over the future of Kashmir would not have stretched so far. But, it was a conspiracy on part of Indian leaders for not consulting the Pakistan Govt. prior to dispatching forces to Kashmir. This proves the fact that the Indian side was committed to legitimize its stand on the state by hook or crook and at the same time it didn't want Pakistan to be a party to it.
All the efforts made by the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) in holding the plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir proved futile. Although, India had repeatedly pledged that the question of Kashmir's accession would be decided in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris, but the pledge is still to be honoured. India has denied the right of self determination to the people of Kashmir. The question is what it is in the resolution that irks the Indian side. Omkar Razdan writes "The will of the people of Kashmir has been held supreme in these resolutions. If this "will" is with the state of India, as the Indian media would want Indians to believe, then why do we fritter our energy in fighting a bloody proxy war in the state." (The Trauma of Kashmir).
However, with the passage of time, India has transformed Kashmir into a military camp and all the promises made to the Kashmiri people by Nehru and Mountbatten have been forgone by the successive regimes of Indian politics. More has been said than done for Kashmiris. Kashmir has, particularly in the last more than a decade, witnessed scores of soul-deadening incidents. All methods of human rights violation have been adopted by the Indian troops and the militant outfits. The brutality has put to shame the likes of Hitler and Chengez Khan. Ruthless interrogations, illegal use of forces, disappearance, rape, and custodial killings have become regular phenomena in Kashmir. Meanwhile, death of thousands of young men is upsetting the sex ratio, economy is in depression, education has gone down, child labour has become rampant, and many other social evils have cropped up. The paradise of Kashmir has not just been lost but ruined and peace in the vale has been broken into 'pieces'. Ironically, the electronic media of a democratic Indian state portrays the situation in Kashmir as 'normal'.
Common Kashmiris die a thousand deaths each day and nobody pays heed to their miseries.On the contrary they are treated merely as slaves who have been deprived of their fundamental rights. The concern of the army and militant outfits is to keep Kashmir; the means are not their concern. The militants lob grenades at security personals and in the bargain the blood of innocent Kashmiris is spilled over the green valley. Kashmiris are, as Arundhati Roy once said, "sandwiched between security forces and militants." It is a high time for all the Kashmiris, particularly the new generation to wake up and think about the prospect of Kashmir and Kashmiris. What Kashmir requires today is a leader who has no attachment with money nor the lure for power; a leader, who would be committed to bring peace to the grief-stricken valley. Unfortunately, at present there is hardly any leader worth the name and that has added to the miseries of Kashmiris.
There have been innumerable direct bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan, on or including Kashmir in the last five decades, but unfortunately all these discussions have not yielded any result, and rightly so. Robert G. Wirsing has rightly stated that "India and Pakistan are far from free to settle the Kashmir dispute in their own terms." (Kashmir in the Shadow of War).
Despite the fact that Kashmir was never a property of either India or Pakistan and there can be no question of deciding the fate of Kashmiris without their consent, Kashmiris were, ironically, ignored in the dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the Kashmir dispute. However, it is a good gesture that both the countries have realized the importance of Kashmiris representation in the dialogue process.
The problem of Kashmir would only be resolved through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. But holding of Plebiscite with only two options (union with either Indian or Pakistan) is not now acceptable to the bulk of Kashmiris. The ideal solution for Kashmiris, as Prof. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema of Pakistan asserted, would be an "independent status for the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir". Steps like starting a bus service from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad, laying down railway lines, or giving hefty economic packages won't solve the problem of Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan should make U.N Resolutions the basis of solving the problem. U.N. resolution, after all, was responsible to ultimately solve the international disputes in South Africa and Angola. India and Pakistan must keep the interest of Kashmiri people paramount and take serious and resolute initiative in order to make things better for the common mass of Kashmir and settle the Kashmir issue once and for all.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Unarmed Freedom Fighters
Kashmiri Muslims have broken new ground by waging a non-violent separation struggle but the Indian authorities seem unsure how to respond
Muzamil Jaleel *
Flowing black beard, a headband with "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest) and a fluttering green flag. This has been the trademark picture of the recent azadi (freedom) processions of Kashmir, where hundreds of thousands marched the streets of this disputed Himalayan region seeking a separation from India.
From a distance, it seems as if the past has returned to Kashmir. But the present contains an irrefutable truth: in place of guns, the people carry slogans. The politics of protest this time is not about the argument of power, but about the power of argument.
Kashmir is the first conflict-ridden Muslim region in the world where people have consciously made a transition from violence to non-violence, and this includes the staunch Islamists too. In fact, the wisdom behind the use of arms to fight a political struggle was being silently debated within Kashmir ever since 9/11 blurred the lines dividing terrorism and genuine political movements. The deteriorating situation inside Pakistan too had tilted the balance towards a peaceful struggle.
Read on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/31/kashmir.india
* (Muzammil comes from humble Kashmiri roots, with a strong sense of family and tradition. He was born in a village in south Kashmir's Baramullah district. As a journalist, has has shed vital light on conflict in Kashmir for the last decade. He has broken more than 50 stories, including the infamous sex scandals. He is also an intrepid reporter of rare courage. On one fellowship, he was a visiting scholar at the University of California-Berkeley. On another, he worked in London for the Guardian, the Observer, and the Times. His honors include a coveted Sankrit Award for excellence in Indian journalism and literature. He also won a Kurt Shorck Award for International Journalism administered by Columbia University.He spent two months looking at America, starting in New Orleans and ending up on Capitol Hill. Somewhere in there, he found time to get married in Portland, Oregon)
Kashmir Is Simmering
S.A.S.
On August 30 the patron of People's Democratic Party (PDP) Mufti Muhammad Sayeed warned New Delhi of "bigger rebellion" if it ignored the Kashmir Coordination Committee (CC) and took "unilateral decision" on land crisis. The New Delhi, however, did not pay any heed to Sayeed's warning and a day after his statement did exactly what the former chief minister feared.
If media reports are anything to go by then the brief lull in Kashmir, due to severest-ever curfew imposed by authorities, will not last long. The volcano is simmering and it can explode at any time.
Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarsh Samiti (SAYSS), which spearheaded the agitation in Jammu, called off protests after the government agreed upon transfering 100 acres of land at Baltal and Domail on temporary basis.
A curfew was imposed in Jammu to stop people from participating in a "victory rally".
"More than 300,000 people may take part (in the victory rally) and there's a threat of militants disrupting the rally," Deputy Commissioner of Police Jammu, Mandeep Bhandari said.
Although, a juiliant crowd of hundreds of people defied curfew and filled the streets. Ironicaly, the policemen deployed to stop processions were seen dancing with the marchers.
"The shrine board will now exclusively use the land during the pilgrimage period," said Leela Karan Sharma, the head of SAYSS. "We are temporarily suspending our strike."
The decision, albeit, did not come as a surprise. Reports were doing rounds for more than a week that the honchos in New Delhi were making plans to temporarily transfer 100 acres of land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) with an intent to "tackle Jammu agitation".
“We are placing so much emphasis on reducing the agitation in the Jammu region because as long as that agitation persists, the likelihood of the crowd coming onto the National Highway will remain,” India’s National Security Adviser (NSA) MK Narayanan told Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN TV channel’s programme ‘Devil’s Advocate’ (Aug 30). Interestingly, the same man had earlier denied reports of highway blockade by Hindu fanatics.
Narayanan admitted the transfer of land to Amarnath was wrong and should have been avoided.
Reports also suggested that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) was directed to take "proper stock of the situation" in the state before any such move was announcement.
Soon after the news of land transfer reached Kashmir, hundreds of protestors filled streets across Srinagar city to protest against the "unilateral" decision, and demanded the release of seperatist leaders. Police used teargas and fired into air to disperse the protestors. At least, ten protestors were hurt.
The protest took place when authorities briefly relaxed a curfew imposed to prevent pro-freedom rallies.
While the pro-India National Conference (NC) and Congress welcomed the decision, People's Democratic Party (PDP) condemned it and termed it "a move to disrespect the popular sentiments in Kashmir". The party president Mehbooba Mufti said that any decision on this "sensitive matter" should have been taken only with consensus and after consultation with the Kashmir Coordination Committee and civil society.
"All voices of peaceful dissention in Kashmir have been muzzled throwing democratic norms to winds and by contrast the government has gone out of its way to provide space to the sword wielding cadres' of communal forces who are receiving ideological and material reinforcement from outside the State," she said. "Our party had cautioned the Government of India against any such approach, but unfortunately no consensus was created between the political parties in Kashmir on the solution."
Strong condemnations also came from the Coordination Committee (an amalgam of Hurriyat, and representatives of various political, religious, social and traders organizations). The decision can further deteriorate the situation in the crippled valley. However, in the wake of any untoward incident, the police and paramilitary forces have been armed to teeth to quill the protestors with "iron fist". Anticipating a mass uprising in the valley, New Delhi has already airlifted thousands of canes and tear smoke canister to Kashmir.
The government has misread the equation and it is repeating the same old mistake again.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Amarnath Land Row: Towards a feasible solution
Syed Ali Safvi
The crisis in Jammu and Kashmir are compounding with each passing day. The two regions of the state are up against each other over a stretch of land. The administration is undecided on how to deal with the present turmoil. Going by the present ground realities, there seems no light at the end of the tunnel.
Here are some remedial measures through which the crisis in Jammu and Kashmir could be mitigated.
1) All the members of Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB), including the chairman, and of Mata Vaishno Devi Board (SMVDB) should resign and a new board should be constituted, comprising members of Hindu community belonging to the state, preferably Kashmiri Pandits. The government officials and politician should not be allowed to become members of the board. The board must be completely apolitical, governed byreligious heads having no political association with any political party, like in case of the Dargah (Khawaja Moin-ud-Din Chishti) Trust and Nizamuddin Dargah Management Committee (NDMC).
Likewise, members of Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Auqaf Trust (JKMAT) should also resign and the management of trust should be handed over to a body of Muslim scholars, belonging to the state. Politicians should not have any say in the Trust affairs.
2) Limit the number of yatris to Shri Amarnath Shrine as has been done in the case of Kailash Mansarovar (China) and Gangotri & Gamukh (Uttarakhand). Such a restriction will ensure smooth and effective management of yatra. It will also ensure foolproof security to yatris. Furthermore, it will also keep Kashmir's ecology, environment and fresh water sources ("80 per cent of drinking water to Kashmir comes from the streams of Lidder and Sindh, which are fed from glaciers through which the yatra takes place") clean. Experts believe that if the growing number of Yatris to the cave is not checked "it would render Kashmir fresh water streams un-ustable in the next two years." The experts have also opined that the increasing number of yatris would impact the area's wild life, and "generate huge amounts of green house gases." Nitish Sengupta Committee, which was formed after 1996 snowstorm in which 273 yatris died, too had recommended in its report (December 1996) that the number of yatris visiting the cave be regulated.
3) Limit the period of yatra. A two-month long yatra does not make any sense. Even the custodian of the Chhari Mubarak or holy mace, Shri Mahant Depender Giri has questioned the logic behind the extention of yatra period, which he says is "unspiritual". The time period of yatra should be curtailed by one month.
4) The Indian government should throw open the Srinagar-Muzaffarad road for trade so that Kashmiris don't feel choked and enslaved. Interestingly, during his visit to Kashmir in April this year, Indian Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh said that the trade on Srinagar-Muzaffarabad route could begin within three months. However, when fruitgrowers, facing Hobson's choice, tried to take their fruit, rotting by the roadside owing to the attacks and blockade, to Muzaffarabad they were showered with bullets.
5) Indian Prime Minister should personally intervene into the matter and hold unconditional talks with the members of Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarsh Samiti (SAYSS) and members of the Coordination Committee comprising both factions of Hurriyat, and representatives of various political, religious, social and traders organizations to chalk out an amicable solution accepted to both the parties.
6) The Jammu & Kashmir Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Act, 2001 should be changed owing to its communal nature. The law is against "Kashmir's syncretic traditions". Experts believe that "it (the law) is a poorly conceived law, having neither considered an environmental impact assessment nor having kept the environmental concerns in sight."
The crisis in Jammu and Kashmir are compounding with each passing day. The two regions of the state are up against each other over a stretch of land. The administration is undecided on how to deal with the present turmoil. Going by the present ground realities, there seems no light at the end of the tunnel.
Here are some remedial measures through which the crisis in Jammu and Kashmir could be mitigated.
1) All the members of Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB), including the chairman, and of Mata Vaishno Devi Board (SMVDB) should resign and a new board should be constituted, comprising members of Hindu community belonging to the state, preferably Kashmiri Pandits. The government officials and politician should not be allowed to become members of the board. The board must be completely apolitical, governed byreligious heads having no political association with any political party, like in case of the Dargah (Khawaja Moin-ud-Din Chishti) Trust and Nizamuddin Dargah Management Committee (NDMC).
Likewise, members of Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Auqaf Trust (JKMAT) should also resign and the management of trust should be handed over to a body of Muslim scholars, belonging to the state. Politicians should not have any say in the Trust affairs.
2) Limit the number of yatris to Shri Amarnath Shrine as has been done in the case of Kailash Mansarovar (China) and Gangotri & Gamukh (Uttarakhand). Such a restriction will ensure smooth and effective management of yatra. It will also ensure foolproof security to yatris. Furthermore, it will also keep Kashmir's ecology, environment and fresh water sources ("80 per cent of drinking water to Kashmir comes from the streams of Lidder and Sindh, which are fed from glaciers through which the yatra takes place") clean. Experts believe that if the growing number of Yatris to the cave is not checked "it would render Kashmir fresh water streams un-ustable in the next two years." The experts have also opined that the increasing number of yatris would impact the area's wild life, and "generate huge amounts of green house gases." Nitish Sengupta Committee, which was formed after 1996 snowstorm in which 273 yatris died, too had recommended in its report (December 1996) that the number of yatris visiting the cave be regulated.
3) Limit the period of yatra. A two-month long yatra does not make any sense. Even the custodian of the Chhari Mubarak or holy mace, Shri Mahant Depender Giri has questioned the logic behind the extention of yatra period, which he says is "unspiritual". The time period of yatra should be curtailed by one month.
4) The Indian government should throw open the Srinagar-Muzaffarad road for trade so that Kashmiris don't feel choked and enslaved. Interestingly, during his visit to Kashmir in April this year, Indian Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh said that the trade on Srinagar-Muzaffarabad route could begin within three months. However, when fruitgrowers, facing Hobson's choice, tried to take their fruit, rotting by the roadside owing to the attacks and blockade, to Muzaffarabad they were showered with bullets.
5) Indian Prime Minister should personally intervene into the matter and hold unconditional talks with the members of Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarsh Samiti (SAYSS) and members of the Coordination Committee comprising both factions of Hurriyat, and representatives of various political, religious, social and traders organizations to chalk out an amicable solution accepted to both the parties.
6) The Jammu & Kashmir Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Act, 2001 should be changed owing to its communal nature. The law is against "Kashmir's syncretic traditions". Experts believe that "it (the law) is a poorly conceived law, having neither considered an environmental impact assessment nor having kept the environmental concerns in sight."
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Kashmir's Mass Uprising
Syed Ali Safvi
Kashmir is burning. Jammu is not calm either. Both the regions, sadly, are up against each other over 40 hectares of forestland. So far more than 30 protestors have lost their lives in police firing in both the regions. The state is well and truly divided along regional lines, or, as some would prefer to say, along religious lines.
It all started when Jammu and Kashmir government decided to transfer 40 hectares of forestland in Kashmir to a Hindu Shrine Board, Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB). The decision triggered unprecedented protests in the valley where the order was seen as a conspiracy "to change the demographics of the valley". The state of Jammu and Kashmir enjoys a special status within the Indian constitution. According to Article 370 non-state subjects cannot purchase land in Kashmir.The land transfer issue united the sequestered Hurriyat Conference (HC). The protests snowballed into public uprising, and with mounting public pressure People's Democratic Party (PDP), a strong ally of the ruling coalition government in the state, pulled the plug on the government. PDP's withdrawal triggered a major political crisis in the state and paved the way for yet another spell of Governor's rule in the State - for the fifth time since 1977. The governor, N.N. Vohra - who also heads the SASB - rescinded the order.
While the protests in Muslim-majority Kashmir died out with the revocation of the order, the Hindu-majority region of Jammu erupted against the decision and accused the governor of "succumbing to the pressure of separatists and hardliners".While the Jammu was burning, the valley was relatively calm until Hindu fanatics in Jammu imposed economic blockade on the valley. Muslim truckers were beaten to pulp and vehicles were burnt by a band of Hindu vagabonds. Brandishing swords, tridents, petrol bombs and country-made pistols, they attacked Muslims and Mosques, and killed, looted, ransacked at will.
In the wake of economic blockade, Kashmir was reeling under an acute scarcity of essential commodities and, most importantly, life-saving drugs. Hundreds of fruit-laden trucks were stranded on the Jammu-Srinagar highway and at Srinagar's fruit mandi. Owing to the blockade of the highway by the sword-wielding mob of Hindu fanatics, these trucks were unable to reach their respective destinations. The Kashmir Fruit Growers Association (KFGA), in order to sell their harvest, decided to march towards Muzaffarabad. Hurriyat Conference issued "Muzaffarad chalo" call. A sea of around 1.50 lakh Kashmiris marched towards Muzaffarad on August 11 and bullets were showered on the caravan when it reached Uri (some 100 kilometres from Srinagar). The executive member of Hurriyat Conference (Mirwaiz), Sheikh Abdul Aziz, who was leading the protest along with Shabir Ahmad Shah, was killed along with eight others in an unprovoked firing by troops.
Interestingly, during his visit to Kashmir in April this year, Indian Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh said that the trade on Srinagar-Muzaffarabad route could begin within three months. "The slow movement forward in this regard was due to the political instability in Pakistan, which now is over with the installation of a democratically set up government there," Ramesh opined. But when fruitgrowers, facing Hobson's choice, tried to take their fruit, rotting by the roadside, owing to the attacks and blockade, to Muzaffarabad they were showered with bullets.
The killing of Aziz spread like a wild fire across the valley and people took to streets to give vent to their pent up anger. Chairman of his faction of Hurriyat Conference, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has accused the troops of "target killings". Night protests are back in Kashmir, particularly in the Srinagar city. The protests are reminiscent of the protests witnessed in early-90s when people would throng the streets and the Valley reverberated with anti-India, pro-freedom and pro-Pakistan slogans. The land issue has united the Kashmiris, irrespective of the political divide.Hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris took to streets on August 16 to mourn the death of Sheikh Aziz. The protestors, carrying green colour flags emblazoned with "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is Great), travelled to Pampore, the hometown of the slain leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz. A long cavalcade of buses, two wheelers, trucks, private cars, load carriers, auto rickshaws carrying mourners drove towards Pampore. It seemed as if all roads were leading to the Saffron town. A congregation of over one lakh assembled in the Eidgah of Pampore where the Hurriyat leaders, including Mirwaiz Umer and Syed Ali Geelani, addressed the massive gathering. Mirwaiz asked New Delhi to withdraw armed forces from J&K, revoke Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), release all political detenues from the State and throw Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Road open for "free trade and travel". While Syed Ali Geelani said that the Kashmiris had launched a movement of 'Azadi Bara-e-Islam' (freedom for Islam) "which would be carried to its logical conclusion." He also asked the pro-India politicians to immediately resign or else face 'social boycott'.
Following Geelani's announcement, Mohammad Yaqoob Vakil, an old time colleague of Mirwaiz Umer Farooq who had earlier this year migrated to pro-India People's Democratic Party (PDP) returned back to Hurriyat on the same evening. The mood in Kashmir is upbeat. It seems this time Kashmiris will not settle for anything less than freedom. Pro-India parties and leaders are facing the wrath of irate protestors. In an unprecented move, Pakistani flag was hoisted atop the house of former forest minister and senior PDP leader, Qazi Muhammad Afzal at Ganderbal (some 30 km north of Srinagar) on the occasion of Pakistan's Independence Day.Despite several rounds of All Party Meetings in Delhi and Jammu, the government has miserably failed to break the ice. Interestingly, when an all-party delegation visited the state to hold parleys aimed at solving the Amarnath land row, the delegation did not deem it necessary to hold talks with any of the separatist leaders or, more importantly, the fruit growers. Today the mood in Kashmir is different. Kashmiris, irrespective of age and ideology, want freedom. The valley is abuzz with pro-freedom slogans. Thanks to the land row, secessionist groups in the valley have regained their lost political ground. The Kashmiri youth are seen rallying around the seperatists, an ominous sign for New Delhi.
"National Conference and PDP may command the loyalty of the old and middle-aged, the youth-Kashmir's future-are with (Yaseen) Malik and those like him who speak the language of self-determination and empowerment," feels Prem Shankar Jha, India's leading strategic analyst.
The issue can destabilise the Indo-Pak peace process and with mounting international pressure on India over the killing of peaceful protestors, it has a potential to sabotage the Indo-US nuclear deal.The Pakistani government condemned "the excessive and unwarranted use of force against the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir". India retorted back, saying "These statements constitute clear interference in the internal affairs of an integral part of India - such statements by leaders of a foreign country do not help the situation. Nor do they contribute to creating the atmosphere necessary for the dialogue process between India and Pakistan to move forward."
Amnesty International has asked the Indian government to "ensure that it protects the right to life in accordance with its responsibilities under international law".
However, the fight is no longer over the land row, but for the "final settlement of Kashmir issue".
"Now, people want freedom from Indian occupation. The land issue is a thing of the past. Neither is there any need to talk about this issue nor would I ever talk on the subject to the (Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarsh) Samiti," Geelani said.
Presently there does not seem any solution in sight. The issue has slipped out of the hands of Indian government and the J&K Governor. It seems very unlikely that they would be able to put any brakes on the incessant protests. New Delhi didn't react fast enough when the land issue first came to fore. In fact, it allowed the situation to take alarming proportions. Had the honchos in New Delhi acted proactively, the situation could have been quite different today.
Kashmir is burning. Jammu is not calm either. Both the regions, sadly, are up against each other over 40 hectares of forestland. So far more than 30 protestors have lost their lives in police firing in both the regions. The state is well and truly divided along regional lines, or, as some would prefer to say, along religious lines.
It all started when Jammu and Kashmir government decided to transfer 40 hectares of forestland in Kashmir to a Hindu Shrine Board, Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB). The decision triggered unprecedented protests in the valley where the order was seen as a conspiracy "to change the demographics of the valley". The state of Jammu and Kashmir enjoys a special status within the Indian constitution. According to Article 370 non-state subjects cannot purchase land in Kashmir.The land transfer issue united the sequestered Hurriyat Conference (HC). The protests snowballed into public uprising, and with mounting public pressure People's Democratic Party (PDP), a strong ally of the ruling coalition government in the state, pulled the plug on the government. PDP's withdrawal triggered a major political crisis in the state and paved the way for yet another spell of Governor's rule in the State - for the fifth time since 1977. The governor, N.N. Vohra - who also heads the SASB - rescinded the order.
While the protests in Muslim-majority Kashmir died out with the revocation of the order, the Hindu-majority region of Jammu erupted against the decision and accused the governor of "succumbing to the pressure of separatists and hardliners".While the Jammu was burning, the valley was relatively calm until Hindu fanatics in Jammu imposed economic blockade on the valley. Muslim truckers were beaten to pulp and vehicles were burnt by a band of Hindu vagabonds. Brandishing swords, tridents, petrol bombs and country-made pistols, they attacked Muslims and Mosques, and killed, looted, ransacked at will.
In the wake of economic blockade, Kashmir was reeling under an acute scarcity of essential commodities and, most importantly, life-saving drugs. Hundreds of fruit-laden trucks were stranded on the Jammu-Srinagar highway and at Srinagar's fruit mandi. Owing to the blockade of the highway by the sword-wielding mob of Hindu fanatics, these trucks were unable to reach their respective destinations. The Kashmir Fruit Growers Association (KFGA), in order to sell their harvest, decided to march towards Muzaffarabad. Hurriyat Conference issued "Muzaffarad chalo" call. A sea of around 1.50 lakh Kashmiris marched towards Muzaffarad on August 11 and bullets were showered on the caravan when it reached Uri (some 100 kilometres from Srinagar). The executive member of Hurriyat Conference (Mirwaiz), Sheikh Abdul Aziz, who was leading the protest along with Shabir Ahmad Shah, was killed along with eight others in an unprovoked firing by troops.
Interestingly, during his visit to Kashmir in April this year, Indian Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh said that the trade on Srinagar-Muzaffarabad route could begin within three months. "The slow movement forward in this regard was due to the political instability in Pakistan, which now is over with the installation of a democratically set up government there," Ramesh opined. But when fruitgrowers, facing Hobson's choice, tried to take their fruit, rotting by the roadside, owing to the attacks and blockade, to Muzaffarabad they were showered with bullets.
The killing of Aziz spread like a wild fire across the valley and people took to streets to give vent to their pent up anger. Chairman of his faction of Hurriyat Conference, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has accused the troops of "target killings". Night protests are back in Kashmir, particularly in the Srinagar city. The protests are reminiscent of the protests witnessed in early-90s when people would throng the streets and the Valley reverberated with anti-India, pro-freedom and pro-Pakistan slogans. The land issue has united the Kashmiris, irrespective of the political divide.Hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris took to streets on August 16 to mourn the death of Sheikh Aziz. The protestors, carrying green colour flags emblazoned with "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is Great), travelled to Pampore, the hometown of the slain leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz. A long cavalcade of buses, two wheelers, trucks, private cars, load carriers, auto rickshaws carrying mourners drove towards Pampore. It seemed as if all roads were leading to the Saffron town. A congregation of over one lakh assembled in the Eidgah of Pampore where the Hurriyat leaders, including Mirwaiz Umer and Syed Ali Geelani, addressed the massive gathering. Mirwaiz asked New Delhi to withdraw armed forces from J&K, revoke Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), release all political detenues from the State and throw Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Road open for "free trade and travel". While Syed Ali Geelani said that the Kashmiris had launched a movement of 'Azadi Bara-e-Islam' (freedom for Islam) "which would be carried to its logical conclusion." He also asked the pro-India politicians to immediately resign or else face 'social boycott'.
Following Geelani's announcement, Mohammad Yaqoob Vakil, an old time colleague of Mirwaiz Umer Farooq who had earlier this year migrated to pro-India People's Democratic Party (PDP) returned back to Hurriyat on the same evening. The mood in Kashmir is upbeat. It seems this time Kashmiris will not settle for anything less than freedom. Pro-India parties and leaders are facing the wrath of irate protestors. In an unprecented move, Pakistani flag was hoisted atop the house of former forest minister and senior PDP leader, Qazi Muhammad Afzal at Ganderbal (some 30 km north of Srinagar) on the occasion of Pakistan's Independence Day.Despite several rounds of All Party Meetings in Delhi and Jammu, the government has miserably failed to break the ice. Interestingly, when an all-party delegation visited the state to hold parleys aimed at solving the Amarnath land row, the delegation did not deem it necessary to hold talks with any of the separatist leaders or, more importantly, the fruit growers. Today the mood in Kashmir is different. Kashmiris, irrespective of age and ideology, want freedom. The valley is abuzz with pro-freedom slogans. Thanks to the land row, secessionist groups in the valley have regained their lost political ground. The Kashmiri youth are seen rallying around the seperatists, an ominous sign for New Delhi.
"National Conference and PDP may command the loyalty of the old and middle-aged, the youth-Kashmir's future-are with (Yaseen) Malik and those like him who speak the language of self-determination and empowerment," feels Prem Shankar Jha, India's leading strategic analyst.
The issue can destabilise the Indo-Pak peace process and with mounting international pressure on India over the killing of peaceful protestors, it has a potential to sabotage the Indo-US nuclear deal.The Pakistani government condemned "the excessive and unwarranted use of force against the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir". India retorted back, saying "These statements constitute clear interference in the internal affairs of an integral part of India - such statements by leaders of a foreign country do not help the situation. Nor do they contribute to creating the atmosphere necessary for the dialogue process between India and Pakistan to move forward."
Amnesty International has asked the Indian government to "ensure that it protects the right to life in accordance with its responsibilities under international law".
However, the fight is no longer over the land row, but for the "final settlement of Kashmir issue".
"Now, people want freedom from Indian occupation. The land issue is a thing of the past. Neither is there any need to talk about this issue nor would I ever talk on the subject to the (Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarsh) Samiti," Geelani said.
Presently there does not seem any solution in sight. The issue has slipped out of the hands of Indian government and the J&K Governor. It seems very unlikely that they would be able to put any brakes on the incessant protests. New Delhi didn't react fast enough when the land issue first came to fore. In fact, it allowed the situation to take alarming proportions. Had the honchos in New Delhi acted proactively, the situation could have been quite different today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)