EID MUBARAK

EID MUBARAK TO YOU ALL

What About Dal Dwellers?

SAS

This is the high time to take effective measures for the preservtion of Dal lake. The lake is a symbol of our pride and its preservation must be govt's top priority. It is our moral as well as social responsibility to safeguar it.

However, we must at the same time take other aspects into consideration. The State govt is doing its best to restore Dal lake to its pristine glory, but what about Dal dwellers? Has anybody spared a thought for them? The State govt has decided to rehabilitate Dal dwellers at "Rakh Arath" Bemina. The entire area of "Rakh Arath", covering thousands of kanals, is basically a flood channel and, therefore, is not by any means fit for residential purpose.

Without paying heed to the incessant pleas of environmentalists and senior citizens, the govt went ahead with the project. The earth filling of "Rakh Arath" has been going on for several months now. The old Bemina is a flood-prone area and after the filling of "Rakh Arath" it has come under the threat of getting submerged if the dykes are breached during floods.

Our leaders have prefered to maintain silence on the issue. It seems all Just voices have altogether vanished in thin air.I fail to understand why Dal dwellers are treated as second-class citizens. Preserving Dal lake should be prime concern, but that does not mean Dal dwellers be damned. They should be rehabilitated at some appropriate place.

The Supreme court of India recently banned construction on agriculture land. However, the state govt seems hellbent to convert Rakh Arath (comprising thousands kanals of fertile agriculture land) into a residential coloney.

I see all this as a part of serious conspiracy. When John F Kennedy was president of America, he introduced several Reform programmes aimed at the underdeveloped countries with an objective to increase their dependency on America. One such programme was reducing the capacity to produce food grains so that the under-developed countries are compelled to import rice from America. The objective was: Don't allow these under-developed nations to be self-reliant. I see India adopting the same mechanism in Kashmir.

Encounter @ L-18 !

SAS

The recent encounter in Jamia Nagar in Delhi has raised many questions. Some people have lauded the "heroic" role of Delhi police, while some have questioned their modus operandi. Another section of people have gone further and claim that it was a "staged encounter"!

Notwithstanding the different shades of opinion that are pouring in from different quarters, there are some questions that merit serious attention.

The Delhi encounter was a successful "joint operation" - by the Delhi police and Indian electronic media! Police "killed terrorists" and news channels showed it, sab se tez!, without bothering to uncover some facts.

Police carried out the operation on a tip off from Ahmedabad blast accused Abu Bashar. Every one knew that Abu Bashar was in police custody and police was interrogating him. Police claim that Abu Bashar had stayed with Atif and his other friends in the same House L-18 when the former was in Delhi. I fail to understand why did not Atif and company change their "hideout" when they came to know about Abu Bashar's arrest. Were they so naive that they couldn't foresee its consequences.

Police rushed to Batla House and zeroed in on House No L-18. No warning shot was fired. The alleged militants were not even asked to surrender. Police, in its defence, claim that as soon as they entered the room, the occupants fired at them. However, locals have refuted the claim.

Fariyad, a lecturer at Jamia Millia Islamia, who lives just behind the L-18 apartment was quoted by a news agency as saying, "I don't know whether they were terrorists or students. But one thing is for sure. I heard only one kind of bullet sounds. It seemed the firing was only from one side."

S.A.R. Geelani visited the site hours after the encounter and he too was sceptical of police action. He demanded a judicial probe into the shootout and said: "People have been harassed in the area for a long time. It is not something new. Whenever something happens, this area is the first target being a Muslim one."

Curiously, police did not show the face of the alleged militants killed in the encounter. If they were people from the area or students, the locals could have easily recognised them.
Police also claim that two alleged militants managed to flee. How absurd? Two militants were able to give slip to over 100-strong police party in a broad day light. Now, you must be joking! Mind you, the appartment was cordoned off. The militants might have been wearing Mr. India's invisible gadget that's why police couldn't see them fleeing.

Moreover, police claim that the two alleged militants managed to escape from the rear side of the apartment. It is a stunt that would so easily qualify for "Ripley's Believe it or not". First, jumping directly from the fourth floor and managing to save themselves from half-a-dozen high-voltage power lines in the way.

After the Delhi serial blast, Delhi police was under enormous pressure. Delhites had lost faith in them. Desperate to regain their lost image in the eyes of public, they engineered the Batla House encounter, claiming they have killed those involved in the Delhi serial blast.

There are thousands of Kashmiris living in Delhi and majority of them are living at Batla House - some in rented flats and some in their own. As has been the case in the past, whenever some untoward incident takes place the needle of suspicion by-default points towards the hapless Kashmiris. The threat they carry with them has multiplied. No wonder if in few weeks or days from now some Kashmiris are arrested and labelled as "terrorists" or "master minds" of so and so blast. Afterall, "terrorist" tag comes naturally to them. As they say, every Kashmiri is a "potential terrorist".

The Jammu Kashmir govt must bring it to the notice of the Indian Home minister and see to it that no Kashmiri is unncessarily harassed and subjected to victimisation. The govt must ensure the safety of Kashmiris living outside state.

Israeli Army Chief’s Secret Kashmir Yatra

Sultan M Hali

Israel’s Army chief, Major General Avi Mizrahi secretly visited Kashmir last week. Indian authorities remained tight-lipped about the visit, neither confirming nor denying, however, the lid was blown by Iranian News Agency, IRNA. Earlier, Major General Avi Mizrahi, had arrived in New Delhi on September 9, on a three-day visit, where he met his counterpart Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor and also minister of state for defence production, Rao Inderjit Singh, chiefs of India’s navy and air force and discussed joint military training and exercises for the two armed forces.

Israel has offered to train Indian troops in counter-insurgency and anti-terrorist operations. General Mizrahi’s visit to Kashmir comes in the backdrop of a massive anti-India agitation in Indian-Occupied Kashmir. At least 50 persons have been killed in the uprising that began two months back with the tensions still high. India and Israel have shared defense co-operation since diplomatic relations between New Delhi and Tel Aviv were established in 1992. The ties have become stronger in recent times with India emerging as the largest purchaser of Israeli arms since the beginning of the 21st century. India has purchased the Phalcons Airborne Early Warning and Control Systems from Israel that would be fitted onto the Indian Air Force’s three IL-76 heavy-lift transport aircraft. It has also bought the Green Pine radars that warn of incoming enemy ballistic missiles. The Indian armed forces also use Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance. The Indian Army uses Israeli night-vision equipment, particularly in Kashmir. Indian troops in occupied Kashmir have been armed with Israeli made Travor assault rifles to crush the Kashmiris’ righteous struggle. The TAR-21 Travor rifle costing around $6500 is one of the most modern assault rifles available in the world. According to Kashmir Media Service, the rifles are part of India’s strategy to use them during siege and search operation in civilian areas in the disputed territory.

It may be recalled that last year in October, a delegation of senior Israeli army officers secretly visited the violence hit Kashmir. Israeli army officers, during their visit to Kashmir, undertook real time testing of the sophisticated equipment sold by Israel to the Indian army. The wide array of Israeli-made surveillance devices, ranging from unattended ground sensors and Hand-Held Thermal Imagers (HHTI) to Long-Range Reconnaissance and Observation Systems and the Battle Field Surveillance Radars and the Surveillance Grid have been deployed by the Indian army along the LoC to keep a check on the infiltration of militants from the Pakistani side of Kashmir. The Indian Army has installed new and sophisticated surveillance equipment in the border district of Kupwara, Kashmir, to keep a check on the movement of “infiltrators”. The system, named Surveillance Grid, was imported from Israel. The equipment has been installed at selected points prone to infiltration. The Surveillance Grid is the first monitoring system of its kind in South Asia. The surveillance grid makes combined use of high-power cameras, thermal sensing cameras and long range observation system (Loros) to monitor all types of movements at and across the border with Pakistan. The Israeli army delegation reviewed the functioning and effectiveness of the equipment in Kashmir. The Israeli army delegation also shared with Indian army officers and men, their experiences of tackling infiltration and militancy in Palestinians areas. The Israeli army has been training Indian army personnel to fight militancy in Kashmir. After real time testing, the Israeli officers assessed the role of the gadgets and checked their effectiveness. This was the second trip for Israeli army officers, to the strife-torn state within four months. Earlier, in the month of June, 2007 an Israeli army delegation led by its Deputy Chief of General Staff, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky visited Jammu. During their stay in Jammu, the Israeli army commanders visited the border areas to check the functional compatibilities of a large amount of military equipment, procured from Israel and installed close to the LoC.

The Indo-Israeli defence ties are increasing and there are reports that it was on the advice of Israeli army commanders that India fenced with barbed wire the 720-km-long LoC with Pakistan to check the infiltration of militants from across the border. India and Israel have a lot in common. The partition of India and its freedom from colonial rule set precedence for nations such as Israel, which demanded a separate homeland because of the irreconcilable differences between the Arabs and the Jews. The British left Israel in May 1948, handing the question of division over to the UN. Un-enforced UN Resolutions to map out boundaries between Israel and Palestine has led to several Arab-Israeli wars and the conflict still continues. A major difference between the two colonial endeavours, however, is that in the first case, no Palestinian state has yet emerged even after 60 years, despite the stipulations of international law. In February 1947 Mountbatten was sent out as Viceroy to India. He oversaw the process of partition of the Indian Sub-continent; meddling in the process in such a way that Jammu and Kashmir would inevitably go to India regardless of the sentiments of the indigenous population by allocating the Gurdaspur district of the Punjab to India. Had Gurdaspur gone to Pakistan, there would have been no land-route connecting India to Kashmir.
Just as in Palestine, the British role appears to have been deliberately designed to bypass the right of the indigenous Kashmiri population to self-determination. In this respect, the parallel between Palestine and Kashmir is quite obvious. In both cases, British colonial manipulation resulted in the violation of the right of a people to self-determination, and the blocking of the emergence of a legitimate independent state. The secret visit of the Israeli Army Chief to Indian-occupied Kashmir is ominous as it foments trouble for the Kashmiri freedom fighters and their cause. The strife-torn Valley has been yearning for freedom and peace, but Indian authorities are not only bent upon trampling their rights but also take aid from Israelis.

Courtesy: Pakistan Observer

War Clouds Over Kashmir?

Forget the so-called peace process. Wake up. Pull up your socks. Kashmir skies will not remain calm for long. Get set to witness an imminent war between India and Pakistan, over Kashmir! India has done its homework. It's now Pakistan's turn to reciprocate. War clouds are hovering over Kashmir than ever before.

Indian Air Force (IAF) has deployed six Russian-made Sukhoi-30 jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads in the strife-torn and conflict-ridden vale of Kashmir. The twin-seater frontline jet can carry eight tonnes of armaments including nuclear weapons, and cruises at a speed of 3,200 kilometres an hour. There are reports that the IAF is also planning to deploy up to 40 Sukhoi jets in the northeast, close to its border with China.

If you have still any doubts, the statement of Indian defence analyst Major General Ashok Mehta may serve as an eye opener:
“This forward movement is part of a deterrence for Pakistan, and to tell them if they fish in troubled waters in Kashmir, India would be ready,” Mehta said.

The relation between India and Pakistan has soured in recent months. India blamed Pakistan for the attack near Indian embassy in Kabul in July this year. Pakistan, however, denied the charge.

Meanwhile, an agreement has been proposed by the Indian government whereby the Israel Defense Forces will train Indian soldiers in counter-terror tactics, urban warfare and fighting in guerrilla settings as part of India's war in Kashmir.

Commander of the Zionist regime’s ground forces general Avi Mizrahi arrived in Srinagar on a three-day visit to Kashmir and met commanders of the Indian ground, air and naval forces. According to the report, he travelled to the Indian-administered Kashmir at the invitation of commander of the Indian air force.

The two sides agreed that the Israeli Army commandoes would train India's anti-terrorism forces for fighting the Kashmiri militants.

The Jerusalem Post website has reported that General Avi Mizrahi also signed an agreement for military cooperation with India regarding fighting the Kashmir militants. The Post added that the Indian government did not publish the news of Israeli commander's visit fearing of its negative impact, but press in India and Pakistan have carried reports of the visit.

Pro-India and Pro-freedom groups in Kashmir expressed anger over the visit of the Israeli commander. Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader Farooq Ahmed Dar alias Bitta Karati termed the visit of the Israeli commander to Kashmir as "part of India's plan to suppress the Intefada Movement of the Kashmiri people".

India is the largest importer of arms from Israel and since 2002 has bought more than $5 billion worth of equipment. Israel's Counter-Terrorism Bureau has encouraged Israelis to avoid visiting the Kashmir region.

Who After Geelani?

Syed Ali Safvi

A question has been haunting and disturbing me for long now: who after Geelani? What will happen to Kashmir after him? Is there anyone who can step into his shoes?

The septuagenarian leader has done his best to keep the candle of resistance burning in the hearts of Kashmiris, by protecting it from the relentless waves of time. New Delhi has tried its best to distort and belittle Geelani's image by labelling him a "hardliner", "pro-Pakistan", what not! However, unlike other Kashmiri leaders, Geelani has proved a tough nut to crack for India.

Geelani is suffering from kidney cancer and was in March 2007 operated upon at Mumbai's Tata Memorial Hospital. Every Kashmiri would wish and pray that Geelani lives 100 more years, but at the same time no one wants his hard labour to go in vain. What if he dies tomorrow? He is mortal after all. Is there anyone who can step into his shoes? Is there anyone who matches his persona and charisma?

The question is not who would replace him?, but the question is who has the integrity to uphold Geelani's legacy. Geelani can not be replaced by any Tom, Dick and Harry, but some one who has the honesty and committment to carry forward his leagcy.

The Tehreek-e Hurriyat president is an awesome leader, but every great leader must groom a successor who will ensure his legacy. In this crucial category, Geelani has proved to be mortal.

History is testimony to the fact that the leaders who have not groomed successors, notwithstanding their larger-than-life status, have had very short term influence on the history.

Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest warrior of all time, built a great empire covering Asia Minor, Syria, Tyre - the present day Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Afghanistan, India, et al. He had planned to invade Arabia and regions north of the Persian Empire, but destiny had something else in store for him. In June in the year 323 BC, Alexander - the world conqueror - breathed his last at the age of 32. Soon after his death the empire he had built after eleven years of continuous, rigorous fighting, without losing a single battle, got disintegrated.

Alexander's failure to make provisions for a successor was in large part responsible for the breakup of his empire after his death.

Alexander's empire didn't survive and i am afraid Geelani's ideology and stand viz-a-viz the solution of Kashmir may also meet the same fate unless he grooms someone as his successor who has the potential to take the Resistance movement "to its logical end".

Kashmir dispute might take another 60 or 100 years, or maybe even more, to solve. It requires utmost patience, strong commitment and unflinching resolve. Kashmiris need leaders who can keep the flag of resistance flying high; leaders who don't succumb to any kind of pressure; leaders who don't have a tendency to give up, come what may.

If Geelani fails to groom his successor, he would be doing a great disservice to his nation, and great service to the Indian policy-makers. India would wish not to see another Geelani rising on the political map of Kashmir. They are waiting to see Geelani off.

Geelani sb, are you listening?

NC to Delhi's rescue, again

SAS

Trying hard to regain its lost political space in Kashmir, People's Democratic Party (PDP) is slated to face much bigger challenges. The party's stand on land dispute has irked New Delhi. The honchos in New Delhi are busy sidelining PDP and are tying their best to rope in National Conference (NC). Whenever New Delhi's position in Kashmir has weekened, NC has always come to its rescue.

Election Commission (EC) of India has decided to go ahead with the assembly polls despite the unrest in the state. It has already convened a meeting of political parties in New Delhi on September 8 to assess the situation in the state after doubts were expressed over the possibility of holding assembly polls in the wake of the recent turmoil.

PDP has expressed its displeasure to hold aseembly elections in the state at this time. The party believes that the situation is not conducive for elections. There are reports that the party may even back out from the polls. On the other hand, National Conference has welcomed the decision.

However, National Conference's green signal to the assembly polls has not come as a surprise. Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah had a one-hour long meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Afairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee. The meeting discussed the present situation in the state. It is pertinent to mention here that New Delhi had convened
a meeting with PDP patron Mufti Sayeed to seek suuport from its one-time ally, but the two sides could not bring around a solution following PDP's reluctance for a unilateral agreement between Samiti and Jammu and Kashmir Government.

Speculations are rife that NC may have entered into some kind of agreement with New Delhi whereby the party is required to support the agreement between Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarsh Samiti (SAYSS) and the state govt; against what can be any body's guess.

It seems New Delhi is this time bent to teach PDP a lesson. And what better way than keeping it out of power!

The party has also come under scathing attack from seperatists. All said and done. PDP finds itself sinking deeper into the quagmire.

Na khuda hi mila na wisal-e sanam
Na idhar ke rahe na udhar ke!

Dangerous portents in Kashmir

A G Noorani

The RSS will not be appeased. Its agenda is trifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir, making Jammu a separate State and Ladakh a Union territory. It bears mention that of the six districts of Jammu only two and a half have a Hindu majority.

Recent events in Kashmir have been most unfortunate. Exchanges of charges between New Delhi and Islamabad were par for the course. India has studiously refrained from commenting on internal developments in Pakistan. On its part Pakistan has been careful not to let the exchanges get out of hand. It is, however, extremely important to assess the tragic course of events within the State of Jammu & Kashmir objectively.

The eruption of a major divide between the provinces of Jammu & Kashmir on religious, communal lines took New Delhi by surprise. It was not directed from the Centre. Local factors held sway. If the Government of India can be faulted for neglect it is on the score of its refusal to heed advice from many quarters to terminate State Governor Lt Gen S K Sinha’s tenancy of the Raj Bhavan in Srinagar. His backers at the Centre ensured that. This is the worrying fact of the episode.

When in the mid-eighties Prime Minister Indira Gandhi superseded him in the appointment of the Chief of Army Staff, many, this writer included, protested. He lost little time in the campaign he waged and the company he kept in raising doubts in one’s mind that she had good cause for the unprecedented step.

In the good South Asian tradition of a new Government correcting the “wrongs” of its predecessor Foreign Minister I K Gujral appointed him as Ambassador to Nepal in 1990. He was next ensconced as Governor of Assam and finally of Jammu & Kashmir. The man has done very well for himself in retirement. He has held government jobs for 18 years, from 1990 to 2008. Having fought in the Kashmir war in 1947 as a junior officer Sinha was out to leave a permanent imprint of his communal outlook in the State. The Amarnath Yatra came in handy.
Traditionally the offerings at the Amarnath Cave in the Western Himalayas are shared betweens two monastic families, one of which is Muslim. They are heirs of the Muslim shepherd who discovered it over a century ago. There is one traditional route from
Srinagar to Pahalgam onwards. There is a smaller but dangerous route from Srinagar via Sonamarg to Baltal.

In 1996 there was a blizzard which exacted a toll of over 200 lives. The government of India appointed Nitish Sengupta, a civil servant to conduct a probe. He recommended that the duration of the pilgrimage be one and a half months and on a ceiling of 100,000 for the annual pilgrimage.

No sooner S K Sinha became Governor in 2003 than he began demanding increase in the duration of the pilgrimage and in the numbers. The Report was flouted. To cut a long story short he, as ex-officio head of the Statutory Board in charge of the pilgrimage, locked horns with Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed of the PDP which was in coalition with the Congress. In 2005 it was the Congress’ turn to provide the chief minister. Its nominee was Ghulam Nabi Azad, a crony of Sanjay Gandhi who managed to latch on to Rajiv Gandhi.

A Kashmiri who never once fought elections to the Lok Sabha from his own State, he played ball with Sinha. Probably they had common patrons at the Centre. A foolish order was made last May “diverting” forest land to the Amarnath Board at Baltal, the route none needed take if the ceiling on numbers is respected. The Army pronounced it dangerous. The “allotment” of land was made on terms that the Kashmiris resented. The new Governor, N N Vohra rescinded the order.

Now it was Jammu’s turn to protest except that its protest was an organised one — by the RSS and its political wing the BJP. On August 31, the State government signed an accord with the Jammu body spearheading the protests on terms far worse than those of the May order. The Amarnath Board was given “exclusive” rights on 800 kanals of land at Baltal. Meanwhile the
Hurriyat leaders had been put in prison. Curfew was imposed on many towns. The press was treated disgracefully.

The RSS will not be appeased. Its agenda is trifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir, making Jammu a separate State and Ladakh a Union territory. It bears mention that of the six districts of Jammu only two and a half have a Hindu majority. The partition was Maharaja Hari Singh’s plan which his son Karan Singh relentlessly advocates. Home Minister L K Advani gingerly mooted the idea on June 7, 2000 in Leh, the capital of Ladakh. On June 30, 2002 the RSS’ All India Workers’ Conclave at Kurukshetra adopted a resolution which asserts “The people of
Jammu think that the solution of their problems lies in the separate statehood for Jammu region”. It supports “the demand for UT status for Ladakh region”. This is the agenda which is being promoted in Jammu now.

Jammu will be split evenly. Three of its six districts, now broken up into ten, have Muslim majorities — Poonch (91.92%); Rajauri (60.23%) and Doda (57.92%). Two tehsils in Udhampur Gul Arynas and Gulab Garh have a Muslim majority. Farooq Abdullah once warned that these areas will not live with Jammu; the massacres would be worse than those of 1947 and “India
will be left with two and a half districts while the so-called Greater Kashmir will go on a platter to Pakistan eventually”. (Greater Kashmir; October 3 and December 11, 2000).

Mirwaiz Maulvi Umar Farooq also said “if the Dogras of Jammu’s two and a half districts want to secede from the State, we won’t oppose it either”. (Indian Express; 10 August 2008).
With elections to the State Assembly only months away, a dangerous situation has been created in Jammu & Kashmir.

India lost chance on Kashmir: Omar

President of pro-India political party, National Conference Omar Abdullah has said that India lost a "golden opportunity" to resolve the Kashmir issue in 2005-06. He said that General Musharraf was a single window system and India "flunked this golden opportunity".

“I have said that we will not have an opportunity like this. I also said that the door is closing, it’s not going to remain open forever and let’s grab this opportunity now or we’ll lose and it might be the only opportunity of my generation. We lost it. It’s gone. Musharraf was a single window system so to speak, that we had to deal with in Pakistan. That window has gone,” Omar said in an interview with CNN-IBN's, Devil's Advocate. “We flunked it. All of us, we all played a part in it. Well, we are living to rue it now. Had we worked out a solution with Pakistan in 2006-2007, we wouldn’t have seen Kashmir inflamed in 2008.”

The NC president answered volley of questions from the programme anchor, Karan Thapar.

Demand for Azadi:
"I do not believe that independence for Kashmir is a feasible or a viable option and I stand by that. It is not a viable alternative to suggest Azadi or even accession to Pakistan. I believed that you can give Kashmir independence but you cannot give Kashmir freedom under the circumstances that prevail within the Subcontinent – India, Pakistan and even China."

Recent protests:
"What happened was a spontaneous eruption arising out of the fear that the economic blockade brought into people’s minds because, let’s not forget, even in the worst of times, 1990, 1991, 1992, never was there an effort made to cut off Kashmir economically from the rest of the country. This is the first time it happened and it sparked off the reaction that you saw."

Elections:
"I believe you can have elections... we missed the great opportunity to have a really good election in Jammu and Kashmir a few months ago. I think Ghulam Nabi Azad was interested in prolonging the life of his government announcing a few populist measures. We have had elections in much worse circumstances. 1996, 1998, 1999 elections that I fought, even in 2002. In 2002 the ground situation, militancy-wise was much worse in the state than it is now."

Alienation:
"What more do you want to see when children in the 10th class, 11th class, 12th class from good English missionary schools are out on top of the buses screaming ‘Hum kya chahte hain, azadi. Kashmir banega Pakistan?’ That I think is an indication of the alienation.”

Full text of the interview: http://www.in.com/active18/readnow/storypage.php?docid=d7467bd08d911f30c96e47450729e68d06704fef&clusid=0&search=true

Roy, the Indian Chomsky

Hassan Zainagiree has written an excellent piece on Arundhatti Roy in Greater Kashmir (http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=5_9_2008&ItemID=4&cat=11). We must all join Zainagiree in saluting Roy for her courage to unveil the "democratic face of the neo-colonialists who use democracy not as empowering people project but as a tool to hold unwilling masses and thus butcher the very essence of democracy- the will of the majority".

She has highlighted the pitiable plight of Kashmiris in her speeches and writing. I got an opportunity to interact with her when i was a student at Aligarh Muslim Univerty (AMU). She had been invited to the varsity to deliver a speech on Professor Iqbal Khan (Prof. Iqbal Khan Memorial Lecture). During her speech she condemned the grave human rights violation committed by Indian troops in Kashmir.

She is one of the few learned, moderate and rational voices in India. I love to call her the INDIAN CHOMSKY.

Kashmir's Fuse Alight

Howard Schaffer and Teresita Schaffer

The United States has not paid much attention to Kashmir for the past few years, confident that an active India-Pakistan peace process would prevent any crises on that front. It no longer enjoys that luxury. If the current unrest leads to another India-Pakistan confrontation, the whole area from Afghanistan through India will be affected, with critical U.S. interests in play....

After many failed interventions, the United States has in recent years shied away from trying to broker a Kashmir settlement. It has confined itself to crisis management, most recently in 2002 when it helped defuse a confrontation that threatened to trigger another India-Pakistan war.

Read on: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CD50BFD5-1B06-4680-8FDA-CD8F8B181BEA

An Immoral and Illegal Accord

A. G. Noorani

The accord between the J&K Government and the Shri Amarnathji Yatra Sangharsh Samity (SAYSS) on 31 August 2008 is far worse than the order by the J&K Government only three months earlier on 26 May 2008. It grants the SASS concessions beyond what the order did. It is one-sided and marks an abject surrender to violence, blockade and to communal forces. The differences between the order and accord are glaring. Here is a list:

1. The order was made pursuant to a decision on 20 May 2008 by the Cabinet in which Jammu and Kashmir were both represented. The accord ignores completely Kashmir where the land is to be given. Jammu alone was represented. A week earlier there was a clampdown in the Valley and top leaders were arrested.

2. Even the controversial order nowhere used the word "exclusive". The SAYSS felt so emboldened as to demand it and wreck the deal if it was not conceded. The Government yielded in the early hours of 31 August. Para 6A says that the Government "shall set aside for use by Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board exclusively the land in Baltal and Domail". This order unknown anywhere in the world is cloaked under a lie by calling it "traditionally under use for the annual yatra purpose". The traditional route for over a century is the Pahalgam route. The Baltal route is a recent demand. It was regarded by the Army and Nitish Sengupta Report as dangerous. It is also unnecessary if the limit of yatris set by the Report (1 lakh) is observed.

3. This violates the citizen's fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) D to move freely throughout India. The demand of exclusivity was not made even in May 2008 or in decades earlier. It is pure communal aggression using the yatra for political demonstration not religious piety.

4. The duration of use is widened to cover pre and post yatra period. Para 6 C first says that the land will be used "for the duration of the yatra" including the period of preparations and winding up. But the very next para has these sinister words: "The aforesaid land shall be used according to the Board's requirements from time to time, including for the following". There follow 9 measures including construction, setting up of then sheds etc. These can be done even beyond the yatra period "from time to time" and "according to the Board's requirements"; may be all the year around.

5. Para 8 of the order insisted that the land "shall return" to the State. This is dropped in the accord. This accomplishes S.K. Sinha's objective-- permanent use the year round.

6. Also dropped totally is Para 4 on payment for user.

7. Dropped too is Para 6. An undertaking of "foolproof measures against water pollution" and Para 7 on payment of fine for damage to the forest. There is a pious provision in accord Para 6C (ix) among the objectives of land user; namely "undertaking measures relating to … preservation of ecology" etc. Breach entails no fine.

8. The order of 26 May was rescinded on 1 July. The accord will require a fresh order to implement it. By itself the accord has no legal force. Section 2(a) of the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act 1997 says "the Government shall not, except on a resolution of the Council of Ministers based on the advice of the Advisory Committee" constituted under the Act "make any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose". The earlier phrase "Council of ministers" merely was revised by an amendment in 2001 and the Forest Advisory Committee's advice was added and made mandatory. "Council of Ministers" is specific. It is different from "J&K Government" whose powers alone vest now in the Governor. The law intentionally provides the resolution as a safeguard. This Council can come into existence only after the next elections. In any case the Forest Advisory Committees advice on 12 July 2007 cannot apply to this new accord which must be vetted afresh by that Committee. It was given before the Supreme Court's final judgment in the T M Godavarman case on 23 November 2007 which lays down the law and makes important observations on balancing development with protection of environment. Failure to consider it vitiates the decision. Precise on the based on misrepresentation of opinion of the deputy CM Muzaffar Hussain Beg and advocate General Altaf Naik both of which were given in entirely difference cases.

The accord lacks legal efficacy as well as moral and political legitimacy. Any order in its implementation will be void in law. It is a pity that the State should bend all rules to buy peace with communal forces including promise to consider compensation for law-breakers. What of compensation to the Valley for the blockade? The parivar in Jammu has already begun asking for more. The Government has not bought peace but trouble. It is gunah be lizzat.

If the State can thus bend its knees before the Sangh parivar on an issue like this, what hopes of justice can Kashmiris entertain when it comes to restoring the raped Article 370 to a status of worth and respect?

Kashmir is in no mood to be taken for a ride

Syed Ali Safvi

A four-year old boy in green dress among a huge tsunami of protestors at historic Eidgah on Friday (Aug 22), waving a green flag, vociferously chants: "we want freedom". I wonder whether he knows the meaning of the word or not, but one thing is for sure, he wants to become a part of history that is in the making in Kashmir. He wants to breathe free, not under the shadow of gun and the lurking fear, but under the umbrella of lasting peace and tranquillity that have eluded the strife-torn valley for centuries. The sentiments of the boy clearly indicate that all is not well in so-called paradise on earth: Kashmir. Wherever you go in the valley today - from north to south - you will feel the anger emanating from a range of slogans reverberating through the valley.

However, amid the cacophony of slogans and screaming, there is one slogan that stands out: "We want freedom." Azadi is literally in the air in valley. Azadi is the most frequently uttered word in Kashmir today. People from all walks of life - traders, employees, doctors, lawyers, students - thronging the streets are demanding "Azadi from India". It seems Kashmiris have finally woken up from the deep slumber of decades old oppression, started paying heed to the call of conscience and have finally realised that 'enough is enough'. The deprived children of a wounded, widowed and harassed mother, called Kashmir have decided to break free her shackles.

What we are witnessing in Kashmir today is a classical example of People's movement. It is the denizens of the strife-torn vale of Kashmir who are calling the shots, and not the leaders. Separatist leaders may boast of having organised five massive rallies since August 11, but the fact of the matter is that it is the people who are driving the leaders this time. The valley is in no mood to be taken for a ride. The people of the valley cannot be misled this time. The common man of Kashmir has suddenly become uncommon. The uncommon majority is fighting for the only thing they want: right to self determination.

"The separatist leaders who do appear and speak at the rallies are not leaders so much as followers, being guided by the phenomenal spontaneous energy of a caged, enraged people that has exploded on Kashmir's streets," activist, renowned author and Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy wrote in The Guardian (Land and Freedom, The Guardian, August 22).

As long as the leaders fall in line with people's aspirations, they are the kings, but if they give up they too would be in the line of fire. No leader is bigger than the movement. Perhaps Kashmiris have finally learned this basic principle of resistance movement. By all means, what we are witnessing in Kashmir is a people's movement. On top of it, this time there is no apparant support or backing from Pakistan or ISI, as has been religiously claimed by India in the past. The people on the streets are common Kashmiris - old, young, women, children - who are demanding the right to self determination, promised by India's first prime minister - a Kashmiri pandit - Jawaharlal Nehru. They are not "terrorists" brandishing weapons or an uncontrollable mob on a killing spree.

Hurriyat Conference and its leaders have a life-time opportunity to turn woes into wows. In Sheikh Aziz'z death, Hurriyat got a new lease of life. People have rested faith on Hurriyat leaders who have regained their lost political space. Geelani is perhaps at the fag end of his life and he would like to see the resolution of Kashmir dispute before he closes his eyes. The support seperatist leaders enjoy today is arguably unprecedented in Kashmir's history. They must not let the sacrifice of Sheikh Aziz and others go waste. They must ensure that the movement does not die down this time as it did in early 1990s. New Delhi will try its best to sabotage the movement. So, better keep your eyes wide open.

"Of course there are many ways for the Indian state to continue to hold on to Kashmir. It could do what it does best. Wait. And hope the people's energy will dissipate in the absence of a concrete plan. It could try and fracture the fragile coalition that is emerging. It could extinguish this non-violent uprising and re-invite armed militancy. It could increase the number of troops from half a million to a whole million. A few strategic massacres, a couple of targeted assassinations, some disappearances and a massive round of arrests should do the trick for a few more years," fears Roy (Land and Freedom, The Guardian, August 22).

The Kashmiri youths spearheading the protests today are the generation of youth who have grown up during the militancy. They have seen it all. They have been brought up under the shadow of gun. They have grown up, as Prem Shankar Jha said, "hating India and engorged with fear of the India army". They have dashed all the psychological boundaries and the fear psychosis that Indian troops so vigorously tried to infuse among them over the past two decades.

"For them (Kashmiri youth) it is nothing short of an epiphany. Not even the fear of death seems to hold them back. And once that fear has gone, of what use is the largest or second largest army in the world?" Roy wrote (Land and Freedom, The Guardian, August 22).

Kashmiris, irrespective of political divide, are out on streets demanding the right to self determination. So far, demand of holding plebiscite had primarily been put forth by Kashmiri separatists, but the current crisis in the state compelled India's leading strategic analysts to call for a referendum in Kashmir, a demand they considered a taboo only couple of weeks back.

India's most read columnist, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, in his column in the Times of India (August 17) urged India to hold plebiscite in Kashmir and allow people of Kashmir to decide their destiny.

"We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan," he wrote.

Swaminathan also castigated India for drawing parallels with colonial British. "The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, the jewel in its crown, and would never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear we are in similar denial on Kashmir," he wrote.

Vir Sanghvi, in his column in Hindustan Times, called upon India to hold referendum in the valley.

"I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don't, then we have no moral right to force them to remain.... If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do. And even if you don't, surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honour as a nation?" he wrote.

Sanghvi questioned India for hanging on to the people "who have no desire to be part of India". "Why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don't want to have anything to do with us?" he wrote.

The call for Azadi in Kashmir today is much louder than it has ever been. Slogans may be many but the real demand is Azadi. Arundhati Roy has called for Kashmir's Azadi from India, much to the dismay of New Delhi.

"India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India," said the celebrated author. Roy was present at two massive rallies in Srinagar: Tourist Reception Centre ground and Eidgah to show solidarity with Kashmiris.

"Every banner, full-throated cry or slogan today is an expression of anger with India. Be it in favour of Pakistan, Nizam-e-Mustafa (Islamic state), or simply freedom. There may be many contradictions in the movement, but the desire for independence has erupted suddenly again, with a zeal that can almost be romanticised as revolutionary," writes Saba Naqvi (Outlook, Sep 1, 2008).

However, not many Kashmiris endorse Kashmir's integration with Pakistan.

"When someone on the street here (Kashmir) says Pakistan or Nizam-e-Mustafa, what are they trying to convey? What he (the Kashmiri) is saying is that he rejects the present system. This does not necessarily mean he would choose Pakistan. People here know what has been happening within Pakistan. They are disappointed in what has become of the political system there. There is also a feeling that Pakistan has lost interest in Kashmir," says Mirwaiz Umar Farooq (Outlook, Sep 1, 2008)

The writing is on the wall. Kashmiris want the right to self determination, which India has denied them for six decades. The ball is in New Delhi's court. Being a democratic country, it cannot turn deaf ears to the incessant demands of Kashmiris, else ever-lasting peace can never be achieved in Kashmir.

Jammu flare-up and the ideology of hate

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.

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’.

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.