120 Whither Kashmir? (Part II) - Islamabad Policy Research Institute

Whither Kashmir? 

WHITHER KASHMIR? 

(PART II) 

Editor 

Dr Noor ul Haq 

Assistant Editor 

Muhammad Nawaz Khan 

1

2 IPRI Factfile 

CONTENTS 

Preface v 

1. Hope of Peace 1 

2. Non-state Actors for Peace 4 

3. Joint Venture for Peace 7 

4. Peace and Kashmir 11 

5. Five Dams Being Built in Occupied Kashmir 12 

6. Kashmir Day: State Terrorism Still Continues 14 

7. War Against India Inevitable if Kashmir Dispute Not Resolved 

8. Fair, Peaceful Resolution of Kashmir Dispute Must for Lasting Peace 

18 

in South Asia: Foreign Minister 19 

9. Another Kashmir Solidarity Day 20 

10. Pakistan to Continue Efforts for Kashmir Issue Resolution 23 

11. Pakistan’s Just Stance on Kashmir Issue Unchanged: Prime Minister 23 

12. Kashmir Solution 24 

13. Call to Hold Plebiscite in Kashmir 26 

14. India Not Willing to Hold Talks on Kashmir: Prime Minister 27 

15. Pakistan-India Talks 28 

16. India Doesn’t Want to Talk on Kashmir 31 

17. Why Rush to Dialogue? 32 

18. Kashmir Calm Down 33 

19. Vision of Kashmir Solution 34 

20. Meaningful Dialogue Vital to Resolve Kashmir Dispute: Prime Minister 35 

21. India Wasted a Year by Suspending Talks: Foreign Office 36 

22. Legality of Indian Claim on Kashmir 38 

23. Kashmir: Retrieve the Magic 43 

24. Kashmir: What Next? 

25. Kashmiri Leaders Meet Foreign Secretary on Eve of Pakistan-India 

45 

Talks 48 

26. India’s Silent Aggression 49 

27. US Congressman Favours Plebiscite in Kashmir 50 

28. Deadlock in Pakistan-India Talks 51 

29. Two Kashmiri Teens Hurt by Indian Firing 54 

30. India-Pakistan Conundrum 55 

31. Keeping Kashmir Secret 57


32. Conflicting Perceptions 58 

33. Indian Tactics are Unchanged 60 

34. No Cause for Despair 63 

35. US Reports Widespread Rights Violations 65 

36. Kashmir has 97000 Orphans, 32000 Widows: Study 67 

37. Demoralised Indian Forces 69 

38. Mufti for Opening Old Trade Routes with Pakistan 72 

39. Kashmir Question 73 

40. 133 Abuse Cases in Six Years: Indian Defence Minister 73 

41. Saudi Support to Kashmir Solution Reiterated 74 

42. Conclusion 75 

43. Timeline of the Kashmir Conflict 81 

IPRI Publications 104 

3


PREFACE 

Pakistan (Muslim majority state) and India (Hindu majority state) 

emerged as independent dominions in South Asian Subcontinent on 

August 14/15, 1947, leaving the fate of about 500 princely states 

undecided. However, these states were required to accede to either of the 

dominions on the basis of their geographical location and the wishes of 

their people. Accordingly, the state of Jammu and Kashmir should have 

acceded to Pakistan because of its overwhelming Muslim population and 

geographical location. 1 The non-adherence to the accepted principle 

resulted in Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, besides two limited wars in 

Kashmir during 1947-48 and 1999 and several stand-offs, the last one 

being in 2002 for about a year. The United Nations resolutions agreed to 

by both India and Pakistan required that the “the accession of the state of 

Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the 

democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the 

auspices of the United Nations” 2 . The plebiscite remains stalled because 

of the Indian strategy of gaining time as spelled out by its first Prime 

Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru when he told Sheikh Abdullah of 

Kashmir that “we are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial 

power”, and with the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement 

which we consider fair, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere”. 3 Accordingly, 

in 1950s, India refused a dialogue on Kashmir on the plea that Pakistan 

had joined Western sponsored “defence pacts”, and now “terrorism” is 

cited as a reason for non-resumption of composite dialogue. 

Consequently, owing to non-implementation of the UN resolutions, the 

people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir continue to suffer; the state 

remains a “disputed territory” awaiting resolution and a nuclear 

flashpoint. 

1 The state has a total area of 84,471 square miles which is approximately the 

same as of Great Britain. Its irregular borders in the north and east coincide 

with those of China (Tibet and Sinkiang) for about 600 miles, with northern 

Afghanistan for about 30 miles and with Pakistan in its south and west for 

about 603 miles. At the extreme southwestern end, a strip of land forms border 

with India. In 1947, the state had 77.11 per cent Muslims, majority of whom 

would have liked to accede to Pakistan. 

2 UN Resolutions, August 13, 1948, January 5, 1949, and December 23, 1952. 

3 Iqbal Jafar, “Misleading assumptions”, Dawn (Islamabad), March 21, 2010.


The IPRI Factfile (Part I and II) presents relevant UN resolutions, 

reports of violence in the Indian held Kashmir as released by Kashmir 

Media Service, selected articles and statements appearing in the media, 

and timeline of the Kashmir conflict retrieved from Wikipedia. 

March 30, 2010. Noor ul Haq 

5


HOPE OF PEACE 

The subcontinent is a land of sharp contrasts. History has witnessed 

contradictory trends operating here simultaneously touching their 

heights. Traversing through centuries, today the subcontinent is before us 

with its present contradictions. The long journey of history has witnessed 

here a rich tradition of cultural integration, alongside the insistence on 

the preservation and promotion of distinct identities. By virtue of the 

teachings of Mahatma Buddha to Guru Nanak, and the Sufi saints of 

Islam, there emerged a culture of fraternity and brotherhood, but this 

very land also witnessed some of the worst occurrences of history, bloody 

conflicts and tormenting migrations. 

While standing in the first decade of the 21st century, and having 

this background of contrasts in one's mind, one does not find oneself in 

any unfamiliar situation. Therefore, we should not be surprised if today 

we see both India and Pakistan equipped with nuclear weapons. Both 

having piled up conventional arms and ammunition, and both comprising 

sections which are tooth and nail against each other, and longing to 

eliminate each other. In a region of sharp contradictions, this is just a 

contemporary expression of an old trait of intolerance and jingoism. On 

the contrary, striving for peace has also been a rich tradition of South 

Asia. No matter how bleak the situation appears at present, one cannot 

leave hope of peace as this is also rooted in a very profound tradition. 

Where else the hope of peace would find a more fertile ground than in 

the subcontinent, which has excelled in diversities. 

Pakistan and India together constitute around one-sixth of the 

world's population but unfortunately they are not identified across the 

world for their achievements and creative contributions. Rather, they are 

known for their mutual animosity which is believed to be a great threat 

not only for the region but world peace at large. The differences between 

India and Pakistan may appear quite serious and rooted in history. But 

seen rationally, they are not as complicated as to demand supernatural 

efforts for their resolution. These differences seem to have started due to 

the partition of the Indian subcontinent, but the partition itself was 

chosen as the last available option for resolving the intricate politicocommunal 

question of India. The partition was not necessarily meant to 

generate a new set of animosity. It was this very occasion of partition 

which saw the biggest proponent of Indian unity, Mahatama Gandhi, 

going on a "fast unto death" in order to ensure the transfer of Pakistan's 

1


share of assets to it, and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, while 

explaining his Two Nation Theory, proclaiming that he regarded Hindus 

as a great nation and their religion being equally great, and that his only 

contention was that the Muslims and Hindus were different and could 

not then be united under one political system. Jinnah was not communal 

or racist in his outlook, a fact that is now being increasingly realised in 

India. 

Politicians like L K Advani and Jaswant Singh and historians like H 

M Seervai and Dr Ajeet Jawed are discovering Jinnah as a non-communal 

and secular leader. If this is so, one may question why the partition 

entailed so much of bloodshed, riots and human misery? In fact, as the 

dust of emotions is settling down, it is increasingly becoming easier for 

the historians to have a better and more objective view of the past. 

Therefore, it is being realised that many of the problems which were 

believed to be the result of partition, such as the riots of partition, 

uprooting of twelve million people, the dispute over assets, the 

differences on the ownership of water resources, the issue of Rann of 

Katch, and problems in accession of the states, were, in fact, issues which 

should have been addressed as part of the partition package. It was the 

failure of the British colonial administration that it could not manage the 

process of partitioning the subcontinent amicably. Maulana Abul Kalam 

Azad holds that he had already briefed Mountbatten on the possibility of 

violent incidents but the latter claimed that being a soldier he would not 

hesitate in using the military and air force and would use tanks and 

airplanes to crush the riots if they erupted. His were just hollow 

statements. 

Though in the past six decades, some of the problems 

accompanying partition were partially or fully resolved by India and 

Pakistan bilaterally, the arbitration also proved helpful in some cases. For 

instance, the issue of river water was resolved through the World Bank 

assistance resulting in the Indus Basin Water Treaty, which was not ideal 

from the point of view of the either party. Yet it was accepted, as no 

other mutually agreed solution was possible. Likewise, the Rann of Katch 

issue was resolved in 1969 through the mediation of Britain. However, 

the Kashmir issue has remained unresolved. Pakistan and India fought 

two wars in 1947-48 and 1965 directly over Kashmir. Though the 1971 

war was fought due to the East Pakistan crisis, Kashmir was a crucial 

element in it and the subsequent Simla Agreement had implications for 

Kashmir. The 62 years saw the rise of nuclear ambitions in India and


Pakistan. The Kashmir issue erupted again in 1990. The 9/11 incident 

generated another wave of tension between the two countries. Both 

countries held rounds of talks, agreed upon certain confidence-building 

measures, yet the tension continued. 

The biggest hurdle in the solution of the Kashmir issue is the rigid 

traditional mindset of the policy-makers of the two countries, who do 

not allow melting of ice, or search for innovative options. The rigid 

attitude of the two sides, does not allow them to even reinterpret their 

traditional position. Any such effort made in the past was foiled due to 

one or the other reason. The logical conclusion of the Vajpai's visit to 

Lahore or Musharraf's suggestion to solve the issue on zonal basis instead 

of plebiscite, were thwarted by the logic of stubbornness. 

Apart from the conventional mindset of the two establishments, 

the tension is also boosted by their fear of each other. In India, anti- 

Pakistan posture may not have contributed to the formation of its 

nationhood, yet Pakistan is presented there as a vicious neighbour, keen 

not to spare a chance of troubling India. In Pakistan, India is presented as 

a country which has not accepted Pakistan wholeheartedly, and is intent 

upon eliminating it. Moreover, in Pakistan, India has been taken as a 

permanent point of reference to define Pakistani nationhood, instead of 

evolving a positive basis of this nationhood by recognising and 

reinforcing the rich cultural content and diversity of the Pakistani 

society. This was the mistake Quaid-i-Azam wanted to evade, so he had 

referred to the secular and positive bases of one Pakistani nationhood by 

declaring the culmination of the Two Nation Theory after partition, on 

11 August 1947. 

The biggest damage inflicted by the long span of adverse relations 

of India and Pakistan is the distortion of their own self-image. India 

assumes itself to be a regional power, with the result that not only 

Pakistan but India's other neighbours are also restless with it. Pakistan, 

on the other hand, is committing the mistake of relying on anti-India 

posture as the basis of its identity. The craze has made Pakistan a country 

focusing on national security, rather than on being a welfare state. Since 

such a state confines its major priorities to national defence, the other 

areas of national life, such as social development, education, health, 

poverty alleviation, and social welfare, were denied their rightful place in 

national scheme of affairs. 

India got its defence boosted at the cost of social development but 

also maintained a democratic order in the country. The benefit of this 

3


almost uninterrupted democratic process is now being accrued in the 

form of closer relations with the West and acquiring of a favourable 

response in respect of military aid. Pakistan made itself a national security 

state at the cost of the social sector, which with the passage of time has 

widened the gap between the military and civilian institutions. 

Paradoxically, the same US and western countries which once backed the 

military regimes, are now suspicious about the defence build-up and 

nuclear capability of Pakistan. 

Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed, News International (Rawalpindi), January 1, 2010. 

NON-STATE ACTORS FOR PEACE 

The term "non-state actors" is becoming a catchword in our part of the 

world. But it has had different notional connotations for each different 

situation. India has been using the term "non-state actors" to describe the 

"perpetrators" of the November 2008 Mumbai tragedy. In Pakistan, this 

catchword is being obsessively used to euphemise one's political nemeses. 

A different kind of "non-state actors" with eminently positive credentials, 

now seem to have come together in a joint mission to breathe a fresh new 

impulse for peace in the region. 

Two giant media groups in India and Pakistan, The Times of India 

group and the Jang group have come together in a joint initiative called 

"Aman ki Asha" (desire for peace) "to energise the process of peace" 

between the two countries. It is a noble mission and has been generally 

welcomed in non-governmental circles. The authors of this well-meaning 

initiative have an ambitious agenda of "unleashing a new social compact" 

based on the common desire for peace at the level of the people in both 

countries. 

They plan to move pragmatically "to reach out and pluck the lowhanging 

fruit in the beginning before they aim higher." Issues of trade and 

commerce, investments, financial infrastructure, cultural exchanges, 

religious and medical tourism, free movement of ideas, visa regimes, 

sporting ties, connectivity, reviving existing routes, market access, divided 

families and each other's prisoners constitutes their initial agenda. All 

these issues are already part of the Composite Dialogue, thus providing 

complementarity to both Track One and Track Two approaches. 

The sponsors of the "peace initiative" are aware of the complexities 

involved in the troubled India-Pakistan equation, and the hope they can 

generate on both sides of the border through enough public awareness of


the need for peace and prosperity which has eluded the two countries 

ever since they became independent. The purpose is "to provide a mutual 

platform for debate on the major sticking points in the hitherto fickle 

peace dialogue on both sides of the border -- whether it is Kashmir, the 

water dispute or security. 

The mission statement commits the two media groups "to a 

movement that will bring the people and civil institutions of the two 

countries together in fostering an honourable, genuine and durable 

peace." This is a noble mission and needs to be pursued with all 

seriousness of purpose. While the ultimate aspirations of Aman ki Asha 

are admittedly lofty, the sponsors claim to have taken good care in 

factoring in realistic and deliverable means to ensure the sustainability of 

their peace endeavour. 

In its essence, the Aman ki Asha project involves an expansive 

[extensive] media diplomacy seeking "to resolve amicably all outstanding 

issues that serve as hurdles to peace, and campaign for collaboration on 

economic, cultural issues through a media-led civil society movement." In 

the India-Pakistan context, we have seen "media diplomacy" at work in 

different forms in recent years. Notably, Panos South Asia and the 

Kathmandu-based Hemal magazine have been organising a series of 

roundtables and retreats since 2002 for senior media practitioners to 

explore the modalities of reinforcing the peace process. 

One conclusion flagged in those discussions was that no foreign 

policy without popular support and consent can be sustainable or survive 

domestic political changes in the two countries. Indeed, the India- 

Pakistan peace process has never been immune to domestic and external 

factors and has always been vulnerable to occasional hiccups. We have 

seen that whenever the dialogue process, initiated in June 1997, appeared 

to be making headway, some bizarre incident took place derailing and 

then stalling the process. 

The latest is the November 2008 Mumbai tragedy, after which we 

were back to square one. The dialogue remains suspended despite two 

summit-level meetings, one in June last year at Yekaterinburg, Russia, 

and the other in the following month at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el- 

Sheikh. India and Pakistan seem to have inextricably tied themselves 

together in a straitjacket with each looking in the opposite direction. 

They do need help. The US is doing what it can to nudge both sides. But 

domestically, in the absence of popular momentum, both are held back 

by the extremity of their traditional trust deficit. 

5


The media is perhaps the only force that can now catalyse the 

public opinion to bring about requisite pressure on both governments to 

come out of their negative mode and move ahead. The joint Times-Jang 

groups' initiative is a timely effort towards generating the needed "surge 

of goodwill and flexibility" through Aman ki Asha in civil society and 

the media across the borders and might indeed evoke the requisite 

popular will in support of peace and normalcy between the two estranged 

neighbours. But a word of caution is also needed. 

There is no room for over-optimism in the India-Pakistan context. 

There is nothing wrong in being optimistic, but given the volatile history 

of India-Pakistan relations and complexity of the issues involved, one 

would be better off being cautious and realistic, not drawing euphoric 

conclusions or raising unrealistic hopes. This has been a troubled 

relationship, marked by "conflict and confrontation." In fact, the 

underlying problems behind this legacy are rooted in their history and 

the long-standing tradition of mutual distrust and suspicion that they 

inherited on their independence. 

And at the core of all their problems is the Kashmir issue, which 

has kept the relations between the two countries bedevilled, perpetuating 

mutual tensions and animosity. The clash in 1948, the 1965 war, the 

Siachin dispute, the Kargil crisis, the volatile Line of Control, frequent 

warlike military deployments, the water disputes, including Wullar 

Barrage and Baglihar Dam, and Pakistan's strategic fears and 

apprehensions are all directly related to Kashmir. 

The Kashmir dispute invokes intense feelings in the peoples of both 

India and Pakistan, as well as the Kashmiri people themselves. Their 

historical experiences, cultural diversities, religious fervour, scars of 

partition, wars and conflicts, liberation struggle in Kashmir and 

resurgence of violence and terrorism in recent years, all come together in 

a curious convergence in the unresolved dispute of Kashmir. Even in the 

most optimistic scenario, Kashmir would remain an overarching factor in 

any India-Pakistan peace process. 

This is not a territorial dispute. It is a question involving the right 

of self-determination of the Kashmiri people pledged to them by both 

India and Pakistan and the international community through solemn 

resolutions of the UN Security Council. Both sides will have to involve 

the Kashmiri people in the dialogue process. They are the arbiters of their 

own destiny.


At the same time, mistrust and apprehensions on both sides are 

deep-rooted and will not evaporate simply by the flames being blown 

out. India and Pakistan will have to extinguish the fire at its source. 

Dialogue and constructive engagement are today the only acceptable 

means of resolving disputes. Progress in this direction could perhaps be 

facilitated atmospherically by Aman ki Asha project, but eventually highlevel 

political engagement between the two countries will be required. 

In the ultimate analysis, however, the success of this process would 

depend entirely on the freshness of political approach that both sides 

would themselves be ready to bring in with sincerity of purpose. What 

should be clear to them by now is that, in today's world, there will be no 

military solution to their problems. Given the unique political history of 

South Asia and the particular social and cultural proclivities of its 

inhabitants, this region needs stable peace, not confrontation. 

[If] India-Pakistan rapprochement becomes [a] reality, it will benefit 

not only the peoples of the region but also the world at large in terms of 

economic opportunities. Durable peace between the two countries would 

not only be a factor of regional and global stability but would also enable 

them to divert their resources to improving the lives of their peoples and 

eradicating poverty and backwardness from the region. 

Depending on progress on Kashmir and in mutual confidencebuilding 

through nuclear and conventional restraint, the two countries in 

due course could also explore a no-war treaty with a mutually agreed 

mechanism for conflict-prevention, conflict-resolution and peaceful 

settlement of disputes. This would be the sum total of visionary 

statesmanship that we need in our region to enable our two peoples to 

live together in peace and harmony. Meanwhile, the newly arrived India- 

Pakistan "non-state actors" for peace deserve our full support. 

Shamshad Ahmad, News International (Rawalpindi), January 1, 2010. 

JOINT VENTURE FOR PEACE 

In the most gloomy atmosphere around us in Pakistan, we had no reason 

to celebrate New Year's Eve. The morning of Jan 1, 2010, however, gave 

us a pleasant surprise when we read that the editors of the Jang group in 

Pakistan and of the Times of India group have taken a bold initiative to 

join hands for promotion of peace, economic prosperity, education and 

health much needed by the one-and-half-billion people of our two 

countries. 

7


This was not the only good news on Jan 1. The civil society in 

Pakistan, realising the importance of peace had also observed a solidarity 

day under the banner of "Aman Ittehad" and took out rallies in more 

than 35 cities of Pakistan on Jan 1. Despite a hartaal in Sindh and fear of 

the terrorists, the peace rallies all over Pakistan were well attended by 

exuberant citizens from all walks of life. These successful demonstrations 

once again vindicated the burning desire of the people for peace. 

I can state with confidence that the ordinary people of India equally 

desire peace with the same keenness, desire and sprit. It is for this reason 

that supporters of peace in India have once again convened a conference 

in New Delhi on Jan 10 in search of "A Road Map Towards Peace." We 

greatly appreciate this initiative of the intellectuals, political leaders, 

human right activists, NGOs, journalists and people from different walks 

of life, including Mr I K Gujral, former prime minister of India and 

Kuldip Nayar, a former member of the Rajya Sabha, who are two of the 

hosts of this conference. 

The vast majority of the people do agree that war is not the 

solution. Over the past 62 years, the three wars with India and two 

battles of Siachen in 1987 and Kargil in 1999 could not help in resolving 

any issue. The untimely and unwarranted recent expressions of persons 

like Gen Deepak Kapoor about his determination to prepare for "twofront 

war" with China and Pakistan and deal with asymmetric and 

fourth-generation warfare, enhance strategic reach and joint operations 

with the air force and navy, etc., do cause alarm and promote a war of 

words between the generals of the two countries. 

Pakistan is already at an unending war for the past over three years, 

with the worst enemies -- i.e., terrorists within Pakistan. I hope all 

thinking sections of the public in India would appreciate that, now or in 

future, Pakistan cannot afford to indulge in any aggressive designs or 

adventurism against India. Hence, there is nothing to fear from Pakistan. 

However, such expressions of war preparation, by any of the civil or 

military leaders of the two countries, only result in promotion of tension 

and strain our relations further. These statements also make the task of 

the peace activist much more difficult. 

Not only were the wars in the past six decades destructive, but 

equally counterproductive and destructive was the strategy to promote 

jihad and jihadi organisations in Pakistan, on the pretext of keeping the 

Kashmir issue alive. The activities of the jihadis and extremist militant 

religious terrorist in the past three decades have only resulted in further


loss of life, places of worship and properties not only of the Kashmiris 

but more so in Pakistan. The so-called jihad could not force India to 

budge an inch or motivate any country, including our closest allies, to 

pressure India to resolve the issue peacefully. Nor was the Indian 

economy or its image damaged by the jihadis in any significant manner. 

On the contrary, it is Pakistan that is bleeding profusely on account 

of the undeclared, endless war unleashed from within by the terrorists, by 

whatever name they may be called: Al Qaeda, or Taliban Pakistani or 

Afghan or any other segments of he Taliban or Fazlullah or Sufi 

Mohammad or Baitullah Mehsud or any other brand of terrorists. They 

all have a common agenda to take over the state institutions and resources 

of Pakistan. 

Indeed, the people of India have suffered many terrorist attacks, 

including the attack on the Houses of Parliament of India, the tragedy of 

Nov 26 in Mumbai and bombing of the markets in Delhi are some of the 

most heinous, condemnable crimes against the state and people of India, I 

share the grief of the people of India and join them in condemning these 

terrorist forces. I would however, draw the attention of the people in 

India to the fact that the people of Pakistan are suffering such disasters 

and barbaric incidents of far worst terrorism almost every day in every 

nook and corner of Pakistan, where several thousands innocent citizens 

have lost their lives and properties. Hence, peace is our need not only for 

our country but also for the entire region. We can only succeed in 

eradicating the terrorism, in all its forms with concerted efforts and joint 

line of action between our two countries, without any further loss of 

time. 

Not only the people but also the governments of the two countries 

agree that all disputes can be resolved through dialogue, with sincerity of 

purpose. In terms of priority, the first and foremost issue that needs to be 

addressed immediately is the futile war over Siachen. 

The presence of the army of the two countries on the glaciers of 

Siachen is not only an avoidable heavy burden on the exchequer of the 

two countries but is also rapidly destroying most precious reserves of 

water. How ironic is the reality that the people of the two countries are 

already facing acute scarcity of water, but this unending war is destroying 

the water reserves, which will be needed by our future generations also. 

Hence, it is of utmost importance that the armies of the two countries 

must withdraw forthwith from Siachen and resolve the issue of 

boundaries on the table, rather than on the mountains. 

9


I urge both India and Pakistan to show flexibility in their respective 

pronounced positions on Kashmir. Instead of insisting on resolving the 

Kashmir issue first, the emphasis should be on an end to hostilities in all 

forms and building confidence and trust between the two countries which 

is imperative for meaningful dialogues. I am not suggesting that the issue 

of Kashmir should be shelved or given up. All that I want to emphasise is: 

don't give Kashmir priority over the wider national interests of the two 

countries. 

Our national interest always warranted "peaceful co-existence" with 

our neighbours. Hence, in the first place dialogues between the two 

countries must resume unconditionally and with the sincere commitment 

to resolve the issues. There is no harm if both the countries agree to 

accept the Line of Control, with some necessary adjustments, as the 

international border, at least de fecto, for the time being. With this 

agreement, it would be most prudent and in the best interest of the 

people of Pakistan, India and Kashmir, if the two countries agree to 

establish visa-free borders or at least visa on arrival on all points of entry 

and exit, as well as free exchange of economic, cultural, academic, 

intellectual groups and free access to the electronic and print media, etc., 

in all walks of life. 

I am conscious of the fact that such bold decisions cannot be 

implemented without mobilisation of not only the opinion of the public 

but also of their leaders. Here I see the most vital positive role that can be 

played by the media of the two countries. We are fortunate that at this 

crucial juncture, the two biggest groups of publications -- i.e., the Jang 

group and the Times of India group in India -- have come forward to save 

one-and-a-half billion people of our region from wars, prejudices, 

terrorism and poverty which are most detrimental to their interest, 

prosperity and protection of their life and property. The two media 

giants, owning largely circulated print media and most popular television 

channels in the respective countries, are bound to succeed in influencing 

the opinion of the people and their leaders in breaking the deadlock and 

creating the environment for a meaningful dialogue between the two 

countries, for achievement of the aforesaid objectives of utmost 

importance and national interest of the people of the entire SAARC 

region. 

Iqbal Haider, News International (Rawalpindi), January 7, 2010.


PEACE AND KASHMIR 

"Fighting your war is our duty. From day one, it has been our own 

movement," said President Zardari, while addressing a special sitting of 

the Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) legislative assembly on January 5, in 

his first ever presidential visit to Muzaffarabad. January 5 is celebrated as 

self-determination day as it was on January 5, 1949 that the United 

Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution recognising the 

right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. 

Since the Musharraf days, our policy towards Kashmir has been 

desultory, even contradictory. Scores of proposals have emanated from 

Pakistan but none has caused a positive response. Being half baked and illadvised, 

they have led to serious attrition of our historical stand on the 

issue. They have also encouraged others to further muddy the waters. 

There is discussion on a variety of models -- the Ireland formula, Swiss 

model and the European Union proposals. Instead of bringing these ideas 

to the negotiating table, they have become an issue of public discourse 

and have harmed the cause of Kashmir. 

Pakistan's policy towards Kashmir has suffered from a lack of 

direction. It has neither focused on nor involved the Kashmiris in 

negotiations. Statements reiterating support to a solution "based on the 

aspirations of the Kashmiris" have not become part of the policy. All 

these years, we have repeated the mantra without associating Kashmiris 

with the peace process. There has been no mechanism [to accommodate] 

their aspirations. 

The sad fact is that Kashmir as a 'core' issue has lost its urgency and 

primacy as a determinant of peace and security in the region. India has 

succeeded in preserving all its positions and has shifted focus from its 

unlawful occupation of Kashmir to the overall objective of advancing the 

peace process. What is worse is that capitalising on western phobia about 

Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, the Indian propaganda machinery 

has subtly but effectively exploited this feat [fact] and equated the 

Kashmiri struggle for self determination to terrorism supported by 

Pakistan. This well-orchestrated campaign has narrowed the parameters 

of the Kashmir issue to cross-border terrorism and Pakistan has been put 

in the dock, and blamed for the violation of its solemn commitment in 

the January 6, 2004 joint communiqué that its "soil would not be allowed 

to be used for any terrorist activity." 

The haste and impatience to seek any solution has led to 

compromising our principled stand. Similarly, the tendency to offer out- 

11


of-the-box solutions needs to be curbed. Over the last 10 years, there has 

been no authoritative effort to seek consensus on the Kashmir issue in the 

context of changing international situation and geo-strategic interests. 

The indomitable courage of Kashmiris, despite having lost 70,000 of 

its youth over the last two decades, holds the promise that ultimately 

their struggle will prevail. However, as a party to the UN resolution 

giving them the right to self-determination, Pakistan is duty-bound to 

seek ways to redress the ordeal of the Kashmiris and facilitate the 

implementation of the UNSC resolution. We need to take a hard look at 

the prevailing global situation and formulate a strategy of inviting and 

focusing international attention on the massive human rights violations 

by the Indian army. This alone would be a real gesture of solidarity. 

In Washington, there is a feeble resonance to Zardari's assessment 

that just as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute cannot be resolved without 

accommodating the Palestinians, there cannot be regional peace in South 

Asia without addressing Kashmir. We need to build Kashmir's case on 

this principle. The US interest in the resolution of the Kashmir issue is 

becoming stronger not per se for the latter but in the realisation that 

Pakistan cannot and will not be able to play its pivotal role in the war 

against terror. Thus, the festering problem would counter the US agenda 

in the region. 

Tayyab Siddiqui, News International (Rawalpindi), January 12, 2010. 

FIVE DAMS BEING BUILT IN OCCUPIED KASHMIR 

India has resumed work on the controversial Kishanganga hydropower 

project and has taken up four other mega projects of about 3,900MW on 

the Chenab and Jhelum rivers in occupied Kashmir that can result in 

major water shortages and cause a disaster in Pakistan in the event of an 

earthquake. 

Documents available with Dawn suggest that the Indian 

government has handed over the security of the five projects to the 

Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) — a specialised division of the 

Indian armed forces that provides security cover to the country’s 

missions abroad and UN peacekeeping operations, besides private and 

cooperative establishments in the country. The CISF has more than 

130,000 personnel to provide security in highly sensitive areas and 

regions.


According to a progress report prepared by the Indian government 

and the administration of occupied Kashmir after a Jan 10 meeting, seven 

major water and electricity projects are being executed in the occupied 

state, besides nine road and infrastructure projects. 

According to sources in Islamabad, Pakistan has not been informed 

about some of the major projects although India is required under the 

1960 Indus Waters Treaty to inform it about a project six months before 

its launching. 

Pakistan’s Permanent Indus Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah 

was not available for comments. 

The Indian government’s project update revealed that about 33 

billion Indian rupees sanctioned for the 330MW Kishanganga project on 

Jhelum river in January last year had been increased to Rs37 billion. 

“Work has restarted after settlement of outstanding issues. The project is 

expected to be completed by January 2016.” 

Pakistan has been opposing the project for more than a decade 

because it could stop water flows into Jhelum river. Bilateral talks have so 

far failed to yield any result to Pakistan’s satisfaction. 

But the most crucial and the biggest is the Sawalkot project with a 

capacity of 1,200MW. Another is the 1,000MW Pakul Dul project for 

which Rs51 billion has been allocated and the executing agencies are 

awaiting forest clearance of 311 hectares and security arrangements to 

start construction. 

The 240MW Uri-II project on Jhelum river was allocated Rs18 

billion, of which Rs8 billion has been spent with 51 per cent physical 

progress. The project is expected to be completed in February next year. 

Work on the 1,020MW Busrar multi-purpose project on the 

Chenab has been stalled because of inadequate security. 

Despite Pakistan’s objections, the Indian government has been 

successful in completing the Bagilhar Dam, having a 474m height and 

water pondage capacity of 37.5 million cubic metres, because the 

authorities in Islamabad reacted too late, when the project had reached an 

advanced stage. 

Indian documents reveal that the Sawalkot Dam project on the 

Chenab in occupied Kashmir has 646-foot height, which is more than the 

485-foot height of Tarbela and 453-foot of Mangla. The project is also 

higher than the Bagilhar Dam and has 13 times more water capacity. 

Work on the $2 billion dam is in full swing and is monitored by the 

Indian home ministry, because of the law and order situation in occupied 

13


Kashmir. As of Jan 6, a 10.74kms access road to the project had been 

opened. 

The Sawalkot project is located in Doda and Udhampur districts of 

occupied Kashmir. The project was designed and is being developed by 

international consortium contractors comprising the NCC of Norway 

and Hochtief of Germany, including financing and construction, before 

being handed over to the Kashmir State Power Development 

Corporation (JKPDC) for operation. 

Arshad H. Abbasi, a research fellow at the Sustainable 

Development Policy Institute, said the dam would inundate more than 12 

square kilometres. He said the dam would be highly vulnerable to 

earthquake being in the seismic zone of Kashmir Himalayas. The site is 

close to the Himalayan Boundary Thrust zone where a number of 

earthquakes have been recorded in the past. 

Mr Abbasi, who had worked with Nespak after the October 2005 

earthquake said the nearest epicentre was just 50kms from the project site 

and the Bhadarwa earthquake of 6 degrees magnitude on the Richter scale 

had been recorded there in 1947. The Badgam earthquake of magnitude 

5.5 in 1967 had its epicentre 70kms from the site, while the strongest 

earthquake recorded in the region (1905) was of magnitude 8.0 and had its 

epicentre in Kangra, about 160kms away. 

He said three fault-lines near the place were believed to have serious 

seismic potential -- the Panjal Murree fault close to Damkund, the 

Sawalkot fault just upstream of the site and the Chakka fault less than 

2kms downstream. 

The dam site had some serious geological and environmental transboundary 

concerns that ought to be addressed, the expert said. 

Otherwise, he added, it could be an environmental disaster for Pakistan as 

the lower riparian. 

Dawn (Islamabad), February 3, 2010. 

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/front-page/13+five-dams-being-built-in-occupied-kashmir-320-za-04 

KASHMIR DAY: STATE TERRORISM STILL CONTINUES 

“Kashmir Day” is celebrated every year on the 5th of February by 

Pakistanis and Kashmiris all over the world to show solidarity with the 

freedom fighters, demanding their legitimate right of self-determination


from India. The day reminds the continued sacrifices of Kashmiri people 

against Indian state terrorism which still continues. 

The misfortune of Kashmiris who comprise 94 percent in Jummu 

and Kashmir, started in 1846 when their territory was sold by the British 

colonialists to a Hindu, Gulab Singh who continued his brutal policies— 

memories of which remain alive today. During the Dogra rule (1846- 

1947), Kashmiri Muslims were leading so miserable life that it was 

difficult to differentiate them from beasts. Slave labour and capital 

punishment and living under constant terror was order of the day. 

On April 19, 1931, the ban of Eid Khutba ignited widespread 

demonstrations in the Jummu city. For the first time, people openly 

opposed the oppression. On July 13, 1931, thousands of people thronged 

the Central Jail Srinagar. As the time for obligatory prayer approached, a 

young Kashmiri stood for Azan. The Dogra soldiers opened fire at him. 

In this way, 22 Kashmiris embraced martyrdom in their efforts to 

complete the Azan. 

On partition of India in 1947, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, 

Hari Singh, in connivance with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru 

and Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, had decided to join India, 

quite contrary to the wishes of the majority of Kashmiris. 

When a contention arose between India and Pakistan on the dispute 

of Kashmir in1948, India took the issue to the United Nations Security 

Council and offered to hold a plebiscite in the held Kashmir under UN 

supervision. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its promise. 

Instead, in March 1965, The Indian Parliament passed a bill, declaring 

Kashmir a province of India. 

However, during and after the partition, Indian state terrorism has 

kept on going so as to crush the war of liberation of the freedom fighters. 

As regards the latest phase of Indian state terrorism, like the past, 

intermittent curfews, crackdowns and massacre by the Indian forces have 

continued against the non-violent mass uprising (Intifada) of Kashmiris 

during and after the so-called elections. Thus more than 1000 innocent 

people have been killed during this new phase of the struggle. 

It is mentionable that global terrorism that has gained significance 

after the 9/11 is marked by confusion about its definition and 

application. In such a situation, regrettably, even war of liberation in the 

occupied Kashmir is being equated with terrorism and it becomes difficult 

for the western general masses to detect the Indian state terrorists. New 

Delhi which immediately jumped on the American bandwagon of war on 

15


terror by neglecting the legitimate rights of Kashmiris, has continuously 

been trying to convince the US-led international community through 

propaganda that the Kashmiri freedom fighters or Mujahideen are 

terrorists, while accusing that Pakistan is sponsoring this cross-border 

terrorism. 

It is mentionable that those who sympathise with the cause of 

Palestinians, Afghans and Iraqis regard the people of Kashmir as fighting 

a war of national liberation. They equate the military actions and targeted 

killing of the innocent people by the Indian occupying forces with 

terrorism. On the other side, reactive ambush tactics of the freedom 

fighters in these territories are called by the colonial authorities as 

terrorism. 

At present, Indian military troops are using all inhuman tactics of 

ethnic cleansing to disturb the majority population of the Kashmiris, 

which had been practised by the Serb forces on Bosnian and Kosovar 

Muslims in the past and recently by Israel on the Palestinians. 

When Indian military troops destroy a village and conduct 

extrajudicial killings in the occupied territories of Kashmir, west remains 

silent, for it is an internal affair of Indians, but when freedom fighters 

seek retaliation, it becomes a case of terrorism. Recently more than 2,700 

unmarked graves of the unidentified bodies were uncovered in villages of 

Indian-held Kashmir near the Line of Control (LoC). It is not the new 

event, in the past three years, the International People’s Tribunal on 

Human Rights and Justice (IPT) has discovered unmarked bodies buried 

at various places. Last year, discovery of nearly 1000 graves of the 

unmarked Muslims in the Indian held Kashmir was also notable. Sources 

have suggested that these graves include bodies of extrajudicial executions 

committed by the Indian military and paramilitary forces. 

It is notable that the US President Barrack Obama had repeatedly 

said that the United States should help in resolving the Kashmir dispute 

to deal with the problem of militancy in the region. Quite contrarily, 

Richard Holbrooke, special envoy of the US new administration on 

South Asia pointed out that he had “no mandate to deal with Kashsmir.” 

But it is a good sign that in the recent few years, west has broken its 

silence over the Indian-held Kashmir. This time Indian occupied Kashmir 

has become a special focus of world’s attention including India itself. 

Even the European Parliament passed a resolution, condemning New 

Delhi for human rights violations in the Valley.


British Foreign Secretary David Miliband who visited New Delhi 

and Islamabad in the post-Mumbai terror attacks had pointed out that 

complete de-escalation of situation between Pakistan and India was fully 

linked to resolution of Kashmir issue, saying that India should cooperate 

with Pakistan in this respect. 

Regarding the peaceful uprising of the Kashmiris, Washington Post 

wrote on August 28, 2008, “Despite the government’s use of force, many 

Muslims in Indian controlled Kashmir seem determined to find peaceful 

ways to voice their aspirations as the nonviolent movement by the 

unarmed protesters flourishes, especially among the young”. 

New critical situation has also affected other parts of India and its 

gravity could be judged from the fact that even Indian intellectuals have 

started favouring the independence of the occupied Kashmir. 

In its editorial, the editor of The Times of India wrote on 

August 17, 2008 “On August 15, India celebrated independence from 

the British Raj. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India 

became a day, symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley”. 

On August 16, 2008, Hindustan Times reported: “Nothing has 

really changed since 1990s. Indian forces are treated as an army of 

occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor”. 

As a matter of fact, when Kashmiri people lost faith in the 

international community, which persisted in ignoring their liberation and 

when it became obvious that the Indian occupying forces would not 

vacate the controlled areas through political means, the peoples had no 

choice but to resort to armed struggle which was actually intensified in 

1989. 

World history proves that a few persons were never able to launch 

a successful freedom movement. And it always represents the aspirations 

of majority of people who struggle for independence. While judging in 

this context, the Kashmiris enjoy the support of all the intellectuals, 

religious scholars and common men who are determined to fight against 

the imperialist occupation of Indians. 

World history proves that wars of liberation in connection with 

various nations were their reaction against misrule and subjugation 

perpetrated by alien powers. In the 20th century, a majority of the Third 

World countries got independence after an armed struggle against the 

colonial powers. Even independence of the United States, unification of 

Germany and Italy became possible after an armed struggle. So, question 

arises that “were the peoples of these countries terrorists at that time? 

17


In the past, ‘composite dialogue’ between India and Pakistan took 

place on a number of occasions, but produced no outcome due to Indian 

delaying tactics and intransigence—prolonging the agony of the 

subjugated people of the occupied Kashmir. 

If any impartial observer studies the historical background of the 

issue of Kashmir and continued struggle for liberation, he will definitely 

conclude that in reality, Indians are intruders and hence real terrorists 

who tend to conceal their own terrorist measures such as firing at 

innocent people, burning the houses, illegal detentions etc., which have 

become every day occurrence. 

February 4, 2010. 

http://www.apakistannews.com/kashmir-day-state-terrorism-still-continues- 

160238 

WAR AGAINST INDIA INEVITABLE IF KASHMIR DISPUTE 

NOT RESOLVED 

The long-standing Kashmir dispute should be resolved at the earliest 

otherwise the war against India would be inevitable. India has practically 

conducted atomic bombing against Pakistan by building numerous dams 

in Kashmir. The reduced Pakistani water share would turn the land 

barren. But thanks to the media, which has brought this critical issue to 

limelight. These views were expressed by the speakers at a Forum entitled 

‘Kashmir Freedom Movement and Pakistan’ organised by The Nation, 

Nawa-i-Waqt and Waqt News at the Hamid Nizami Hall here on 

Wednesday. The speakers included Member Islamic Ideology Council- 

Azad Kashmir and former Member Kashmir Legislative Assembly 

Maulana Mohammad Shafi Josh, Member AJK Legislative Assembly and 

Secretary General People’s Muslim League, AJK Chapter Dewan Ghulam 

Mohyuddin, Director Kashmir Centre Lahore, Mirza Mohammad Sadiq 

Jarral and Central Leader Jamaat-ud-Daawa, Hafiz Abdur Rehman 

Makki. Earlier, the speakers also met Editor-in Chief, the Nation, and 

Nazria Pakistan Trust (NPT) Chairman, Majid Nizami. 

Speaking on the occasion, Hafiz Abdur Rehman Makki said that 

the Kashmir issue was put aside during the regime of former President 

Musharraf that gave India liberty to construct the dams on Pakistani 

water share. He opined that the Pakistani media should reply in a 

befitting manner to the Indian channels trying to malign Pakistan in the 

international community. Pakistan is in danger. We need to formulate an


effective strategy to salvage our sovereignty, and to plead the case of our 

Kashmiri brethren, he remarked. He was of the view that the government 

should lift the ban from all the genuine religious outfits, and patronise 

them for Jehad. The war on terror is not ours, but the US has imposed it 

on Pakistan, he clarified. Makki appealed to Chief Justice of Pakistan 

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudrhy and Lahore High Court Chief Justice 

Muhammad Sharif to take suo moto action of the grave situation of water 

crisis. 

Dewan Ghulam Mohyuddin said if the Kashmir dispute was not 

resolved in the next one or two years the existence of Pakistan would be 

at risk. He warned India to remain in limits otherwise be ready to face 

the music. He opined that Pakistan should decide time frame and 

objectives before the commencement of composite dialogue with India to 

settle the Kashmir dispute. 

Appreciating the role of Majid Nizami, Maulana Mohammad Shafi 

Josh said that the Nawa-i-Waqt Group was playing a pivotal role 

regarding the issue of Kashmir. He said that according to the Quaid, 

Kashmir was the jugular vein of Pakistan. He recalled that the Quaid had 

declared Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Ch Ghulam Abbas Khan as his 

successors. Pakistan is incomplete without the liberation of Kashmir, he 

maintained. He called upon all the political and religious leaders to unite 

for the cause of Kashmir. 

Mirza Mohammad Sadiq Jarral said that all the options - suggested 

by Pakistani govt, especially during Musharraf regime - went in favour of 

India, which always took advantage of our pro-American policies. He said 

India was exploiting our trade and engulfing our resources by building 

dams on our rivers. “The govt should warn India instead of initiating 

dialogue, because such talks never gave fruitful results,” he said. 

Jam Sajjad Hussian, Nation (Islamabad), February 4, 2010. 

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline//Regional/04-Feb-2010/War-against-India-inevitable-if-Kashmir-disputenot-solved-soon-Speakers 

FAIR, PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF KASHMIR DISPUTE MUST 

FOR LASTING PEACE IN SOUTH ASIA: QURESHI 

Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi has stated that fair 

and peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance 

with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is a sine qua 

19


non for a lasting and viable peace in South Asia. “It is high time India 

realizes this fundamental fact and dispenses with its untenable and 

unjustified policy. To begin with, India should rescind the draconian laws 

long imposed in Jammu and Kashmir”, Qureshi said in a message on 

Kashmir Solidarity Day. 

The Foreign Minister said, Pakistan strongly believes that the 

Jammu and Kashmir dispute should be resolved through dialogue, adding, 

“We invite India to engage in a sustained and result-oriented dialogue 

process in this regard”. 

“We also urge the international community to play its due role in 

securing for Kashmiris their right to self-determination”, he added. 

Qureshi said: “Today, the Government and the people of Pakistan 

are observing the Kashmir Solidarity Day. This is an occasion to reiterate 

our indefatigable support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their 

legitimate struggle for their inalienable right to self-determination as 

enshrined in UN Charter and the relevant United Nations resolutions”. 

He said, the valiant and peaceful people of Jammu and Kashmir are 

continuing to suffer. “Not only is the right to self-determination being 

denied to them, but they are also being subjected to violence and 

suppression”. Thousands of Kashmiris have lost their lives and thousands 

are languishing in Indian jails. The grisly human rights violations by 

Indian forces in Indian-occupied Kashmir have been documented by wellknown 

international human rights organizations”, he added. 

Foreign Minister Qureshi said Pakistan will continue playing its 

constructive role towards resolving the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. 

Nation (Islamabad), February 5, 2010. 

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline//Regional/05-Feb-2010/Fair-peaceful-resolution-of-Kashmir-dispute-mustfor-lasting-peace-in-South-Asia-Qureshi 

ANOTHER KASHMIR SOLIDARITY DAY 

February 5 th is observed every year as Kashmir Solidarity Day to express 

our unanimous and unqualified support to the people of Kashmir whose 

struggle for emancipation has entered a crucial stage. Like previous years, 

this year too the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs has finalized various 

programmes to observe the day in a befitting manner. 

Programmes have been finalized by the coordination committee to 

display Pakistan’s abiding solidarity with Kashmiris waging the freedom


struggle in Occupied Kashmir. The day will be observed with an 

objective to peacefully resolve this longstanding issue and transmit a 

message to the international community through foreign media in this 

respect. 

The day will dawn with special prayers after Fajar for the martyrs 

of Kashmir, successes [success] of freedom struggle and solidarity with the 

people of Kashmir. The foreign office will arrange a briefing for all 

foreign missions in Islamabad on the latest situation in Kashmir and all 

Pakistani missions abroad will organize similar functions in their 

respective countries. 

In the Capital, the CDA would organize a ‘solidarity walk’ at 

Jinnah Avenue. Kashmir-Yakjehtee show would be organized at Jinnah 

Avenue. In the show Pakistani and Kashmiri children would deliver 

speeches and present national songs. Kashmiri handicraft exhibition at 

Lok Virsa would also be organized to include playing of Kahsmiri songs, 

a photo exhibition, and display of publicity material. 

All this has been going on for over a decade but has the Kashmir 

issue been resolved? The region is still inflicted with violence and terror. 

The once beautiful state likened to paradise by the Mughul Emperor 

Jahangir, now resembles an excavation site of an unknown barbaric 

civilization. The air is filled with the sound of gunshots and explosions. 

The people of Kashmir seem to have forgotten how the place looked like 

before the current reign of terror was unleashed. The only thing children 

do here is listen to their fathers tell them tales of great sacrifices made by 

their great grand fathers or live in terror of the Indian oppressors. No 

butterflies to catch, no snowmen to build. No home to go to. How long 

will this go on? How long is the strife? 

Kashmir’s agony is far from over. No less than 80,000 people have 

laid down their lives for the cause of freedom since 1989 when open 

rebellion broke out against Indian occupation. To suppress this struggle, 

New Delhi has deployed more than 700,000 troops in the limited space of 

Kashmir where, as noted by Amnesty International and other world 

organizations, wanton human rights violations and atrocities, including 

burning of villages, mass rape of women, summary executions and 

torture, are of routine occurrence. All this is a direct result of India’s 

brazen refusal to give the people of Kashmir their right of selfdetermination. 

This is not only unjust and immoral, but is contrary to 

India’s own pledges to the United Nations and to the world community 

to resolve the Kashmir issue with reference to the people’s freely 

21


expressed wishes - all these from the country which claims to be the 

world’s largest democratic secular state. 

India’s first head of state, Lord Mountbatten, is on record having 

said on Oct 27, 1947, that since the “question of accession [of Kashmir] 

should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the 

state, it is my government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been 

restored in Kashmir... the question of the state’s accession should be 

settled by a reference to the people.” Again, one of India’s founding 

fathers and first prime minister, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, whose 

government took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, told the 

Indian Constituent Assembly on Nov 25, 1947, “In order to establish our 

bona fides, we have suggested that, when the people [of Kashmir] are 

given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the 

supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations.” On 

June 26, 1952, Mr. Nehru told Indian parliament, “If ... the people of 

Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means; we will 

not keep them against their will, however painful it may [be] for us.” 

Against these solemn words and relentless struggle of the people of 

Kashmir, New Delhi today has only two lame excuses: one, the pledges 

and the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir have become 

outdated; two, what is going on in the Kashmir valley is not a people’s 

revolt but the result of “cross-border terrorism.” Both arguments are as 

self-serving as they are laughable. Time cannot abrogate moral values nor 

invalidate the international community’s right to intervene in flash-points 

of conflict arising from denial of freedom and involving tyranny and 

persecution. We have the recent example of East Timor, where a dispute 

was settled through a reference to the wishes of the people under UN 

supervision. Indonesia upheld the people’s verdict, however “painful” it 

might have been to it. 

For Kashmir, despite more than a half century’s lapse, all United 

Nations resolutions and the Indian leaders’ own pledges remain 

unfulfilled but valid because they are based on the time-honoured values 

of freedom and inviolability of basic human rights. 

Kashmir continues to be a flashpoint of conflict. Pakistan and India 

have earlier fought two full-fledged wars on Kashmir, and they came close 

to a third following December 2001’s mobilization of its forces by India 

and amassing them on Pakistan’s borders under the plea of combating 

terrorism. With both the South Asian neighbours armed with nuclear 

weapons, another conventional war on Kashmir has the potential to turn


into a nuclear exchange that could be disastrous not only for South Asia 

but for the world at large. Since 9/11, world focus shifted to the war 

against terror but the time has come that for Pakistan to concentrate on 

combating this menace wholeheartedly, the international community 

lends a helping hand in resolving this outstanding issue. Indian crimes 

against humanity must stop and the Kashmiris’ right of self 

determination would be exercised (Insha Allah). 

Sultan M. Hali, Daily Mail (Islamabad /Beijing), February 5, 2010. 

http://dailymailnews.com/0210/05/Editorial_Column/DMColumn.php#2 

PAK TO CONTINUE EFFORTS FOR KASHMIR ISSUE 

RESOLUTION 

President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani 

said that Pakistan will continue its efforts for a just resolution to Kashmir 

issue, Geo News reported Friday. 

They said this in their separate messages issued on Kashmir 

Solidarity Day today. In their messages, they expressed complete moral, 

diplomatic and political support for the people of Kashmir. 

President Zardari said Pakistan has very clear-cut standpoint that 

Kashmiri people should be incorporated in the process of negotiations, as 

it is they who are to decide on their fate. 

The Premier in his message urged the world community to play 

role to end the violations of human rights in Indian held Kashmir. 

He said the hearts of Pakistanis throb with Kashmiri families, who 

laid down their lives for the independence and these sacrifices would not 

go in vain. 

23 

News International (Rawalpindi), February 5, 2010. 

PAKISTAN’S JUST STANCE ON KASHMIR ISSUE 

UNCHANGED: GILANI 

Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has said that Pakistan’s principled 

stance on Kashmir issue remains unchanged and the government will 

continue its political, moral and diplomatic support to the people of 

Kashmir. 

In his statement in connection with Kashmir Solidarity Day, the 

Prime Minister Gilani said the whole nation is united on the Kashmir


issue and Pakistan wants its early resolution according to the aspirations 

of Kashmiri people, as it is imperative for lasting peace in the region. 


KASHMIR SOLUTION 

Since the past sixty-three years, the Kashmiris have been struggling for 

their right of self-determination. Neither United Nations nor Great 

Powers seem serious to resolve this chronic issue. They are reluctant to 

implement the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. The negligence 

of Kashmiris not only exposes the selective morality of the international 

community, but also haunts the peace and security of India and Pakistan. 

The Kashmir is recognized by the United Nations as a disputed territory. 

Importantly, Kashmiris were promised by the Indians to be given a 

chance to decide about their future at the United Nations forum in 1948. 

But now the latter is trying to bury the former’s right to decide about its 

future in oblivion. 

Since 1948, Pakistan has been endeavoring, politically and 

diplomatically, to resolve the Kashmir dispute through the conduct of 

plebiscite in the Kashmir. In connection to these efforts, the Government 

of Pakistan announced public holiday across the country for Kashmir 

Solidarity Day on February 5, 2010. Human chains were made at Kohala 

and Mangla. People from all walks of life in Pakistan expressed their 

solidarity with their Kashmiri brothers. Notably, since 1975, every year, 

government and people of Pakistan; and Kashmiris living in Azad 

Kashmir have been expressing their solidarity with the Kashmiris fighting 

for their right of self-determination and against the Indian oppression in 

the Indian held Kashmir. This demonstrates the determined stance of 

both the Pakistanis and Kashmiris for the liberation of Kashmir from the 

Indian occupation. 

Kashmir is one of the most beautiful places on earth. Once visiting 

Kashmir, the Mughal Emperor Jehangir exclaimed: “If there is paradise 

anywhere on earth, it is here, it is here, it is here.” Ironically, the 

stubborn and brutal policies of New Delhi have turned this paradise into 

hell. The Indian state-terrorism has replaced the yesteryears peace and 

tranquility of the scenic valley of Himalayas with the misery of physical 

and psychic violence. India and Pakistan had fought three wars over 

Kashmir: in 1947, 1965, and 1999. Moreover, the Kashmiris have been 

sustaining world’s longest-running separatist insurgency since over two


decades. Presently, it is a power-keg, which could trigger a nuclear war in 

one of the world’s most populous regions. 

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, intensified Kashmiris 

problems. The cementing Indo-US strategic partnership and New Delhi’s 

diplomatic efforts to label Kashmiris and their sympathizers as a terrorists 

have a detrimental repercussions for the Kashmiris freedom struggle. 

Ironically, today, the Indians and their allies as terrorists view every 

Kashmiri. 

Indeed, Washington acknowledges that Al Qaeda is seeking to 

destabilize South Asia and planning to provoke a war between nucleararmed 

Pakistan and India. The United States Secretary of Defence Robert 

Gates had cautioned during his recent visit in India and Pakistan that 

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Afghan Taliban could 

carry out attacks in India for igniting the war between the belligerent 

neighbors—India and Pakistan. But he failed to point out the real cause of 

tension between India and Pakistan. 

Importantly, Presidential candidate Barack Obama generated a 

hope for the Kashmiris during the 2008 United States general elections. 

On September 25, 2008, he had pledged to ‘continue supporting the 

ongoing Indian and Pakistani efforts to resolve the Kashmir problem in 

order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and 

Pakistan’. Ironically, after his victory, he has been continuously ignoring 

the predicament of unresolved Kashmir dispute. Instead of taking a bold 

step to address this decades’ unresolved dispute, he is distancing from the 

factual realities. 

The suspension of Composite Dialogue between India and Pakistan 

in the aftermath of Mumbai terrorist attacks on November 2008 reveals 

that India is not serious in resolving the conflicts with Pakistan. 

Conversely, Islamabad is doing its best to restart the fifth round of a 

dialogue process. The advantageous situation of India in the international 

community and reluctance of Obama Administration to seriously play its 

role in the India-Pakistan conflict undermine the security environment of 

the entire region. 

To conclude, without the Kashmir solution, India and Pakistan in 

particular and South Asia in general would remain in a state of tension. 

The terrorist groups would prosper; the extra-regional powers’ decisive 

role in the internal and external affairs of the South Asian States would 

continue; and above all the entire region would remain victim of 

25


insecurity and underdevelopment. 

Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal Weekly Pulse (Islamabad), February 5, 2010. 

http://www.weeklypulse.org/pulse/article/4859.html 

CALL TO HOLD PLEBISCITE IN KASHMIR 

Thousands of people on Friday held rallies in the City against the Indian 

occupation of Jammu and Kashmir, calling for a plebiscite to give the 

right to self-determination to Kashmiris under the UN resolutions that 

had been awaiting implementation for the last six decades. 

All noted religious parties took out rallies in connection with the 

Kashmir Day and held demonstrations and conferences to highlight the 

Kashmir issue and the unabated atrocities in the occupied territory by the 

Indian army which had so far killed over 100,000 Kashmiris, maimed a 

larger number of people in torture cells, raped women and kept 

thousands of Muslim youth in secret detention centres. 

Addressing to the rallies and conferences, political and religious 

leaders criticised India for constantly undermining Pakistan, 

dismembering the country and blocking its rivers besides wreaking havoc 

on Pakistani civilians in from of terrorism and bomb blasts. They said the 

dream peace in South Asia would remain elusive without freedom of 

Kashmir. The leaders also condemned the US courts for convicting Dr 

Aafia Siddiqui without sufficient evidence. 

Big rallies were taken out by the banned Jamaatud Dawah and 

Jamaat-e-Islami, while demonstrations were also held by the Jammu 

Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), JUP, Hizbut Tahrir, Markazi Jamiat 

Ahle Hadith, Jamiat Mashaikh, Awami National Party (ANP), Sunni 

Tehrik and others. Addressing the rally, which marched from Nasir Bagh 

to the Punjab Assembly, JD ameer Hafiz Saeed said Kashmir could turn 

the whole world into a ball of fire since Pakistan and India, the nuclear 

neighbours, had already fought four wars on it. He said with the US 

probable exit from Afghanistan, the Indian dream of becoming the 

regional super power had begun crashing and it that’s why it was trying 

to hold fake ‘Peace Dialogue’. He asid Indian Interior Minister 

Chidambaram had said there was need of dialogue, admitting that Indian 

elements could have been involved in Mumbai attacks. 

Hafiz Saeed said he dialogue with India should be held after it 

pulled out its army from Kashmir and release the water of Pakistani 

rivers. He said the dialogue should include every contentious issue


including unjust distribution of Punjab at the time of dividing subcontinent, 

Indian army’s terrorism in East Pakistan, Babri Masjid issue 

and its occupation of states of Hyderabad Deccan, Junagarh and 

Manawadar. 

He said after the US and NATO pullout from Afghanistan, Indian 

forces would have to retreat from Kashmir in the same fashion. Jamiat 

Ahle Hadith President Senator Sajid Mir also addressed to the rally and 

said Pakistan would remain incomplete without independence of 

Kashmir. He said India was trying to convert Pakistan into a desert by 

making its rivers dry. JUI-F leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmad said every 

Pakistani should stand up for liberating Kahsmir from India. He said 

tribal people had almost liberated Kahsmir from Indian occupation in 

1948 but Nehru treacherously involved the UN which brokered a 

ceasefire for the benefit of India. 

Hafiz Abdul Wadood, Khalid bin Waleed, Ameer Hamza, JI leader 

Farid Ahmad Paracha and PML-N leaders Bilal Yaseen and Khwaja 

Ajasim Sharif also addressed the rally. Ameer Hamza, Convener of 

Tehreek-Hurmat-e-Rasool demanded the release of Zakiur Rehman 

Lakhvi and Dr Aafia Siddiqui. 

The Jamaat-e-Islami also took out a rally from Nasir Bagh to 

Punjab Assembly. Hundreds of women and children and party workers 

participated in the rally, led by JI Secretary General Liaquat Baloch, 

Amirul Azim, Dr Aafia Sarwar, Sameea Raheel Qazi, Humera Tariq, 

Tahira Munir and Rabeea Tariq. 

Addressing the participants, Baloch questioned the Pakistan 

government policies which, he said, were protecting interests of India and 

America instead of our national interests. 

27 


INDIA NOT WILLING TO HOLD TALKS ON KASHMIR: 

PRIME MINISTER 

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said India is willing to hold 

dialogues but not on Kashmir issue. 

“Though India is agreed to resume the dialogue process but it’s not 

willing to include Kashmir issue in the agenda,” premier said while 

addressing a draw ceremony of Capital Development Authority’s pilots 

in Sector I-16.


Gilani while talking to media at this occasion said we should not 

make haste but wait for India’s reply on including the Kashmir issue in 

composite dialogue process. He expressed hope that composite dialogue 

between the two countries will resume soon. 


PAKISTAN-INDIA TALKS 

Resort to coercive diplomacy by India to get Pakistani compliance on the 

Mumbai terrorist attacks had already alienated Pakistani public opinion; 

the threatening statements from the Indian military and political 

leadership, and the treatment meted out to Pakistani cricketers in IPL 

selection led to the renewal of the old blame game between Islamabad and 

New Delhi In a significant development, Pakistan and India have moved 

to soon open bilateral talks at foreign secretaries’ level on an open-ended 

agenda that is also likely to cover the water issue and counter-terrorism. 

The move comes after more than 14 months of hiatus in relations 

between the two countries following the November 26, 2008 terrorist 

attacks in Mumbai. The attacks led to unilateral suspension of the four 

year old Composite Dialogue process under which Islamabad and New 

Delhi had completed four rounds of bilateral talks for resolving their 

disputes, including the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. 

Defying persistent calls from Pakistan as well as from the other 

leading members of the international community, the Indians had made 

the resumption of the Composite Dialogue process contingent on what 

they called credible progress by Pakistan on the prosecution of those 

suspected to be involved in the Mumbai attacks. Although no dramatic 

breakthrough is expected, the initiative is a welcome development for 

easing tension between the two countries, which was escalating due to a 

communication break and a spate of hostile statements from both sides. 

The move has also come amidst the mix of hope and despair 

witnessed during the last more than one year, regarding the prospects of 

the revival of the peace process. It was believed, and even some leading 

sections of the Indian media shared this belief, that the conclusion of the 

15th Lok Sabha elections in May last year would enable the new United 

Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to restart talks with Pakistan; 

but the bellicose rhetoric by the Indian leaders foreshadowed the 

prospects, if there were any, for bringing the peace process again on 

track. Hopes were again rekindled when President Asif Ali Zardari met


the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in Yekaterinburg 

(Russia) in June 2009 on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation 

Organisation (SCO) summit and discussed with him the prospects of 

resumption of the Composite Dialogue. As a follow up, Pakistan’s High 

Commissioner in India, Shahid Malik, met India’s Foreign Secretary 

Shivshankar Menon in New Delhi on June 23, 2009 to set a date for talks 

between the foreign secretaries of the two countries, but agreement on a 

new date could not be reached. 

However, the two countries continued their efforts in search of 

some meeting point to resume peace talks, which both sides considered 

essential for normalisation of their relations and resolution of their 

bilateral disputes. On July 11, Prime Minister Singh, on arriving back at 

New Delhi airport after attending the G-8 Conference in Rome, disclosed 

that following his meeting with President Zardari in Russia, the Indian 

High Commissioner in Islamabad, Sharat Sabharwal had met Pakistan’s 

ISI chief and several other high officials in Islamabad in a bid to prepare 

the ground for revival of peace talks. But these contacts seemed to have 

made little headway, as Pakistan accused India of dragging its feet on talks 

because of internal expediencies and the Indian leaders insisted that the 

atmosphere was not conducive for moving ahead. 

The meeting between Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani and 

his Indian counterpart at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in July 

2009 gave a real boost to these hopes, as the two leaders agreed in a joint 

statement to de-link the issue of terrorism from the Composite Dialogue 

and proposed a meeting between the foreign ministers of the two 

countries during the UN General Assembly Annual Session in New York 

in September. Pakistan again called for the resumption of the Composite 

Dialogue, asserting that it was the only way to bring about peace and 

stability in South Asia by resolving bilateral disputes between Pakistan 

and India. This call was made by President Zardari in his address to the 

UN General Assembly Annual Session on September 25 in New York. 

Although there was no breakthrough on the resumption of the 

Composite Dialogue, the two countries continued to interact with each 

other in other areas. There was a meeting in New Delhi between the 

commerce secretaries of Pakistan and India early in September last year to 

discuss trade and commerce issues. Speaking about the bright prospects 

for bilateral trade between the two countries, Pakistan’s Commerce 

Secretary Suleman Ghani had emphasised the resumption of the 

Composite Dialogue, as it could take annual bilateral trade to $10 billion 

29


within 5-6 years from the present level of only $2 billion a year. As a 

further sign of goodwill, Pakistan, responding to a long-standing request 

by India, agreed to provide its rail and road facilities for trade with 

Afghanistan. A memorandum of understanding (MoU) to that effect was 

signed by Pakistan’s Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim on 

September 30, 2009. 

Despite these encouraging developments, however, the issue of the 

resumption of the Composite Dialogue remained unresolved. On the 

contrary, the relations between the two countries seemed to be sliding 

back to the pre-2004 phase of rising tensions and mounting hostility. 

There were skirmishes across the Line of Control (LoC) and clashes 

across the international border in Punjab; each side accusing the other of 

‘unprovoked firing’. The repeated incidents of firing across the LoC were 

particularly worrying, because these incidents threatened to end the six 

year old ceasefire along the boundary in Kashmir, which was hailed as the 

most successful Confidence Building Measure (CBM) between Pakistan 

and India. The Indian Army Chief’s statement on his country’s strategic 

doctrine to develop the capability of fighting simultaneously on the 

Chinese and Pakistani fronts and the reaction from the Pakistani military 

leadership, added fuel to the fire in an already explosive situation. Resort 

to coercive diplomacy by India to get Pakistani compliance on the 

Mumbai terrorist attacks had already alienated Pakistani public opinion; 

the threatening statements from the Indian military and political 

leadership, and the treatment meted out to Pakistani cricketers in IPL 

selection led to the renewal of the old blame game between Islamabad and 

New Delhi. The elements in both countries who had never reconciled to 

peace and normalisation between Pakistan and India were quick to 

exploit the prevailing situation with their agenda of undermining any 

chance for peace between the two countries. Prime Minister Gilani was 

right when, early in September 2009, he said in a statement in Karachi 

that continued suspension of the Composite Dialogue between Pakistan 

and India could be exploited by the terrorists. 

The decision by Pakistan and India to hold a meeting at foreign 

secretaries’ level is fundamentally motivated by a desire by the two 

countries to prevent a further downslide in their bilateral relations. The 

decision also shows, once again, that Indian coercive diplomacy against 

Pakistan cannot succeed. The constant pressure from the international 

community, which nervously saw Pakistan-India relations relapsing into 

acrimony and hostility, is also an important factor in pushing these South


Asian neighbours to the negotiating table once again. The fast changing 

geo-political scenario in the region, particularly expected developments 

after the London Conference on Afghanistan, has also impelled Pakistan 

and India to revisit their positions vis-à-vis terrorism and peace talks. 

Dr Rashid Ahmad Khan, Daily Times (Lahore), February 11, 2010. 

INDIA DOESN’T WANT TO TALK ON KASHMIR 

While composite dialogue is the only way forward for the resolution of 

all outstanding issues and India has offered Pakistan talks, New Delhi 

“does not want to talk on Kashmir”, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani 

said on Thursday. 

“They have agreed to talk to Pakistan, but they don’t want to talk 

on Kashmir,” the AFP news agency quoted Gilani as saying on Thursday. 

The news agency reported that India’s offer for limited dialogue on 

terrorism has dismayed Islamabad. 

Way forward: Addressing reporters in Islamabad, the prime 

minister said dialogue was the only way to resolve problems between 

civilised nations. 

Asked if India did not want to talk on the Kashmir dispute, Gilani 

said “we should wait for India’s suggestions” on the resumption of the 

composite dialogue process. He said the Foreign Office and the foreign 

secretary were in contact with India, and “we should not jump to 

conclusions” over the outcome of the dialogue. 

Replying to another question, Gilani said judges would be 

appointed to superior courts in line with the law. 

The prime minister said while the country was facing 

multidimensional challenges, the Pakistan People’s Party-led government 

was planning to steer the country out of the crises. He said the 

government was “fully aware of its election manifesto” and working to 

address the grievances of the masses. AFP quoted an Indian government 

source as saying that while Pakistan had taken a “few small steps” needed 

for talks to resume, it had not gone far enough to merit a return to full 

dialogue. 

31 

Daily Times (Lahore), February 12, 2010.


WHY RUSH TO DIALOGUE? 

It is strange to see the Pakistan government agreeing to foreign secretary 

level talks with India as early as 25 February when no less a person than 

the Prime Minister has revealed that India does not want Kashmir on the 

dialogue table. Now that the most pressing issues all arise out of the 

Kashmir dispute, it seems absurd to commence a dialogue casting aside 

the agreed composite dialogue formula as well as agenda and to embark 

on a new venture where India has already declared what it wants to 

discuss. Why is Pakistan in such a hurry to get to the dialogue table with 

India when there is little substance in terms of conflict resolution that 

India is in a mood to concede to? What are the pressures on Pakistan? 

Surely it would have been better to get a national consensus through 

parliament before embarking on such a dicey dialogue track? But once 

again, the Foreign Minister, whose unseemly haste in welcoming the 

Kerry Lugar Act is still vivid in most Pakistani memories, seems almost 

desperate to accept India’s terms for a dialogue. 

Equally ridiculous is the Foreign Office’s declaration that Pakistan 

will hold talks “with an open mind”, given how India has already closed 

it mind to any suggestions for an agenda on the part of Pakistan. So, 

under these circumstances, and “open mind” would merely denote an 

acceptance of Indian diktat, beginning with the agenda. As for the 

argument that the dialogue is necessary because of the critical water issue, 

this is an effort to fool the people. First, the water issue cannot be 

resolved without resolution of Kashmir since the seeds of the dispute lie 

within this larger political conflict. India would like to discuss water 

outside of Kashmir so as to create an artificial disconnect between the two 

inextricably linked issues. Second, and linked to the first point, is the fact 

that if India wants to discuss water outside of the Kashmir dispute, there 

is already a mechanism inbuilt into the Indus Water Treaty so there is 

actually no need for the commencement of dialogue between the two 

sides to push for resolution of the waters dispute. After all, the Treaty has 

international guarantors who should now be called upon to play their 

role since they forced the rulers of the time to sign away Pakistan’s rights 

to three crucial rivers. Finally, the water issue has effectively moved into 

the area of state terrorism on the part of India so perhaps it can also be 

discussed under that head as part of the composite dialogue. Otherwise 

once again India will present Pakistan with a fait accompli in terms of 

illegal dams.


Under these circumstances, and seeing the deteriorating situation in 

Indian Occupied Kashmir, where the Kashmiri people have protested 

Indian occupation with a complete shutter down strike and protest rallies 

once again, it makes no sense for Pakistan to rush into a meaningless, illthought 

out dialogue on 25 February in New Delhi. 

Editorial, Nation (Islamabad), February 13, 2010. 

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/Opinions/Editorials/13-Feb-2010/Why-rush-to-dialogue 

KASHMIR CALM DOWN 

The protests in Indian-administered Kashmir during recent weeks are 

threatening to engulf the region in yet more violence and bloodshed. 

Anti-India sentiment has deepened after India’s Border Security Force 

admitted on Wednesday that “prima facie evidence points towards a 

constable” being responsible for last week’s shooting of an innocent boy. 

It is encouraging that the Indian administration has promised to pursue 

justice. Nevertheless it must be noted that the region was paralysed on 

Thursday by a major security lock-down following a general strike called 

by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. There are fears that protests 

could morph into widespread demonstrations, particularly if the 

administration persists in its heavy-handed response. 

This is deeply disturbing on many counts. A move towards 

peaceful resistance was becoming evident in recent months, and this 

represented the only way forward for a region that has for decades 

witnessed mass suppression and bloodshed. But the Indian 

administration’s disproportionately forceful clampdown on even peaceful 

demonstrations stands in danger of pushing the Kashmiri people back 

against the wall and leaving them with no option other than violent 

agitation. There is no doubt that people have the right to air their 

grievances in a calm manner. If they are stripped of that right, they may 

be forced to resort once again to violence. 

There are two further aspects to be considered in terms of the 

consequences of heavy-handedness by the Indian administration. First, 

such tactics of oppression are the hallmarks of a dictatorship, not a 

democracy. If India wants the world to see and treat it as a credible 

democracy, it must follow through on basic principles. This includes 

allowing the Kashmiri people their right to protest peacefully, and 

pushing towards a long-term solution for the region. Second, in order to 

33


take the wind out of the sails of the Islamist militants operating in the 

region, it is essential that India take a more nuanced approach. The 

militants justify their violent tactics by pointing towards the brutality of 

the Indian forces. In the absence of such brutality, instigating violence 

would lose all justification. 

Editorial, Dawn (Islamabad), February 13, 2010. 

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/editorial/13+kashmir-clampdown-320-za-03 

VISION OF KASHMIR SOLUTION 

Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has linked Kashmir’s freedom to 

economically strong Pakistan. “Even Pakistan cannot be termed an 

independent country politically and economically without elimination of 

illiteracy and ignorance. We will have to develop our own resources to 

get rid of foreign aid for our political and economic freedom,” he said at a 

prize-distribution ceremony among the winners of speech and essay 

writing competitions at Chief Minister’s Secretariat here on Saturday. 

He said education was one of the top priorities of the government 

and it had taken revolutionary steps for promotion of quality education 

and improvement in the sector. 

Mr Sharif said poverty, unemployment, terrorism and extremism 

could be eliminated through promotion of education and resources were 

being utilised for the purpose. He said the developed nations made 

progress by virtue of education, science, technology and modern 

knowledge. 

He said young generation would have to play an effective role for 

the development of the country. Unanimous approval of NFC award was 

an important step towards national unity and solidarity. The chief 

minister said scholarships were being given through Punjab Educational 

Endowment Fund to the talented students facing financial constraints for 

continuing their studies. Punjab Education Minister Mujtaba Shujaur 

Rehman, Senior Sindh Minister Pir Mazharul Haq, Balochistan 

Education Minister Tahir Mehmood, NWFP Education Minister Sardar 

Husain Babak also spoke. 


http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/national/vision-of-kashmir-solution-420


MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE VITAL TO RESOLVE KASHMIR 

DISPUTE: GILANI 

Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani Friday said meaningful dialogue 

is a necessity to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN 

resolutions. The Prime Minister was speaking at a Kashmir Convention 

here in connection with Kashmir Solidarity Day at Pakistan National 

Council of the Arts. Pakistan has always emphasized the necessity of a 

meaningful dialogue to resolve the Kashmir dispute; he said adding 

Pakistan believes that the Kashmir issue should be resolved in accordance 

with relevant UN Resolutions. 

He expressed the government’s resolve to continue extending moral 

and political support to the people of Kashmir in their just struggle. He 

reminded that Kashmir dispute is the root cause of tension in South Asia. 

He said the government and people of Pakistan are in complete solidarity 

with their Kashmiri brethren. We shall always stand with our Kashmiri 

brothers and sisters for the realization of their fundamental and 

inalienable rights. Together we shall succeed. 

Gilani said for more than 60 years, the people of Kashmir have 

been waging a valiant struggle for realization of their inalienable right to 

self-determination. Their right has been recognized by the international 

community. It stems from international law and has been legitimized by 

resolutions of the United Nations, he added. 

The people of Kashmir were among the first to be promised their 

right to self-determination by the UN. Yet, Kashmir remains an 

unfinished agenda; he recalled and regretted that unfulfilled promises over 

the years have taken a heavy toll of the Kashmiri people. 

They have faced oppression and blatant abuse of human rights. 

The list of their martyrs continues to grow. Despite all odds, the 

Kashmiri people have steadfastly continued their struggle for achieving 

their legitimate rights, he added. 

He lauded the resolve, determination and faith of the Kashmiris and 

said violence in Indian-occupied Kashmir emanates from the massive 

human rights violations perpetrated by Indian occupation forces acting 

with impunity. These violations have been well documented by 

international human rights organization. Each household in Indianoccupied 

Kashmir has a tragedy to narrate. In the recent past, the 

Amarnath Shrine land issue and the brutal killing of two young Kashmiri 

35


women in Shopian have resulted in the people of Jammu and Kashmir 

being subjected to further indignities. 

He said Kashmiris continue to face an economic blockade; their 

lives and properties have been attacked. Many Kashmiris have been 

martyred in a ruthless show of force. These include Sheikh Abdul Aziz, a 

prominent Hurriyat leader. The inhuman treatment of Kashmiris has 

been condemned by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and all 

those who feel for humanity and desire to seek peace, he added. 

He reiterated Pakistan’s call for an end to human rights violations 

in Indian occupied Kashmir saying India must respect its international 

obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. He 

referred to the Kashmir-related confidence building measures taken to 

alleviate the sufferings of the Kashmiris. 

The Prime Minister said the unilateral ceasefire announced by 

Pakistan in November 2003 has provided the much required space for 

peace for Kashmiris living across the LoC. The opening of crossing points 

across the LoC helped in bringing together divided families. The 

Muzaffarabad-Srinagar and the Rawalakot - Poonch bus services and 

Cross-LoC trade are also testimony to Pakistan’s commitment to 

alleviating the suffering of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, he 

elaborated. 

Pakistan Times (Islamabad), February 15, 2010. 

http://pakistantimes.net/pt/detail.php?newsId=8343 

INDIA WASTED A YEAR BY SUSPENDING TALKS: 

FOREIGN OFFICE 

Pakistan on Monday said it is “not hesitant” about solving terror-related 

issues with India though the Kashmir dispute will have to be settled to 

ensure absolute peace in the region. 

Talking to a private TV channel, Foreign Office spokesman Abdul 

Basit said Pakistan would raise the thorny issues of Kashmir and water 

during the Foreign Secretary-level talks with India to be held on the 

February 25 in New Delhi. 

Welcoming Indian’s readiness to hold Foreign Secretary-level talks, 

Basit also urged Indian authorities to accept reality that Kashmir issue is a 

main hurdle in cordial relations between both countries and without its 

solution, stability and peace in the region would be a dream.


He Kashmir dispute was the core issue between Pakistan and India 

and its resolution was imperative for long-lasting and durable peace in the 

region. 

The talks should not be limited to terrorism but other thorny 

issues, including water and Kashmir, should also be discussed, he added. 

He said that India wasted one year by discontinuing talks with 

Pakistan, adding that it was still unclear what India wanted. 

There were no chances of Pakistani and Indian Prime Ministers 

meeting in near future, he stated. 

He said that Indian proposal for resuming Foreign Secretary-level 

talks was laudable in the prevailing situation. A number of issues 

including Kashmir dispute, water issue, terrorism and bilateral trade 

would be thrashed out in the forthcoming talks between the secretaries of 

both the countries, he added. In addition, Indian involvement in Fata and 

Balochistan would also be raised in the deliberations, he added. 

He said that Kashmir issue should be resolved in accordance with 

the resolution adopted by United Nations. He said that time had also 

come for India to recognize this issue as a fundamental dispute between 

the two countries. He expressed the confidence that the current 

engagement with India will be helpful in making progress towards 

resolution of Kashmir dispute. 

He, however, said Kashmir leadership would not participate in 

talks. He also clarified that no conditions had been set for the dialogue. 

He expressed the confidence that the talks would lead to the resumption 

of sustained and meaningful composite dialogue process between the two 

countries. Basit said that Pakistan had no reluctance in solving terrorrelated 

issues; however, Kashmir dispute would have to be settled for 

absolute peace in the region. 

Terming the statement of Indian External Affairs Minister SM 

Krishna that India will not allow terrorists to dictate the scope and 

schedule of diplomatic interaction with Pakistan a positive step for 

composite dialogue, the FO spokesman said that terrorism was a global 

and regional phenomenon and also a big challenge for the world. For 

tackling this problem, “we need cooperation of all regional countries”, he 

added. 

He further said that international community would have to sit 

together to devise ways and means for elimination of terrorism and 

extremism. Pakistan, he said, is itself a victim of terrorism and has 

37


rendered numerous sacrifices. No one should doubt Pakistan’s sincerely 

to fight militancy, he said. 

The spokesman said that security and development were two 

cornerstones of Pakistan’s foreign policy. The spokesman said that 

Pakistan did not believe in talks for the sake of talks, rather wanted these 

to be result-oriented and meaningful, leading to resolution of all the 

outstanding issues including the core issue of Kashmir. He said that the 

resolution of core disputes would also help tackle other problems faced 

by the region, including poverty and disease. 

“Pakistan will strive to ensure that talks with India are irreversible 

because abrupt severing of negotiations only benefits forces inimical to 

both Pakistan and India,” he maintained. To another question, he said 

that a major change had been observed in the US policy about Pakistan 

and American people also wanted an end to drone strikes inside Pakistan. 

Regarding war against terrorism, he said, it could not be won through 

force only. Abdul Basit said there were some forces on both sides who 

wanted to disrupt the peace process and now it was the responsibility of 

the leadership of the two countries to foil their designs. 

Nation (Islamabad), February 16, 2010. 

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline//Politics/16-Feb-2010/India-wasted-a-year-by-suspending-talks-FO 

LEGALITY OF INDIAN CLAIM ON KASHMIR 

Following the World War-II, there has been an unremitting resistance by 

the people of Subcontinent against the ruling British colonial power. 

Under the swelling pressure of the people of subcontinent, the British 

Government finally had to announce the partition of the Subcontinent 

on June 3, 1947. However, the British Parliament formally passed “The 

Indian Independence Act-1947” on July 17, 1947. As per provision of 

Article-I of the Independence Act, India was to be partitioned into two 

Dominions namely “India” and “Pakistan” from 15th day of August 

1947. However, Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act very clearly 

states that from 15th August 1947, “the suzerainty of His Majesty over 

the Indian states lapse and with it lapses all treaties and agreements in 

force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the 

rulers of Indian states”. Consequent upon this, all powers and functions, 

which were exercisable by the British Government in relation to the 

Princely States, also ceased.


All agreements of British governments with either rulers or states 

also lapsed on 15th of August 1947. Since the state of Jammu and 

Kashmir was a Princely State with a special autonomous status, therefore, 

it can be very conveniently said, that on 15th day of August 1947, the 

Maharaja Sir Hari Singh was not the permissible ruler of the state of 

Jammu and Kashmir as all his treaties with British India lapsed on that 

day. Once he was not a ruler of the state, he had no right to sign the 

instrument of accession (if at all he signed that) with the new Indian 

dominion. This title to the state was granted to him by the British 

Government (East India Company) under the Treaty of Amritsar 

(Kashmir Sale deed) signed on 16 March 1846 and lapsed on the 

appointed day of 15th August 1947. 

Besides, on July 25, 1947 in his address to special full meetings of 

the Chamber of Princes held in New Delhi, Lord Mountbatten 

categorically told all princes of Princely States that they were practically 

free to join any one of dominions; India or Pakistan. He however 

clarified that, while acceding to any dominion they could take into 

account geographical contiguity and wishes of the people. In case of the 

State of Jammu and Kashmir, either of the above factors was favouring 

state’s accession to Pakistan, but Maharaja Hari Singh did not accept this 

basic precondition of accession. 

Indian claim that its forces landed Srinagar Airport on 

October 27, 1947, only after signatures on Instrument of Accession 

by Maharaja and the Indian government is also fallacious. Indeed, a 

heavy contingent of Patiala State was involved in fighting against the 

Kashmiri rebellions in Uri Sector on 18 October 1947, which means 

that they were very much inside the State's territory much earlier 

than October 27, 1947. 

On 24 October 1947, Kashmiris formally declared their 

independence from Dogra Raj and established their own government 

with the name of Azad (Free) Kashmir Government. Following this 

Maharaja Hari Singh sent his deputy Prime Minister Mr. R.L. Batra to 

New Delhi for Indian military assistance to his Government against those 

revolted and tribal from NWFP who joined their brethrens against a 

tyrant rule. He (Batra) met the Indian Prime Minster and other 

prominent Indian leaders and requested for assistance without making 

any mention or promise of state’s accession to the Indian Union. The 

Indian government instead sent Mr. V.P Menon (Indian Secretary of 

39


State) to Kashmir to assess the situation on the spot by himself on 25 

October 1947. 

After assessing, the situation in Kashmir Mr. V.P Menon flew back 

to New Delhi on 26 October 1947, together with Kashmiri Prime 

Minster Mr. Mahajan, who met top Indian leadership, seeking military 

assistance. He was refused to get that until state’s formal accession with 

India. On this Kashmiri Premier threatened the Indian leadership that if 

immediate military assistance was not granted, he would go to Lahore for 

negotiations with Pakistani leadership over the future status of the state. 

In a parallel development, Sheikh Abdullah met Indian Premier, 

Jawaharlal Nehru, on the same day, October 26, 1947, who agreed to 

despatch military assistance to the Kashmir government. 

As stated by Mahajan, the Kashmiri Prime Minister, that V.P. 

Menon accompanied him to convince Hari Singh for accession of the 

State with India on 27 October 1947. Under the compulsion, Hari Singh 

signed the instrument of accession on the same day i.e. 27 October 1947, 

which was later taken to Lord Mountbatten (Indian Governor General), 

who also signed that on the same day (27 October), which was practically 

difficult. V.P. Menon, however, states that all these formalities of 

signatures were completed on 26 October 1947, which is impracticable. 

This version, however, seems concocted as even contradicted by pro 

Indian Kashmiri Premier. Both however are unanimous on one point 

that Indian state forces landed at Srinagar airfield in the morning of 27 

October 1947 and a battalion of Patiala State received them there, which 

was already there. 

In his travel account, Kashmiri Prime Minister Mahajan has 

described that he had refused to return to Kashmir and hand over powers 

to Sheikh Abdullah until Srinagar airfield had been physically taken over 

by the Indian forces. This creates doubt as to whether Mahajan and V.P 

Menon even went to the State (Jammu) for getting the signatures of 

Maharaja Hari Singh on the Instrument of Accession before 27 October 

1947. This is further confirmed by variation in the statements of V.P. 

Menon and Mr. Mahajan (Kashmiri Prime Minister) regarding their travel 

to Kashmir either on 26 or on 27 October 1947 for getting the signatures 

of Maharaja Hari Singh. 

However, whatever be the case the factual position is that; 

Maharaja Hari Singh was not in favour of State’s accession to Indian 

Union therefore, he only requested the Indian government for military 

assistance without any pre-condition of accession. Indeed, the accession


documents and letters to Lord Mountbatten were initiated through the 

Joint efforts of V.P Menon and pro India Kashmiri Premier Mahajan, as 

wished by Indian Government and Hari Singh was forced to sign it on 

the evening of 27 October 1947 or thereafter. Where as, Indian forces 

landed on Srinagar airport on the early hours of 27 October 1947. The 

time calculation of Mr. V.P Menon’s (Indian Secretary of State) visit to 

Srinagar, Delhi, Jammu and vice versa does not fit in with the concocted 

story of the signing of the Instrument of Accession. 

Even if there is an instrument of accession between Maharaja Hari 

Singh and Indian government, it provides a number of safeguards to the 

state’s sovereignty, e.g. Clause 7 of the instrument says, “Nothing in this 

instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of 

any future constitution of India …”. Whereas, Clause 8 of the 

Instruments says, “Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of 

my sovereignty in and over this state…”. 

Supposedly, [in] the instrument of accession [that] was signed by 

the Maharaja and Indian government, [and] in his reply to Maharaja’s 

letter by Lord Mountbatten it was clearly mentioned that after the 

restoration of law and order in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the 

expulsion of the raiders, its future will be decided in accordance with the 

wishes of the people of the State. The same stance was taken by UNO in 

its over 23 resolutions, passed from time to time. Besides, over the years, 

Indian leadership had been reiterating their commitments to Kashmiris, 

Government of Pakistan and to the world community that after the 

restoration of peace in the state, its future would be decided as per the 

wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir through UN mandated 

plebiscite. However, with the passage of time India refused to fulfill her 

commitments/obligations, which means she had ill designs right from the 

very beginning. Nevertheless, implementation of these resolutions and 

the fulfillment of Indian commitments is still awaited. 

Another significant fact is that, had there been any accession treaty 

between the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian government, 

why it could not be published in the Indian White Paper of 1948? This 

has left a great disbelief regarding the conclusion of any such agreement. 

Yet another very serious reservation arises, had Kashmir been part of the 

Indian Union, why it was given a special status under the provision of 

internal autonomy through Article 370 of the Indian constitution? It is 

momentous to mention that the Indian government did not accord a 

similar status to any other state under this provision. Indeed, out of 560 

41


Princely states, over five hundred joined India, but none was accorded 

this special status. 

Through this status and a number of commitments, India kept 

luring in Kashmiri masses to become its part. Upon failure of winning 

their commiserations, India forced its way, through a fake assembly 

resolution in mid 1950s and thereafter started calling the state as its 

integral part. United Nations, however, through its resolution, No.2017 

of 30 March 1951 and S.3779 of January 24, 1957, made it absolutely clear 

that; any action which Kashmir Constituent Assembly may have taken or 

might attempt to take to determine the future shape of state or any of its 

part would not constitute the disposition of the state and that election of 

State’s Constituent Assembly cannot be a substitute for plebiscite. Thus, 

this act of India was a blatant violation of the UNSC resolutions that 

India had accepted too. 

Inaccuracy of Indian claim of accession can be judged from the 

top-secret letter addressed to British Government by Mr Alexander 

Symon, UK High Commissioner to India. In this letter, he briefly 

described the events until 4.00 P.M on [27] October 1947, as; ten Indian 

aircrafts loaded with arms and troops were dispatched to Kashmir from 

New Delhi on the morning of 27 October 1947. Until 4 P.M of 27 

October 1947, Mr V.P. Menon has not reported from Jammu, which 

mean accession documents were either not signed or signed by Hari Singh 

on 27 October 1947, and there were only rumours of Kashmir accession 

to Indian Union without any confirmation. 

Indian antagonistic approach can be imagined from the fact that 

Kashmiri Administration had requested for a Standstill Agreement with 

both India and Pakistan. Pakistan, however, accepted this offer but India 

owing to its pre-planned evil designs did not accept it. Instead of 

accepting it, India started interference in state’s affair through leaders like 

Sheikh Abdullah. Finally, they paved the way for illegal interference in 

the state’s affair through military invasion by her forces in October 1947. 

From July to October 1947, with the connivance of Indian leaders 

like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Patel, and V.P Menon, three Kashmiri 

Prime Ministers were changed one after the other. Pandit Kak, the State’s 

Prime Minister, was indeed favouring state’s accession to Pakistan or to 

keep it independent. He was a strong opponent of states accession to 

India, in spite of being a Hindu Pandit. Mahajan, who replaced Pandit 

Kak as new Prime Minister was a non-Kashmiri. He was a Judge of East 

Punjab High Court and has been the member of Radcliff Award, and


hence a party to giving away the Muslim majority areas of Gurdaspur to 

India. He was very close to the top Indian leadership. To get him 

appointed as a Prime Minister of the state was through a planned strategy 

to force Maharaja from all around for surrendering to Indian Union. 

In the light of the above-mentioned facts it can be very 

conveniently said that the Indian claim over the state of Jammu and 

Kashmir is completely illegitimate and unsubstantiated. India is negating 

its own commitment with Kashmiris, Pakistan and world community. 

Indian leadership should realize this and adopt a realistic approach for the 

solution of this outstanding issue as a goodwill gesture. Let UNO settle it 

under its auspices through plebiscite as per its resolutions. 

Dr Raja Muhammad Khan, February 16, 2010. 

http://www.markthetruth.com/kashmir-conflict/348-legality-of-indian-claimon-kashmir.html 

KASHMIR: RETRIEVE THE MAGIC 

Mood in Kashmir, after Indira Sheikh Accord of 1975 was upbeat. A 

surge of emotions over the leader's homecoming had apparently 

overshadowed bitterness of the fifties. The valley had turned into a nerve 

centre of activity and played host to an influx of visitors including 

leaders, writers, journalists and filmmakers. Globetrotting yogis too, 

descended on the scene to unwind while some, like the Mahesh yogi 

group, held training sessions on transcendental meditation for the 

overworked government functionaries. 

To meet the ever growing pressure, numerous mini valleys were 

earmarked for development as tourist destinations. The western tourists 

flocked to houseboats, locals to the Mughal gardens on holidays whereas 

the rest dispersed along the boulevard at Dal Gate where the shikarawalas 

made brisk business in peak season. Earthy Sadhus and pilgrims en-route 

to Amarnath, camped along the Lidder valley whereas the pony wallas 

wooed the visitors with view points like Bobby hut. 

The Sonwar residential complex overlooked the Jehlum and gave a 

peep into Doonga life at night, when, after a hard day's work, men 

relaxed by smoking hukka and the women got together to sing in chorus. 

Marriages were festive with elaborate wazwan, a food ritual, deeply 

embedded in Kashmiri lifestyle and a symbol of its core value of shared, 

community eating. The multi course food style was not just a lavish 

display of food items but also signified a deep rooted tradition of warm 

43


hospitality. Frugality, as a trait, in entertaining guests was unmistakably 

absent in Kashmiri households. 

Life vibrated, in parks, bunds, hotels and public places. Cinema 

halls remained packed to capacity, particularly on days when old movies 

like Mugle Azam and Shiri Farhaad were screened. Kashmir Ki Kali, any 

day, filled the audience with pride over how their exotic locales could 

enamour outsiders, who trooped in huge numbers to experience the reel 

magic translate into real life. Kashmir's magic in its full form was 

captured at night in the backdrop of Zabarwan hills from Pari Mahal or 

Shankracharya when the poetic version of a paradise on earth literally, 

came alive. 

With memories, skillfully captured in frame by the Mahattas and 

Darly photographers, visitors were lured to return the visit, which was 

never the last. They were brought back many times over, to experience 

varied shades of the valley, where autumn could script an account, as 

fascinating as the spring, a single trip was never really sufficient. 

Politics was not invasive, it interspersed with life smoothly, and people 

pursued their normal lives and engaged in politics by choice. Hope 

defined the mood of the period. 

A trip to the valley two decades later was marked by night long 

encounters and gunfire in different parts. Life moved with an underlying 

fatigue. Lhasa the Chinese restaurant once a favourite haunt for its warm, 

ambience now, resembled a down town cellar, lakes like the Dal and 

Nageen looked equally desolate. Beauty of the valley was of no 

consequence as appreciative revelers had vanished, so had the magic 

Growth of a society is a complex interplay of forces, spanning over 

centuries. 

Like an arterial network, its constituent parts; and, soil, climate, 

communities, languages and customs interconnect to infuse life and 

vigour to it and make up for its ethos. Rupture of Kashmir's centuries 

old, intricately woven society, once pulsating with life, is a painful 

experience for all its inhabitants. Modern state structure apparently has 

no available tools to measure levels of psycho social trauma and hence not 

well equipped to heal the same. Though sad, this outcome is also, in some 

measure, a failure of' its inhabitants to put up appropriate assertions to 

resist disruptions in their life spaces. They have to strive and reclaim the 

sphere which allows them their right to life and the basic freedoms which 

flow from it. A significant difference can be made by setting boundaries


where politics of any kind does not violate the sanctity of their lived 

spaces. They can do it in a way, nobody else really can. 

Societies must grow out of celebration of life and everything 

connected with it, not its demise. Nations can not thrive over stillness of 

grave yards. Kashmir will revive no doubt, but a philosophical question 

which everyone connected with the good old times continues to ask is, 

"can the magic ever be retrieved?" Perhaps, people of Kashmir know best 

and they alone can make their choices in this regard. 

Dr Karuna Thakur, February 21, 2010. 

http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showarticles.php?subaction=showfull&id=126 

6752447&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&var0news=value0news 

KASHMIR: WHAT NEXT? 

Now that Islamabad and New Delhi have agreed to restart talks, it would 

be a legitimate question for Kashmir’s peacemakers to ask: ‘The peace 

process has restarted: what next?’ 

‘Process’ is about catalysing change. Even if [it] does not yield the 

expected results, a process is important since it contributes to the 

upstaging of many long-held fixations. Take, for example, President 

Obama. Who would have thought a decade ago that an African-American 

would be US president? 

The terrorists who carried out the carnage in Mumbai and other 

equally outrageous acts in Pakistan should know that it is impossible to 

keep change hostage, even to odious rage. A subtle generational change is 

taking place in South Asia. It is propelled by rising income levels, access 

to technology, increased connectivity and choices in a globalising 

environment; these changes are pushing matters forward. 

This forward thrust is visible in the way New Delhi and Islamabad 

reacted to the Mumbai incident. Leaving aside the media frenzy, the anger 

and outrage, the two countries did not sever diplomatic ties. Unlike the 

past, they did not cut off air links or mobilise forces along the border. In 

fact, many Kashmir-specific confidence-building measures such as the 

intra-Kashmir bus-service and cross-border trade kept moving, and 

people-to-people contact remained active though at a more limited level. 

My optimism for a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue stems 

as much from the unjust situation of people of Kashmir for the past six 

decades as the inherent incapacity of the parties involved to settle it 

45


otherwise. War, though engaged upon more than once, is the instrument 

least likely to induce an acceptable outcome. 

Hence the world needs to understand what drives those young boys 

lobbing stones in Srinagar when they chant ‘azadi’ or ‘freedom’. After all, 

Kashmiri leaders interpret the word differently. To some it means 

freedom from India, to others it is freedom from both India and Pakistan; 

then there are those who believe that the resistance is to end repression. 

One, two or all three could be correct. But whatever these youths want, 

they have been wanting it so much and for so long that the hand of fate is 

conspiring to help them achieve it. 

First, President Obama’s revised Af-Pak strategy and the 

subsequent London Conference in late January made it clear that 

Pakistan is the only viable exit road from Afghanistan — and naturally, 

the road to Islamabad’s fullest cooperation passes through Kashmir. Gen 

Ashfaq Kayani’s straight-talking at NATO the other week defined this 

paradigm in clearer terms when he informed the world that as long as 

Pakistan had issues to settle with India, it simply could not ignore the 

Indian threat. NATO tired and roughed-up in the merciless Afghan 

terrain, is fully aware that if there is one military out there that has the 

mettle to tame the Taliban in the medium and long run, either peacefully 

or by other means, it is the Pakistan Army. So they had to be listening to 

Gen Kayani’s words carefully and indeed they did: at stake is not just the 

beaten track of Central Asia but the prestige of the world’s supposedly 

greatest military alliance — NATO. Who would take it seriously any 

more if it was seen as being defeated by a primitive and ragtag militia 

called the Taliban? 

Secondly, the appointment of Shiv Shankar Menon as the national 

security adviser to the Indian prime minister could be a good omen for 

the peace process. Coming from once troubled southern India, the former 

envoy to Islamabad and Beijing served as India’s foreign secretary during 

eventful times in the last round of the peace process. 

Menon is reviled by the media hawks and a section of the 

establishment for his pro-peace inclination; he belongs to a new 

generation of diplomats that see the dividends of peace in a broader 

context. I met him with a group of former diplomats and PPP and PML 

politicians in 2006, on the sidelines of a peace conference in Delhi, and 

found him keen to help his government build bridges with Pakistan and 

work towards dispute resolution.


Thirdly, the emergence of Gilgit-Baltistan as a semi-autonomous 

and secondary provincial set-up, followed by the November elections in 

which all the mainstream parties participated, demonstrates Pakistan’s 

ability to take bold steps. Gilgit-Baltistan, together with Ladakh, 

constituted about 75 per cent of the former princely state’s territory in 

1947. 

Ladakh, comprising the Buddhist-dominated Leh and the Muslimmajority 

Kargil, already enjoys a special governance structure under the 

Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils — something different 

and above other regions of the state. Similarly, the Amarnath Temple 

Trust land scandal in 2008 exposed the deep divisions between Jammu 

and the true Kashmir. 

In the light of these and other changes, it is now up to Islamabad 

and New Delhi, as well as other capitals that have a stake in building 

peace in the region, to take a fresh look at Kashmir’s demand for azadi. If 

the choice is to deal with the dispute in its historical and legal entirety, 

then an inside-out process — that reconciles the competing interests of an 

already fractured state — is required before moving towards a final 

solution. 

However, if the option is to narrow the focus to the question of 

azadi in the regions where it is in real demand, then the broadest 

spectrum of leadership in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad should be brought 

on board fully and specifically. But burying heads in the sand will not 

make the issue go away. 

So when Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi says that he 

failed to find any paper trail of earlier deliberations by his predecessors, 

he probably meant that he would like to do it all over again and perhaps 

in a different way — which, under the circumstances, is plausible. 

Those who participated in earlier peace-building efforts know that 

at that time, it was India that blew up any chance to make peace; this 

time, the onus of failure to capitalise on yet another opportunity may fall 

on the already strained PPP government. In an ideal world, parliament 

and the cabinet debates and the political leadership steers the process; but 

in our part of the planet nothing will work unless the two foreign offices 

synchronise and update their institutional memory with their respective 

GHQs. After all, Kashmir is a matter of peace — or a nuclear war. 

M. Ismail Khan, Dawn (Islamabad), February 22, 2010. 

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/ 

dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/16-kashmir-what-next-hs-05 

47


KASHMIR LEADERS MEET BASHIR ON EVE OF 

INDIA-PAKISTAN TALKS 

Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir met leaders of Kashmir 

freedom struggle in New Delhi on Wednesday, a day before he was due 

to hold the first official talks with his Indian counterpart since the 2008 

Mumbai attack. 

The meeting came on the same day India alleged its troops came 

under fire from Pakistan in the Samba area of occupied Kashmir, 

although Pakistan denied any shooting by its troops. Mr. Bashir’s 

meeting with the Kashmiri leaders will likely reinforce Islamabad’s 

demand that Thursday’s talks with India include all outstanding issues 

between the two countries. 

India wants the talks to have a narrow focus on Pakistan’s actions 

on terrorism. New Delhi broke off talks after the Mumbai attacks, saying 

Pakistan had to first crackdown on militants. “This (meeting) gives 

Pakistan an additional moral and political argument that the talks 

between the two countries have to be comprehensive, composite and 

need to focus on Kashmir,” said Noor Ahmad Baba, dean of social 

sciences at Kashmir University. 

Mr. Bashir met three Kashmiri leaders, including the chief of the 

main alliance of several parties and groups the All Parties Hurriyat 

Conference, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and Syed Ali Shah Gilani.“I stressed 

on a tripartite dialogue over Kashmir,” Mr. Gilani told Reuters, referring 

to a demand that Kashmiris be included in any negotiation between India 

and Pakistan over the disputed region which has sparked two of the three 

wars the two countries have fought since 1947. 

Progress in the talks between Mr. Bashir and his Indian counterpart 

Nirupama Rao could have ripple effects on the battle against militants in 

Pakistan and efforts to get Islamabad to go after the Taliban, by reducing 

its logic of keeping massive forces on the eastern border with India. 

Earlier on Wednesday, India said its troops came under fire from 

Pakistan. 


http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/front-page/12-kashmir-leaders-meet-bashir-on-eve-of-indiapakistantalks-520--bi-04


INDIA’S SILENT AGGRESSION 

India maintains a huge military machine in Occupied Kashmir, much 

larger than the United States and its allies, put together, have in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. In there, its three-quarters of a million troops are perhaps 

out number any such expeditionary force stationed in an occupied or 

disputed area since the Second World War. On the face of it, the 

deployment is tasked to deal with freedom fighters, which of course is a 

daunting challenge, but more importantly, it is there to change the face of 

the Muslim-majority landscape called Kashmir; its main weapon being 

brutal use of force against unarmed civilian population. But where its 

work goes almost unnoticed is the security it provides to Indian 

engineers, who are planning and working day and night to build dams on 

rivers that take water to Pakistan. So furiously are they working and in 

such so-far inaccessible areas that of late, New Delhi is thinking of 

bringing these projects under the enhanced protection cover of the 

Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). All this work falls within the 

definition of an aqua war India is preparing to foist on Pakistan, courtesy 

a Chanakiya manoeuvre to ‘turn Pakistan into a desert’. Not that 

Pakistanis are not aware of Indian designs; there is plenty of information 

how India is trying to dam up rivers Jhelum, Chenab and Indus, whose 

waters under the Indus Water Treaty should reach Pakistan 

uninterrupted. According to reports, India is planning or building some 

three dozen big and small hydropower projects and reservoirs on the 

tributaries of these principal rivers, including quite a few mega-projects, 

keeping Pakistan completely un-informed or misinformed. 

One of these is Bursar Dam on River Chenab, for which New 

Delhi has invited bids for a ‘topographical survey’. Others in different 

stages of planning/construction include Kishenganga on River Neelam, 

Uri Todium on River Pooch, which is tributary for River Jhelum and; 

the Baglihar, Dul Husti and Salal dams on River Chenab. On River 

Indus, the Indian engineers are working to steal water at Kargil and from 

its 12 distributaries. Not content with depriving Pakistan of its waters 

from Kashmir, the Indians have recently stepped up their aid-assisted 

work in Afghanistan on two dams on River Kabul, which is a tributary 

of River Indus. Yes, Pakistanis know all this - and much more, given the 

fact that the growing water shortages are causing problems that have 

begun negatively impacting provincial harmony, power generation and 

industrial production. As Irsa stood bitterly divided over the opening of 

49


the Chashma-Jhelum and Taunsa-Panjnad link canals last week, the prime 

minister had to call an urgent meeting of the four chief ministers. But 

where the official state or quality of being pusillanimous is detected in 

raising the issue of India blocking Pakistani rivers at the concerned 

international forums. Recent reports suggest that Pakistan is ‘still 

undecided’ when to formally seek intervention of the International Court 

of Arbitration against the controversial construction of Kishenganga 

project by India, in violation of Indus Water Treaty. Of course, the Indus 

Water Treaty - under which Pakistan lost waters of its three eastern rivers 

- Ravi, Sutlej and Beas - hoping its monopoly of Indus, Jhelum and 

Chenab waters would remain uncontested by India - was badly negotiated 

and more than required was surrendered. But that Pakistan should not 

even get its allocated share under the treaty is all the more unacceptable. 

We hope and expect that at the forthcoming talks in New Delhi, 

later this week, Pakistani officials would raise the issue of dams India is 

building or planning to build in the Occupied Kashmir in violation of 

Indus Water Treaty. Under international laws, India cannot carry out any 

major upstream alterations in a river system, and even minor changes 

have to be discussed and made only with the formal consent of 

downstream riparians. If allowed to go unchecked, what India is doing 

has the dangerous potential to stop Himalayan snowmelt reaching 

Pakistan in the next few years. It is a kind of silent strategic warfare India 

is waging against Pakistan, by creating conditions of perennial drought 

for a fundamentally agrarian economy that Pakistan is. It would be 

resisted resolutely and fought back valiantly; if world’s future wars would 

be fought over water and not oil, the first of these may well be in South 

Asia where India seeks to starve Pakistan to death. 

Editorial, Daily Mail (Islamabad /Beijing), February 26, 2010. 

http://dailymailnews.com/0210/26/Editorial_Column/DMEditorial.php#1 

US CONGRESSMAN FAVOURS PLEBISCITE IN KASHMIR 

A senior Republican Congressman has favored holding of plebiscite in 

Kashmir arguing that it would resolve the ‘terrorist problem’ of the 

region. 

Expressing deep concern over the situation in Kashmir, 

Congressman Dan Burton, who is the Ranking Member of House 

Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said, “Kashmir has 

been the cause of two wars between the two countries”.


Burton was speaking at a Congressional hearing convened by 

Ackerman on “Building a Strategic Partnership: US-India Relations in the 

Wake of Mumbai.” 

An outspoken critic of India’s human rights record for past several 

years now, Burton, said, “Solving the Kashmir problem will not likely 

make the terrorist groups operating on and from Kashmir lay down their 

arms but it will, I believe, eliminate their ability to use the human rights 

situation in Kashmir”. 

He further said, “I personally believe that the people of Kashmir 

should be given the plebiscite that they were promised by the United 

Nations decades ago. Regardless of the shape of the ultimate resolution, 

this situation someday be addressed and the sooner the better”. 

Sana online, March 2, 2010. 

http://www.sananews.com.pk/english/2009/03/02/us-cong-man-favoursplebiscite-in-kashmir/ 

DEADLOCK IN PAKISTAN-INDIA TALKS 

Once again Pakistan-India talks have become the victim of a deadlock as 

is quite apparent from the result of our foreign secretary’s visit to India 

last week. A deadlock in Pakistan-India talks is nothing extraordinary. In 

fact, if one looks at the history of Pakistan-India relations, it has been a 

common feature of this complex and difficult relationship. The only 

thing which is different this time is that the bilateral talks in substantive 

terms have been deadlocked even before they could begin. This speaks 

volumes about the current status of Pakistan-India relations mired as they 

are in mutual mistrust, grievances and animosity. 

It was quite clear after the three-hour talks between the two foreign 

secretaries in New Delhi on February 25 that the positions of the two 

countries were far apart. In fact, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, while 

talking to the Pakistani media after the talks, remarked that the gap 

between the two countries was widening. India’s focus during the talks 

was on the issue of terrorism on which it handed over two dossiers to the 

Pakistani foreign secretary demanding the arrest and handing over by 

Pakistan of the founder of Lashkar-i-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed, and seven other 

operatives besides some Indian mujahideen and Khalistan militants. India 

expressed its inability to recommence the composite dialogue without the 

“unravelling of the full conspiracy” behind the Mumbai terrorist attack. 

Even before the talks began, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told 

51


his Pakistani counterpart in front of the media that her mandate was “to 

tell you that the territory of Pakistan must not be used for terrorism.” 

Pakistan, on the other hand, called for the recommencement of the 

composite dialogue and stressed that the issue of terrorism should not be 

allowed to make bilateral talks a hostage. The Pakistani side also called 

for a peaceful solution of the Kashmir issue, besides conveying to India its 

concerns over Indian activities aimed at supplying weapons to militants 

and terrorists in Balochistan from Afghanistan. Pakistan also handed over 

to India a paper on the water issue and expressed the hope that India 

would agree to resolve the issue under the Indus Basin Waters Treaty. As 

for the issue of terrorism, Salman Bashir pointed out to the media that 

Pakistan had already taken steps against the suspects of Mumbai attacks 

and would look into the dossiers handed over by India during the talks. 

The net result of the foreign secretary-level talks was merely the 

agreement to remain in touch with each other. The position remained 

unchanged even after Salman Bashir’s courtesy call on the Indian Foreign 

Minister Krishna who remarked that future engagement with Pakistan 

would be “predicated on Pakistan’s response to our core concern on 

terrorism.” This was not entirely surprising considering the high level of 

anti-Pakistan sentiment in India, especially after the Mumbai tragedy, and 

the criticism by some Indian opposition leaders of New Delhi’s move to 

invite the Pakistani foreign secretary for talks. It was a measure of the 

gulf between the two sides that the Pakistani foreign secretary did not 

invite his Indian counterpart for a return visit to Islamabad. In fact, he 

remarked after the talks that there was no need for secretary-level talks if 

India remained stuck to its stand on outstanding issues. The best 

interpretation that can be given is that the talks in New Delhi were 

exploratory in nature aimed at gauging each other’s position and that 

they marked the first step towards a gradual process of rebuilding mutual 

trust leading hopefully to the resumption of the composite dialogue. 

Obviously, the next SAARC Summit in Bhutan in April would provide a 

valuable opportunity to the prime ministers of Pakistan and India to 

carry forward the process of bilateral talks. But in view of the many ifs 

and buts involved, it is anybody’s guess as to the timeframe in which 

substantive dialogue on the outstanding issues of concern to the two sides 

would be resumed. 

The future prospects of Pakistan-India relations remain uncertain 

considering the high level of mutual mistrust, the historical baggage of 

mutual grievances, the complexity of the outstanding issues like Kashmir


and the clash of the strategic interests of the two countries in South Asia. 

According to well-known Indian analysts such as C Raja Mohan, India 

has sought “primacy and a veto over the actions of outside powers.” 

India’s quest for hegemony in South Asia is in direct clash with Pakistan’s 

strategic objective of preserving its independence and maintaining its 

ability to deal with India on the basis of sovereign equality. Until India 

changes its mindset in dealing with Pakistan and agrees to resolve 

outstanding issues including the Kashmir issue through peaceful means, 

Pakistan-India relations will continue to suffer from tensions preventing 

the two countries from realising their full potential politically and 

economically. 

Peace between Pakistan and India is a strategic imperative 

particularly in view of the possession of nuclear weapons by them. It is, 

therefore, incumbent upon the two countries to defuse tensions in their 

relations, build up mutual trust through CBM’s, try to resolve their 

disputes through peaceful means, and promote mutually beneficial 

cooperation in economic, commercial, technical and cultural fields. The 

strengthening of the peace process would also enable the two countries to 

limit their military expenditures and divert resources to the urgent tasks 

of accelerating economic development and eradicating widespread 

poverty from which the people of the two countries suffer. Thus, the 

resumption of the composite dialogue is in the mutual interest of 

Pakistan and India. By engaging in it or resuming it, neither of the two 

countries would do any favour to the other. It would also be an 

unproductive approach by either side to predicate the resumption of 

substantive talks on the prior settlement of one issue or the other as India 

has done because talks are meant to pave the way for the resolution of 

mutual differences and disputes. 

Pakistan’s past policy concerning India in the past has suffered from 

oscillations between the hard-line position of the hawks who did not 

desist from risking war with India, as in the case of Kargil, and the meek 

approach of the doves who are prepared to go so far as to endanger the 

very existence of Pakistan, as a sovereign country enjoying political and 

economic independence, as reflected by the proposal to form an 

economic union with India. We should instead pursue a long-term 

approach towards India based on a realistic assessment of each other’s 

strategic objectives and potential, as well as of the international security 

environment, which rules out resort to violence by non-state actors. 

Above all, we should adopt a low-risk and non-adventurous approach 

53


towards India while combating extremism and terrorism internally and 

accelerating our economic development. 

Javid Husain, The Nation, March 2, 2010. 

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/Opinions/Columns/02-Mar-2010/Deadlock-in-PakistanIndia-talks/1 

TWO KASHMIRI TEENS HURT BY INDIAN FIRING 

Two children were wounded in “unprovoked firing” by Indian forces 

across the Line of Control, officials said on Tuesday. 

An Indian army spokesman claimed soldiers had retaliated after 

Pakistani troops opened fire. 

Pakistan said the shooting, in the Battal sector of Azad Kashmir, 

took place on Monday night, just days after the nuclear-armed 

neighbours held their first official talks in more than year. 

“An innocent boy and a girl were seriously injured due to 

unprovoked firing by Indian troops across the Line of Control,” a 

military official said. 

“Pakistani troops responded effectively,” he said without giving 

details. 

Indian army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Biplab Nath said 

Pakistani troops also fired several rocket-propelled grenades. 

“We retaliated after 30 minutes, aiming only on Pakistani military 

posts,” Nath said. Both sides routinely blame the other for provoking fire 

in such incidents. 

There has been a spate of clashes in the past few months along the 

Line of Control and on the border to the south but they are not expected 

to spark a broader conflict. 

Pakistan and India have fought two of their three wars over 

Muslim-majority Kashmir, which is divided between the South Asian 

neighbours who both claim it in full. 

India suspended a tentative four-year-old peace process with 

Pakistan after an attack on the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008 

by Pakistan-based militants in which 166 people were killed. 

India accuses Pakistan of backing separatist militants fighting its 

forces in its part of Kashmir. Pakistan says it only offers Kashmiri 

separatists political backing. 

Top diplomats from the two countries met in New Delhi last week 

in their first officials’ talks since the Mumbai attack.


They agreed to “keep in touch” but India declined to resume a 

broad series of talks on outstanding disputes known as the composite 

dialogue. The United States wants to see ties between the countries 

improve so Pakistan can focus on fighting militants on its Afghan border. 

Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), March 3, 2010. 

http://www.pakobserver.net/201003/03/detailnews.asp?id=18271 

INDIA-PAKISTAN CONUNDRUM 

… 

Like many last decades, the recent Indo-Pak talks in Delhi did not make 

any breakthrough. As usual, they provided the forum for both countries 

to restate their positions. The US can force the horse to the water, but 

cannot make it drink. As a matter of fact, Indo-Pak reconciliation is 

becoming more difficult every passing year because of increasing scarcity 

of water, a mutual desire to pull the other side down, and conflicts 

riddling societies in both countries. Sometimes it appears that keeping the 

tensions up serves both sides. 

Pakistan was adamant to put the Kashmir and water issues on the 

agenda, while India was mainly interested in terrorism originating from 

Pakistan. For Pakistan, the territory of Kashmir may not be as important 

as the water issue. If the Pakistani claims are valid, then Indian 

infringements into the rivers running from its territory into Pakistan will 

leave major parts of Pakistan barren. Agriculture is not possible in Punjab 

and Sindh without river water. Therefore, unless Pakistan is assured on 

the supply of water, it will never abandon the proxies that can keep India 

on its toes by destabilising Kashmir. 

Many world experts have predicted that future wars will be fought 

over water. States within India, like Punjab and Sindh in Pakistan, are 

continuously at each other’s throats because of this scarce natural 

resource. If federating units within India and Pakistan cannot forgo their 

claims, how will the two hostile nations? Therefore, the Indo-Pak dispute 

over water in the garb of the Kashmir problem is not unique and will not 

go away unless credible international organisations provide effective 

guarantees. 

Besides the real issue of water, future scenarios are also an unending 

source of tension. India is growing fast and may want to leave Pakistan 

behind so that the competition between the two neighbours becomes 

irrelevant. Following the Reagan strategy against Russia to raise defence 

55


expenditures to the level that your enemy breaks down if it tries to 

compete, India, by military expansion, is forcing Pakistan to follow suit 

and economically get destroyed. 

Pakistan, with a regressing economy, cannot keep up with Indian 

defence outlays even on proportional basis. Therefore, Pakistan has no 

choice but to detract and pull India back through other means. Pakistan’s 

strategy has not worked very well because, despite the Kashmir issue, 

India has grown steadily. Probably, Pakistan’s military leadership is 

aware of its unsuccessful strategy and, therefore, trying to strengthen the 

state institutions to match Indian economic growth. However, it cannot 

let go of instruments developed to keep India distracted. 

Besides the real geographic and economic issues between India and 

Pakistan, the public opinion in both countries has hardened. The new 

electronic media, run by not-so-well-groomed people, looks for the easy 

formula to dub villains in a situation. The Indian media quickly blames 

Pakistan for any bomb blast in their country and the Pakistani media 

reflexively traces the tragic incidents on its territory to an Indian 

conspiracy. The situation has become so messy that it is hard to tell who 

is doing what. 

The public in both countries accept the media versions because of 

changing public psyche due to internal conflicts and extreme rightwing 

forces donning the mantle of patriotism. While Pakistan is fighting the 

Taliban and other jihadi outfits, India is also mired in communal, ethnic 

and guerrilla insurgency. The Gujarat massacre of Muslims, the Shiv Sena 

crusade to cleanse Maharashtra and Mumbai of North Indians, and the 

Maoist guerrilla war are just a few things that have embittered the public 

psyche. A psyche born out of a constant conflict-ridden atmosphere can 

easily be turned against other nations. 

The right wing’s monopoly over patriotism in Pakistan, a wellentrenched 

phenomenon, has been replicated in India. The rise of the 

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), especially the Narendra Modi brand, and 

the likes of Bal Keshav Thackeray, founder of Shive Sena, have become 

the standard bearers of national pride. They have pushed the Congress 

Party to the right as well in pursuit of patriotism. The decline of 

communist parties in North India has also been responsible for the 

unchecked rise of a jingoistic style of nationalism. The dynamics of 

generating hatred are becoming much more powerful than the forces 

preaching reconciliation within the country and in the international 

arena.


Settlement of longstanding issues between India and Pakistan is 

becoming more difficult than it was in the past. The fight over water with 

hardening public opinion in both countries is further complicating the 

situation. No one knows how and where the chips are going to fall. 

Dr Manzur Ejaz, Daily Times, March 3, 2010. 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\03\03\story_3-3- 

2010_pg3_3 

KEEPING KASHMIR SECRET 

According to Richard Holbrooke, there is a place in the world so secret, 

so taboo, that even the special envoy of the most powerful country in the 

world dare not speak its name. 

Here is what he said at a briefing earlier this week, according to the 

State Department transcript: 

“Now, on the larger issue, let me just make a general comment 

about this. This is my own personal feeling about these three countries -– 

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The three countries are vastly different 

in culture, socioeconomic standing, political development, and – but they 

share a common strategic space. And in order to understand America’s 

policy and America’s policy dilemma, one has to understand that both 

India and Pakistan have legitimate security interests in the region. 

“And I’m not talking about that certain area between them which 

I’m not going to mention by name (Laughter.)” 

Just so that we remember that this “certain area” is actually a place 

with real people living in it, I’m posting a photo of street cricket in the 

Kashmiri capital Srinagar. Here is a link to one of the main newspapers in 

Kashmir. Here is a BBC map with various solutions to the Kashmir 

dispute. Here are links to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 

on Kashmir. And for good measure, here is a link to the 19th century 

poem Lalla Rookh — admittedly written by a poet who had never been 

there but who nonetheless acknowledged its existence with the 

words ”Who has not heard of the vale of Cashmere?” 

Holbrooke continued: 

“I am -– because I am not going to get involved in that. And people 

who have advocated that are making a proposal which I believe runs 

counter to stability in Afghanistan. Afghanistan must be dealt with on its 

merits.” 

57


Ok. But again let’s just remember that this idea of easing tension in 

Afghanistan by trying to resolve Kashmir was advocated by his boss, then 

presidential candidate Barack Obama, back in 2008. 

As discussed in this post, time has moved on and the argument that 

the road to Kabul lies through Kashmir makes little sense when you 

compare the time this would take against the 2011 deadline set by 

Obama for starting to draw down troops. 

But as a point of principle, is it enough to allow Holbrooke to 

reduce Kashmir to an elision at a briefing, without requiring the U.S. 

administration to explain this decision in public? The insiders would tell 

you they know already — India lobbied hard against having Kashmir 

included in Holbrooke’s remit and he has reportedly vowed never to use 

the “K” word. But what about the public who might want to hear it for 

themselves? 

Meanwhile, Indian opposition leader L.K. Advani is accusing Prime 

Minister Manmohan Singh of planning a secret deal on Kashmir. 

(Under then president Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan and India held 

secret talks which sketched out a road map for peace in Kashmir, but 

which reached a dead end when the former general become embroiled 

in political problems at home which eventually forced him out of 

office. This, as far as I’ve been told, was never an actual deal, but more 

like a set of principles rather like the Oslo Accords between Israel and the 

Palestinians which left a great amount still to be agreed or contested, and 

which had the additional weakness of being secret and therefore without 

public approval or support.) 

So it looks like one way or the other, the question of Kashmir is 

going to be forced out into the open. Perhaps it’s time Holbrooke 

dropped his resistance to naming it. 

Reuters, March 4, 2010. 

http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/03/05/keeping-kashmir-secret/ 

CONFLICTING PERCEPTIONS 

The Indian political leadership, including their prime minister and 

interior minister, have once again started harping on (as they normally 

do) the need for normalising relations with Pakistan, as a key to peace 

and prosperity, in the region torn with tensions and terrorism. Certainly, 

the true face of India is concealed behind this cosmetic appearance. 

The latest peace talks held in Hyderabad House, New Delhi, between the


foreign secretaries of the two countries have once again highlighted the 

nature of different perceptions about the core issues. Undoubtedly, the 

conflict of perceptions has persisted all along; even when it was believed 

that normalisation of relations was within reach. The reason was because 

Pakistan never deviated from its basic stand on Kashmir as the core issue 

to be decided in accordance with the UN resolutions. India, on the other 

hand, regarded Kashmir as its integral part (Atut Ang). During the 90s, 

the peace process was almost at its peak when Prime Minister Atal Bihari 

Vajpayee made his historic ‘bus journey’ to the Wagah and later signed 

the Lahore Declaration with then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. But the 

Kargil war crashed the process. Later, the course of events in the region 

once again forced the two nuclear neighbours to resume the peace 

process; however it was derailed first at Agra and then immediately after 

the Mumbai terror strikes. 

History sometimes moves along an undefined and unpredictable 

path, as was in the case of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan 

suddenly emerged as a key state in the region and its armed forces 

assumed a vital role. However, the Pakistani forces could not fully 

perform that role along its troubled western border at the cost of its 

national security along its eastern border with ‘hostile’ India. Therefore, 

it was due to international pressure that New Delhi was forced to resume 

dialogue with Islamabad, in order to create the required peaceful 

environment along the Indo-Pak border as well as the Line of Control in 

Kashmir. So far so good! 

Such a dialogue for the restoration of relations between the two 

neighbours is essential and the need of the hour because the fate of one 

and a half billion poverty-stricken people of this underdeveloped/ 

developing region hangs on this issue. Nevertheless the outstanding 

dispute between Pakistan and India, in which Kashmir stands on top of 

the list, is therefore the crying call of the people of South Asia. India is 

not prepared to show any flexibility on its stance on Kashmir, while 

Pakistan, as well as the people of Kashmir, demand a settlement in 

accordance with the UN resolutions. With this 60-year old record Indian 

rigidness, Islamabad should not have stumbled into the latest so-called 

dialogue offer from New Delhi without clarifying the agenda of the talks. 

One wonders what made Islamabad rush without taking into account the 

stark consequences of the failure of a series of such exercises held over 

many decades in the past. What were the compelling reasons? Was 

Pakistan being pressurised by the international community? Then, were 

59


all the stakeholders including the various political parties and the military 

leadership, as well as the representatives of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan 

governments, consulted? Were friends like China and other states in the 

Middle East and Central Asia, who are stakeholders in the future of this 

region, taken into confidence? Unfortunately, nothing is clear except that 

even Parliament was not consulted. 

Above all, the statements made by our Foreign Secretary Salman 

Bashir before his departure, painting a rosy picture as a result of the 

expected dialogue, was really surprising. He ought to have known - 

exactly - the nature of the hot soup awaiting at the Hyderabad House 

luncheon. Then on his return, Mr Bashir’s stated: “India must change its 

perception about Pakistan,” adding that, “Islamabad was not desperate for 

pursuing meaningless and cosmetic dialogue. We have made it clear to 

India that terrorism is an international challenge and it should not be 

portrayed as only Pakistan’s problem.” I wish our foreign secretary 

would have made such sentiments crystal clear to New Delhi before 

proceeding on a thoughtless joy ride to Delhi. 

It seems that Pakistan has learnt no lessons from past negotiations 

with India. But it is never too late. 

Ikramullah, The Nation (Islamabad), March 7, 2010. 

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/Opinions/Columns/07-Mar-2010/Conflicting-perceptions 

INDIAN TACTICS ARE UNCHANGED 

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi’s remark at his Press conference 

in Multan recently that Pakistan wants ‘result oriented and purposeful 

dialogue’ with India to resolve the outstanding issues, but ‘it’s not in 

hurry and can wait for meaningful dialogue’ seemingly represents 

Pakistan’s understanding of the Indian tactics on the issue of dialogue 

process between the two countries. He said that Foreign Secretary Salman 

Bashir, who visited India last month on Indian invitation, presented 

Pakistan’s point of view on all issues including Kashmir and water, 

besides highlighting its position on the dialogue process. The issue of 

terrorism was also discussed, he added. 

A cursory look at the history of Pak-India ties reveals the bitter 

truth that the Indian government has ridiculed Pakistani leadership again 

and again over its anxiety for resumption of the ‘composite dialogue’ 

between the two countries. It has persisted with the ‘blow hot blow cold’


policy with Pakistan right from the beginning. It has now attached the 

condition that Pakistan should ‘control’ the non-state actors allegedly 

involved in the acts of terrorism on the Indian soil for resumption of the 

dialogue. In his latest remarks on the issue in the Indian Parliament, 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh conceded that ‘dialogue is the only way 

forward for civilized countries to resolve their problems’, yet he 

adamantly said: ‘for any meaningful dialogue to proceed, the terror 

machine has to be controlled by Pakistan even if non state actors are at 

work’. And he said so despite the fact that the successive Indian 

governments have miserably failed over the decades to ‘control’ 

insurgencies in several Indian states, where freedom fighters are pursuing 

their struggle for liberation from the Indian yoke. 

The people of these states are waging wars for freedom. And 

incidentally occupied Kashmir is one of those states where the Kashmiri 

people are also fighting for emancipation from Indian domination. 

Kashmir, in fact, has a unique status since India has committed itself at 

the UN Security Council to allow the Kashmiri people their inalienable 

right to self determination to decide their own destiny. On the contrary, 

India is brutalizing the Kashmiris with the help of its military might to 

suppress their spirit for freedom. It can, however, dominate them 

militarily, but cannot crush their fortitude for freedom. It has failed to do 

so over the past six decades and shall not succeed in future as well since 

the people willing to render supreme sacrifices for freedom are bound to 

triumph ultimately. The attack on the Indian Parliament and the Mumbai 

incident are a manifestation of the Kashmiris’ determination to liberate 

themselves from the Indian control. India should better accept this truth 

howsoever bitter and sour. 

India’s demand that Pakistan should ‘control’ the Kashmiris 

involved in the terror activities on the Indian soil is unjust and untenable. 

If India has not succeeded in crushing the insurgencies over the decades, 

how can Pakistan be expected to do so especially when the Kashmiris are 

engaged in their just struggle for freedom. If it wants to see them 

controlled, it should better redeem its pledges made to them at the world 

forum as well as by the first Indian Prime Minister Pandi Nehru directly 

about restitution of their right to self determination. It’s pertinent that 

India should ponder over its own conduct first before unjustifiably 

resorting to blame game against Pakistan. India is rather adopting 

coercive tactics to blackmail Pakistan so as to make her toe its line and 

submit to its unethical demand to abandon the Kashmiris, which it shall 

61


never do under any circumstances. Interestingly, Manmohan Singh has 

conceded that the decision to hold Secretary level talks with Pakistan was 

‘calculated’ based on consideration of ‘costs and benefits’. 

India is least interested in human sufferings in occupied Kashmir, 

Balochistan and Tribal areas of Pakistan. It has no concern for Kashmiris’ 

right to self determination or Pakistan’s sovereignty. Its decision was 

‘calculated’ one with political and economic ambitions viz-a-viz South 

and Central Asian region. Vajpayee had opted to initiate the composite 

dialogue with Gen Musharraf in 2005 with eye on the UN Security 

Council’s permanent slot. By entering into the composite dialogue with 

Pakistan, he wanted to improve India’s regional and international 

perception of being a quarrelsome and aggressive neighbour in the region. 

There is no change in India’s tactics to dominate the region politically, 

economically and militarily. And the irony is that the United States is 

pampering New Delhi in its obsession against China’s emerging status of 

an economic and military power. Under the garb of his contrived 

humility, Manmohan Singh has rather proven to be more shrewd and 

greater tactician in his Pakistan policy than his predecessors. 

He has kept Islamabad under constant pressure through persistent 

propaganda of terror attacks and has resorted to squeeze Pakistan’s water 

resources without making the world community feel the danger inherent 

in his plans. He has kept Pakistan confused with his assertions about 

India’s ‘willingness’ to discuss all issues including the issue of Kashmir, 

yet refusing to budge on his position that there can’t be geographical 

change in Kashmir as a result of the dialogue. The notorious Indian 

intelligence agency RAW is indulging in unabated interference in 

Balochistan and Tribal areas through supply of funds and weapons to 

renegades and terrorists, yet he projects his country as victim of terror. 

And the irony is that the US, Britain and other countries are inclined to 

be responsive t the Indian viewpoint rather than recognizing the truth of 

Indian intrigues against Pakistan. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud 

Qureshi’s categorical statement that Pakistan is in no hurry to have 

meaningful talks with India if it is not ready to hold ‘purposeful dialogue’ 

with Pakistan to resolve the outstanding issues between the two 

countries. 

It is good that Pakistan has at long last started understanding the 

Indian designs against her. India is not interested in resolving the 

outstanding issues with Pakistan. It wants to maintain an atmosphere of 

tension, confrontation and conflict in the region and to continue to spit


venom against Pakistan to undermine its interests at the region and 

international level. 

M Ashraf Mirza, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), March 10, 2010. 


NO CAUSE FOR DESPAIR 

Even though expectations of last month’s Delhi meeting between India 

and Pakistan’s foreign secretaries were minimal, there was nevertheless 

hope that it would ease at least some of the tension between the two 

countries. 

Instead, the foreign secretaries stuck close to their briefs, refusing to 

take the lead in demonstrating initiative or imagination. This is hardly 

surprising, given the media glare and the eagerness with which motives 

were surmised from innocuous observations. 

Nevertheless, the positive value of this meeting should not be 

dismissed. For one, it was the first formal meeting between the Indian 

and Pakistani foreign secretaries in over a year, and that too after India 

had pushed the pause button on the composite dialogue process while 

canvassing major powers to make Pakistan comply with its demands on 

terrorism. 

India appears to have realised that other than expressions of 

sympathy, nothing substantive was gained from this unimaginative 

policy. The country failed to appreciate that Pakistan’s cooperation on 

the ‘war on terror’ occupied a higher priority for these countries; 

consequently, over time, Pakistan was able to convince western powers 

of its inability to devote resources to the western front unless its concerns 

on the eastern front were allayed. 

Meanwhile, there has been a welcome national consensus in 

Pakistan on some critical issues, especially on domestic militancy and 

relations with India. The government’s initial naiveté, as evidenced in the 

Pakistani president’s statements on relations with India and on our 

nuclear doctrine, has given way to greater maturity and pragmatism. 

While the government claims credit for this, its critics see in it the army’s 

assertive role in the articulation of the country’s strategic goals, and the 

opposition’s support to the government on these issues. 

In truth, it is likely to be a combination of these factors; 

nevertheless resultantly, the Americans now appear more appreciative of 

our efforts against the militants and more cognisant of our concerns and 

63


interests — which has raised Pakistan’s level of confidence in its dialogue 

with India. 

In any case, with the ice having been broken and with both foreign 

secretaries having demonstrated their ‘nationalist’ credentials, they can 

hopefully go back to resuming meaningful negotiations. It is Pakistan’s 

strong belief that the only agreed upon mechanism, to which both 

countries have been wedded, is the composite dialogue process. India, 

however, fears that this structured ‘format’ makes an exchange on 

Kashmir unavoidable and is therefore seeking to sidestep it. 

This is neither feasible nor advisable. The disputed nature of 

Kashmir is a matter of record for not only the United Nations but in 

terms of numerous bilateral understandings and agreements. Pakistan 

may over the years have extended more than diplomatic and political 

support to the Kashmiris, but India is aware that no amount of external 

assistance can keep a liberation movement alive in the face of brutality 

unless it enjoys considerable domestic support. 

India must also recognise that even a complete end to Pakistan’s 

support to the Kashmiri cause will have, at best, only marginal impact on 

the freedom movement, which will continue to inflict enormous costs on 

India. More importantly, as long as it keeps millions of Kashmiris 

suppressed, India will never achieve the recognition it merits. 

Pakistan, too, must review its Kashmir policy. We have engaged in 

disastrous adventures to convince India to abandon its claim. None of 

them have advanced the Kashmir cause, or even marginally improved the 

lives of its people. In fact, this policy has had a deeply debilitating impact 

on our national economy while seriously distorting our psyche. 

If all this is true, is it not incumbent upon both sides to recognise 

the urgency of a solution? Neither India’s continued occupation of 

Kashmir, nor Pakistan’s overwhelming preoccupation with ousting it, has 

earned either country any kudos. In fact, most foreign powers are tired of 

being asked to take sides in a wrangle the world has lost interest in, 

except when the temperature rises enough to raise the spectre of a nuclear 

confrontation. 

The latest evidence of this ennui was the silence maintained on the 

issue during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Riyadh. Not only 

did Kashmir fail to find any reference, but Singh found the occasion 

much too opportune to not berate Pakistan with unusual vehemence. 

Many Pakistanis were disappointed by references to their ‘strategic 

ties’ but this was inevitable given the two countries’ growing


cooperation, as evidenced by an annual trade of $25bn and oil sales to 

Delhi touching $3bn a year. If close friends such as the Saudis and the 

Chinese are averse to bringing up the Kashmir issue in their interaction 

with India, can we expect anything better from the others? 

While abandonment of the Kashmir cause cannot be envisaged, we 

need to rethink our strategy. The use of violence by militants has been no 

less disastrous than the eagerness with which Musharraf was willing to 

give up established historic positions without seeking reciprocal 

concessions. However, it is time for India to recognise that for the first 

time, major political parties in Pakistan are committed to cooperative 

relations; meanwhile, in Manmohan Singh, Pakistan may have an 

interlocutor who appreciates that good relations with Pakistan are to his 

country’s advantage. 

In such a situation, it is not enough to merely engage in crisis 

management; the two countries need to resume their journey by pledging 

that terrorist incidents will not be allowed to derail the dialogue process, 

nor deter them from their strategic objective of resolving differences. The 

two countries need to begin by ending support for separatists and 

militants in each other’s territory and then shift gears by focusing on 

relatively simpler issues. 

Draft agreements on Siachen and Sir Creek are ready and await 

only formal approval. Thereafter, India can show good faith by 

accommodating Pakistan’s concerns on the water issue and Pakistan can 

think of relaxing the trade regime for India’s exports. If we can begin 

with these steps, we will already have brought about a qualitative change 

in our relations to the collective good of both countries. 

Tariq Fatemi, Dawn (Islamabad), March 11, 2010. 

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/editorial/no-cause-for-despair-130 

US REPORTS WIDESPREAD RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN 

OCCUPIED KASHMIR 

The US State Department on Thursday reported widespread human 

rights violations in the Indian occupied Kashmir, including encounter 

killings, disappearances and rapes. The department’s 2009 Human Rights 

report underlines dozens of violations in various parts of the occupied 

state. 

65


On March 20, the Indian army stated that three soldiers were guilty 

of killing two civilians on Feb 22 in Bumai. Authorities initially claimed 

the victims died in crossfire between militants and security forces. The 

army ordered disciplinary action against the soldiers. 

On May 29, in the Shopian, relatives and police discovered the 

bodies of two women in a stream. Local residents and examining doctors 

alleged that Indian security forces committed gang rape before killing 

Neelofar Jan and Asiya Jan, and government officials stated that police 

involvement in the killings could not be ruled out. 

On Jan 7, the Indian army ordered a high-level inquiry into the 

death of Abdur Ahad Reshi, a deaf and mute man in Veer Saran 

Pahalgam. 

On March 7, Jammu and Kashmir police registered a complaint 

against the Central Reserve Police Force for the killing of Sahbbir Ahmad 

Ahangar in Nowhatta. 

On March 28, the CRPF admitted that two troopers of the 181st 

Battalion killed Ghulam Mohiuddin Malik on March 18. 

On May 18, the army ordered an inquiry into the alleged custodial 

death of Manzoor Ahmed Beig by the Special Operations Group in 

Srinagar. 

On Sept 13, the government ordered a magisterial inquiry into the 

alleged custodial death of Noor Hussain in Rajouri. 

On August 23, the Jammu and Kashmir state government claimed 

that since 1990, 3,429 persons have been reported missing in the state. A 

private agency maintained that 10,000 persons remained missing. 

The Public Safety Act, which applies only in Jammu and Kashmir, 

permits state authorities to detain persons without charge or judicial 

review for as long as two years. During this time family members do not 

have access to detainees, and detainees do not have access to legal counsel. 

According to media reports, since 2004 Indian authorities arrested 

approximately 2,700 Kashmiris under the PSA. On Aug 28, the state 

government announced that officials had detained 121 persons under the 

PSA during the year. 

On Feb 5, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court overturned the 

detentions of 10 persons arrested under the PSA during Amarnath land 

transfer agitation in 2008. 

On April 18, the Jammu and Kashmir Bar Court Association 

informed the State Assembly that lawyers had filed 2,223 PSA petitions 

since 2004.


On May 26, police placed Syed Ali Shah Geelani, chairman of a 

faction of the separatist Hurriyat Conference, under house arrest. Police 

invoked the PSA and accused him of leading protests regarding the rape 

and killing of two Shopian women and an alleged police cover-up of those 

events. In July the Jammu and Kashmir High Court overturned the PSA 

charges against Geelani and directed authorities to release him; they did 

so on Sept 9. 

The report observes Courts in Jammu and Kashmir often are 

reluctant to hear cases involving insurgent and terrorist crimes and failed 

to act expeditiously, if at all, on habeas corpus cases. 

According to a study by the South Asia Forum for Human Rights 

and the Centre for Law and Development, thousands of habeas corpus 

cases were pending in the courts throughout the Kashmir valley. 

Political Prisoners and Detainees 

NGOs reported that Jammu and Kashmir held political prisoners, and 

the government from time to time temporarily detained hundreds of 

persons characterised as terrorists, insurgents, and separatists. Human 

rights activists based in the state estimated there were 150 political 

prisoners. Prisoners arrested under one of the special antiterrorism laws 

often were not formally charged, nor did their family or other visitors 

have access to them. 

In Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Manipur, authorities have 

special powers to search and arrest without a warrant. Human rights 

groups reported that security forces in Jammu and Kashmir targeted 

suspected terrorists, insurgents, and their supporters. 

Human rights groups maintained that in Jammu and Kashmir and 

in the northeastern states, military and paramilitary forces continued to 

hold numerous persons. Human rights activists feared that many of these 

unacknowledged prisoners were tortured and some may have been killed. 

Dawn (Islamabad), March 12, 2010. 

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/international/14-us-reports-widespread-rights-violations-in-occupiedkashmir-230-zj-10 

KASHMIR HAS 97000 ORPHANS, 32000 WIDOWS: STUDY 

The two-decade conflict in Kashmir has rendered more than 32000 

women as widows and more than 97000 children as orphans, reveals a 

research study. 

67


“There were 32400 widows and 97200 orphans in 2008 in Kashmir 

and the number is growing. With the continuity and intensification of 

armed conflict, their life conditions have deteriorated to the miserable 

subhuman level,” says ‘A Sociological Study of Widows and Orphans’, 

conducted by noted Sociologist, Prof Bashir Ahmad Dabla. 

“The number of widows grew up from 16000 in 2000 to 32400 in 2008,” 

says the study. 

It says sudden death of male members has shattered thousands of 

families leaving behind impoverished and emotionally traumatized 

widows and orphans. 

However, the study reveals that condition of widows and orphans 

of security forces was better as compared to those of militants or civilians. 

“The widows and orphans belonging to military, security and police 

forces have been taken care of properly by providing pension and other 

monetary benefits to widows and scholarships/fellowships and 

reservation for orphans by their respective organisations. But at the same 

time, dominant majority of widows and orphans belonging to exmilitants 

and common people suffer extremely.” 

“Neither state nor NGOs have been able to help them in an 

organised and systematic manners. The tragic aspect of the situation is 

that the state has not adopted any specific social policy and programme in 

this regard. Their problems accumulate and intensify day-by-day,” it 

reveals. 

On how can be condition of widows and orphans improved, the 

study suggests: “For the welfare of widows and orphans, a 3-tier effort 

system is necessary. Individuals, society/community and the state must 

share responsibilities in terms of coordination, organisation and effective 

implementation of relevant programmes.” 

“The problems of widows and orphans can’t be solved effectively 

and in totality without taking help of broader society. The efforts of 

NGOs are highly needed, as their efforts are very small here. Immediate 

need is to take the help of NGOs in purposeful and effective 

implementation of governmental programmes and schemes,” it suggested. 

Zulfikar Majid, Kashmir Watch.com online, March 13, 2010. 

http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showhumanrights.php?subaction=showfull&id 

=1268477033&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&var1news=value1news


DEMORALISED INDIAN FORCES IN KASHMIR 

Despite the continued employment of various methods of state terrorism 

on the freedom fighters and the innocent protesters in the occupied 

Kashmir, Indian armed forces have been demoralised in crushing the war 

of liberation. 

In the Indian-held Kashmir, since 1947, Indian military troops have 

been using barbaric tactics of extra-judicial killings, burning the houses, 

torture etc. to suppress the genuine freedom movement of the Kashmiris. 

Last year, discovery of nearly 1000 graves of the unmarked Muslims in 

the Indian-held Kashmir showed another evidence of Indian military 

terrorism. Recently, more such graves have been discovered. Reports 

suggest that these Muslims were tortured to deaths [death] by the Indian 

army during custody. 

In fact, under the cover of various anti-terrorism laws of the 

country, Indian armed forces have committed multiple brutal crimes such 

as encounter killings, illegal custody, torture, forced confession, rape of 

women, corruption, robbing the houses, kidnappings etc. 

The fact of the matter is that when Kashmiri people lost faith in the 

international community, which persisted in ignoring their liberation and 

when it became obvious that the Indian occupying forces would not 

vacate the controlled areas through political means, the peoples [people] 

had no choice but to resort to armed struggle which was actually 

intensified in 1989. 

In fact, present different war between the Indian occupying forces 

and the Kashmiri freedom fighters is simply a ‘clash of wills’ between two 

entities. Military thinkers agree that although the physical force will 

determine the type and scale of war, yet it is the ‘will to fight’ or ‘moral 

force’ that determines the outcome of war. Clausewitz puts it this way, 

“One might say that the physical force seems little more than the wooden 

hilt, while moral factors are the precious metal, the real weapon”. 

In his book, “Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army 

Performance, 1939-1945”, Creveld identifies the elements of moral force, 

whom he calls “fighting power, the willingness to fight and the readiness, 

if necessary, to die.” The greater these elements, the less vulnerable an 

armed force will be to demoralisation. Moral force, then, is the crucial 

factor in determining the combat power of any belligerent. 

The ongoing different war between the Indian state terrorists and 

the Kashmiri people has proved without any doubt that such elements 

69


like ‘will to fight’ and ‘moral force’ have been more noted in the latter 

who have exerted psychological impact of causing fear, shock, mental 

depression and stress, resulting in demoralisation of the Indian military 

and paramilitary troops. 

In this regard, numerous cases of suicides among Indian troops— 

opening fire on their colleagues and several other tense reactions have 

been reported in respect of Indian forces in the controlled territories of 


In the recent past, Lt. Col. Pankaj Jha shot himself with a service 

revolver, while Maj Sobha Rani, Capt Sunit Kohli, Lt Sushmita 

Chatterjee and a number of other officers of the Indian army also did the 

same in one or the other way. 

Indian defence analysts and psychologists have indicated various 

causes of suicides and fratricides, found in the Indian military, stationed 

in the Jummu and Kashmir. They have attributed these trends to 

“continuous work under extreme hostile conditions, perpetual threat to 

life, absence of ideal living conditions, lack of recreational avenues, and of 

course; the home sickness due to long separation from families.” While 

other experts have pointed out that the growing stress in the Indian 

armed forces is owing to “low morale, bad service conditions, lack of 

adequate home leave, unattractive pay and a communication gap with 

superiors.” 

Retired Maj Gen Afsar Karim, who has fought three wars, remarks, 

“The stress may be high among soldiers because of lack of leave.” He 

further explains, “The army is involved in a tough long running internal 

security environment. There is lack of rest…soldiers get angry when they 

are denied leave and their officers themselves take time off. It triggers a 

reaction, while they are well armed and they take their own lives” or 

those of their colleagues. 

Another Indian military analyst reveals, “then there is the question 

of what many say is low pay…starting salaries in many jobs in middleclass 

of India are double that of a new soldier, and for many of them, the 

army no longer holds out the promise of a good life.” 

According to the Indian Col SK Sakhuja, “soldiers kill each other 

when one of them perceives that they are being harassed by superiors or 

when they have heated arguments among themselves.” 

An Indian parliamentary panel had indicated that the military 

establishment was not taking reports of suicides and fratricides seriously. 

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, in its 31st report on


“Stress management in the armed forces”, stated that 635 suicides of 

soldiers were reported between 2003 and 2007. In addition, 67 fratricidal 

killings had occurred. The committee further said that the “alarming 

trend of suicides and fratricidal killings in the armed forces is attributable 

to increased stress environment leading to psychological imbalance in the 

soldiers”. 

However, with the rise in the cases of suicide and fratricide in the 

Indian armed forces parliament was informed in 2009. In this connection, 

Defence Minister A.K. Antony revealed in a written reply in the Lok 

Sabha that of these, there were 48 cases of suicide and one of fratricide in 

the three services—41 suicides were reported from the Indian Army, six 

from the Indian Air Force, and one from the Indian Navy. He further 

disclosed that overall, there had been a staggering 495 cases of suicide and 

25 cases of fratricide in the armed forces over the past four year. Of these, 

154 suicides and 13 fratricides occurred in 2006, 142 suicides and seven 

fratricides occurred in 2007 and 151 suicides and four fratricides occurred 

in 2008. Of the total cases, 412 suicides and 24 fratricides were reported 

from the army, 76 suicides and one fratricide were reported from the air 

forces and seven suicides were reported from the navy. 

Nevertheless, India has also hired the services of counselors, and 

stationed psychiatrists close to its troops especially in the occupied 

Kashmir in order to combat stress that has driven many soldiers to kill 

themselves or fellow soldiers. Director General Medical Sciences Lt. Gen. 

N.K. Parmar indicated, “Sixty psychiatrists have been trained and are 

working in close coordination with the troops…if there are any signs of 

stress, this will immediately be brought to the commanding officer’s 

notice.” 

Nonetheless, various security agencies of India, working in the 

Indian-held Kashmir have now not only engaged counselors and 

psychologists to combat stress among troops but have also found cure in 

meditation, music, exercises and yoga—all used as techniques against stress 

and mental disorder. No doubt, in any conflict zone, the cases of mental 

depression and stress are common phenomena, but in case of the 

controlled Kashmir, the trend has increased. It is because of this fact that 

that Indian armed forces have been so demoralised by fighting with the 

freedom fighters that either they commit suicide or kill their own 

colleagues and seniors. They completely lack ‘will to fight’ or ‘moral 

71


force.’ 

Sajjad Shaukat, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), March 15, 2010. 


MUFTI FOR OPENING OLD TRADE ROUTES WITH PAK 

Former Chief Minister and PDP leader Mufti Mohammad Sayeed today 

suggested that all traditional routes with Pakistan should be opened for 

cross-LoC trade, as it would accelerate economic activity in the state in 

general and the Jammu region in particular. 

Addressing a function of party workers at Paloura, about 14 km 

from here, Mufti talked about ongoing cross-LoC trade on the Uri- 

Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalakote roads. 

Opening up of these routes for trade is a good beginning, but more 

is needed to be done, he said and suggested that all traditional routes that 

were closed after partition should be opened for facilitating trade across 

the border. 

Mufti specially mentioned that the Suchetgarh-Sailkote road, which 

was a traditional trade route between Sailkote and Jammu, should be 

opened to benefit traders of Jammu. Like Wagah crossing, the 

Suchetgarh-Sailkote road be made functional, he demanded and stressed 

on the need of opening such routes for boosting trade and other 

economic activities. 

A PDP patron, while analysing performance of the National 

Conference-led coalition regime, flayed the government for adopting 

arbitrary policies in releasing developmental funds. He claimed it was 

only during the PDP-Congress regime that equal treatment was given to 

all the regions and sub-regions of the state. 

He further said the PDP-Congress regime from 2002 to 2008 has set 

up as an example of good governance in the state, as it was for the first 

time after 1947 that equal treatment was given to all areas of the state. 

Before formation of the PDP led regime in 2002, there was complaint of 

discrimination with one or the other regions, he recalled, but hastened to 

add that his government had laid a foundation of mutual trust and 

confidence among inhabitants of different regions and sub-regions of the 

state. 

The Tribune online, March 15, 2010. 

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100315/j&k.htm#1

WWhither 

Kashm mir? 

Pakistan 

has been b wise inn 

not dismisssing 

the sugggestion 

by AAll 

Parties 

HHurriyet 

Con nference Chaiirman 

Mirwaaiz 

Umar Farrooq 

that Sauudi 

Arabia 

coould 

play a ro ole in resolviing 

the Kashmmir 

dispute. TThe 

recent viisit 

by the 

Inndian 

prime minister to the desert kkingdom 

andd 

his warm reception 

thhere 

indicate that the rellations 

betweeen 

Riyadh aand 

New Deelhi 

could 

sttrike 

a strong ger note. Thoough 

this is a developmennt 

Pakistan wwould 

not 

necessarily 

we elcome, this could also mmean 

more pootential 

for tthe 

Saudis 

too 

mediate on n Kashmir. TThe 

Mirwaizz 

is right inn 

saying thatt 

dialogue 

beetween 

India a and Pakistaan 

will remaain 

meaningleess 

unless the 

issue of 

KKashmir 

is pu ut at its foreefront. 

Whilee 

there is inddeed 

an arguument 

for 

otther 

matters s to be talkeed 

over aheaad 

of this too 

build the trust and 

coonfidence 

th hat vanishedd 

after the MMumbai 

attacks, 

we knnow 

that 

evventually 

the e matter of Kashmir has 

to be conffronted 

headd-on. 

The 

exxperience 

of the long, hoostile 

decadess 

since 1947 also suggestss 

that this 

unnfinished 

bus siness from PPartition 

is noot 

somethingg 

the two couuntries 

are 

likely 

to thrash 

out with mmuch 

success. 

Third-pa arty mediatioon 

– so far coonsistently 

reejected 

by Inndia 

– will 

innevitably 

be required. r Sauudi 

Arabia coould 

play a vaaluable 

role. The links 

beetween 

it and d Washingtonn 

also mean iit 

could ensurre 

US cooperration 

and 

thhus 

maximise e influence onn 

India to moove 

towards a solution. TThousands 

inn 

Kashmir are 

missing, ccountless 

othhers 

have beeen 

killed annd 

almost 

evvery 

village has suffered as a result of action byy 

Indian troops. 

Any 

pllayer 

who ca an play a part to end this ddispute 

must do so. 

133 A 

KAASHMIR 

QUUESTION 

Editorial, The News (Islamabad), 

Marchh 

16, 2010. 

http:/ //www.thenewws.com.pk/daiily_detail.asp?iid=229256 

ABUSE CAS SES IN 6 YE EARS IN J&&K: 

ANTONNY 

MMore 

than 13 30 complaintss 

of human rights abuse were filed aggainst 

the 

arrmy 

during the t last six yyears 

in Jammmu 

and Kashmir, 

but thhe 

Armed 

Forces 

Special l Powers Act (AFSPA) shiielded 

the solldiers. 

Defence Minister A K Antony toold 

Rajya Sabbha 

last weekk 

that 133 

coomplaints 

we ere made agaiinst 

army bettween 

2004 annd 

’09. 

The stat te governmennt 

made 38 requests to pprosecute 

solldiers 

but 

peermission 

was w not granted byy 

the Centre. 

The AFSPA 

prrohibits 

pros secutions from 

being inittiated 

withouut 

the go-ahhead 

from 

thhe 

Centre, if the allegationns 

are linked to the publicc 

duty of the accused. 

73


Activists have alleged that the Act has become a tool of state abuse. 

But the military defends it saying soldiers need special protection to 

discharge duties in J&K and Northeast. 

Colin Gonsalves, a Supreme Court lawyer, said, “Security forces 

have not been accountable to the people of Kashmir. This has led to 

alienation of the population. It is shocking that sanction to prosecute was 

not granted even in a single case.” 

The home ministry has finalised amendments to the Act to restrict 

powers of security forces to shoot at sight. The ministry is open to 

removing the overt reference to “causing death” as a permissible 

consequence of firing by a jawan and setting up a grievance redressal 

mechanism to deal with complaints abuse. 

Rahul Sing, Hindustan Times (New Delhi), March 16, 2010. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/133-abuse-cases-in-6-yrsin-J-amp-K-Antony/Article1-519899.aspx 

SAUDI SUPPORT TO KASHMIR SOLUTION REITERATED 

Saudi Arabia has reiterated that it would continue to support the solution 

of the Kashmir dispute under the framework of the United Nations’ 

resolutions and in accordance with the aspirations of the people of the 

area. 

The assurance came from the visiting Deputy Saudi Minister Dr 

Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al-Ammar while talking to The News at the 

Saudi House, where Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Aziz bin 

Ibrahim Saleh Al-Ghadeer hosted a dinner in the honour of the visiting 

delegation. 

The dinner was also attended by eminent scholars and politicians, 

including Senator Raja Zafarul Haq, who is the chairman of the Pakistan 

Muslim League-N, and Secretary General Motamar Alam-e-Islami, 

Senator Professor Khurshid Ahmad, Federal Ministers Maulana Atta-ur- 

Rehman and Ms Shagufta Jumani, Federal Secretary Aga Sarwar Raza 

Qizalbash, Chairman Islamic Ideology Council Dr Khalid Masood, 

Grand Imam and Khateebof the Badshahi Mosque Maulana Abdul Khabir 

Azad, Pir Naqueeb-ur-Rehman and others. 

Dr Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al-Ammar is the first high-ranking 

Saudi official who has come on the visit to Pakistan after the last month’s 

visit of Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to Saudi Arabia.


To a question, he said that Pakistan and India had old rivalry on 

Kashmir, which has caused unrest among millions of the people across 

the world. The inter-state disputes must be settled peacefully and the 

people of Kashmir must be given the right to live in peace and to find 

opportunities to make progress, he maintained. The Saudi deputy 

minister will hold a number of meetings with important people before 

returning home early next week. 

75 

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, The News (Islamabad), March 19, 2010. 

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=229896 

CONCLUSION 

The preceding study shows that the Kashmir dispute involves a large 

number of legal issues relating to questions of accession, aggression, selfdetermination 

and status of UN resolutions. The question arises whether 

or not the dispute in question can be approached from the juridical angle 

for conflict resolution. The answer to this question is to be found 

principally in the attitude of India and Pakistan towards its submission to 

the adjudicative process. Both have so far shied away from submitting the 

dispute to the World Court for judicial settlement or for arbitration by 

an arbitral body. Thus, when hostilities broke out between the two 

countries in Kashmir in 1947, the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee 

proposed to the Pakistan Government to refer the dispute to the World 

Court but the proposal did not find favour with the latter. Pakistan's 

attitude was again not encouraging when a European Union delegation 

proposed in the summer of 1997 for the submission of the dispute to the 

World Court. As far as India is concerned, as shown in the present study, 

she has never felt comfortable with the idea of the third party 

involvement including the World Court in her disputes with Pakistan. 

During the period the Security Council was actively seized of the matter 

the latter never deemed it appropriate to seek an advisory opinion from 

the World Court. Had it done so, the handling of the dispute, as observed 

by Joseph Korbel, would have been easier because "one of the parties 

would then have been in the wrong, and the Council would in turn have 

had a stronger moral and political position for the recommendation of 

appropriate measures". Unlike India, Pakistan has, however, shown 

flexibility by agreeing to selectively avail herself of the services of the 

Court. For example, on 21 February 1951, Great Britain and the United 

States proposed a resolution in the Security Council which, inter alia,


called upon the parties to accept, in case of failure of demilitarization of 

the State of Jammu and Kashmir, arbitration by arbitrators appointed by 

the President of the World Court in consultation with the parties. 

Pakistan accepted the proposal while India rejected it. Subsequently 

during the Security Council debate on Kashmir in 1962, Pakistan's 

Foreign Minister, Sir Zafrulla Khan showed readiness to refer the dispute 

to any forum including the International Court of Justice in order to 

determine the obligations of parties and other matters blocking the 

progress. India refused to respond positively to the invitation on the 

pretext that it was a political matter. 

How do we explain the Indian and Pakistani reluctance to submit 

the Kashmir dispute to the World Court or to an arbitration tribunal? 

The Indian Prime Minister Pundit Nehru explained the Indian position 

by stating that the matter was of political nature and hence was not 

justiciable. Pakistan has not clearly spelled out its doctrinal position in 

the matter but presumably it is no different from that of India. But what 

does the statement of the Indian Prime Minister signify and how far is it 

tenable? 

Generally disputes are classified into two categories, namely, legal 

and political or justiciable and non-justiciable. Political or non-justiciable 

disputes are those which are not susceptible of settlement by the 

application of generally recognized rules of international law for reason 

of material insufficiency and inadequate development of the law of 

nations. The real test of the distinction between legal and political 

disputes is not the limitation of judicial function based on the 

applicability of legal rules but rather the relative importance of the 

subject matter of controversy. Those disputes are thus political and 

therefore non-justiciable which affect the important or vital interests of 

Stats [States]. In 1922 many members of the Institut de Droit 

International described as political all disputes affecting the independence, 

honour and the vital interests of nations. 

On the basis of the foregoing, Governments have often insisted that 

obligatory judicial settlement of disputes must be restricted to minor 

issues. The idea of unimportant matters falling in the category of legal 

disputes was the dominant theme of the two Hague Peace Conferences. 

However, it is by virtue of their conduct rather than general legal 

formulas that States have adopted the view that obligatory judicial 

settlement must be limited to matters of minor importance.


If, on the one hand, it is obvious that all disputes between States 

are political in the sense that they involve more or less important 

interests of States, on the other, it is equally clear that all international 

disputes are irrespective of their gravity, legal in the sense that, so long as 

the rule of law is recognized, they are susceptible of being solved by the 

application of legal rules. In other words, short of accepting that 

international law is concerned with regulating matters of secondary 

importance only, it is hard to see how the political importance of the 

matter can be an obstacle to its being amenable to a legal decision. It 

signifies that the refusal of a State to submit the dispute to judicial 

settlement rather than the intrinsic nature of the controversy makes it 

political. However, a change has been occurring for quite some time now 

whereby no limit is being placed on the possibilities of judicial settlement; 

that all international political conflicts can be reduced to contests of legal 

nature; and that the criterion to determine the justiciability of a dispute is 

the consent of the parties in dispute to submit the conflict to the 

arbitrament of law. This is evidenced clearly from the survey of the 

following developments. 

As seen above, the distinction between "legal" and "political" 

disputes played an important role in the two Hague Peace Conferences. 

Thus, for example, the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of 

International Disputes (Convention I) in its article 16 referred to 

international arbitration in these terms: 

In questions or [of] a legal nature, and especially in the 

interpretation or application or [of] International Conventions, 

arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as the most 

effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means or [of] 

setting [settling] disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle. 

Article 38 of the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of 

Disputes reinforced this distinction between legal and political disputes. 

As opposed to the Hague Conventions, the 1928 General Act for 

the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, through its article 1, 

removes this distinction in these words: 

Disputes or very [of every] kind between two or more Parties 

to the present General Act which it has not been possible to 

settle by diplomacy shall, subject to such reservations as may 

be made under Article 39, be submitted, under the conditions 

laid down in the present Chapter, to the procedure of 

conciliation. 

77


Article 21 of the General Act relating to arbitration similarly refers 

to "any dispute", though article 17 dealing with judicial settlement 

narrows down its scope to disputes mentioned in article 36 of the 

Permanent Court of International Justice. Similarly, the Rio anti-War 

Treaty through article 1 provides that "[t]he settlement of disputes and 

controversies shall be effected only through the pacific means established 

by international law". A number of other treaties could be cited in which 

the traditional distinction between "legal" and "political" disputes has 

been set aside. However, a jarring note is made by the Charter of the 

United Nations which, through article 36, maintains the traditional 

distinction and the Statute of the World Court which restricts its 

jurisdiction to "legal disputes". But this is understandable because if these 

two instruments did not adopt traditionalist attitude in the matter, States 

in the international community would turn their back on the Court. 

Despite the distinction between legal and political disputes 

maintained in the UN Charter and the Statute of the World Court, there 

is considerable jurisprudential evidence to suggest that, the Court has not 

in practice upheld this distinction. The first case in which the Court 

enunciated its position in the matter Kashmir Dispute was the advisory 

opinion concerning Certain Expenses of the United Nations. Paying lip 

service to the above - mentioned distinction, the Court accepted that it 

could “... give an advisory opinion only on a legal question. If a question 

is not a legal one, the Court has no discretion in the matter; it must 

decline to give the opinion requested". Despite this pronouncement, the 

Court rejected the argument that it should refuse to give an opinion as 

the question asked by the General Assembly was intertwined with 

political considerations on the ground that “... most interpretations of the 

Charter of the United Nations will have political significance, great or 

small. In the nature of things it could not be otherwise. The Court, 

however, cannot attribute a political character to a request which invites 

it to undertake an essentially judicial task, namely, the interpretation of a 

treaty provision". 

Next, in the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran 

case, the Court again ignored this distinction when it upheld its own 

jurisdiction, although there was parallel action by the Security Council in 

the matter under consideration. Again in the case concerning Military 

and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United 

States of America), the Court, while dealing with the US objection to its 

jurisdiction based on the above distinction, took the same line as in the


foregoing case when it said: "Until the Security Council makes a 

determination under Article 39, a dispute remains to be dealt with by the 

methods of peaceful settlement provided under Article 33, including 

judicial settlement; and even after a determination under Article 39, there 

is no necessary inconsistency between Security Council action and 

adjudication by the Court". Last but not the least, in the recent case 

concerning Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed 

Conflict, it rejected the contention that the question posed was essentially 

political one in these words: 

The fact that this question also has political aspects, as in the 

nature of things, is the case with so many questions which 

arise in international life, does not suffice to deprive it of its 

character as a "legal question" and to "deprive the Court of a 

competence expressly conferred on it by its 

Statute"(Application for Review of Judgment NO. 158 of the 

United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, 

I.C.J. Reports 1973. p.l72, para. 14). Whatever its political 

aspects, the Court cannot refuse to admit the legal character 

of a question which invites it to discharge an essentially 

judicial task, namely, an assessment of the legality of the 

possible conduct of States with regard to the obligations 

imposed upon them by international law.... The Court also 

finds that the political nature of the motives which may be 

said to have inspired the request and the political implications 

that the opinion given might have are of no relevance in the 

establishment of its jurisdiction to give such an opinion. 

Now taking up the Indian and Pakistani refusal to submit the 

Kashmir dispute to the international adjudicative process on the ground 

of its non-justiciability or intrinsic political character, we find the 

argument untenable. This is so for the reason, as seen above, that no 

dispute is intrinsically political or otherwise. It is the attitude of the State 

concerned towards the adjudicative process which makes it so. A 

favourable change in its attitude towards the arbitrament of law in 

dispute settlement can render it legal. 

Besides, as seen above, the traditional distinction between legal and 

political disputes has been blurred in practice as demonstrated by the 

conventional law and the jurisprudence of the World Court. In the light 

of contemporary developments in the matter, we would expect India and 

Pakistan to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice. To 

take care of the apprehensions and mistrust of the two countries towards 

79


the adjudicative process, we would suggest that they make a request to 

the World Court not for an actual settlement of the dispute but for 

indicating the guidelines on the basis of which they would then engage in 

bilateral negotiations to solve the dispute in the spirit of the Simla 

Accord. There is a precedent in the North Sea Continental Shelf case 

where the parties in dispute asked the Court to decide the applicable 

principles and rules of international law rather than actually delimit the 

boundaries of the continental shelf in dispute. On the basis of these 

guidelines they then proceeded to resolve their dispute. 

One may ask here as to how to overcome the hurdles created by 

the Indian Declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the 

World Court. There are at least four such hurdles which prohibit the 

submission of disputes to the Hague Court which are as follows: 

a) disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have 

agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method 

or methods of settlement (obliquely referring to the so-called 

bilateralism of the Simla Agreement); 

b) disputes with a State which is or has been a member of the 

British Commonwealth; 

c) disputes relating to or connected with, among other things, 

fulfilment of obligations imposed by international bodies: and 

d) disputes concerning or relating to, among other things, the 

status of its territory or the modification or delimitation of its 

frontiers or any other matter concerning boundaries (oblique 

reference to the State of Jammu and Kashmir). It is true that 

India has built a series of hurdles to protect herself against any 

country trying to drag her before the World Court. 

However, despite these hurdles, India can, if she so desires, set 

aside these hurdles by making a declaration accepting the 

Court's jurisdiction for the special purpose of seeking 

guidelines for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. 

As far as Pakistan's Declaration is concerned, it seems to pose much 

less problems. It takes out only two categories of disputes from the ambit 

of the Court which are as follows: 

a) disputes the solution of which the parties shall entrust to 

other tribunals by virtue of agreements; 

b) disputes relating to questions which by international law fall 

exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of Pakistan. It is


Early History 

noteworthy that the question whether or not any question 

falls within the domestic jurisdiction of Pakistan is to be 

decided by the Court and not by Pakistan. This comes out 

clearly from the fact that the earlier two Declarations of 

Pakistan (of 9 July 1948 and of 23 May 1957) reserved this 

right to Pakistan. In short, Pakistan would not have to make 

special efforts to overcome the hurdles posed by its 

Declaration for submission of the Kashmir dispute to the 

World Court. 

81 

Ijaz Hussain, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective 

(Islamabad: Quaid-i-Azam University, 1998), 234-240. 

TIMELINE OF THE KASHMIR CONFLICT 

• 1846: Kashmir is ceded: Sikh Empire ceded Kashmir to the East 

India Company via Treaty of Lahore. The British gave it to 

Maharaja Gulab Singh Dogra of Jammu, after the Treaty of 

Amritsar was signed. 

• 1857: The War of independence: The Subcontinent fractured into 

hundreds of states. 

• 1931: Kashmir’s first organized protest: The people of Kashmir 

hold their first organized protest against Maharajah Hari Singh’s 

cruelty. The 1931 protest led to the “Quit Kashmir” campaign 

against the Maharajah in 1946, and eventually to the Azad Kashmir 

movement which gained momentum a year later. 

• March 23, 1940: Pakistan Resolution passed: The Pakistan 

Resolution is passed at Iqbal Park, Lahore. The resolution demands 

the establishment of an independent state comprising all regions in 

which Muslims are the majority. The letter “K” in the word 

“Pakistan” represents Kashmir. 

• July 26, 1946: Azad Kashmir comes into being: The Muslim 

Conference adopts the Azad Kashmir Resolution on July 26, 1946 

calling for the end of autocratic rule in the region. The resolution 

also claims for Kashmiris the right to elect their own constituent 

assembly.


• June 3, 1947: British accept Pakistan plan: The British government 

announces its intention to accept the demand by Muslims for an 

independent Pakistani state. The new nation would comprise areas 

where Muslims are in the majority. All political parties, including 

the Muslim League (representing Muslims) and the Congress Party 

(representing all including nationalist Muslims), accept the plan. 

Independence: 1947 

• August 14/15, 1947: Independence of the British India into India 

and Pakistan. 

• August 1947: Kashmiri resistance encounters Maharajah’s troops: 

The first armed encounter between the Maharajah’s troops and 

insurgent forces occurred in August 1947. At this time, Britain was 

liquidating its empire in the subcontinent. 

• October 25, 1947: Maharajah flees to Jammu: Faced with a popular 

revolt against his rule, the Maharajah flees to Jammu on October 

25, 1947. Once in Jammu, the Maharajah receives a commitment of 

military assistance from the Indian government in exchange for his 

signing the "Instrument of Accession" document. 

• Lord Mountbatten conditionally accepts the document on behalf of 

the British Crown and proceeds to outline the conditions for 

official acceptance in a letter dated October 27, 1947. 

"In consistence with their policy that in the case of any (native) 

state where the issue of accession has been subject of dispute, the 

question of accession should be decided in accordance with the 

wishes of the people of the state, it is my government's wish that as 

soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil 

cleared of the invaders the question of state's accession should be 

settled by a reference to the people." 

• October 1947: Pashtuns from Pakistan's Afghania storm Kashmir, 

Maharaja of Kashmir asks India for help. This was considered by 

India as a deliberate ploy by Pakistan to increase their support in 


• November 1, 1947: Kashmir's accession to India is not "bona fide": 

Jinnah: Governor General of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah 

meets Governor General of India, Mountbatten. Jinnah tells 

Mountbatten that Kashmir's accession to India "was not a bona fide 

one since it rested on fraud and violence."


• November 2, 1947: Kashmiris have a right to determine future: 

Nehru: Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, in a speech aired 

on All-India Radio, reaffirmed the Indian Government's 

commitment to the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their 

own future through a plebiscite: 

"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be 

decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the 

Maharajah has supported it, not only to the people of Jammu 

and Kashmir, but also to the world. We will not and cannot back 

out of it. We are prepared when peace and law have been 

established to have a referendum held under international 

auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just 

reference to the people and we shall accept their verdict." 

The Government of India accepted the "Instrument of accession" 

conditionally, promising the people of the state and the world at 

large that "accession" would be final only after the wishes of the 

people of the state were ascertained upon return of normalcy in the 

state. 

• January 1948: India brings Kashmir issue to UN Security Council: 

India brought the issue to the United Nations Security Council in 

January 1948. The rebel forces had been joined by volunteers from 

Pakistan and India charged Pakistan with having sent "armed 

raiders" into the state. It demanded that Pakistan be declared an 

aggressor in Kashmir. Furthermore, India demanded that Pakistan 

stop aiding Militants, and allowing the transit of tribesmen into the 

state. After acceptance of these demands, coupled with the 

assurance that all "raiders" were withdrawn, India would allow a 

plebiscite to be held under impartial auspices to decide Kashmir's 

future status. In reply, Pakistan charged India with maneuvering 

the Maharajah's accession through "fraud and violence" and 

colluding with a "discredited" ruler in the repression of his people. 

Pakistan's counter complaint was also coupled with the proposal of 

a plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United 

Nations to settle the dispute. 

• April 21, 1948: UN resolution envisages cease-fire, withdrawals: 

The Security Council discussed the question from January until 

April 1948. It came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to 

determine responsibility for the fighting and futile to blame either 

side. Since both parties desired that the question of accession should 

83


be decided through an impartial plebiscite, the council developed 

proposals based on the common ground between them. These were 

embodied in the resolution of April 21, 1948, envisaging a ceasefire, 

the withdrawal of all outside forces from the state, and a 

plebiscite under the control of an administrator who would be 

nominated by the Secretary General. For negotiating the details of 

the plan, the council constituted a five-member commission known 

as "United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan," (UNCIP) 

to implement the resolution. After the cease-fire, positions on both 

sides of the cease-fire line were manned by regular military 

personnel of the respective countries. As withdrawal of outside 

forces has not taken place since, the resolution of 1948 is yet to be 

realized. 

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1948. 

• January 24, 1957: UN Security Council reaffirms 1948 resolution: 

The Security Council, reaffirming its previous resolution, further 

declared that any action taken by the Constituent Assembly formed 

in Kashmir "would not constitute disposition of the state in 

accordance with the above principles." 

Indo-Pakistani War: 1965 

• March 1965: India claims Kashmir: The Indian Parliament passes a 

bill declaring Kashmir a province of India. 

• August 1965: Pakistan sends infiltrators: India accuses Pakistan of 

sending infiltrators to Kashmir. Indian forces cross the cease-fire 

line in Kashmir. 

• September 6, 1965: India retaliates against Pakistan: India attacks 

Pakistan across the international border and tries to capture 

Pakistan's second largest city, Lahore. 

• September 23, 1965: Calls for an end to hostilities: The United 

Nations Security Council arranges a cease-fire Line. 

• January 10, 1966: Tashkent agreement signed: The Soviet Union 

arranges talks between Pakistan and India. The Tashkent 

Agreement is signed through the mediating efforts of the Soviet 

Prime Minister Alexi Kosygin. The agreement reaffirms that the 

dispute should be settled by peaceful means. The armies are to 

withdraw to their original positions.


Indo-Pakistani War: 1971 

• November 1971: [Indian] attack against East Pakistan: Indian Army 

liberates East Pakistan. 

• December 6, 1971: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971; Liberation of East 

Bangla. 

• December 16, 1971-Bangladesh is established: Pakistan surrenders 

East Pakistan to India. India declares East Pakistan as "Bangladesh. 

• July 2, 1972: Republic of India and Pakistan agree to respect the 

cease-fire as Line of Control, Simla Agreement signed: The Simla 

Agreement between Pakistan and India is signed. Both agree to 

make efforts toward establishing durable peace by seeking a 

solution to existing problems, including "a final settlement of 

Jammu and Kashmir." The following principles were agreed in the 

Simla Agreement. 

(i) A mutual commitment to the peaceful resolution of all issues 

through direct bilateral approaches. 

(ii) To build the foundations of a cooperative relationship with 

special focus on people to people contacts. 

(iii) To uphold the inviolability of the Line of Control in Jammu 

and Kashmir, which is a most important CBM between India 

and Pakistan, and a key to durable peace. 

• 1978: Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978: Human rights 

organizations have also asked Indian government to repeal the 

Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative 

detention for a maximum of two years without a court order." 

• April 13, 1984: The Indian Army takes Siachen Glacier region of 

Kashmir Disputed 1987 State elections. 

• 1987: Since after 1987 disputed rigged Sate elections in Indian 

Administered Kashmir that an Indian Congress party leader called 

Khem Lata Wukhloo stated from BBC news page. “I remember 

there was massive rigging in the 1987 elections. It shook ordinary 

people's faith in the... democratic process”. Furthermore it had 

resulted in some of the 'states legislative assembly' 'formed militant 

wings' later on after the election forming and creating the catalsyt 

for the insurgency in 1989 and the Peacful[peaceful] Protest 

movement in 1989. 

85


Rise of Peaceful Protest Movement 

• 1989: The peaceful protest movement that started in 1989 has been 

a 'purely indigenous, purely Kashmiri' (by Washington post from 

Mirwaiz Farooq a Kashmiri party leader), 'Ghandi style' (stated by 

Wall Street Journal) peaceful protest movement in Indian 

Administered Kashmir since 1989 continues today. The movement 

was created for the same reason as the insurgency; the disputed 

rigged elections in 1987 Kashmir dispute and grievances with the 

Indian government specifically the Indian Military that has 

commited [committed] human rights violations. This reinforced by 

the United Nations that has said India has commited [committed] 

Human rights violations, (the movement continues today). 

Rise of Militancy 1989 

• 1988: Operation Tupac launched by Pakistan's Inter-Services 

Intelligence to support militants in Kashmir with aim of 

disintegrating India. However Pakistan says (stated by BBC) and 

contends that they only give 'moral' and 'diplomatic' support to 

the 'movement' of what BBC called 'armed resistance' in Kashmir. 

Timeline of the conflict. 

• 1989: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir: In 1989, a widespread 

armed insurgency started in Kashmir, Since after 1987 disputed 

rigged Sate elections resulted in some of the 'states legislative 

assembly' 'formed militant wings' later on after the election 

forming and creating the catalyst for the insurgency which 

continues to this day furthermore 'in part' fueled by Afghan 

Mujahadeen in 1989. Pakistan has been accused of supporting the 

insurgency. Timeline of the conflict. 

• December 8, 1989: Kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed. 

• February 5, 1990: Solidarity day is observed throughout Pakistan 

and Azad Kashmir for the alleged massacres by Indian armed forces 

as Indian state Terrorism. 

• January 19, 1990: Kashmir brought under Indian control: The 

Indian government brings Kashmir under its direct control. The 

state legislature is suspended, the government is removed and the 

former Director General of the Indian Secret Service, Research and 

Analysis Wing (RAW), Mr. Jagmohan is appointed governor.


• January 20, 1990: Gawakadal massacre: There are large-scale 

demonstrations and thirty people are killed by Indian security 

forces. A curfew is imposed in most cities. 

• February 25, 1990: Support from civil servants: 

Government Employees Join Demonstrations 

• February 27, 1990: United Nations not allowed in Kashmir: India 

refuses to allow any United Nations official to visit Kashmir. 

• February 28, 1990: Zakoora And Tengpora Massacre: In order to 

halt the people, who were to submit a memorandum to United 

Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan 

(UNMOGIP), Indian army opened fire at Tengpora bypass and 

Zakoora crossing in Srinagar, killing 26 and 21 demonstrators, 

respectively. 

• March 2, 1990: Kashmiris shot during Srinagar march: Forty people 

are killed when police open fire at a march of more than one 

million Kashmiris through the streets of Srinagar. Police are 

ordered to shoot at sight. 

• April 14, 1990: Military reinforcements in Kashmir: 

Indian Authorities Send Military Reinforcements to Kashmir 

• July 1990: Jammu and Kashmir Disputed Areas Act passed: Under 

this act, India's security forces personnel have extraordinary powers 

over anyone who is suspected of disturbing the peace or harboring 

militants or arms. 

• July 5, 1990 - THE ARMED FORCES (JAMMU AND 

KASHMIR) SPECIAL POWERS ACT, 1990. The "Armed Forces 

Special Powers Act", enables certain special wide powers to be 

conferred upon members of the armed forces in the disturbed areas 

in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Any officer in the armed forces 

may, in a disturbed area, after giving such due warning as he may 

consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the 

causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention 

of any law or order; prohibit the assembly of five or more persons; 

prohibit carrying of weapons; arrest, without warrant, any persons 

who has committed a cognizable offence. The Human rights 

organizations such as Amnesty International and the Human 

Rights Watch (HRW) have condemned human rights abuses in 

87


Kashmir by Indians such as "extra-judicial executions", 

"disappearances", and torture; and have asked India to repeal the 

"Armed Forces Special Powers Act." 

• February 23, 1991: Kunan Poshpora incident. 

• June 11, 1991: Syed Mansoor-Chota Bazaar massacre: The CRPF 

troops opened indiscriminate fire, having been frightened by the 

sound of a tire burst, leaving 32 civilians killed in the densely 

populated area of Chotabazar, Srinagar. The killed included, 

shopkeepers, passers-by, old persons, women and children. 

• November 1992: Amnesty International not allowed into Kashmir: 

Amnesty International is Barred from Going to the Kashmir 

Valley. 

• January 6, 1993: Sopore massacre. 

• April 10, 1993: Burning of Lal Chowk. 

• January 1 - 3, 1994: Another failure over Kashmir: Pakistan and 

India's foreign secretaries fail to narrow differences on Kashmir. 

Pakistan rules out more talks unless India ends alleged human rights 

violations in Kashmir. 

• January 20, 1995: India doesn't want third-party involvement in 

Kashmir: India excludes the possibility of third-party involvement 

in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. But it says it is prepared to 

hear from Pakistan directly about how much "elbow room" is 

necessary to commence talks between the two countries. 

• May 9, 1995: Fire rages through Chrar Sharif: Hundreds of homes 

are destroyed on Eid when a fire rages through Chrar Sharif. The 

Terrorists were under siege by the Indian army for two months in 

this town. 

• May 12, 1995: Anti-India protest in the wake of Chrar Sharif fire: 

Anti-India protests overwhelm the Kashmir Valley in the wake of 

the destruction of the 650-year-old mausoleum of Sheikh 

Nooruddin Wali (R.A.) and a mosque next to it. India accuses 

Pakistan of being behind the destruction of the shrine and issues a 

strong warning against interference in its internal affairs. 

• May 18, 1995: APHC rejects offer for talks on Kashmir with India: 

The APHC rejects an offer for talks on Kashmir by New Delhi. 

The organization says it will not enter into any dialogue with New 

Delhi unless India admits Kashmir is a disputed territory.


• July 4, 1995: 1995 kidnapping of western tourists in Jammu and 


• July 20, 1995: Journalists' kidnapping in Kashmir a sign of media 

clampdown: The New York-based Committee to Protect 

Journalists (CPJ) says the kidnapping of four journalists in Kashmir 

is only one current example of a complete clampdown on any 

independent journalism in the area. In its report, On the Razor's 

Edge, the CPJ also notes the Indian government harasses and 

intimidates reporters. 

• November 11, 1995: India launches anti-Pakistan propaganda 

campaign: Upset about the media and human rights reports against 

its campaign of suppression and repression in Indian administered 

Jammu and Kashmir, India launches a multi-million dollar 

propaganda campaign against Pakistan. Pakistan is accused of aiding 

and abetting terrorism in Kashmir using money from the drug 

trade. 

• December 23, 1995: APHC seeks intervention of UN, OIC and 

others: The APHC seeks the intervention of the United Nations, 

Organization of the Islamic Conference, Amnesty International 

and other worldwide human rights bodies to help stop India's 

destruction of Indian administered Kashmir. 

• February 16, 1996: APHC calls for tripartite talks: Kashmiri groups 

ask India and Pakistan to begin tripartite talks to end the six-yearold 

rebellion against New Delhi. The groups say most Muslims in 

the area support the proposal. 

• May 5, 1996: Indian Prime Minister makes his first visit to Kashmir: 

Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao makes his first visit to 

Kashmir. He says upcoming general elections in the region could 

not be foiled by what he described as Pakistani moves toward 

destabilization. 

• May 13, 1996: Government employees boycott Indian elections: 

Over 1.5 million government workers assigned to election duty by 

Indian authorities strike for 18 days to boycott the electoral process 

at the call of Jammu and Kashmir Government Employees 

Confederation. 

• June 8, 1996: APHC rejects greater autonomy: The APHC rejects 

the Indian government's offer of greater autonomy for Indian 

administered Kashmir. The organization says the problem cannot 

be resolved by remaining in India. 

89


• August 2, 1996: Gowda tries to sweeten the deal for Kashmir: HD 

Deve Gowda, Prime Minister of India, reveals a package of 

economic benefits for Kashmir just before state elections scheduled 

for the following month. Gowda announces outstanding loans of 

up to Rs.50, 000 will be waived, Kashmir will receive special 

assistance of Rs.3.52 billion for developing infrastructure in the 

state. 

• September 14, 1996: APHC leadership arrested: Prior to elections 

for the state assembly, Indian troops arrest the APHC's entire 

leadership. 

• September 16, 1996: Elections held in Kashmir: 

Peaceful Assembly Elections in Kashmir 

• March 3, 1997: Mujahedeen reject carving up Kashmir: Kashmiri 

Mujahedeen reject the carving up of Kashmir between India and 

Pakistan. "The proposal for any kind of division of the state can 

never be accepted by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and we 

will always oppose it," says Shabir Ahmed Shah, a Kashmiri leader. 

• March 28, 1997: India and Pakistan begin negotiations: Pakistan's 

Foreign Secretary, Shamshad Ahmad, and India's Foreign Secretary, 

Salman Haider, meet at the negotiating table for the first time in 

three years. The issue of Kashmir is high on the agenda. 

• March 31, 1997: Talks look hopeful: Pakistan and India end four 

days of talks aimed at reducing tension and agree to meet again in 

Islamabad. 

• April 22, 1997: Change in government elicits cautious reaction in 

Kashmir: The people in Indian administered Jammu & Kashmir 

react cautiously over the change of government in India. 

• May 12, 1997: India and Pakistan meet again: Pakistani Prime 

Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar 

Gujral agree to establish joint working groups to resolve all 

outstanding issues between the two countries since 1947. 

• May 15, 1997: Indian Government has been criticized by Amnesty 

and a party member from Jammu and Kashmir Amnesty saying 

Amnesty International has documented violations in Jammu and 

Kashmir including torture, rape, deaths in custody, extrajudicial 

executions and "disappearances" over a number of years. 

Investigation and prosecution in cases of human rights violations 

are rare, and armed forces have been given a free rein in the region


with little civilian control over their operations and furthermore 

"Access to redress for victims of human rights violations, a right 

guaranteed under international law, is being denied to victims in 

Jammu and Kashmir,". The party member from Jammu and 

Kashmir said “It’s high time that the Government of India put an 

end to impunity for the perpetrators of human rights violations,” 

the organization said. Further more. "The arrest and detention 

yesterday evening of Yasin Malik and others can only serve to 

undermine the government’s stated commitment to human rights.” 

For example in an incident on 22 April, several armed forces 

personnel forcibly entered the house of a 32-year-old woman in the 

village of Wawoosa in the Rangreth district of Jammu and Kashmir. 

They reportedly molested her 12-year-old daughter and raped her 

other three daughters, aged 14, 16 and 18. When another woman 

attempted to prevent soldiers from attacking her two daughters, she 

was beaten. Soldiers reportedly told her 17-year-old daughter to 

remove her clothes so that they could check whether she was 

hiding a gun. They molested her before leaving the house. 

• June 22, 1997: India and Pakistan reach an agreement: Pakistan and 

India agree to establish a mechanism for enduring dialogue on issues 

between the two countries. 

• June 23, 1997: Kashmir is one of eight major issues: Pakistan and 

India pinpoint eight issues to be discussed in future talks including 

the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. However, Pakistani Prime 

Minister Nawaz Sharif says the country maintains its stand on 


• June 25, 1997: India says Kashmir is not a "disputed territory": At 

the conclusion of a second round of talks in Islamabad, India rejects 

Pakistan's assertion that Jammu and Kashmir is a "disputed 

territory." Indian Foreign Minister, Salman Haider, says India will 

not discuss the status of Indian-held Kashmir with Pakistan. He 

says if anything is to be discussed it will be "Pakistan-held" Kashmir 

and northern areas illegally annexed by Pakistan. 

• July 27, 1997: Gujral does a turnaround: In a turnaround from the 

previous day's statement, Indian Prime Minister, Inder Kumar 

Gujral, says that Kashmiri Terrorists would have to surrender their 

arms before peace talks with the government could begin. 

• August 10, 1997: Increase in reports of harassment of Kashmiri 

women: Reports are coming through of Kashmiri women and girls 

91


being arrested, tortured and raped. The chairperson of the Indian 

Commission for Women, Dr. Mohini Giri, said Kashmiri women 

were being treated in the most inhumane way all over Kashmir. 

• October 12, 1997: Rioting after Jami Mosque desecration: Angry 

anti-India demonstrations are sparked by the desecration of the 

historic Jamia Mosque in Srinagar by Indian troops. They besieged 

the mosque, entered it wearing their boots and carried out an 

extensive search for three hours. 

• January 25, 1998: Wandhama massacre 23 Kashmiri Pandit villagers 

killed by militants. 

• April 2, 1998: Pakistan accused of fomenting war in Kashmir: 

India's new government accuses Pakistan of helping Kashmiri 

separatists and warns it is ready to respond to the "proxy war" in 


• April 10, 1998: Pakistan and India should "go the extra mile": 

United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, 

urges Pakistan and India to "go the extra mile" and hold a dialogue 

on Kashmir and other issues in order to stop the nuclear missile 

race in the area. 

• April 17, 1998: 1998 Prankote massacre 26 hindu villagers killed in 

village of Prankote by Islamic terrorists. 

• April 22, 1998: Appointment of new Kashmir governor: The 

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government appoints Girsh Saxena as 

Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. The appointment is resented by 

human rights activists and intellectuals who demanded a senior 

politician close to Kashmir be sent as governor. 

• May 11 and 13, 1998: India conducts five nuclear tests. 

• May 28 and 30, 1998: Pakistan responds by conducting its six 

nuclear tests (five on May 28 and one on May 30). 

• May 24, 1998: Major offensive against Mujahedeen: Kashmir's Chief 

Minister, Farooq Abdullah, says India will launch a major offensive 

against "foreign" fighters in the northern state of Kashmir and that 

the Indian government is ready to "flush" the terrorists out of the 

state. 

• May 26, 1998: Indian troops and Mujahedeen clash: In Indian 

administered Kashmir, Mujahedeen clash with Indian troops in the 

Keri, Rajauri area. 

• May 30, 1998: India responds to nuclear testing: In response to 

Pakistan's nuclear testing, India warns Islamabad about Kashmir.


Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee says while India was 

ready to talk to Pakistan it should harbor no ambitions towards 

capturing Kashmir. Pakistan says it is prepared to have a nonaggression 

pact with India on the basis of just settlement of the 

Kashmir issue. 

• June 6, 1998: Pakistan proposes Kashmir resolution and a halt to 

nuclear arms buildup: Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, 

proposes talks between Islamabad and New Delhi to stop the South 

Asian arms race and urges the international community to help 

resolve the issue of Kashmir. 

• June 19, 1998: 1998 Champanari massacre 25 Hindu villagers killed 

by militants in Doda district of Kashmir. 

• August 1, 1998: "Massive" joint operations against Mujahedeen: 

India's Home Minister, L.K. Advani, says more forces are being 

sent to Indian administered Kashmir for "massive" joint operations. 

He said this is because the Kashmiri Mujahedeen have intensified 

their efforts in the valley for the last many months. 

• August 19, 1998: Vajpayee wants new talks: India's Prime Minister, 

Atal Behari Vajpayee, offers talks with Pakistan. However, he says 

the dialogue has to be comprehensive and not just focused on 


• August 26, 1998: India bans Britannica CD-ROM: India bans 

importation of Encyclopedia Britannica on CD-ROM because it 

shows Kashmir as a disputed territory. 

• August 29, 1998: Nelson Mandela's involvement in Kashmir issue 

urged: The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) calls on 

South African President, Nelson Mandela, to persuade Pakistani 

and Indian teams attending a Non-Aligned Movement meeting to 

solve the Kashmir issue in a peaceful, democratic and permanent 

manner. 

• September 2, 1998: NAM calls for resolution of Kashmir dispute: 

For the first time in history, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) 

calls for a peaceful resolution of the dispute over Jammu and 

Kashmir. Nelson Mandela, who chaired the 12th NAM summit, 

says everyone should hope the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is 

solved through peaceful negotiations and everyone should be 

willing to help resolve the matter. 

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee says "third parties" 

should stay out of the Kashmir dispute. 

93


• September 23, 1998: Pakistan and India agree to resume Kashmir 

talks: Pakistan and India agree to resume stalled dialogue on 

Kashmir and other security issues. 

• October 18, 1998: No agreement between India and Pakistan: The 

first diplomatic talks between the two countries since nuclear 

testing was conducted by the two in May, end in Islamabad. There 

is no agreement on how to ease tensions in the area. 

1999 Kargil War 

• May 26, 1999: Kargil War 

Armed conflict occurs between India and Pakistan due to the 

infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into 

positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control. After three 

weeks of "intense skirmishes" between India and Pakistan, India 

launches air strikes against Mujahedeen supported by Pakistan 

Army in Kargil. India claims up to 680 "Afghan militants," backed 

by Pakistan, have invaded high ridges and another 400 are waiting 

to cross over to the Indian side of the Line of Control. Pakistan 

calls the air strikes "very, very serious" and puts its troops on high 

alert. India and Pakistan agree to hold talks over Kashmir in the 

first sign that the two sides might be trying to defuse escalating 

tensions. 

• June 1999: Kashmir peace hope flounders: As India promises to 

continue ground and air strikes against infiltrators, a senior Indian 

minister warns there is little point in peace talks with Pakistan. But 

after some time, talks on Kashmir are confirmed. Pakistan and 

India fix a date for their first significant attempt to defuse the 

tension over Kashmir. However, India continues its assault on 

suspected infiltrators holed up in the Himalayas with fresh air 

strikes, ahead of talks with Pakistan. India and Pakistan end their 

talks on the fierce fighting in Kashmir without agreement on how 

to halt the conflict. India presses ahead with its military offensive a 

day after US President Clinton asks Pakistan to persuade them to 

pull out. 

• July 1999: Clinton urges India-Pakistan talks: India announces it has 

taken the key Tiger Hill peak following an all-out assault. 

Mujahedeen fighters are reported to be leaving the mountains of 

Indian administered Kashmir as India emerges victorious in the


two-month conflict. As fighting in the territory dies down, 

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appeals for a permanent 

settlement of the Kashmir dispute. 

2000s 

• February 2000: US President makes statement: President Bill 

Clinton says he would be happy to mediate between India and 

Pakistan over the Kashmir conflict -- if asked. 

• March 2000: Killings in mosque: Indian troops in Kashmir kill 

three separatists in a mosque near the border town of Handwara. In 

the same month, 36 Sikhs are massacred in the village of 

Chattisinghpora by the Pakistani terrorists. 

• August 1, 2000: 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre 

• August 2000: More negotiations: The Indian government and 

Mujahedeen commanders prepare for a round of peace talks. 

• November 2000: Call for Muslim nations to cut ties with India: A 

leading separatist, Syed Salahuddin, calls on Muslim nations to cut 

diplomatic and economic ties with India. At the same time, 

Kashmiri leaders call on India to recognize the territory as disputed 

and to hold talks with Pakistan and Kashmiri leaders. 

• June 2001: fresh talks: A new round of talks is slated to begin 

between India and Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir. 

• July 14–16, 2001: General Pervez Musharraf and Atal Behari 

Vajpayee meet for peace talks, Agra Summit: Indian Prime 

Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and Pakistani President, Pervez 

Musharraf, meet in Agra, India for a summit on relations between 

the two nations. 

• October 2001: 2001 attack on Jammu and Kashmir legislative 

assembly kills 38 people. 

• December 2001: Attack on Indian parliament in New Delhi 

initiates the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoffs. 

• May 14, 2002: Kaluchak massacre. 

• July 13, 2002: 2002 Qasimnagar massacre of Kashmiri Pandits. 

• March 30, 2002: 2002 Fidayeen attacks on Raghunath temple. 

• March 23, 2003: 2003 Nadigram killings of Kashmiri Hindus. 

• May 2, 2003: India and Pakistan restore diplomatic ties. 

• July 11, 2003: Delhi-Lahore bus service resumes. 

95


• September 24, 2004: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and 

President Musharraf meet in New York during UN General 

Assembly. 

• January 8, 2005: 11 killed in sectarian violence in Gilgit in Pakistan 

administered Kashmir. 

• February 15, 2006: United States Congress passes a resolution 

condemning ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits by Islamic 

militants in Kashmir. 

• April 30, 2006: 2006 Doda massacre of Hindus. 

• July, 2006: Second round of Indo-Pakistani peace talks. 

• Feb, 2007: Samjhauta Express firebombed, 67 killed. 

• June, 2007: Two Indian soldiers have been paraded naked for 

allegedly attempting to rape a girl in Indian-administered Kashmir, 

police say. 

• Nov 2007: Human rights organizations such as Amnesty 

International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW) have 

condemned human rights abuses in Kashmir by Indians such as 

"extra-judicial executions", "disappearances", and torture; and have 

asked India to repeal the "Armed Forces Special Powers Act". 

• June 2008: Amarnath land transfer controversy. Huge anti-India 

protests were held against the transfer of land to SASB (shrine 

board), which was an outside state organization, as it was a direct 

violation of article 370 of the Indian constitution. 

• August 13, 2008: After the Hindu-Muslim clashes in the town of 

Kishtwar, Doda district, India gave shoot on sight orders in 

Kishtwar. Kishtwar witnessed violent clashes between Hindus and 

Muslims on 12 August that left at least 28 people dead, while at 

least two people were killed as a result of alleged police firing. 

Amnesty International asked India to rescind the shoot on sight 

order. 

• August 25, 2008: All anti-Indian, separatist and Islamist organisation 

leaders arrested due to their uncontrolled anti-Indian activities, to 

restore the law and order in the Indian-administered Kashmir. 

• August 27, 2008: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights is concerned about the recent violent protests in Indianadministered 

Kashmir that have reportedly led to civilian casualties 

as well as restrictions to the right to freedom of assembly and 

expression. …


• December 24, 2008: 2008 Kashmir Elections: Assembly elections 

held in Jammu and Kashmir. With a record turnout of 62 per cent - 

the highest in 20 years. 

• December 30, 2008: Omar Abdullah of National Conference 

chosen the new Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir takes oath 

on January 5, 2009, becoming the 11th and the youngest Chief 

Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. 

• February 21, 2009: Bomai Killing: Army kills two devotees in an 

indiscriminate firing incident by 22nd Battalion of Rashtriya Rilfes 

in Bomai, Sopore, which results in massive valley-wide protests. 

• March 06, 2009: Nowhatta Killing: Army vehicle killed one youth 

and crushed another at Nawhatta during a protest against detention 

of separatist leaders. The killing triggered violent protests across the 

city. Authorities clamped curfew continuously for four days. 

• March 18, 2009: Khaigam killing: Barely a few hours after the 

union home minister, P Chidambaram, assured action against 

troopers found guilty for Bomai killings, 181 bn of paramilitary 

CRPF troopers shot dead a carpenter, Ghulam Mohiudin Malik son 

of Muhammad Akbar Malik, at Khaigam Pakherpora in south 

Kashmir’s Pulwama district. 

• March 23, 2009: UN Commissioner for Human Rights Navnetham 

Pillay asked India to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 

which breaches contemporary international human rights 

standards. She also asked the government of India to address the 

cases of alleged disappearances in Kashmir. 16 militants from 

Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and 8 India army 

soldiers were killed in five day long gun battle in Shamsabari. 

• April 20, 2009: Senior separatist leader Sajjad Lone took part in the 

Indian democratic process by contesting in the Indian 2009 Lok 

Sabha elections from the Kupwara-Baramullah constituency. 

However, he lost the elections coming in third behind the winner 

Sharifuddin Shariq of the National Conference and PDP candidate 

Mohammad Dilawar Mir. 

• May 18, 2009: Extrajudicial killing of a civilian, Manzoor Ahmad 

Beigh, in the custody of Special Operations Group of Indian police 

triggered massive anti-India protests near his residence at Alochi 

Bagh. 

97


• May 26, 2009: Arif Ayub Wani of Ganderpora killed by Indian 

police during a protest in downtown against the custodial killing of 

Manzoor Ahmad Beigh. 

• May 31, 2009: Shopian rape and murder case: Protests over rape and 

murder of two young women allegedly by Indian Armed Forces. 

Pro-freedom leaders arrested and police and paramilitary forces 

resorted to firing at protesters in several places, including Shopian, 

Baramulla and Srinagar killing one person and injuring hundreds. 

Four Indian police officials were suspended Monday over the cover 

up of a rape and murder case that has sent shockwaves through the 

disputed Muslim-majority Kashmir region, officials said. The high 

court in Indian-administered Kashmir has appealed to the people of 

Shopian district to end their strike over the alleged murders of two 

women. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh assured the family of the two 

women that "we will go to the bottom of this matter and bring the 

culprits to justice". 

• June 2 2009: 17-year-old Nigeen Awan was shot and killed at her 

residence by Militants. 

• June 16 2009: 45-year-old Rashma Jan died when terrorists barged 

into her house at Sopore on June 16 and fired indiscriminately. 

• June 29 2009: An Indian soldier was killed due to firing from 

Pakistan's side. 

• June 30 2009: Two protesters were killed and 10 others injured 

some of them critically, when police opened fire on protestors 

demonstrating against the alleged misbehaviour of policeman 

Mohammad Amin with a woman in this North Kashmir town. 

• July 1 2009: Three militants belonging to Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT) 

militant outfit were killed in Kashmir during gun fighting with 

Indian army. LeT group is accused for carrying out the last year's 

Mumbai attack that killed over 170 people and injured over 300. 

• July 6 2009: Thirteen persons, including four policemen, were 

injured in a grenade attack by militants on a police party and in 

clashes with security personnel. 

• July 8 2009: Pakistani president Asif Zardari admitted Pakistan 

created terrorist groups to help achieve its foreign policy goals. Mr. 

Zardari confirmed that many of the Islamic militants now waging 

war against his government were once "strategic assets". He said 

and confirmed the military was now targeting those it had 

previously used as proxies in attacks on India.


• July 21 2009: Two police officers were killed in Indian administered 

Kashmir attack. Sub-Inspector Sethi Ram was killed on the spot and 

Constable Shafiq Ahmad of the Special Operations Group (SOG) 

died later and three others were injured when suspected militants 

fired a rifle grenade at a police camp in Imam Sahib Village, a South 

Kashmir village. … 

• August 18 2009: Indian Government stated there had been 3429 

youth missing since 1990 - till date. However local and 

international rights groups have suggested over 8,000 people have 

disappeared in the region. 

• August 20 2009: Human Rights workers discovered several 

unmarked graves containing about 1,500 unidentified bodies in 

Indian Administered Kashmir. Last year in a report titled, "Facts 

Under Ground" APDP had reported finding the unmarked graves 

of about 1,000 people near Uri, an area near the de facto frontier 

that divides Indian and Pakistani controlled Kashmir and referred 

to as Line of Control. Human rights workers have complained for 

years that innocent people have disappeared, been killed by 

government forces in staged gunbattles, and suspected rebels have 

been arrested and never heard from again in Indian administered 


• October 2 2009: The world’s largest Muslim grouping, the 

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has named a special 

envoy to solve the Kashmir conflict between Pakistan and India, 

the Hindustan Times reported Friday, October 2. “We believe the 

OIC appointing a special envoy on Kashmir is a significant 

development,” Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of Kashmir’s All 

Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), said. Abdullah bin Abdul 

Rahman, a Saudi official, was named the pan-Muslim organization’s 

envoy to the disputed Himalayan region during a meeting of the 

OIC Contact Group at the UN headquarters on Monday. Farooq 

said the move would help solve the conflict in line with aspirations 

of the Kashmiri people. "The OIC should press India to resolve the 

Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of 

the Kashmiri people," he said. 

• October 3 2009: The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 

Thursday firmly told the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) 

to keep its hands off Kashmir, adding that it had no locus standi to 

comment on the region that was essentially an internal matter of 

99


India. The meeting of the 56-nation grouping of Islamic countries in 

New York earlier this week issued a statement, saying it supported 

people of Jammu and Kashmir in realisation of their legitimate 

right of self determination in accordance with relevant UN 

resolutions and aspirations of Kashmiri people. The Indian 

Government has already given a strong rejoinder, condemning and 

rejecting the OIC statement. A government spokesman said: "It is 

regrettable that the OIC has commented on India's internal affairs. 

We condemn and reject this." "Inherent in OIC's statements and 

actions on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is a complete inability 

to understand India's position," he added. " 

• October 14 2009: Indian home minister P Chidambaram states he is 

willing to talk to every section in J&K. The stage seems set to 

restart the stalled talks with separatists. Union home minister P 

Chidambaram has said, "We will have a dialogue with every section 

of the people of Jammu & Kashmir. We mean dialogue process will 

start and it will be carried to its logical conclusion." 

• October 14 2009: India objects to Chinese activities in Pakistani 

administered Kashmir. 

• October 20 2009: A leader of a Party from Jammu and Kashmir 

accuses Indian 'Govt changing Kashmir demography'. 

• November 24 2009: A delegation from the European Union issued 

a statement that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Lord Olof 

Lindgren, the head of the European Union delegation, stated that it 

is the opinion of the European Union that Kashmir is an integral 

part of India. However, he also said they were concerned about the 

human rights violation in Indian administered Kashmir. "Well, 

there are a lot of human rights issues that we are looking into. I 

cannot go into the details of those but those are of concern to the 

European Union and we discussed them with the Indian 

government and we have met the Human Rights Commissioner in 

the state. So we will follow these things with interest like we follow 

the situation in all parts of India". The EU delegation also said 

Kashmir needs a solution through peaceful talks between India, 

Pakistan and concerned people in Kashmir. 

• November 24 2009: A party from Jammu and Kashmir has said it 

was committed to a meaningful dialogue. Unless and until India 

takes steps as suggested by us no dialogue is possible.


101 

• December 02 2009: A Kashmir based group, International People's 

Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice, said that it had found 2600 

bodies in unmarked graves during a three year survey. While the 

group did not who the buried were, it alleged that some could be 

innocent people killed by security force, and called for an 

investigation. 

• December 04 2009: Unidentified men shot and critically injured 

Fazal Haque Qureshi, the senior most separatist leader and an 

important executive member of the moderate Hurriyat Conference 

in Srinagar. According to senior police officials, the attempt on the 

life of Qureshi was to "stall" the imminent dialogue process 

between New Delhi and the Hurriyat Conference. However, New 

Delhi and the separatist conglomerate (Hurriyat) reaffirmed its 

commitment to the dialogue process. The Al-Nasireen, a littleknown 

guerrilla group believed to be an operational combine of the 

Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba terror groups, has owned 

responsibility for the attack. 

• December 09 2009: Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari asked for 

United States to mediate between India and Pakistan on the 

Kashmir issue in his Op-ed in the New York Times. 

• December 11 2009: United States ruled out any mediatory role in 

Kashmir stating that it should be resolved ultimately between 

Pakistan and India with the active involvement of the people of 


• December 18, 2009: India withdraws 30,000 troops from Kashmir 

in one of the largest troop withdrawals in response to dramatic 

improvement in security situation. India is believed to have 500,000 

to 700,000 army and paramilitary soldiers in the portion of 

Kashmir it controls. The army won't confirm its deployment 

levels. 

• December 22 2009: A 'Row over World Bank's Kashmir clause' 

happened between Indian Government and the World Bank. The 

contested clause where the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir 

government loan will 'not be treated as a certificate that the 

disputed territory' was an integral part of India' (the disputed 

territory is Jammu and Kashmir). Indian finance minister Pranab 

Mukherjee has assured that the Indian government will oppose the 

contested disclaimer clause.


• January 6 2010: At least three soldiers were killed and 11 injured in 

a suicide bombing outside an army barracks in Pakistaniadministered 

Kashmir. Pakistani-administered-Kashmir has been 

largely free of violence over the years and has been said the incident 

was a 'rare attack', although recently attacks have been on the rise. 

Eight Shia Muslims were killed in a bombing last month. In 

November, three would-be suicide bombers blew themselves up in 

the regional capital, Muzaffarabad, as they were chased by police. 

The three men did not appear to be Kashmiris, police said. In June, 

a suicide bomber killed two soldiers and injured three others in 

Muzaffarabad. Wednesday's bombing is the first outside 

Muzaffarabad and comes a day after Pakistani President Asif Ali 

Zardari visited the area. It has raised fears the Taliban may be 

trying to expand their area of operations. 

• January 7 2010: A drawn-out gunfight between two militants and 

Indian security forces ended Thursday afternoon after the 

insurgents were gunned down inside a hotel in Srinagar's Lal 

Chowk area. One police officer was killed in the attack and one 

bystander succumbed to his injuries. The security forces also 

rescued 10 people from a neighboring hotel in what is a crowded 

business district in the city. Officials said that one of the gunmen 

belonged to the banned Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e- 

Taiba. A pro-Pakistan militant group, Jamiat-ul-Mujahedin, claimed 

it was behind the assault. However, Indian police pointed the finger 

at the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). A terrorist 

killed during the Lal Chowk encounter had a pre-paid mobile 

connection used for communicating with his handlers in Pakistan. 

The terrorist, identified as Saifullah Qari, believed to be in his midtwenties, 

had kept the mobile connection with him for a long 

period, and had meant to use it only during "operations", official 

sources said. He was one of the two militants gunned down by 

security forces, to bring to end a 22-hour siege in the heart of 

Srinagar. This militant incident in Srinagar is almost two years after 

a consistent decline in violence. 'Several rebel groups have been 

waging a separatist struggle in Indian Kashmir since 1989, wanting 

the Muslim-majority region to either merge with Pakistan or 

become independent. But violence began declining after India and 

Pakistan began a peace process in 2004. The region is now much


103 

calmer than it was at the height of the separatist insurgency in the 

1990's, even though the peace process is stalled.' 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Kashmir_conflict

120 Whither Kashmir? (Part II) - Islamabad Policy Research Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?