120 Whither Kashmir? (Part II) - Islamabad Policy Research Institute
120 Whither Kashmir? (Part II) - Islamabad Policy Research Institute
120 Whither Kashmir? (Part II) - Islamabad Policy Research Institute
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
WHITHER KASHMIR?<br />
(PART <strong>II</strong>)<br />
Editor<br />
Dr Noor ul Haq<br />
Assistant Editor<br />
Muhammad Nawaz Khan<br />
1
2 IPRI Factfile<br />
CONTENTS<br />
Preface v<br />
1. Hope of Peace 1<br />
2. Non-state Actors for Peace 4<br />
3. Joint Venture for Peace 7<br />
4. Peace and <strong>Kashmir</strong> 11<br />
5. Five Dams Being Built in Occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> 12<br />
6. <strong>Kashmir</strong> Day: State Terrorism Still Continues 14<br />
7. War Against India Inevitable if <strong>Kashmir</strong> Dispute Not Resolved<br />
8. Fair, Peaceful Resolution of <strong>Kashmir</strong> Dispute Must for Lasting Peace<br />
18<br />
in South Asia: Foreign Minister 19<br />
9. Another <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solidarity Day 20<br />
10. Pakistan to Continue Efforts for <strong>Kashmir</strong> Issue Resolution 23<br />
11. Pakistan’s Just Stance on <strong>Kashmir</strong> Issue Unchanged: Prime Minister 23<br />
12. <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solution 24<br />
13. Call to Hold Plebiscite in <strong>Kashmir</strong> 26<br />
14. India Not Willing to Hold Talks on <strong>Kashmir</strong>: Prime Minister 27<br />
15. Pakistan-India Talks 28<br />
16. India Doesn’t Want to Talk on <strong>Kashmir</strong> 31<br />
17. Why Rush to Dialogue? 32<br />
18. <strong>Kashmir</strong> Calm Down 33<br />
19. Vision of <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solution 34<br />
20. Meaningful Dialogue Vital to Resolve <strong>Kashmir</strong> Dispute: Prime Minister 35<br />
21. India Wasted a Year by Suspending Talks: Foreign Office 36<br />
22. Legality of Indian Claim on <strong>Kashmir</strong> 38<br />
23. <strong>Kashmir</strong>: Retrieve the Magic 43<br />
24. <strong>Kashmir</strong>: What Next?<br />
25. <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Leaders Meet Foreign Secretary on Eve of Pakistan-India<br />
45<br />
Talks 48<br />
26. India’s Silent Aggression 49<br />
27. US Congressman Favours Plebiscite in <strong>Kashmir</strong> 50<br />
28. Deadlock in Pakistan-India Talks 51<br />
29. Two <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Teens Hurt by Indian Firing 54<br />
30. India-Pakistan Conundrum 55<br />
31. Keeping <strong>Kashmir</strong> Secret 57
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
32. Conflicting Perceptions 58<br />
33. Indian Tactics are Unchanged 60<br />
34. No Cause for Despair 63<br />
35. US Reports Widespread Rights Violations 65<br />
36. <strong>Kashmir</strong> has 97000 Orphans, 32000 Widows: Study 67<br />
37. Demoralised Indian Forces 69<br />
38. Mufti for Opening Old Trade Routes with Pakistan 72<br />
39. <strong>Kashmir</strong> Question 73<br />
40. 133 Abuse Cases in Six Years: Indian Defence Minister 73<br />
41. Saudi Support to <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solution Reiterated 74<br />
42. Conclusion 75<br />
43. Timeline of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> Conflict 81<br />
IPRI Publications 104<br />
3
4 IPRI Factfile<br />
PREFACE<br />
Pakistan (Muslim majority state) and India (Hindu majority state)<br />
emerged as independent dominions in South Asian Subcontinent on<br />
August 14/15, 1947, leaving the fate of about 500 princely states<br />
undecided. However, these states were required to accede to either of the<br />
dominions on the basis of their geographical location and the wishes of<br />
their people. Accordingly, the state of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> should have<br />
acceded to Pakistan because of its overwhelming Muslim population and<br />
geographical location. 1 The non-adherence to the accepted principle<br />
resulted in Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, besides two limited wars in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> during 1947-48 and 1999 and several stand-offs, the last one<br />
being in 2002 for about a year. The United Nations resolutions agreed to<br />
by both India and Pakistan required that the “the accession of the state of<br />
Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> to India or Pakistan will be decided through the<br />
democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the<br />
auspices of the United Nations” 2 . The plebiscite remains stalled because<br />
of the Indian strategy of gaining time as spelled out by its first Prime<br />
Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru when he told Sheikh Abdullah of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> that “we are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial<br />
power”, and with the passage of time Pakistan will “accept a settlement<br />
which we consider fair, whether in <strong>Kashmir</strong> or elsewhere”. 3 Accordingly,<br />
in 1950s, India refused a dialogue on <strong>Kashmir</strong> on the plea that Pakistan<br />
had joined Western sponsored “defence pacts”, and now “terrorism” is<br />
cited as a reason for non-resumption of composite dialogue.<br />
Consequently, owing to non-implementation of the UN resolutions, the<br />
people of the state of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> continue to suffer; the state<br />
remains a “disputed territory” awaiting resolution and a nuclear<br />
flashpoint.<br />
1 The state has a total area of 84,471 square miles which is approximately the<br />
same as of Great Britain. Its irregular borders in the north and east coincide<br />
with those of China (Tibet and Sinkiang) for about 600 miles, with northern<br />
Afghanistan for about 30 miles and with Pakistan in its south and west for<br />
about 603 miles. At the extreme southwestern end, a strip of land forms border<br />
with India. In 1947, the state had 77.11 per cent Muslims, majority of whom<br />
would have liked to accede to Pakistan.<br />
2 UN Resolutions, August 13, 1948, January 5, 1949, and December 23, 1952.<br />
3 Iqbal Jafar, “Misleading assumptions”, Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 21, 2010.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
The IPRI Factfile (<strong>Part</strong> I and <strong>II</strong>) presents relevant UN resolutions,<br />
reports of violence in the Indian held <strong>Kashmir</strong> as released by <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
Media Service, selected articles and statements appearing in the media,<br />
and timeline of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> conflict retrieved from Wikipedia.<br />
March 30, 2010. Noor ul Haq<br />
5
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
HOPE OF PEACE<br />
The subcontinent is a land of sharp contrasts. History has witnessed<br />
contradictory trends operating here simultaneously touching their<br />
heights. Traversing through centuries, today the subcontinent is before us<br />
with its present contradictions. The long journey of history has witnessed<br />
here a rich tradition of cultural integration, alongside the insistence on<br />
the preservation and promotion of distinct identities. By virtue of the<br />
teachings of Mahatma Buddha to Guru Nanak, and the Sufi saints of<br />
Islam, there emerged a culture of fraternity and brotherhood, but this<br />
very land also witnessed some of the worst occurrences of history, bloody<br />
conflicts and tormenting migrations.<br />
While standing in the first decade of the 21st century, and having<br />
this background of contrasts in one's mind, one does not find oneself in<br />
any unfamiliar situation. Therefore, we should not be surprised if today<br />
we see both India and Pakistan equipped with nuclear weapons. Both<br />
having piled up conventional arms and ammunition, and both comprising<br />
sections which are tooth and nail against each other, and longing to<br />
eliminate each other. In a region of sharp contradictions, this is just a<br />
contemporary expression of an old trait of intolerance and jingoism. On<br />
the contrary, striving for peace has also been a rich tradition of South<br />
Asia. No matter how bleak the situation appears at present, one cannot<br />
leave hope of peace as this is also rooted in a very profound tradition.<br />
Where else the hope of peace would find a more fertile ground than in<br />
the subcontinent, which has excelled in diversities.<br />
Pakistan and India together constitute around one-sixth of the<br />
world's population but unfortunately they are not identified across the<br />
world for their achievements and creative contributions. Rather, they are<br />
known for their mutual animosity which is believed to be a great threat<br />
not only for the region but world peace at large. The differences between<br />
India and Pakistan may appear quite serious and rooted in history. But<br />
seen rationally, they are not as complicated as to demand supernatural<br />
efforts for their resolution. These differences seem to have started due to<br />
the partition of the Indian subcontinent, but the partition itself was<br />
chosen as the last available option for resolving the intricate politicocommunal<br />
question of India. The partition was not necessarily meant to<br />
generate a new set of animosity. It was this very occasion of partition<br />
which saw the biggest proponent of Indian unity, Mahatama Gandhi,<br />
going on a "fast unto death" in order to ensure the transfer of Pakistan's<br />
1
2 IPRI Factfile<br />
share of assets to it, and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, while<br />
explaining his Two Nation Theory, proclaiming that he regarded Hindus<br />
as a great nation and their religion being equally great, and that his only<br />
contention was that the Muslims and Hindus were different and could<br />
not then be united under one political system. Jinnah was not communal<br />
or racist in his outlook, a fact that is now being increasingly realised in<br />
India.<br />
Politicians like L K Advani and Jaswant Singh and historians like H<br />
M Seervai and Dr Ajeet Jawed are discovering Jinnah as a non-communal<br />
and secular leader. If this is so, one may question why the partition<br />
entailed so much of bloodshed, riots and human misery? In fact, as the<br />
dust of emotions is settling down, it is increasingly becoming easier for<br />
the historians to have a better and more objective view of the past.<br />
Therefore, it is being realised that many of the problems which were<br />
believed to be the result of partition, such as the riots of partition,<br />
uprooting of twelve million people, the dispute over assets, the<br />
differences on the ownership of water resources, the issue of Rann of<br />
Katch, and problems in accession of the states, were, in fact, issues which<br />
should have been addressed as part of the partition package. It was the<br />
failure of the British colonial administration that it could not manage the<br />
process of partitioning the subcontinent amicably. Maulana Abul Kalam<br />
Azad holds that he had already briefed Mountbatten on the possibility of<br />
violent incidents but the latter claimed that being a soldier he would not<br />
hesitate in using the military and air force and would use tanks and<br />
airplanes to crush the riots if they erupted. His were just hollow<br />
statements.<br />
Though in the past six decades, some of the problems<br />
accompanying partition were partially or fully resolved by India and<br />
Pakistan bilaterally, the arbitration also proved helpful in some cases. For<br />
instance, the issue of river water was resolved through the World Bank<br />
assistance resulting in the Indus Basin Water Treaty, which was not ideal<br />
from the point of view of the either party. Yet it was accepted, as no<br />
other mutually agreed solution was possible. Likewise, the Rann of Katch<br />
issue was resolved in 1969 through the mediation of Britain. However,<br />
the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue has remained unresolved. Pakistan and India fought<br />
two wars in 1947-48 and 1965 directly over <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Though the 1971<br />
war was fought due to the East Pakistan crisis, <strong>Kashmir</strong> was a crucial<br />
element in it and the subsequent Simla Agreement had implications for<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. The 62 years saw the rise of nuclear ambitions in India and
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Pakistan. The <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue erupted again in 1990. The 9/11 incident<br />
generated another wave of tension between the two countries. Both<br />
countries held rounds of talks, agreed upon certain confidence-building<br />
measures, yet the tension continued.<br />
The biggest hurdle in the solution of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue is the rigid<br />
traditional mindset of the policy-makers of the two countries, who do<br />
not allow melting of ice, or search for innovative options. The rigid<br />
attitude of the two sides, does not allow them to even reinterpret their<br />
traditional position. Any such effort made in the past was foiled due to<br />
one or the other reason. The logical conclusion of the Vajpai's visit to<br />
Lahore or Musharraf's suggestion to solve the issue on zonal basis instead<br />
of plebiscite, were thwarted by the logic of stubbornness.<br />
Apart from the conventional mindset of the two establishments,<br />
the tension is also boosted by their fear of each other. In India, anti-<br />
Pakistan posture may not have contributed to the formation of its<br />
nationhood, yet Pakistan is presented there as a vicious neighbour, keen<br />
not to spare a chance of troubling India. In Pakistan, India is presented as<br />
a country which has not accepted Pakistan wholeheartedly, and is intent<br />
upon eliminating it. Moreover, in Pakistan, India has been taken as a<br />
permanent point of reference to define Pakistani nationhood, instead of<br />
evolving a positive basis of this nationhood by recognising and<br />
reinforcing the rich cultural content and diversity of the Pakistani<br />
society. This was the mistake Quaid-i-Azam wanted to evade, so he had<br />
referred to the secular and positive bases of one Pakistani nationhood by<br />
declaring the culmination of the Two Nation Theory after partition, on<br />
11 August 1947.<br />
The biggest damage inflicted by the long span of adverse relations<br />
of India and Pakistan is the distortion of their own self-image. India<br />
assumes itself to be a regional power, with the result that not only<br />
Pakistan but India's other neighbours are also restless with it. Pakistan,<br />
on the other hand, is committing the mistake of relying on anti-India<br />
posture as the basis of its identity. The craze has made Pakistan a country<br />
focusing on national security, rather than on being a welfare state. Since<br />
such a state confines its major priorities to national defence, the other<br />
areas of national life, such as social development, education, health,<br />
poverty alleviation, and social welfare, were denied their rightful place in<br />
national scheme of affairs.<br />
India got its defence boosted at the cost of social development but<br />
also maintained a democratic order in the country. The benefit of this<br />
3
4 IPRI Factfile<br />
almost uninterrupted democratic process is now being accrued in the<br />
form of closer relations with the West and acquiring of a favourable<br />
response in respect of military aid. Pakistan made itself a national security<br />
state at the cost of the social sector, which with the passage of time has<br />
widened the gap between the military and civilian institutions.<br />
Paradoxically, the same US and western countries which once backed the<br />
military regimes, are now suspicious about the defence build-up and<br />
nuclear capability of Pakistan.<br />
Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed, News International (Rawalpindi), January 1, 2010.<br />
NON-STATE ACTORS FOR PEACE<br />
The term "non-state actors" is becoming a catchword in our part of the<br />
world. But it has had different notional connotations for each different<br />
situation. India has been using the term "non-state actors" to describe the<br />
"perpetrators" of the November 2008 Mumbai tragedy. In Pakistan, this<br />
catchword is being obsessively used to euphemise one's political nemeses.<br />
A different kind of "non-state actors" with eminently positive credentials,<br />
now seem to have come together in a joint mission to breathe a fresh new<br />
impulse for peace in the region.<br />
Two giant media groups in India and Pakistan, The Times of India<br />
group and the Jang group have come together in a joint initiative called<br />
"Aman ki Asha" (desire for peace) "to energise the process of peace"<br />
between the two countries. It is a noble mission and has been generally<br />
welcomed in non-governmental circles. The authors of this well-meaning<br />
initiative have an ambitious agenda of "unleashing a new social compact"<br />
based on the common desire for peace at the level of the people in both<br />
countries.<br />
They plan to move pragmatically "to reach out and pluck the lowhanging<br />
fruit in the beginning before they aim higher." Issues of trade and<br />
commerce, investments, financial infrastructure, cultural exchanges,<br />
religious and medical tourism, free movement of ideas, visa regimes,<br />
sporting ties, connectivity, reviving existing routes, market access, divided<br />
families and each other's prisoners constitutes their initial agenda. All<br />
these issues are already part of the Composite Dialogue, thus providing<br />
complementarity to both Track One and Track Two approaches.<br />
The sponsors of the "peace initiative" are aware of the complexities<br />
involved in the troubled India-Pakistan equation, and the hope they can<br />
generate on both sides of the border through enough public awareness of
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
the need for peace and prosperity which has eluded the two countries<br />
ever since they became independent. The purpose is "to provide a mutual<br />
platform for debate on the major sticking points in the hitherto fickle<br />
peace dialogue on both sides of the border -- whether it is <strong>Kashmir</strong>, the<br />
water dispute or security.<br />
The mission statement commits the two media groups "to a<br />
movement that will bring the people and civil institutions of the two<br />
countries together in fostering an honourable, genuine and durable<br />
peace." This is a noble mission and needs to be pursued with all<br />
seriousness of purpose. While the ultimate aspirations of Aman ki Asha<br />
are admittedly lofty, the sponsors claim to have taken good care in<br />
factoring in realistic and deliverable means to ensure the sustainability of<br />
their peace endeavour.<br />
In its essence, the Aman ki Asha project involves an expansive<br />
[extensive] media diplomacy seeking "to resolve amicably all outstanding<br />
issues that serve as hurdles to peace, and campaign for collaboration on<br />
economic, cultural issues through a media-led civil society movement." In<br />
the India-Pakistan context, we have seen "media diplomacy" at work in<br />
different forms in recent years. Notably, Panos South Asia and the<br />
Kathmandu-based Hemal magazine have been organising a series of<br />
roundtables and retreats since 2002 for senior media practitioners to<br />
explore the modalities of reinforcing the peace process.<br />
One conclusion flagged in those discussions was that no foreign<br />
policy without popular support and consent can be sustainable or survive<br />
domestic political changes in the two countries. Indeed, the India-<br />
Pakistan peace process has never been immune to domestic and external<br />
factors and has always been vulnerable to occasional hiccups. We have<br />
seen that whenever the dialogue process, initiated in June 1997, appeared<br />
to be making headway, some bizarre incident took place derailing and<br />
then stalling the process.<br />
The latest is the November 2008 Mumbai tragedy, after which we<br />
were back to square one. The dialogue remains suspended despite two<br />
summit-level meetings, one in June last year at Yekaterinburg, Russia,<br />
and the other in the following month at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-<br />
Sheikh. India and Pakistan seem to have inextricably tied themselves<br />
together in a straitjacket with each looking in the opposite direction.<br />
They do need help. The US is doing what it can to nudge both sides. But<br />
domestically, in the absence of popular momentum, both are held back<br />
by the extremity of their traditional trust deficit.<br />
5
6 IPRI Factfile<br />
The media is perhaps the only force that can now catalyse the<br />
public opinion to bring about requisite pressure on both governments to<br />
come out of their negative mode and move ahead. The joint Times-Jang<br />
groups' initiative is a timely effort towards generating the needed "surge<br />
of goodwill and flexibility" through Aman ki Asha in civil society and<br />
the media across the borders and might indeed evoke the requisite<br />
popular will in support of peace and normalcy between the two estranged<br />
neighbours. But a word of caution is also needed.<br />
There is no room for over-optimism in the India-Pakistan context.<br />
There is nothing wrong in being optimistic, but given the volatile history<br />
of India-Pakistan relations and complexity of the issues involved, one<br />
would be better off being cautious and realistic, not drawing euphoric<br />
conclusions or raising unrealistic hopes. This has been a troubled<br />
relationship, marked by "conflict and confrontation." In fact, the<br />
underlying problems behind this legacy are rooted in their history and<br />
the long-standing tradition of mutual distrust and suspicion that they<br />
inherited on their independence.<br />
And at the core of all their problems is the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue, which<br />
has kept the relations between the two countries bedevilled, perpetuating<br />
mutual tensions and animosity. The clash in 1948, the 1965 war, the<br />
Siachin dispute, the Kargil crisis, the volatile Line of Control, frequent<br />
warlike military deployments, the water disputes, including Wullar<br />
Barrage and Baglihar Dam, and Pakistan's strategic fears and<br />
apprehensions are all directly related to <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
The <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute invokes intense feelings in the peoples of both<br />
India and Pakistan, as well as the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people themselves. Their<br />
historical experiences, cultural diversities, religious fervour, scars of<br />
partition, wars and conflicts, liberation struggle in <strong>Kashmir</strong> and<br />
resurgence of violence and terrorism in recent years, all come together in<br />
a curious convergence in the unresolved dispute of <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Even in the<br />
most optimistic scenario, <strong>Kashmir</strong> would remain an overarching factor in<br />
any India-Pakistan peace process.<br />
This is not a territorial dispute. It is a question involving the right<br />
of self-determination of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people pledged to them by both<br />
India and Pakistan and the international community through solemn<br />
resolutions of the UN Security Council. Both sides will have to involve<br />
the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people in the dialogue process. They are the arbiters of their<br />
own destiny.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
At the same time, mistrust and apprehensions on both sides are<br />
deep-rooted and will not evaporate simply by the flames being blown<br />
out. India and Pakistan will have to extinguish the fire at its source.<br />
Dialogue and constructive engagement are today the only acceptable<br />
means of resolving disputes. Progress in this direction could perhaps be<br />
facilitated atmospherically by Aman ki Asha project, but eventually highlevel<br />
political engagement between the two countries will be required.<br />
In the ultimate analysis, however, the success of this process would<br />
depend entirely on the freshness of political approach that both sides<br />
would themselves be ready to bring in with sincerity of purpose. What<br />
should be clear to them by now is that, in today's world, there will be no<br />
military solution to their problems. Given the unique political history of<br />
South Asia and the particular social and cultural proclivities of its<br />
inhabitants, this region needs stable peace, not confrontation.<br />
[If] India-Pakistan rapprochement becomes [a] reality, it will benefit<br />
not only the peoples of the region but also the world at large in terms of<br />
economic opportunities. Durable peace between the two countries would<br />
not only be a factor of regional and global stability but would also enable<br />
them to divert their resources to improving the lives of their peoples and<br />
eradicating poverty and backwardness from the region.<br />
Depending on progress on <strong>Kashmir</strong> and in mutual confidencebuilding<br />
through nuclear and conventional restraint, the two countries in<br />
due course could also explore a no-war treaty with a mutually agreed<br />
mechanism for conflict-prevention, conflict-resolution and peaceful<br />
settlement of disputes. This would be the sum total of visionary<br />
statesmanship that we need in our region to enable our two peoples to<br />
live together in peace and harmony. Meanwhile, the newly arrived India-<br />
Pakistan "non-state actors" for peace deserve our full support.<br />
Shamshad Ahmad, News International (Rawalpindi), January 1, 2010.<br />
JOINT VENTURE FOR PEACE<br />
In the most gloomy atmosphere around us in Pakistan, we had no reason<br />
to celebrate New Year's Eve. The morning of Jan 1, 2010, however, gave<br />
us a pleasant surprise when we read that the editors of the Jang group in<br />
Pakistan and of the Times of India group have taken a bold initiative to<br />
join hands for promotion of peace, economic prosperity, education and<br />
health much needed by the one-and-half-billion people of our two<br />
countries.<br />
7
8 IPRI Factfile<br />
This was not the only good news on Jan 1. The civil society in<br />
Pakistan, realising the importance of peace had also observed a solidarity<br />
day under the banner of "Aman Ittehad" and took out rallies in more<br />
than 35 cities of Pakistan on Jan 1. Despite a hartaal in Sindh and fear of<br />
the terrorists, the peace rallies all over Pakistan were well attended by<br />
exuberant citizens from all walks of life. These successful demonstrations<br />
once again vindicated the burning desire of the people for peace.<br />
I can state with confidence that the ordinary people of India equally<br />
desire peace with the same keenness, desire and sprit. It is for this reason<br />
that supporters of peace in India have once again convened a conference<br />
in New Delhi on Jan 10 in search of "A Road Map Towards Peace." We<br />
greatly appreciate this initiative of the intellectuals, political leaders,<br />
human right activists, NGOs, journalists and people from different walks<br />
of life, including Mr I K Gujral, former prime minister of India and<br />
Kuldip Nayar, a former member of the Rajya Sabha, who are two of the<br />
hosts of this conference.<br />
The vast majority of the people do agree that war is not the<br />
solution. Over the past 62 years, the three wars with India and two<br />
battles of Siachen in 1987 and Kargil in 1999 could not help in resolving<br />
any issue. The untimely and unwarranted recent expressions of persons<br />
like Gen Deepak Kapoor about his determination to prepare for "twofront<br />
war" with China and Pakistan and deal with asymmetric and<br />
fourth-generation warfare, enhance strategic reach and joint operations<br />
with the air force and navy, etc., do cause alarm and promote a war of<br />
words between the generals of the two countries.<br />
Pakistan is already at an unending war for the past over three years,<br />
with the worst enemies -- i.e., terrorists within Pakistan. I hope all<br />
thinking sections of the public in India would appreciate that, now or in<br />
future, Pakistan cannot afford to indulge in any aggressive designs or<br />
adventurism against India. Hence, there is nothing to fear from Pakistan.<br />
However, such expressions of war preparation, by any of the civil or<br />
military leaders of the two countries, only result in promotion of tension<br />
and strain our relations further. These statements also make the task of<br />
the peace activist much more difficult.<br />
Not only were the wars in the past six decades destructive, but<br />
equally counterproductive and destructive was the strategy to promote<br />
jihad and jihadi organisations in Pakistan, on the pretext of keeping the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> issue alive. The activities of the jihadis and extremist militant<br />
religious terrorist in the past three decades have only resulted in further
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
loss of life, places of worship and properties not only of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is<br />
but more so in Pakistan. The so-called jihad could not force India to<br />
budge an inch or motivate any country, including our closest allies, to<br />
pressure India to resolve the issue peacefully. Nor was the Indian<br />
economy or its image damaged by the jihadis in any significant manner.<br />
On the contrary, it is Pakistan that is bleeding profusely on account<br />
of the undeclared, endless war unleashed from within by the terrorists, by<br />
whatever name they may be called: Al Qaeda, or Taliban Pakistani or<br />
Afghan or any other segments of he Taliban or Fazlullah or Sufi<br />
Mohammad or Baitullah Mehsud or any other brand of terrorists. They<br />
all have a common agenda to take over the state institutions and resources<br />
of Pakistan.<br />
Indeed, the people of India have suffered many terrorist attacks,<br />
including the attack on the Houses of Parliament of India, the tragedy of<br />
Nov 26 in Mumbai and bombing of the markets in Delhi are some of the<br />
most heinous, condemnable crimes against the state and people of India, I<br />
share the grief of the people of India and join them in condemning these<br />
terrorist forces. I would however, draw the attention of the people in<br />
India to the fact that the people of Pakistan are suffering such disasters<br />
and barbaric incidents of far worst terrorism almost every day in every<br />
nook and corner of Pakistan, where several thousands innocent citizens<br />
have lost their lives and properties. Hence, peace is our need not only for<br />
our country but also for the entire region. We can only succeed in<br />
eradicating the terrorism, in all its forms with concerted efforts and joint<br />
line of action between our two countries, without any further loss of<br />
time.<br />
Not only the people but also the governments of the two countries<br />
agree that all disputes can be resolved through dialogue, with sincerity of<br />
purpose. In terms of priority, the first and foremost issue that needs to be<br />
addressed immediately is the futile war over Siachen.<br />
The presence of the army of the two countries on the glaciers of<br />
Siachen is not only an avoidable heavy burden on the exchequer of the<br />
two countries but is also rapidly destroying most precious reserves of<br />
water. How ironic is the reality that the people of the two countries are<br />
already facing acute scarcity of water, but this unending war is destroying<br />
the water reserves, which will be needed by our future generations also.<br />
Hence, it is of utmost importance that the armies of the two countries<br />
must withdraw forthwith from Siachen and resolve the issue of<br />
boundaries on the table, rather than on the mountains.<br />
9
10 IPRI Factfile<br />
I urge both India and Pakistan to show flexibility in their respective<br />
pronounced positions on <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Instead of insisting on resolving the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> issue first, the emphasis should be on an end to hostilities in all<br />
forms and building confidence and trust between the two countries which<br />
is imperative for meaningful dialogues. I am not suggesting that the issue<br />
of <strong>Kashmir</strong> should be shelved or given up. All that I want to emphasise is:<br />
don't give <strong>Kashmir</strong> priority over the wider national interests of the two<br />
countries.<br />
Our national interest always warranted "peaceful co-existence" with<br />
our neighbours. Hence, in the first place dialogues between the two<br />
countries must resume unconditionally and with the sincere commitment<br />
to resolve the issues. There is no harm if both the countries agree to<br />
accept the Line of Control, with some necessary adjustments, as the<br />
international border, at least de fecto, for the time being. With this<br />
agreement, it would be most prudent and in the best interest of the<br />
people of Pakistan, India and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, if the two countries agree to<br />
establish visa-free borders or at least visa on arrival on all points of entry<br />
and exit, as well as free exchange of economic, cultural, academic,<br />
intellectual groups and free access to the electronic and print media, etc.,<br />
in all walks of life.<br />
I am conscious of the fact that such bold decisions cannot be<br />
implemented without mobilisation of not only the opinion of the public<br />
but also of their leaders. Here I see the most vital positive role that can be<br />
played by the media of the two countries. We are fortunate that at this<br />
crucial juncture, the two biggest groups of publications -- i.e., the Jang<br />
group and the Times of India group in India -- have come forward to save<br />
one-and-a-half billion people of our region from wars, prejudices,<br />
terrorism and poverty which are most detrimental to their interest,<br />
prosperity and protection of their life and property. The two media<br />
giants, owning largely circulated print media and most popular television<br />
channels in the respective countries, are bound to succeed in influencing<br />
the opinion of the people and their leaders in breaking the deadlock and<br />
creating the environment for a meaningful dialogue between the two<br />
countries, for achievement of the aforesaid objectives of utmost<br />
importance and national interest of the people of the entire SAARC<br />
region.<br />
Iqbal Haider, News International (Rawalpindi), January 7, 2010.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
PEACE AND KASHMIR<br />
"Fighting your war is our duty. From day one, it has been our own<br />
movement," said President Zardari, while addressing a special sitting of<br />
the Azad Jammu & <strong>Kashmir</strong> (AJK) legislative assembly on January 5, in<br />
his first ever presidential visit to Muzaffarabad. January 5 is celebrated as<br />
self-determination day as it was on January 5, 1949 that the United<br />
Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution recognising the<br />
right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
Since the Musharraf days, our policy towards <strong>Kashmir</strong> has been<br />
desultory, even contradictory. Scores of proposals have emanated from<br />
Pakistan but none has caused a positive response. Being half baked and illadvised,<br />
they have led to serious attrition of our historical stand on the<br />
issue. They have also encouraged others to further muddy the waters.<br />
There is discussion on a variety of models -- the Ireland formula, Swiss<br />
model and the European Union proposals. Instead of bringing these ideas<br />
to the negotiating table, they have become an issue of public discourse<br />
and have harmed the cause of <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
Pakistan's policy towards <strong>Kashmir</strong> has suffered from a lack of<br />
direction. It has neither focused on nor involved the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is in<br />
negotiations. Statements reiterating support to a solution "based on the<br />
aspirations of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is" have not become part of the policy. All<br />
these years, we have repeated the mantra without associating <strong>Kashmir</strong>is<br />
with the peace process. There has been no mechanism [to accommodate]<br />
their aspirations.<br />
The sad fact is that <strong>Kashmir</strong> as a 'core' issue has lost its urgency and<br />
primacy as a determinant of peace and security in the region. India has<br />
succeeded in preserving all its positions and has shifted focus from its<br />
unlawful occupation of <strong>Kashmir</strong> to the overall objective of advancing the<br />
peace process. What is worse is that capitalising on western phobia about<br />
Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, the Indian propaganda machinery<br />
has subtly but effectively exploited this feat [fact] and equated the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i struggle for self determination to terrorism supported by<br />
Pakistan. This well-orchestrated campaign has narrowed the parameters<br />
of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue to cross-border terrorism and Pakistan has been put<br />
in the dock, and blamed for the violation of its solemn commitment in<br />
the January 6, 2004 joint communiqué that its "soil would not be allowed<br />
to be used for any terrorist activity."<br />
The haste and impatience to seek any solution has led to<br />
compromising our principled stand. Similarly, the tendency to offer out-<br />
11
12 IPRI Factfile<br />
of-the-box solutions needs to be curbed. Over the last 10 years, there has<br />
been no authoritative effort to seek consensus on the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue in the<br />
context of changing international situation and geo-strategic interests.<br />
The indomitable courage of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, despite having lost 70,000 of<br />
its youth over the last two decades, holds the promise that ultimately<br />
their struggle will prevail. However, as a party to the UN resolution<br />
giving them the right to self-determination, Pakistan is duty-bound to<br />
seek ways to redress the ordeal of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is and facilitate the<br />
implementation of the UNSC resolution. We need to take a hard look at<br />
the prevailing global situation and formulate a strategy of inviting and<br />
focusing international attention on the massive human rights violations<br />
by the Indian army. This alone would be a real gesture of solidarity.<br />
In Washington, there is a feeble resonance to Zardari's assessment<br />
that just as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute cannot be resolved without<br />
accommodating the Palestinians, there cannot be regional peace in South<br />
Asia without addressing <strong>Kashmir</strong>. We need to build <strong>Kashmir</strong>'s case on<br />
this principle. The US interest in the resolution of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue is<br />
becoming stronger not per se for the latter but in the realisation that<br />
Pakistan cannot and will not be able to play its pivotal role in the war<br />
against terror. Thus, the festering problem would counter the US agenda<br />
in the region.<br />
Tayyab Siddiqui, News International (Rawalpindi), January 12, 2010.<br />
FIVE DAMS BEING BUILT IN OCCUPIED KASHMIR<br />
India has resumed work on the controversial Kishanganga hydropower<br />
project and has taken up four other mega projects of about 3,900MW on<br />
the Chenab and Jhelum rivers in occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> that can result in<br />
major water shortages and cause a disaster in Pakistan in the event of an<br />
earthquake.<br />
Documents available with Dawn suggest that the Indian<br />
government has handed over the security of the five projects to the<br />
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) — a specialised division of the<br />
Indian armed forces that provides security cover to the country’s<br />
missions abroad and UN peacekeeping operations, besides private and<br />
cooperative establishments in the country. The CISF has more than<br />
130,000 personnel to provide security in highly sensitive areas and<br />
regions.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
According to a progress report prepared by the Indian government<br />
and the administration of occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> after a Jan 10 meeting, seven<br />
major water and electricity projects are being executed in the occupied<br />
state, besides nine road and infrastructure projects.<br />
According to sources in <strong>Islamabad</strong>, Pakistan has not been informed<br />
about some of the major projects although India is required under the<br />
1960 Indus Waters Treaty to inform it about a project six months before<br />
its launching.<br />
Pakistan’s Permanent Indus Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah<br />
was not available for comments.<br />
The Indian government’s project update revealed that about 33<br />
billion Indian rupees sanctioned for the 330MW Kishanganga project on<br />
Jhelum river in January last year had been increased to Rs37 billion.<br />
“Work has restarted after settlement of outstanding issues. The project is<br />
expected to be completed by January 2016.”<br />
Pakistan has been opposing the project for more than a decade<br />
because it could stop water flows into Jhelum river. Bilateral talks have so<br />
far failed to yield any result to Pakistan’s satisfaction.<br />
But the most crucial and the biggest is the Sawalkot project with a<br />
capacity of 1,200MW. Another is the 1,000MW Pakul Dul project for<br />
which Rs51 billion has been allocated and the executing agencies are<br />
awaiting forest clearance of 311 hectares and security arrangements to<br />
start construction.<br />
The 240MW Uri-<strong>II</strong> project on Jhelum river was allocated Rs18<br />
billion, of which Rs8 billion has been spent with 51 per cent physical<br />
progress. The project is expected to be completed in February next year.<br />
Work on the 1,020MW Busrar multi-purpose project on the<br />
Chenab has been stalled because of inadequate security.<br />
Despite Pakistan’s objections, the Indian government has been<br />
successful in completing the Bagilhar Dam, having a 474m height and<br />
water pondage capacity of 37.5 million cubic metres, because the<br />
authorities in <strong>Islamabad</strong> reacted too late, when the project had reached an<br />
advanced stage.<br />
Indian documents reveal that the Sawalkot Dam project on the<br />
Chenab in occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> has 646-foot height, which is more than the<br />
485-foot height of Tarbela and 453-foot of Mangla. The project is also<br />
higher than the Bagilhar Dam and has 13 times more water capacity.<br />
Work on the $2 billion dam is in full swing and is monitored by the<br />
Indian home ministry, because of the law and order situation in occupied<br />
13
14 IPRI Factfile<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. As of Jan 6, a 10.74kms access road to the project had been<br />
opened.<br />
The Sawalkot project is located in Doda and Udhampur districts of<br />
occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>. The project was designed and is being developed by<br />
international consortium contractors comprising the NCC of Norway<br />
and Hochtief of Germany, including financing and construction, before<br />
being handed over to the <strong>Kashmir</strong> State Power Development<br />
Corporation (JKPDC) for operation.<br />
Arshad H. Abbasi, a research fellow at the Sustainable<br />
Development <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Institute</strong>, said the dam would inundate more than 12<br />
square kilometres. He said the dam would be highly vulnerable to<br />
earthquake being in the seismic zone of <strong>Kashmir</strong> Himalayas. The site is<br />
close to the Himalayan Boundary Thrust zone where a number of<br />
earthquakes have been recorded in the past.<br />
Mr Abbasi, who had worked with Nespak after the October 2005<br />
earthquake said the nearest epicentre was just 50kms from the project site<br />
and the Bhadarwa earthquake of 6 degrees magnitude on the Richter scale<br />
had been recorded there in 1947. The Badgam earthquake of magnitude<br />
5.5 in 1967 had its epicentre 70kms from the site, while the strongest<br />
earthquake recorded in the region (1905) was of magnitude 8.0 and had its<br />
epicentre in Kangra, about 160kms away.<br />
He said three fault-lines near the place were believed to have serious<br />
seismic potential -- the Panjal Murree fault close to Damkund, the<br />
Sawalkot fault just upstream of the site and the Chakka fault less than<br />
2kms downstream.<br />
The dam site had some serious geological and environmental transboundary<br />
concerns that ought to be addressed, the expert said.<br />
Otherwise, he added, it could be an environmental disaster for Pakistan as<br />
the lower riparian.<br />
Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 3, 2010.<br />
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<br />
KASHMIR DAY: STATE TERRORISM STILL CONTINUES<br />
“<strong>Kashmir</strong> Day” is celebrated every year on the 5th of February by<br />
Pakistanis and <strong>Kashmir</strong>is all over the world to show solidarity with the<br />
freedom fighters, demanding their legitimate right of self-determination
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
from India. The day reminds the continued sacrifices of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people<br />
against Indian state terrorism which still continues.<br />
The misfortune of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is who comprise 94 percent in Jummu<br />
and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, started in 1846 when their territory was sold by the British<br />
colonialists to a Hindu, Gulab Singh who continued his brutal policies—<br />
memories of which remain alive today. During the Dogra rule (1846-<br />
1947), <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Muslims were leading so miserable life that it was<br />
difficult to differentiate them from beasts. Slave labour and capital<br />
punishment and living under constant terror was order of the day.<br />
On April 19, 1931, the ban of Eid Khutba ignited widespread<br />
demonstrations in the Jummu city. For the first time, people openly<br />
opposed the oppression. On July 13, 1931, thousands of people thronged<br />
the Central Jail Srinagar. As the time for obligatory prayer approached, a<br />
young <strong>Kashmir</strong>i stood for Azan. The Dogra soldiers opened fire at him.<br />
In this way, 22 <strong>Kashmir</strong>is embraced martyrdom in their efforts to<br />
complete the Azan.<br />
On partition of India in 1947, the ruler of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
Hari Singh, in connivance with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru<br />
and Governor-General Lord Mountbatten, had decided to join India,<br />
quite contrary to the wishes of the majority of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is.<br />
When a contention arose between India and Pakistan on the dispute<br />
of <strong>Kashmir</strong> in1948, India took the issue to the United Nations Security<br />
Council and offered to hold a plebiscite in the held <strong>Kashmir</strong> under UN<br />
supervision. On February 5, 1964, India backed out of its promise.<br />
Instead, in March 1965, The Indian Parliament passed a bill, declaring<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> a province of India.<br />
However, during and after the partition, Indian state terrorism has<br />
kept on going so as to crush the war of liberation of the freedom fighters.<br />
As regards the latest phase of Indian state terrorism, like the past,<br />
intermittent curfews, crackdowns and massacre by the Indian forces have<br />
continued against the non-violent mass uprising (Intifada) of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is<br />
during and after the so-called elections. Thus more than 1000 innocent<br />
people have been killed during this new phase of the struggle.<br />
It is mentionable that global terrorism that has gained significance<br />
after the 9/11 is marked by confusion about its definition and<br />
application. In such a situation, regrettably, even war of liberation in the<br />
occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> is being equated with terrorism and it becomes difficult<br />
for the western general masses to detect the Indian state terrorists. New<br />
Delhi which immediately jumped on the American bandwagon of war on<br />
15
16 IPRI Factfile<br />
terror by neglecting the legitimate rights of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, has continuously<br />
been trying to convince the US-led international community through<br />
propaganda that the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i freedom fighters or Mujahideen are<br />
terrorists, while accusing that Pakistan is sponsoring this cross-border<br />
terrorism.<br />
It is mentionable that those who sympathise with the cause of<br />
Palestinians, Afghans and Iraqis regard the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> as fighting<br />
a war of national liberation. They equate the military actions and targeted<br />
killing of the innocent people by the Indian occupying forces with<br />
terrorism. On the other side, reactive ambush tactics of the freedom<br />
fighters in these territories are called by the colonial authorities as<br />
terrorism.<br />
At present, Indian military troops are using all inhuman tactics of<br />
ethnic cleansing to disturb the majority population of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is,<br />
which had been practised by the Serb forces on Bosnian and Kosovar<br />
Muslims in the past and recently by Israel on the Palestinians.<br />
When Indian military troops destroy a village and conduct<br />
extrajudicial killings in the occupied territories of <strong>Kashmir</strong>, west remains<br />
silent, for it is an internal affair of Indians, but when freedom fighters<br />
seek retaliation, it becomes a case of terrorism. Recently more than 2,700<br />
unmarked graves of the unidentified bodies were uncovered in villages of<br />
Indian-held <strong>Kashmir</strong> near the Line of Control (LoC). It is not the new<br />
event, in the past three years, the International People’s Tribunal on<br />
Human Rights and Justice (IPT) has discovered unmarked bodies buried<br />
at various places. Last year, discovery of nearly 1000 graves of the<br />
unmarked Muslims in the Indian held <strong>Kashmir</strong> was also notable. Sources<br />
have suggested that these graves include bodies of extrajudicial executions<br />
committed by the Indian military and paramilitary forces.<br />
It is notable that the US President Barrack Obama had repeatedly<br />
said that the United States should help in resolving the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute<br />
to deal with the problem of militancy in the region. Quite contrarily,<br />
Richard Holbrooke, special envoy of the US new administration on<br />
South Asia pointed out that he had “no mandate to deal with Kashsmir.”<br />
But it is a good sign that in the recent few years, west has broken its<br />
silence over the Indian-held <strong>Kashmir</strong>. This time Indian occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
has become a special focus of world’s attention including India itself.<br />
Even the European Parliament passed a resolution, condemning New<br />
Delhi for human rights violations in the Valley.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband who visited New Delhi<br />
and <strong>Islamabad</strong> in the post-Mumbai terror attacks had pointed out that<br />
complete de-escalation of situation between Pakistan and India was fully<br />
linked to resolution of <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue, saying that India should cooperate<br />
with Pakistan in this respect.<br />
Regarding the peaceful uprising of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, Washington Post<br />
wrote on August 28, 2008, “Despite the government’s use of force, many<br />
Muslims in Indian controlled <strong>Kashmir</strong> seem determined to find peaceful<br />
ways to voice their aspirations as the nonviolent movement by the<br />
unarmed protesters flourishes, especially among the young”.<br />
New critical situation has also affected other parts of India and its<br />
gravity could be judged from the fact that even Indian intellectuals have<br />
started favouring the independence of the occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
In its editorial, the editor of The Times of India wrote on<br />
August 17, 2008 “On August 15, India celebrated independence from<br />
the British Raj. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India<br />
became a day, symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley”.<br />
On August 16, 2008, Hindustan Times reported: “Nothing has<br />
really changed since 1990s. Indian forces are treated as an army of<br />
occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor”.<br />
As a matter of fact, when <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people lost faith in the<br />
international community, which persisted in ignoring their liberation and<br />
when it became obvious that the Indian occupying forces would not<br />
vacate the controlled areas through political means, the peoples had no<br />
choice but to resort to armed struggle which was actually intensified in<br />
1989.<br />
World history proves that a few persons were never able to launch<br />
a successful freedom movement. And it always represents the aspirations<br />
of majority of people who struggle for independence. While judging in<br />
this context, the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is enjoy the support of all the intellectuals,<br />
religious scholars and common men who are determined to fight against<br />
the imperialist occupation of Indians.<br />
World history proves that wars of liberation in connection with<br />
various nations were their reaction against misrule and subjugation<br />
perpetrated by alien powers. In the 20th century, a majority of the Third<br />
World countries got independence after an armed struggle against the<br />
colonial powers. Even independence of the United States, unification of<br />
Germany and Italy became possible after an armed struggle. So, question<br />
arises that “were the peoples of these countries terrorists at that time?<br />
17
18 IPRI Factfile<br />
In the past, ‘composite dialogue’ between India and Pakistan took<br />
place on a number of occasions, but produced no outcome due to Indian<br />
delaying tactics and intransigence—prolonging the agony of the<br />
subjugated people of the occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
If any impartial observer studies the historical background of the<br />
issue of <strong>Kashmir</strong> and continued struggle for liberation, he will definitely<br />
conclude that in reality, Indians are intruders and hence real terrorists<br />
who tend to conceal their own terrorist measures such as firing at<br />
innocent people, burning the houses, illegal detentions etc., which have<br />
become every day occurrence.<br />
February 4, 2010.<br />
http://www.apakistannews.com/kashmir-day-state-terrorism-still-continues-<br />
160238<br />
WAR AGAINST INDIA INEVITABLE IF KASHMIR DISPUTE<br />
NOT RESOLVED<br />
The long-standing <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute should be resolved at the earliest<br />
otherwise the war against India would be inevitable. India has practically<br />
conducted atomic bombing against Pakistan by building numerous dams<br />
in <strong>Kashmir</strong>. The reduced Pakistani water share would turn the land<br />
barren. But thanks to the media, which has brought this critical issue to<br />
limelight. These views were expressed by the speakers at a Forum entitled<br />
‘<strong>Kashmir</strong> Freedom Movement and Pakistan’ organised by The Nation,<br />
Nawa-i-Waqt and Waqt News at the Hamid Nizami Hall here on<br />
Wednesday. The speakers included Member Islamic Ideology Council-<br />
Azad <strong>Kashmir</strong> and former Member <strong>Kashmir</strong> Legislative Assembly<br />
Maulana Mohammad Shafi Josh, Member AJK Legislative Assembly and<br />
Secretary General People’s Muslim League, AJK Chapter Dewan Ghulam<br />
Mohyuddin, Director <strong>Kashmir</strong> Centre Lahore, Mirza Mohammad Sadiq<br />
Jarral and Central Leader Jamaat-ud-Daawa, Hafiz Abdur Rehman<br />
Makki. Earlier, the speakers also met Editor-in Chief, the Nation, and<br />
Nazria Pakistan Trust (NPT) Chairman, Majid Nizami.<br />
Speaking on the occasion, Hafiz Abdur Rehman Makki said that<br />
the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue was put aside during the regime of former President<br />
Musharraf that gave India liberty to construct the dams on Pakistani<br />
water share. He opined that the Pakistani media should reply in a<br />
befitting manner to the Indian channels trying to malign Pakistan in the<br />
international community. Pakistan is in danger. We need to formulate an
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
effective strategy to salvage our sovereignty, and to plead the case of our<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i brethren, he remarked. He was of the view that the government<br />
should lift the ban from all the genuine religious outfits, and patronise<br />
them for Jehad. The war on terror is not ours, but the US has imposed it<br />
on Pakistan, he clarified. Makki appealed to Chief Justice of Pakistan<br />
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudrhy and Lahore High Court Chief Justice<br />
Muhammad Sharif to take suo moto action of the grave situation of water<br />
crisis.<br />
Dewan Ghulam Mohyuddin said if the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute was not<br />
resolved in the next one or two years the existence of Pakistan would be<br />
at risk. He warned India to remain in limits otherwise be ready to face<br />
the music. He opined that Pakistan should decide time frame and<br />
objectives before the commencement of composite dialogue with India to<br />
settle the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute.<br />
Appreciating the role of Majid Nizami, Maulana Mohammad Shafi<br />
Josh said that the Nawa-i-Waqt Group was playing a pivotal role<br />
regarding the issue of <strong>Kashmir</strong>. He said that according to the Quaid,<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> was the jugular vein of Pakistan. He recalled that the Quaid had<br />
declared Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Ch Ghulam Abbas Khan as his<br />
successors. Pakistan is incomplete without the liberation of <strong>Kashmir</strong>, he<br />
maintained. He called upon all the political and religious leaders to unite<br />
for the cause of <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
Mirza Mohammad Sadiq Jarral said that all the options - suggested<br />
by Pakistani govt, especially during Musharraf regime - went in favour of<br />
India, which always took advantage of our pro-American policies. He said<br />
India was exploiting our trade and engulfing our resources by building<br />
dams on our rivers. “The govt should warn India instead of initiating<br />
dialogue, because such talks never gave fruitful results,” he said.<br />
Jam Sajjad Hussian, Nation (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 4, 2010.<br />
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline//Regional/04-Feb-2010/War-against-India-inevitable-if-<strong>Kashmir</strong>-disputenot-solved-soon-Speakers<br />
FAIR, PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF KASHMIR DISPUTE MUST<br />
FOR LASTING PEACE IN SOUTH ASIA: QURESHI<br />
Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi has stated that fair<br />
and peaceful resolution of the Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute in accordance<br />
with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> is a sine qua<br />
19
20 IPRI Factfile<br />
non for a lasting and viable peace in South Asia. “It is high time India<br />
realizes this fundamental fact and dispenses with its untenable and<br />
unjustified policy. To begin with, India should rescind the draconian laws<br />
long imposed in Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>”, Qureshi said in a message on<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> Solidarity Day.<br />
The Foreign Minister said, Pakistan strongly believes that the<br />
Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute should be resolved through dialogue, adding,<br />
“We invite India to engage in a sustained and result-oriented dialogue<br />
process in this regard”.<br />
“We also urge the international community to play its due role in<br />
securing for <strong>Kashmir</strong>is their right to self-determination”, he added.<br />
Qureshi said: “Today, the Government and the people of Pakistan<br />
are observing the <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solidarity Day. This is an occasion to reiterate<br />
our indefatigable support to the people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> in their<br />
legitimate struggle for their inalienable right to self-determination as<br />
enshrined in UN Charter and the relevant United Nations resolutions”.<br />
He said, the valiant and peaceful people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> are<br />
continuing to suffer. “Not only is the right to self-determination being<br />
denied to them, but they are also being subjected to violence and<br />
suppression”. Thousands of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is have lost their lives and thousands<br />
are languishing in Indian jails. The grisly human rights violations by<br />
Indian forces in Indian-occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> have been documented by wellknown<br />
international human rights organizations”, he added.<br />
Foreign Minister Qureshi said Pakistan will continue playing its<br />
constructive role towards resolving the Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute.<br />
Nation (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 5, 2010.<br />
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline//Regional/05-Feb-2010/Fair-peaceful-resolution-of-<strong>Kashmir</strong>-dispute-mustfor-lasting-peace-in-South-Asia-Qureshi<br />
ANOTHER KASHMIR SOLIDARITY DAY<br />
February 5 th is observed every year as <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solidarity Day to express<br />
our unanimous and unqualified support to the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> whose<br />
struggle for emancipation has entered a crucial stage. Like previous years,<br />
this year too the Ministry of <strong>Kashmir</strong> Affairs has finalized various<br />
programmes to observe the day in a befitting manner.<br />
Programmes have been finalized by the coordination committee to<br />
display Pakistan’s abiding solidarity with <strong>Kashmir</strong>is waging the freedom
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
struggle in Occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>. The day will be observed with an<br />
objective to peacefully resolve this longstanding issue and transmit a<br />
message to the international community through foreign media in this<br />
respect.<br />
The day will dawn with special prayers after Fajar for the martyrs<br />
of <strong>Kashmir</strong>, successes [success] of freedom struggle and solidarity with the<br />
people of <strong>Kashmir</strong>. The foreign office will arrange a briefing for all<br />
foreign missions in <strong>Islamabad</strong> on the latest situation in <strong>Kashmir</strong> and all<br />
Pakistani missions abroad will organize similar functions in their<br />
respective countries.<br />
In the Capital, the CDA would organize a ‘solidarity walk’ at<br />
Jinnah Avenue. <strong>Kashmir</strong>-Yakjehtee show would be organized at Jinnah<br />
Avenue. In the show Pakistani and <strong>Kashmir</strong>i children would deliver<br />
speeches and present national songs. <strong>Kashmir</strong>i handicraft exhibition at<br />
Lok Virsa would also be organized to include playing of Kahsmiri songs,<br />
a photo exhibition, and display of publicity material.<br />
All this has been going on for over a decade but has the <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
issue been resolved? The region is still inflicted with violence and terror.<br />
The once beautiful state likened to paradise by the Mughul Emperor<br />
Jahangir, now resembles an excavation site of an unknown barbaric<br />
civilization. The air is filled with the sound of gunshots and explosions.<br />
The people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> seem to have forgotten how the place looked like<br />
before the current reign of terror was unleashed. The only thing children<br />
do here is listen to their fathers tell them tales of great sacrifices made by<br />
their great grand fathers or live in terror of the Indian oppressors. No<br />
butterflies to catch, no snowmen to build. No home to go to. How long<br />
will this go on? How long is the strife?<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>’s agony is far from over. No less than 80,000 people have<br />
laid down their lives for the cause of freedom since 1989 when open<br />
rebellion broke out against Indian occupation. To suppress this struggle,<br />
New Delhi has deployed more than 700,000 troops in the limited space of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> where, as noted by Amnesty International and other world<br />
organizations, wanton human rights violations and atrocities, including<br />
burning of villages, mass rape of women, summary executions and<br />
torture, are of routine occurrence. All this is a direct result of India’s<br />
brazen refusal to give the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> their right of selfdetermination.<br />
This is not only unjust and immoral, but is contrary to<br />
India’s own pledges to the United Nations and to the world community<br />
to resolve the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue with reference to the people’s freely<br />
21
22 IPRI Factfile<br />
expressed wishes - all these from the country which claims to be the<br />
world’s largest democratic secular state.<br />
India’s first head of state, Lord Mountbatten, is on record having<br />
said on Oct 27, 1947, that since the “question of accession [of <strong>Kashmir</strong>]<br />
should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the<br />
state, it is my government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been<br />
restored in <strong>Kashmir</strong>... the question of the state’s accession should be<br />
settled by a reference to the people.” Again, one of India’s founding<br />
fathers and first prime minister, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, whose<br />
government took the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue to the United Nations, told the<br />
Indian Constituent Assembly on Nov 25, 1947, “In order to establish our<br />
bona fides, we have suggested that, when the people [of <strong>Kashmir</strong>] are<br />
given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the<br />
supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations.” On<br />
June 26, 1952, Mr. Nehru told Indian parliament, “If ... the people of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means; we will<br />
not keep them against their will, however painful it may [be] for us.”<br />
Against these solemn words and relentless struggle of the people of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>, New Delhi today has only two lame excuses: one, the pledges<br />
and the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in <strong>Kashmir</strong> have become<br />
outdated; two, what is going on in the <strong>Kashmir</strong> valley is not a people’s<br />
revolt but the result of “cross-border terrorism.” Both arguments are as<br />
self-serving as they are laughable. Time cannot abrogate moral values nor<br />
invalidate the international community’s right to intervene in flash-points<br />
of conflict arising from denial of freedom and involving tyranny and<br />
persecution. We have the recent example of East Timor, where a dispute<br />
was settled through a reference to the wishes of the people under UN<br />
supervision. Indonesia upheld the people’s verdict, however “painful” it<br />
might have been to it.<br />
For <strong>Kashmir</strong>, despite more than a half century’s lapse, all United<br />
Nations resolutions and the Indian leaders’ own pledges remain<br />
unfulfilled but valid because they are based on the time-honoured values<br />
of freedom and inviolability of basic human rights.<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> continues to be a flashpoint of conflict. Pakistan and India<br />
have earlier fought two full-fledged wars on <strong>Kashmir</strong>, and they came close<br />
to a third following December 2001’s mobilization of its forces by India<br />
and amassing them on Pakistan’s borders under the plea of combating<br />
terrorism. With both the South Asian neighbours armed with nuclear<br />
weapons, another conventional war on <strong>Kashmir</strong> has the potential to turn
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
into a nuclear exchange that could be disastrous not only for South Asia<br />
but for the world at large. Since 9/11, world focus shifted to the war<br />
against terror but the time has come that for Pakistan to concentrate on<br />
combating this menace wholeheartedly, the international community<br />
lends a helping hand in resolving this outstanding issue. Indian crimes<br />
against humanity must stop and the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is’ right of self<br />
determination would be exercised (Insha Allah).<br />
Sultan M. Hali, Daily Mail (<strong>Islamabad</strong> /Beijing), February 5, 2010.<br />
http://dailymailnews.com/0210/05/Editorial_Column/DMColumn.php#2<br />
PAK TO CONTINUE EFFORTS FOR KASHMIR ISSUE<br />
RESOLUTION<br />
President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani<br />
said that Pakistan will continue its efforts for a just resolution to <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
issue, Geo News reported Friday.<br />
They said this in their separate messages issued on <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
Solidarity Day today. In their messages, they expressed complete moral,<br />
diplomatic and political support for the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
President Zardari said Pakistan has very clear-cut standpoint that<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i people should be incorporated in the process of negotiations, as<br />
it is they who are to decide on their fate.<br />
The Premier in his message urged the world community to play<br />
role to end the violations of human rights in Indian held <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
He said the hearts of Pakistanis throb with <strong>Kashmir</strong>i families, who<br />
laid down their lives for the independence and these sacrifices would not<br />
go in vain.<br />
23<br />
News International (Rawalpindi), February 5, 2010.<br />
PAKISTAN’S JUST STANCE ON KASHMIR ISSUE<br />
UNCHANGED: GILANI<br />
Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has said that Pakistan’s principled<br />
stance on <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue remains unchanged and the government will<br />
continue its political, moral and diplomatic support to the people of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
In his statement in connection with <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solidarity Day, the<br />
Prime Minister Gilani said the whole nation is united on the <strong>Kashmir</strong>
24 IPRI Factfile<br />
issue and Pakistan wants its early resolution according to the aspirations<br />
of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people, as it is imperative for lasting peace in the region.<br />
News International (Rawalpindi), February 5, 2010.<br />
KASHMIR SOLUTION<br />
Since the past sixty-three years, the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is have been struggling for<br />
their right of self-determination. Neither United Nations nor Great<br />
Powers seem serious to resolve this chronic issue. They are reluctant to<br />
implement the United Nations resolutions on <strong>Kashmir</strong>. The negligence<br />
of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is not only exposes the selective morality of the international<br />
community, but also haunts the peace and security of India and Pakistan.<br />
The <strong>Kashmir</strong> is recognized by the United Nations as a disputed territory.<br />
Importantly, <strong>Kashmir</strong>is were promised by the Indians to be given a<br />
chance to decide about their future at the United Nations forum in 1948.<br />
But now the latter is trying to bury the former’s right to decide about its<br />
future in oblivion.<br />
Since 1948, Pakistan has been endeavoring, politically and<br />
diplomatically, to resolve the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute through the conduct of<br />
plebiscite in the <strong>Kashmir</strong>. In connection to these efforts, the Government<br />
of Pakistan announced public holiday across the country for <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
Solidarity Day on February 5, 2010. Human chains were made at Kohala<br />
and Mangla. People from all walks of life in Pakistan expressed their<br />
solidarity with their <strong>Kashmir</strong>i brothers. Notably, since 1975, every year,<br />
government and people of Pakistan; and <strong>Kashmir</strong>is living in Azad<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> have been expressing their solidarity with the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is fighting<br />
for their right of self-determination and against the Indian oppression in<br />
the Indian held <strong>Kashmir</strong>. This demonstrates the determined stance of<br />
both the Pakistanis and <strong>Kashmir</strong>is for the liberation of <strong>Kashmir</strong> from the<br />
Indian occupation.<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> is one of the most beautiful places on earth. Once visiting<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>, the Mughal Emperor Jehangir exclaimed: “If there is paradise<br />
anywhere on earth, it is here, it is here, it is here.” Ironically, the<br />
stubborn and brutal policies of New Delhi have turned this paradise into<br />
hell. The Indian state-terrorism has replaced the yesteryears peace and<br />
tranquility of the scenic valley of Himalayas with the misery of physical<br />
and psychic violence. India and Pakistan had fought three wars over<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>: in 1947, 1965, and 1999. Moreover, the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is have been<br />
sustaining world’s longest-running separatist insurgency since over two
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
decades. Presently, it is a power-keg, which could trigger a nuclear war in<br />
one of the world’s most populous regions.<br />
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, intensified <strong>Kashmir</strong>is<br />
problems. The cementing Indo-US strategic partnership and New Delhi’s<br />
diplomatic efforts to label <strong>Kashmir</strong>is and their sympathizers as a terrorists<br />
have a detrimental repercussions for the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is freedom struggle.<br />
Ironically, today, the Indians and their allies as terrorists view every<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i.<br />
Indeed, Washington acknowledges that Al Qaeda is seeking to<br />
destabilize South Asia and planning to provoke a war between nucleararmed<br />
Pakistan and India. The United States Secretary of Defence Robert<br />
Gates had cautioned during his recent visit in India and Pakistan that<br />
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Afghan Taliban could<br />
carry out attacks in India for igniting the war between the belligerent<br />
neighbors—India and Pakistan. But he failed to point out the real cause of<br />
tension between India and Pakistan.<br />
Importantly, Presidential candidate Barack Obama generated a<br />
hope for the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is during the 2008 United States general elections.<br />
On September 25, 2008, he had pledged to ‘continue supporting the<br />
ongoing Indian and Pakistani efforts to resolve the <strong>Kashmir</strong> problem in<br />
order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and<br />
Pakistan’. Ironically, after his victory, he has been continuously ignoring<br />
the predicament of unresolved <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute. Instead of taking a bold<br />
step to address this decades’ unresolved dispute, he is distancing from the<br />
factual realities.<br />
The suspension of Composite Dialogue between India and Pakistan<br />
in the aftermath of Mumbai terrorist attacks on November 2008 reveals<br />
that India is not serious in resolving the conflicts with Pakistan.<br />
Conversely, <strong>Islamabad</strong> is doing its best to restart the fifth round of a<br />
dialogue process. The advantageous situation of India in the international<br />
community and reluctance of Obama Administration to seriously play its<br />
role in the India-Pakistan conflict undermine the security environment of<br />
the entire region.<br />
To conclude, without the <strong>Kashmir</strong> solution, India and Pakistan in<br />
particular and South Asia in general would remain in a state of tension.<br />
The terrorist groups would prosper; the extra-regional powers’ decisive<br />
role in the internal and external affairs of the South Asian States would<br />
continue; and above all the entire region would remain victim of<br />
25
26 IPRI Factfile<br />
insecurity and underdevelopment.<br />
Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal Weekly Pulse (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 5, 2010.<br />
http://www.weeklypulse.org/pulse/article/4859.html<br />
CALL TO HOLD PLEBISCITE IN KASHMIR<br />
Thousands of people on Friday held rallies in the City against the Indian<br />
occupation of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, calling for a plebiscite to give the<br />
right to self-determination to <strong>Kashmir</strong>is under the UN resolutions that<br />
had been awaiting implementation for the last six decades.<br />
All noted religious parties took out rallies in connection with the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> Day and held demonstrations and conferences to highlight the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> issue and the unabated atrocities in the occupied territory by the<br />
Indian army which had so far killed over 100,000 <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, maimed a<br />
larger number of people in torture cells, raped women and kept<br />
thousands of Muslim youth in secret detention centres.<br />
Addressing to the rallies and conferences, political and religious<br />
leaders criticised India for constantly undermining Pakistan,<br />
dismembering the country and blocking its rivers besides wreaking havoc<br />
on Pakistani civilians in from of terrorism and bomb blasts. They said the<br />
dream peace in South Asia would remain elusive without freedom of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. The leaders also condemned the US courts for convicting Dr<br />
Aafia Siddiqui without sufficient evidence.<br />
Big rallies were taken out by the banned Jamaatud Dawah and<br />
Jamaat-e-Islami, while demonstrations were also held by the Jammu<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> Liberation Front (JKLF), JUP, Hizbut Tahrir, Markazi Jamiat<br />
Ahle Hadith, Jamiat Mashaikh, Awami National <strong>Part</strong>y (ANP), Sunni<br />
Tehrik and others. Addressing the rally, which marched from Nasir Bagh<br />
to the Punjab Assembly, JD ameer Hafiz Saeed said <strong>Kashmir</strong> could turn<br />
the whole world into a ball of fire since Pakistan and India, the nuclear<br />
neighbours, had already fought four wars on it. He said with the US<br />
probable exit from Afghanistan, the Indian dream of becoming the<br />
regional super power had begun crashing and it that’s why it was trying<br />
to hold fake ‘Peace Dialogue’. He asid Indian Interior Minister<br />
Chidambaram had said there was need of dialogue, admitting that Indian<br />
elements could have been involved in Mumbai attacks.<br />
Hafiz Saeed said he dialogue with India should be held after it<br />
pulled out its army from <strong>Kashmir</strong> and release the water of Pakistani<br />
rivers. He said the dialogue should include every contentious issue
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
including unjust distribution of Punjab at the time of dividing subcontinent,<br />
Indian army’s terrorism in East Pakistan, Babri Masjid issue<br />
and its occupation of states of Hyderabad Deccan, Junagarh and<br />
Manawadar.<br />
He said after the US and NATO pullout from Afghanistan, Indian<br />
forces would have to retreat from <strong>Kashmir</strong> in the same fashion. Jamiat<br />
Ahle Hadith President Senator Sajid Mir also addressed to the rally and<br />
said Pakistan would remain incomplete without independence of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. He said India was trying to convert Pakistan into a desert by<br />
making its rivers dry. JUI-F leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmad said every<br />
Pakistani should stand up for liberating Kahsmir from India. He said<br />
tribal people had almost liberated Kahsmir from Indian occupation in<br />
1948 but Nehru treacherously involved the UN which brokered a<br />
ceasefire for the benefit of India.<br />
Hafiz Abdul Wadood, Khalid bin Waleed, Ameer Hamza, JI leader<br />
Farid Ahmad Paracha and PML-N leaders Bilal Yaseen and Khwaja<br />
Ajasim Sharif also addressed the rally. Ameer Hamza, Convener of<br />
Tehreek-Hurmat-e-Rasool demanded the release of Zakiur Rehman<br />
Lakhvi and Dr Aafia Siddiqui.<br />
The Jamaat-e-Islami also took out a rally from Nasir Bagh to<br />
Punjab Assembly. Hundreds of women and children and party workers<br />
participated in the rally, led by JI Secretary General Liaquat Baloch,<br />
Amirul Azim, Dr Aafia Sarwar, Sameea Raheel Qazi, Humera Tariq,<br />
Tahira Munir and Rabeea Tariq.<br />
Addressing the participants, Baloch questioned the Pakistan<br />
government policies which, he said, were protecting interests of India and<br />
America instead of our national interests.<br />
27<br />
News International (Rawalpindi), February 6, 2010.<br />
INDIA NOT WILLING TO HOLD TALKS ON KASHMIR:<br />
PRIME MINISTER<br />
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said India is willing to hold<br />
dialogues but not on <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue.<br />
“Though India is agreed to resume the dialogue process but it’s not<br />
willing to include <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue in the agenda,” premier said while<br />
addressing a draw ceremony of Capital Development Authority’s pilots<br />
in Sector I-16.
28 IPRI Factfile<br />
Gilani while talking to media at this occasion said we should not<br />
make haste but wait for India’s reply on including the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue in<br />
composite dialogue process. He expressed hope that composite dialogue<br />
between the two countries will resume soon.<br />
News International (Rawalpindi), February 11, 2010.<br />
PAKISTAN-INDIA TALKS<br />
Resort to coercive diplomacy by India to get Pakistani compliance on the<br />
Mumbai terrorist attacks had already alienated Pakistani public opinion;<br />
the threatening statements from the Indian military and political<br />
leadership, and the treatment meted out to Pakistani cricketers in IPL<br />
selection led to the renewal of the old blame game between <strong>Islamabad</strong> and<br />
New Delhi In a significant development, Pakistan and India have moved<br />
to soon open bilateral talks at foreign secretaries’ level on an open-ended<br />
agenda that is also likely to cover the water issue and counter-terrorism.<br />
The move comes after more than 14 months of hiatus in relations<br />
between the two countries following the November 26, 2008 terrorist<br />
attacks in Mumbai. The attacks led to unilateral suspension of the four<br />
year old Composite Dialogue process under which <strong>Islamabad</strong> and New<br />
Delhi had completed four rounds of bilateral talks for resolving their<br />
disputes, including the dispute over Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
Defying persistent calls from Pakistan as well as from the other<br />
leading members of the international community, the Indians had made<br />
the resumption of the Composite Dialogue process contingent on what<br />
they called credible progress by Pakistan on the prosecution of those<br />
suspected to be involved in the Mumbai attacks. Although no dramatic<br />
breakthrough is expected, the initiative is a welcome development for<br />
easing tension between the two countries, which was escalating due to a<br />
communication break and a spate of hostile statements from both sides.<br />
The move has also come amidst the mix of hope and despair<br />
witnessed during the last more than one year, regarding the prospects of<br />
the revival of the peace process. It was believed, and even some leading<br />
sections of the Indian media shared this belief, that the conclusion of the<br />
15th Lok Sabha elections in May last year would enable the new United<br />
Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to restart talks with Pakistan;<br />
but the bellicose rhetoric by the Indian leaders foreshadowed the<br />
prospects, if there were any, for bringing the peace process again on<br />
track. Hopes were again rekindled when President Asif Ali Zardari met
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in Yekaterinburg<br />
(Russia) in June 2009 on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation<br />
Organisation (SCO) summit and discussed with him the prospects of<br />
resumption of the Composite Dialogue. As a follow up, Pakistan’s High<br />
Commissioner in India, Shahid Malik, met India’s Foreign Secretary<br />
Shivshankar Menon in New Delhi on June 23, 2009 to set a date for talks<br />
between the foreign secretaries of the two countries, but agreement on a<br />
new date could not be reached.<br />
However, the two countries continued their efforts in search of<br />
some meeting point to resume peace talks, which both sides considered<br />
essential for normalisation of their relations and resolution of their<br />
bilateral disputes. On July 11, Prime Minister Singh, on arriving back at<br />
New Delhi airport after attending the G-8 Conference in Rome, disclosed<br />
that following his meeting with President Zardari in Russia, the Indian<br />
High Commissioner in <strong>Islamabad</strong>, Sharat Sabharwal had met Pakistan’s<br />
ISI chief and several other high officials in <strong>Islamabad</strong> in a bid to prepare<br />
the ground for revival of peace talks. But these contacts seemed to have<br />
made little headway, as Pakistan accused India of dragging its feet on talks<br />
because of internal expediencies and the Indian leaders insisted that the<br />
atmosphere was not conducive for moving ahead.<br />
The meeting between Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani and<br />
his Indian counterpart at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in July<br />
2009 gave a real boost to these hopes, as the two leaders agreed in a joint<br />
statement to de-link the issue of terrorism from the Composite Dialogue<br />
and proposed a meeting between the foreign ministers of the two<br />
countries during the UN General Assembly Annual Session in New York<br />
in September. Pakistan again called for the resumption of the Composite<br />
Dialogue, asserting that it was the only way to bring about peace and<br />
stability in South Asia by resolving bilateral disputes between Pakistan<br />
and India. This call was made by President Zardari in his address to the<br />
UN General Assembly Annual Session on September 25 in New York.<br />
Although there was no breakthrough on the resumption of the<br />
Composite Dialogue, the two countries continued to interact with each<br />
other in other areas. There was a meeting in New Delhi between the<br />
commerce secretaries of Pakistan and India early in September last year to<br />
discuss trade and commerce issues. Speaking about the bright prospects<br />
for bilateral trade between the two countries, Pakistan’s Commerce<br />
Secretary Suleman Ghani had emphasised the resumption of the<br />
Composite Dialogue, as it could take annual bilateral trade to $10 billion<br />
29
30 IPRI Factfile<br />
within 5-6 years from the present level of only $2 billion a year. As a<br />
further sign of goodwill, Pakistan, responding to a long-standing request<br />
by India, agreed to provide its rail and road facilities for trade with<br />
Afghanistan. A memorandum of understanding (MoU) to that effect was<br />
signed by Pakistan’s Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim on<br />
September 30, 2009.<br />
Despite these encouraging developments, however, the issue of the<br />
resumption of the Composite Dialogue remained unresolved. On the<br />
contrary, the relations between the two countries seemed to be sliding<br />
back to the pre-2004 phase of rising tensions and mounting hostility.<br />
There were skirmishes across the Line of Control (LoC) and clashes<br />
across the international border in Punjab; each side accusing the other of<br />
‘unprovoked firing’. The repeated incidents of firing across the LoC were<br />
particularly worrying, because these incidents threatened to end the six<br />
year old ceasefire along the boundary in <strong>Kashmir</strong>, which was hailed as the<br />
most successful Confidence Building Measure (CBM) between Pakistan<br />
and India. The Indian Army Chief’s statement on his country’s strategic<br />
doctrine to develop the capability of fighting simultaneously on the<br />
Chinese and Pakistani fronts and the reaction from the Pakistani military<br />
leadership, added fuel to the fire in an already explosive situation. Resort<br />
to coercive diplomacy by India to get Pakistani compliance on the<br />
Mumbai terrorist attacks had already alienated Pakistani public opinion;<br />
the threatening statements from the Indian military and political<br />
leadership, and the treatment meted out to Pakistani cricketers in IPL<br />
selection led to the renewal of the old blame game between <strong>Islamabad</strong> and<br />
New Delhi. The elements in both countries who had never reconciled to<br />
peace and normalisation between Pakistan and India were quick to<br />
exploit the prevailing situation with their agenda of undermining any<br />
chance for peace between the two countries. Prime Minister Gilani was<br />
right when, early in September 2009, he said in a statement in Karachi<br />
that continued suspension of the Composite Dialogue between Pakistan<br />
and India could be exploited by the terrorists.<br />
The decision by Pakistan and India to hold a meeting at foreign<br />
secretaries’ level is fundamentally motivated by a desire by the two<br />
countries to prevent a further downslide in their bilateral relations. The<br />
decision also shows, once again, that Indian coercive diplomacy against<br />
Pakistan cannot succeed. The constant pressure from the international<br />
community, which nervously saw Pakistan-India relations relapsing into<br />
acrimony and hostility, is also an important factor in pushing these South
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Asian neighbours to the negotiating table once again. The fast changing<br />
geo-political scenario in the region, particularly expected developments<br />
after the London Conference on Afghanistan, has also impelled Pakistan<br />
and India to revisit their positions vis-à-vis terrorism and peace talks.<br />
Dr Rashid Ahmad Khan, Daily Times (Lahore), February 11, 2010.<br />
INDIA DOESN’T WANT TO TALK ON KASHMIR<br />
While composite dialogue is the only way forward for the resolution of<br />
all outstanding issues and India has offered Pakistan talks, New Delhi<br />
“does not want to talk on <strong>Kashmir</strong>”, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani<br />
said on Thursday.<br />
“They have agreed to talk to Pakistan, but they don’t want to talk<br />
on <strong>Kashmir</strong>,” the AFP news agency quoted Gilani as saying on Thursday.<br />
The news agency reported that India’s offer for limited dialogue on<br />
terrorism has dismayed <strong>Islamabad</strong>.<br />
Way forward: Addressing reporters in <strong>Islamabad</strong>, the prime<br />
minister said dialogue was the only way to resolve problems between<br />
civilised nations.<br />
Asked if India did not want to talk on the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute, Gilani<br />
said “we should wait for India’s suggestions” on the resumption of the<br />
composite dialogue process. He said the Foreign Office and the foreign<br />
secretary were in contact with India, and “we should not jump to<br />
conclusions” over the outcome of the dialogue.<br />
Replying to another question, Gilani said judges would be<br />
appointed to superior courts in line with the law.<br />
The prime minister said while the country was facing<br />
multidimensional challenges, the Pakistan People’s <strong>Part</strong>y-led government<br />
was planning to steer the country out of the crises. He said the<br />
government was “fully aware of its election manifesto” and working to<br />
address the grievances of the masses. AFP quoted an Indian government<br />
source as saying that while Pakistan had taken a “few small steps” needed<br />
for talks to resume, it had not gone far enough to merit a return to full<br />
dialogue.<br />
31<br />
Daily Times (Lahore), February 12, 2010.
32 IPRI Factfile<br />
WHY RUSH TO DIALOGUE?<br />
It is strange to see the Pakistan government agreeing to foreign secretary<br />
level talks with India as early as 25 February when no less a person than<br />
the Prime Minister has revealed that India does not want <strong>Kashmir</strong> on the<br />
dialogue table. Now that the most pressing issues all arise out of the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute, it seems absurd to commence a dialogue casting aside<br />
the agreed composite dialogue formula as well as agenda and to embark<br />
on a new venture where India has already declared what it wants to<br />
discuss. Why is Pakistan in such a hurry to get to the dialogue table with<br />
India when there is little substance in terms of conflict resolution that<br />
India is in a mood to concede to? What are the pressures on Pakistan?<br />
Surely it would have been better to get a national consensus through<br />
parliament before embarking on such a dicey dialogue track? But once<br />
again, the Foreign Minister, whose unseemly haste in welcoming the<br />
Kerry Lugar Act is still vivid in most Pakistani memories, seems almost<br />
desperate to accept India’s terms for a dialogue.<br />
Equally ridiculous is the Foreign Office’s declaration that Pakistan<br />
will hold talks “with an open mind”, given how India has already closed<br />
it mind to any suggestions for an agenda on the part of Pakistan. So,<br />
under these circumstances, and “open mind” would merely denote an<br />
acceptance of Indian diktat, beginning with the agenda. As for the<br />
argument that the dialogue is necessary because of the critical water issue,<br />
this is an effort to fool the people. First, the water issue cannot be<br />
resolved without resolution of <strong>Kashmir</strong> since the seeds of the dispute lie<br />
within this larger political conflict. India would like to discuss water<br />
outside of <strong>Kashmir</strong> so as to create an artificial disconnect between the two<br />
inextricably linked issues. Second, and linked to the first point, is the fact<br />
that if India wants to discuss water outside of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute, there<br />
is already a mechanism inbuilt into the Indus Water Treaty so there is<br />
actually no need for the commencement of dialogue between the two<br />
sides to push for resolution of the waters dispute. After all, the Treaty has<br />
international guarantors who should now be called upon to play their<br />
role since they forced the rulers of the time to sign away Pakistan’s rights<br />
to three crucial rivers. Finally, the water issue has effectively moved into<br />
the area of state terrorism on the part of India so perhaps it can also be<br />
discussed under that head as part of the composite dialogue. Otherwise<br />
once again India will present Pakistan with a fait accompli in terms of<br />
illegal dams.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Under these circumstances, and seeing the deteriorating situation in<br />
Indian Occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>, where the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people have protested<br />
Indian occupation with a complete shutter down strike and protest rallies<br />
once again, it makes no sense for Pakistan to rush into a meaningless, illthought<br />
out dialogue on 25 February in New Delhi.<br />
Editorial, Nation (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 13, 2010.<br />
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/Opinions/Editorials/13-Feb-2010/Why-rush-to-dialogue<br />
KASHMIR CALM DOWN<br />
The protests in Indian-administered <strong>Kashmir</strong> during recent weeks are<br />
threatening to engulf the region in yet more violence and bloodshed.<br />
Anti-India sentiment has deepened after India’s Border Security Force<br />
admitted on Wednesday that “prima facie evidence points towards a<br />
constable” being responsible for last week’s shooting of an innocent boy.<br />
It is encouraging that the Indian administration has promised to pursue<br />
justice. Nevertheless it must be noted that the region was paralysed on<br />
Thursday by a major security lock-down following a general strike called<br />
by the Jammu <strong>Kashmir</strong> Liberation Front. There are fears that protests<br />
could morph into widespread demonstrations, particularly if the<br />
administration persists in its heavy-handed response.<br />
This is deeply disturbing on many counts. A move towards<br />
peaceful resistance was becoming evident in recent months, and this<br />
represented the only way forward for a region that has for decades<br />
witnessed mass suppression and bloodshed. But the Indian<br />
administration’s disproportionately forceful clampdown on even peaceful<br />
demonstrations stands in danger of pushing the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people back<br />
against the wall and leaving them with no option other than violent<br />
agitation. There is no doubt that people have the right to air their<br />
grievances in a calm manner. If they are stripped of that right, they may<br />
be forced to resort once again to violence.<br />
There are two further aspects to be considered in terms of the<br />
consequences of heavy-handedness by the Indian administration. First,<br />
such tactics of oppression are the hallmarks of a dictatorship, not a<br />
democracy. If India wants the world to see and treat it as a credible<br />
democracy, it must follow through on basic principles. This includes<br />
allowing the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people their right to protest peacefully, and<br />
pushing towards a long-term solution for the region. Second, in order to<br />
33
34 IPRI Factfile<br />
take the wind out of the sails of the Islamist militants operating in the<br />
region, it is essential that India take a more nuanced approach. The<br />
militants justify their violent tactics by pointing towards the brutality of<br />
the Indian forces. In the absence of such brutality, instigating violence<br />
would lose all justification.<br />
Editorial, Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 13, 2010.<br />
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/editorial/13+kashmir-clampdown-320-za-03<br />
VISION OF KASHMIR SOLUTION<br />
Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has linked <strong>Kashmir</strong>’s freedom to<br />
economically strong Pakistan. “Even Pakistan cannot be termed an<br />
independent country politically and economically without elimination of<br />
illiteracy and ignorance. We will have to develop our own resources to<br />
get rid of foreign aid for our political and economic freedom,” he said at a<br />
prize-distribution ceremony among the winners of speech and essay<br />
writing competitions at Chief Minister’s Secretariat here on Saturday.<br />
He said education was one of the top priorities of the government<br />
and it had taken revolutionary steps for promotion of quality education<br />
and improvement in the sector.<br />
Mr Sharif said poverty, unemployment, terrorism and extremism<br />
could be eliminated through promotion of education and resources were<br />
being utilised for the purpose. He said the developed nations made<br />
progress by virtue of education, science, technology and modern<br />
knowledge.<br />
He said young generation would have to play an effective role for<br />
the development of the country. Unanimous approval of NFC award was<br />
an important step towards national unity and solidarity. The chief<br />
minister said scholarships were being given through Punjab Educational<br />
Endowment Fund to the talented students facing financial constraints for<br />
continuing their studies. Punjab Education Minister Mujtaba Shujaur<br />
Rehman, Senior Sindh Minister Pir Mazharul Haq, Balochistan<br />
Education Minister Tahir Mehmood, NWFP Education Minister Sardar<br />
Husain Babak also spoke.<br />
Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 14, 2010.<br />
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/national/vision-of-kashmir-solution-420
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE VITAL TO RESOLVE KASHMIR<br />
DISPUTE: GILANI<br />
Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani Friday said meaningful dialogue<br />
is a necessity to resolve the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute in accordance with UN<br />
resolutions. The Prime Minister was speaking at a <strong>Kashmir</strong> Convention<br />
here in connection with <strong>Kashmir</strong> Solidarity Day at Pakistan National<br />
Council of the Arts. Pakistan has always emphasized the necessity of a<br />
meaningful dialogue to resolve the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute; he said adding<br />
Pakistan believes that the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue should be resolved in accordance<br />
with relevant UN Resolutions.<br />
He expressed the government’s resolve to continue extending moral<br />
and political support to the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> in their just struggle. He<br />
reminded that <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute is the root cause of tension in South Asia.<br />
He said the government and people of Pakistan are in complete solidarity<br />
with their <strong>Kashmir</strong>i brethren. We shall always stand with our <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
brothers and sisters for the realization of their fundamental and<br />
inalienable rights. Together we shall succeed.<br />
Gilani said for more than 60 years, the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> have<br />
been waging a valiant struggle for realization of their inalienable right to<br />
self-determination. Their right has been recognized by the international<br />
community. It stems from international law and has been legitimized by<br />
resolutions of the United Nations, he added.<br />
The people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> were among the first to be promised their<br />
right to self-determination by the UN. Yet, <strong>Kashmir</strong> remains an<br />
unfinished agenda; he recalled and regretted that unfulfilled promises over<br />
the years have taken a heavy toll of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people.<br />
They have faced oppression and blatant abuse of human rights.<br />
The list of their martyrs continues to grow. Despite all odds, the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i people have steadfastly continued their struggle for achieving<br />
their legitimate rights, he added.<br />
He lauded the resolve, determination and faith of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is and<br />
said violence in Indian-occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> emanates from the massive<br />
human rights violations perpetrated by Indian occupation forces acting<br />
with impunity. These violations have been well documented by<br />
international human rights organization. Each household in Indianoccupied<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> has a tragedy to narrate. In the recent past, the<br />
Amarnath Shrine land issue and the brutal killing of two young <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
35
36 IPRI Factfile<br />
women in Shopian have resulted in the people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
being subjected to further indignities.<br />
He said <strong>Kashmir</strong>is continue to face an economic blockade; their<br />
lives and properties have been attacked. Many <strong>Kashmir</strong>is have been<br />
martyred in a ruthless show of force. These include Sheikh Abdul Aziz, a<br />
prominent Hurriyat leader. The inhuman treatment of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is has<br />
been condemned by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and all<br />
those who feel for humanity and desire to seek peace, he added.<br />
He reiterated Pakistan’s call for an end to human rights violations<br />
in Indian occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> saying India must respect its international<br />
obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. He<br />
referred to the <strong>Kashmir</strong>-related confidence building measures taken to<br />
alleviate the sufferings of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is.<br />
The Prime Minister said the unilateral ceasefire announced by<br />
Pakistan in November 2003 has provided the much required space for<br />
peace for <strong>Kashmir</strong>is living across the LoC. The opening of crossing points<br />
across the LoC helped in bringing together divided families. The<br />
Muzaffarabad-Srinagar and the Rawalakot - Poonch bus services and<br />
Cross-LoC trade are also testimony to Pakistan’s commitment to<br />
alleviating the suffering of the people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, he<br />
elaborated.<br />
Pakistan Times (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 15, 2010.<br />
http://pakistantimes.net/pt/detail.php?newsId=8343<br />
INDIA WASTED A YEAR BY SUSPENDING TALKS:<br />
FOREIGN OFFICE<br />
Pakistan on Monday said it is “not hesitant” about solving terror-related<br />
issues with India though the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute will have to be settled to<br />
ensure absolute peace in the region.<br />
Talking to a private TV channel, Foreign Office spokesman Abdul<br />
Basit said Pakistan would raise the thorny issues of <strong>Kashmir</strong> and water<br />
during the Foreign Secretary-level talks with India to be held on the<br />
February 25 in New Delhi.<br />
Welcoming Indian’s readiness to hold Foreign Secretary-level talks,<br />
Basit also urged Indian authorities to accept reality that <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue is a<br />
main hurdle in cordial relations between both countries and without its<br />
solution, stability and peace in the region would be a dream.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
He <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute was the core issue between Pakistan and India<br />
and its resolution was imperative for long-lasting and durable peace in the<br />
region.<br />
The talks should not be limited to terrorism but other thorny<br />
issues, including water and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, should also be discussed, he added.<br />
He said that India wasted one year by discontinuing talks with<br />
Pakistan, adding that it was still unclear what India wanted.<br />
There were no chances of Pakistani and Indian Prime Ministers<br />
meeting in near future, he stated.<br />
He said that Indian proposal for resuming Foreign Secretary-level<br />
talks was laudable in the prevailing situation. A number of issues<br />
including <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute, water issue, terrorism and bilateral trade<br />
would be thrashed out in the forthcoming talks between the secretaries of<br />
both the countries, he added. In addition, Indian involvement in Fata and<br />
Balochistan would also be raised in the deliberations, he added.<br />
He said that <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue should be resolved in accordance with<br />
the resolution adopted by United Nations. He said that time had also<br />
come for India to recognize this issue as a fundamental dispute between<br />
the two countries. He expressed the confidence that the current<br />
engagement with India will be helpful in making progress towards<br />
resolution of <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute.<br />
He, however, said <strong>Kashmir</strong> leadership would not participate in<br />
talks. He also clarified that no conditions had been set for the dialogue.<br />
He expressed the confidence that the talks would lead to the resumption<br />
of sustained and meaningful composite dialogue process between the two<br />
countries. Basit said that Pakistan had no reluctance in solving terrorrelated<br />
issues; however, <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute would have to be settled for<br />
absolute peace in the region.<br />
Terming the statement of Indian External Affairs Minister SM<br />
Krishna that India will not allow terrorists to dictate the scope and<br />
schedule of diplomatic interaction with Pakistan a positive step for<br />
composite dialogue, the FO spokesman said that terrorism was a global<br />
and regional phenomenon and also a big challenge for the world. For<br />
tackling this problem, “we need cooperation of all regional countries”, he<br />
added.<br />
He further said that international community would have to sit<br />
together to devise ways and means for elimination of terrorism and<br />
extremism. Pakistan, he said, is itself a victim of terrorism and has<br />
37
38 IPRI Factfile<br />
rendered numerous sacrifices. No one should doubt Pakistan’s sincerely<br />
to fight militancy, he said.<br />
The spokesman said that security and development were two<br />
cornerstones of Pakistan’s foreign policy. The spokesman said that<br />
Pakistan did not believe in talks for the sake of talks, rather wanted these<br />
to be result-oriented and meaningful, leading to resolution of all the<br />
outstanding issues including the core issue of <strong>Kashmir</strong>. He said that the<br />
resolution of core disputes would also help tackle other problems faced<br />
by the region, including poverty and disease.<br />
“Pakistan will strive to ensure that talks with India are irreversible<br />
because abrupt severing of negotiations only benefits forces inimical to<br />
both Pakistan and India,” he maintained. To another question, he said<br />
that a major change had been observed in the US policy about Pakistan<br />
and American people also wanted an end to drone strikes inside Pakistan.<br />
Regarding war against terrorism, he said, it could not be won through<br />
force only. Abdul Basit said there were some forces on both sides who<br />
wanted to disrupt the peace process and now it was the responsibility of<br />
the leadership of the two countries to foil their designs.<br />
Nation (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 16, 2010.<br />
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline//Politics/16-Feb-2010/India-wasted-a-year-by-suspending-talks-FO<br />
LEGALITY OF INDIAN CLAIM ON KASHMIR<br />
Following the World War-<strong>II</strong>, there has been an unremitting resistance by<br />
the people of Subcontinent against the ruling British colonial power.<br />
Under the swelling pressure of the people of subcontinent, the British<br />
Government finally had to announce the partition of the Subcontinent<br />
on June 3, 1947. However, the British Parliament formally passed “The<br />
Indian Independence Act-1947” on July 17, 1947. As per provision of<br />
Article-I of the Independence Act, India was to be partitioned into two<br />
Dominions namely “India” and “Pakistan” from 15th day of August<br />
1947. However, Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act very clearly<br />
states that from 15th August 1947, “the suzerainty of His Majesty over<br />
the Indian states lapse and with it lapses all treaties and agreements in<br />
force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the<br />
rulers of Indian states”. Consequent upon this, all powers and functions,<br />
which were exercisable by the British Government in relation to the<br />
Princely States, also ceased.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
All agreements of British governments with either rulers or states<br />
also lapsed on 15th of August 1947. Since the state of Jammu and<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> was a Princely State with a special autonomous status, therefore,<br />
it can be very conveniently said, that on 15th day of August 1947, the<br />
Maharaja Sir Hari Singh was not the permissible ruler of the state of<br />
Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> as all his treaties with British India lapsed on that<br />
day. Once he was not a ruler of the state, he had no right to sign the<br />
instrument of accession (if at all he signed that) with the new Indian<br />
dominion. This title to the state was granted to him by the British<br />
Government (East India Company) under the Treaty of Amritsar<br />
(<strong>Kashmir</strong> Sale deed) signed on 16 March 1846 and lapsed on the<br />
appointed day of 15th August 1947.<br />
Besides, on July 25, 1947 in his address to special full meetings of<br />
the Chamber of Princes held in New Delhi, Lord Mountbatten<br />
categorically told all princes of Princely States that they were practically<br />
free to join any one of dominions; India or Pakistan. He however<br />
clarified that, while acceding to any dominion they could take into<br />
account geographical contiguity and wishes of the people. In case of the<br />
State of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, either of the above factors was favouring<br />
state’s accession to Pakistan, but Maharaja Hari Singh did not accept this<br />
basic precondition of accession.<br />
Indian claim that its forces landed Srinagar Airport on<br />
October 27, 1947, only after signatures on Instrument of Accession<br />
by Maharaja and the Indian government is also fallacious. Indeed, a<br />
heavy contingent of Patiala State was involved in fighting against the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i rebellions in Uri Sector on 18 October 1947, which means<br />
that they were very much inside the State's territory much earlier<br />
than October 27, 1947.<br />
On 24 October 1947, <strong>Kashmir</strong>is formally declared their<br />
independence from Dogra Raj and established their own government<br />
with the name of Azad (Free) <strong>Kashmir</strong> Government. Following this<br />
Maharaja Hari Singh sent his deputy Prime Minister Mr. R.L. Batra to<br />
New Delhi for Indian military assistance to his Government against those<br />
revolted and tribal from NWFP who joined their brethrens against a<br />
tyrant rule. He (Batra) met the Indian Prime Minster and other<br />
prominent Indian leaders and requested for assistance without making<br />
any mention or promise of state’s accession to the Indian Union. The<br />
Indian government instead sent Mr. V.P Menon (Indian Secretary of<br />
39
40 IPRI Factfile<br />
State) to <strong>Kashmir</strong> to assess the situation on the spot by himself on 25<br />
October 1947.<br />
After assessing, the situation in <strong>Kashmir</strong> Mr. V.P Menon flew back<br />
to New Delhi on 26 October 1947, together with <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Prime<br />
Minster Mr. Mahajan, who met top Indian leadership, seeking military<br />
assistance. He was refused to get that until state’s formal accession with<br />
India. On this <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Premier threatened the Indian leadership that if<br />
immediate military assistance was not granted, he would go to Lahore for<br />
negotiations with Pakistani leadership over the future status of the state.<br />
In a parallel development, Sheikh Abdullah met Indian Premier,<br />
Jawaharlal Nehru, on the same day, October 26, 1947, who agreed to<br />
despatch military assistance to the <strong>Kashmir</strong> government.<br />
As stated by Mahajan, the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Prime Minister, that V.P.<br />
Menon accompanied him to convince Hari Singh for accession of the<br />
State with India on 27 October 1947. Under the compulsion, Hari Singh<br />
signed the instrument of accession on the same day i.e. 27 October 1947,<br />
which was later taken to Lord Mountbatten (Indian Governor General),<br />
who also signed that on the same day (27 October), which was practically<br />
difficult. V.P. Menon, however, states that all these formalities of<br />
signatures were completed on 26 October 1947, which is impracticable.<br />
This version, however, seems concocted as even contradicted by pro<br />
Indian <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Premier. Both however are unanimous on one point<br />
that Indian state forces landed at Srinagar airfield in the morning of 27<br />
October 1947 and a battalion of Patiala State received them there, which<br />
was already there.<br />
In his travel account, <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Prime Minister Mahajan has<br />
described that he had refused to return to <strong>Kashmir</strong> and hand over powers<br />
to Sheikh Abdullah until Srinagar airfield had been physically taken over<br />
by the Indian forces. This creates doubt as to whether Mahajan and V.P<br />
Menon even went to the State (Jammu) for getting the signatures of<br />
Maharaja Hari Singh on the Instrument of Accession before 27 October<br />
1947. This is further confirmed by variation in the statements of V.P.<br />
Menon and Mr. Mahajan (<strong>Kashmir</strong>i Prime Minister) regarding their travel<br />
to <strong>Kashmir</strong> either on 26 or on 27 October 1947 for getting the signatures<br />
of Maharaja Hari Singh.<br />
However, whatever be the case the factual position is that;<br />
Maharaja Hari Singh was not in favour of State’s accession to Indian<br />
Union therefore, he only requested the Indian government for military<br />
assistance without any pre-condition of accession. Indeed, the accession
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
documents and letters to Lord Mountbatten were initiated through the<br />
Joint efforts of V.P Menon and pro India <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Premier Mahajan, as<br />
wished by Indian Government and Hari Singh was forced to sign it on<br />
the evening of 27 October 1947 or thereafter. Where as, Indian forces<br />
landed on Srinagar airport on the early hours of 27 October 1947. The<br />
time calculation of Mr. V.P Menon’s (Indian Secretary of State) visit to<br />
Srinagar, Delhi, Jammu and vice versa does not fit in with the concocted<br />
story of the signing of the Instrument of Accession.<br />
Even if there is an instrument of accession between Maharaja Hari<br />
Singh and Indian government, it provides a number of safeguards to the<br />
state’s sovereignty, e.g. Clause 7 of the instrument says, “Nothing in this<br />
instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of<br />
any future constitution of India …”. Whereas, Clause 8 of the<br />
Instruments says, “Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of<br />
my sovereignty in and over this state…”.<br />
Supposedly, [in] the instrument of accession [that] was signed by<br />
the Maharaja and Indian government, [and] in his reply to Maharaja’s<br />
letter by Lord Mountbatten it was clearly mentioned that after the<br />
restoration of law and order in the State of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> and the<br />
expulsion of the raiders, its future will be decided in accordance with the<br />
wishes of the people of the State. The same stance was taken by UNO in<br />
its over 23 resolutions, passed from time to time. Besides, over the years,<br />
Indian leadership had been reiterating their commitments to <strong>Kashmir</strong>is,<br />
Government of Pakistan and to the world community that after the<br />
restoration of peace in the state, its future would be decided as per the<br />
wishes of the people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> through UN mandated<br />
plebiscite. However, with the passage of time India refused to fulfill her<br />
commitments/obligations, which means she had ill designs right from the<br />
very beginning. Nevertheless, implementation of these resolutions and<br />
the fulfillment of Indian commitments is still awaited.<br />
Another significant fact is that, had there been any accession treaty<br />
between the state of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> and the Indian government,<br />
why it could not be published in the Indian White Paper of 1948? This<br />
has left a great disbelief regarding the conclusion of any such agreement.<br />
Yet another very serious reservation arises, had <strong>Kashmir</strong> been part of the<br />
Indian Union, why it was given a special status under the provision of<br />
internal autonomy through Article 370 of the Indian constitution? It is<br />
momentous to mention that the Indian government did not accord a<br />
similar status to any other state under this provision. Indeed, out of 560<br />
41
42 IPRI Factfile<br />
Princely states, over five hundred joined India, but none was accorded<br />
this special status.<br />
Through this status and a number of commitments, India kept<br />
luring in <strong>Kashmir</strong>i masses to become its part. Upon failure of winning<br />
their commiserations, India forced its way, through a fake assembly<br />
resolution in mid 1950s and thereafter started calling the state as its<br />
integral part. United Nations, however, through its resolution, No.2017<br />
of 30 March 1951 and S.3779 of January 24, 1957, made it absolutely clear<br />
that; any action which <strong>Kashmir</strong> Constituent Assembly may have taken or<br />
might attempt to take to determine the future shape of state or any of its<br />
part would not constitute the disposition of the state and that election of<br />
State’s Constituent Assembly cannot be a substitute for plebiscite. Thus,<br />
this act of India was a blatant violation of the UNSC resolutions that<br />
India had accepted too.<br />
Inaccuracy of Indian claim of accession can be judged from the<br />
top-secret letter addressed to British Government by Mr Alexander<br />
Symon, UK High Commissioner to India. In this letter, he briefly<br />
described the events until 4.00 P.M on [27] October 1947, as; ten Indian<br />
aircrafts loaded with arms and troops were dispatched to <strong>Kashmir</strong> from<br />
New Delhi on the morning of 27 October 1947. Until 4 P.M of 27<br />
October 1947, Mr V.P. Menon has not reported from Jammu, which<br />
mean accession documents were either not signed or signed by Hari Singh<br />
on 27 October 1947, and there were only rumours of <strong>Kashmir</strong> accession<br />
to Indian Union without any confirmation.<br />
Indian antagonistic approach can be imagined from the fact that<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i Administration had requested for a Standstill Agreement with<br />
both India and Pakistan. Pakistan, however, accepted this offer but India<br />
owing to its pre-planned evil designs did not accept it. Instead of<br />
accepting it, India started interference in state’s affair through leaders like<br />
Sheikh Abdullah. Finally, they paved the way for illegal interference in<br />
the state’s affair through military invasion by her forces in October 1947.<br />
From July to October 1947, with the connivance of Indian leaders<br />
like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Patel, and V.P Menon, three <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
Prime Ministers were changed one after the other. Pandit Kak, the State’s<br />
Prime Minister, was indeed favouring state’s accession to Pakistan or to<br />
keep it independent. He was a strong opponent of states accession to<br />
India, in spite of being a Hindu Pandit. Mahajan, who replaced Pandit<br />
Kak as new Prime Minister was a non-<strong>Kashmir</strong>i. He was a Judge of East<br />
Punjab High Court and has been the member of Radcliff Award, and
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
hence a party to giving away the Muslim majority areas of Gurdaspur to<br />
India. He was very close to the top Indian leadership. To get him<br />
appointed as a Prime Minister of the state was through a planned strategy<br />
to force Maharaja from all around for surrendering to Indian Union.<br />
In the light of the above-mentioned facts it can be very<br />
conveniently said that the Indian claim over the state of Jammu and<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> is completely illegitimate and unsubstantiated. India is negating<br />
its own commitment with <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, Pakistan and world community.<br />
Indian leadership should realize this and adopt a realistic approach for the<br />
solution of this outstanding issue as a goodwill gesture. Let UNO settle it<br />
under its auspices through plebiscite as per its resolutions.<br />
Dr Raja Muhammad Khan, February 16, 2010.<br />
http://www.markthetruth.com/kashmir-conflict/348-legality-of-indian-claimon-kashmir.html<br />
KASHMIR: RETRIEVE THE MAGIC<br />
Mood in <strong>Kashmir</strong>, after Indira Sheikh Accord of 1975 was upbeat. A<br />
surge of emotions over the leader's homecoming had apparently<br />
overshadowed bitterness of the fifties. The valley had turned into a nerve<br />
centre of activity and played host to an influx of visitors including<br />
leaders, writers, journalists and filmmakers. Globetrotting yogis too,<br />
descended on the scene to unwind while some, like the Mahesh yogi<br />
group, held training sessions on transcendental meditation for the<br />
overworked government functionaries.<br />
To meet the ever growing pressure, numerous mini valleys were<br />
earmarked for development as tourist destinations. The western tourists<br />
flocked to houseboats, locals to the Mughal gardens on holidays whereas<br />
the rest dispersed along the boulevard at Dal Gate where the shikarawalas<br />
made brisk business in peak season. Earthy Sadhus and pilgrims en-route<br />
to Amarnath, camped along the Lidder valley whereas the pony wallas<br />
wooed the visitors with view points like Bobby hut.<br />
The Sonwar residential complex overlooked the Jehlum and gave a<br />
peep into Doonga life at night, when, after a hard day's work, men<br />
relaxed by smoking hukka and the women got together to sing in chorus.<br />
Marriages were festive with elaborate wazwan, a food ritual, deeply<br />
embedded in <strong>Kashmir</strong>i lifestyle and a symbol of its core value of shared,<br />
community eating. The multi course food style was not just a lavish<br />
display of food items but also signified a deep rooted tradition of warm<br />
43
44 IPRI Factfile<br />
hospitality. Frugality, as a trait, in entertaining guests was unmistakably<br />
absent in <strong>Kashmir</strong>i households.<br />
Life vibrated, in parks, bunds, hotels and public places. Cinema<br />
halls remained packed to capacity, particularly on days when old movies<br />
like Mugle Azam and Shiri Farhaad were screened. <strong>Kashmir</strong> Ki Kali, any<br />
day, filled the audience with pride over how their exotic locales could<br />
enamour outsiders, who trooped in huge numbers to experience the reel<br />
magic translate into real life. <strong>Kashmir</strong>'s magic in its full form was<br />
captured at night in the backdrop of Zabarwan hills from Pari Mahal or<br />
Shankracharya when the poetic version of a paradise on earth literally,<br />
came alive.<br />
With memories, skillfully captured in frame by the Mahattas and<br />
Darly photographers, visitors were lured to return the visit, which was<br />
never the last. They were brought back many times over, to experience<br />
varied shades of the valley, where autumn could script an account, as<br />
fascinating as the spring, a single trip was never really sufficient.<br />
Politics was not invasive, it interspersed with life smoothly, and people<br />
pursued their normal lives and engaged in politics by choice. Hope<br />
defined the mood of the period.<br />
A trip to the valley two decades later was marked by night long<br />
encounters and gunfire in different parts. Life moved with an underlying<br />
fatigue. Lhasa the Chinese restaurant once a favourite haunt for its warm,<br />
ambience now, resembled a down town cellar, lakes like the Dal and<br />
Nageen looked equally desolate. Beauty of the valley was of no<br />
consequence as appreciative revelers had vanished, so had the magic<br />
Growth of a society is a complex interplay of forces, spanning over<br />
centuries.<br />
Like an arterial network, its constituent parts; and, soil, climate,<br />
communities, languages and customs interconnect to infuse life and<br />
vigour to it and make up for its ethos. Rupture of <strong>Kashmir</strong>'s centuries<br />
old, intricately woven society, once pulsating with life, is a painful<br />
experience for all its inhabitants. Modern state structure apparently has<br />
no available tools to measure levels of psycho social trauma and hence not<br />
well equipped to heal the same. Though sad, this outcome is also, in some<br />
measure, a failure of' its inhabitants to put up appropriate assertions to<br />
resist disruptions in their life spaces. They have to strive and reclaim the<br />
sphere which allows them their right to life and the basic freedoms which<br />
flow from it. A significant difference can be made by setting boundaries
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
where politics of any kind does not violate the sanctity of their lived<br />
spaces. They can do it in a way, nobody else really can.<br />
Societies must grow out of celebration of life and everything<br />
connected with it, not its demise. Nations can not thrive over stillness of<br />
grave yards. <strong>Kashmir</strong> will revive no doubt, but a philosophical question<br />
which everyone connected with the good old times continues to ask is,<br />
"can the magic ever be retrieved?" Perhaps, people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> know best<br />
and they alone can make their choices in this regard.<br />
Dr Karuna Thakur, February 21, 2010.<br />
http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showarticles.php?subaction=showfull&id=126<br />
6752447&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&var0news=value0news<br />
KASHMIR: WHAT NEXT?<br />
Now that <strong>Islamabad</strong> and New Delhi have agreed to restart talks, it would<br />
be a legitimate question for <strong>Kashmir</strong>’s peacemakers to ask: ‘The peace<br />
process has restarted: what next?’<br />
‘Process’ is about catalysing change. Even if [it] does not yield the<br />
expected results, a process is important since it contributes to the<br />
upstaging of many long-held fixations. Take, for example, President<br />
Obama. Who would have thought a decade ago that an African-American<br />
would be US president?<br />
The terrorists who carried out the carnage in Mumbai and other<br />
equally outrageous acts in Pakistan should know that it is impossible to<br />
keep change hostage, even to odious rage. A subtle generational change is<br />
taking place in South Asia. It is propelled by rising income levels, access<br />
to technology, increased connectivity and choices in a globalising<br />
environment; these changes are pushing matters forward.<br />
This forward thrust is visible in the way New Delhi and <strong>Islamabad</strong><br />
reacted to the Mumbai incident. Leaving aside the media frenzy, the anger<br />
and outrage, the two countries did not sever diplomatic ties. Unlike the<br />
past, they did not cut off air links or mobilise forces along the border. In<br />
fact, many <strong>Kashmir</strong>-specific confidence-building measures such as the<br />
intra-<strong>Kashmir</strong> bus-service and cross-border trade kept moving, and<br />
people-to-people contact remained active though at a more limited level.<br />
My optimism for a peaceful settlement of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue stems<br />
as much from the unjust situation of people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> for the past six<br />
decades as the inherent incapacity of the parties involved to settle it<br />
45
46 IPRI Factfile<br />
otherwise. War, though engaged upon more than once, is the instrument<br />
least likely to induce an acceptable outcome.<br />
Hence the world needs to understand what drives those young boys<br />
lobbing stones in Srinagar when they chant ‘azadi’ or ‘freedom’. After all,<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i leaders interpret the word differently. To some it means<br />
freedom from India, to others it is freedom from both India and Pakistan;<br />
then there are those who believe that the resistance is to end repression.<br />
One, two or all three could be correct. But whatever these youths want,<br />
they have been wanting it so much and for so long that the hand of fate is<br />
conspiring to help them achieve it.<br />
First, President Obama’s revised Af-Pak strategy and the<br />
subsequent London Conference in late January made it clear that<br />
Pakistan is the only viable exit road from Afghanistan — and naturally,<br />
the road to <strong>Islamabad</strong>’s fullest cooperation passes through <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Gen<br />
Ashfaq Kayani’s straight-talking at NATO the other week defined this<br />
paradigm in clearer terms when he informed the world that as long as<br />
Pakistan had issues to settle with India, it simply could not ignore the<br />
Indian threat. NATO tired and roughed-up in the merciless Afghan<br />
terrain, is fully aware that if there is one military out there that has the<br />
mettle to tame the Taliban in the medium and long run, either peacefully<br />
or by other means, it is the Pakistan Army. So they had to be listening to<br />
Gen Kayani’s words carefully and indeed they did: at stake is not just the<br />
beaten track of Central Asia but the prestige of the world’s supposedly<br />
greatest military alliance — NATO. Who would take it seriously any<br />
more if it was seen as being defeated by a primitive and ragtag militia<br />
called the Taliban?<br />
Secondly, the appointment of Shiv Shankar Menon as the national<br />
security adviser to the Indian prime minister could be a good omen for<br />
the peace process. Coming from once troubled southern India, the former<br />
envoy to <strong>Islamabad</strong> and Beijing served as India’s foreign secretary during<br />
eventful times in the last round of the peace process.<br />
Menon is reviled by the media hawks and a section of the<br />
establishment for his pro-peace inclination; he belongs to a new<br />
generation of diplomats that see the dividends of peace in a broader<br />
context. I met him with a group of former diplomats and PPP and PML<br />
politicians in 2006, on the sidelines of a peace conference in Delhi, and<br />
found him keen to help his government build bridges with Pakistan and<br />
work towards dispute resolution.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Thirdly, the emergence of Gilgit-Baltistan as a semi-autonomous<br />
and secondary provincial set-up, followed by the November elections in<br />
which all the mainstream parties participated, demonstrates Pakistan’s<br />
ability to take bold steps. Gilgit-Baltistan, together with Ladakh,<br />
constituted about 75 per cent of the former princely state’s territory in<br />
1947.<br />
Ladakh, comprising the Buddhist-dominated Leh and the Muslimmajority<br />
Kargil, already enjoys a special governance structure under the<br />
Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils — something different<br />
and above other regions of the state. Similarly, the Amarnath Temple<br />
Trust land scandal in 2008 exposed the deep divisions between Jammu<br />
and the true <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
In the light of these and other changes, it is now up to <strong>Islamabad</strong><br />
and New Delhi, as well as other capitals that have a stake in building<br />
peace in the region, to take a fresh look at <strong>Kashmir</strong>’s demand for azadi. If<br />
the choice is to deal with the dispute in its historical and legal entirety,<br />
then an inside-out process — that reconciles the competing interests of an<br />
already fractured state — is required before moving towards a final<br />
solution.<br />
However, if the option is to narrow the focus to the question of<br />
azadi in the regions where it is in real demand, then the broadest<br />
spectrum of leadership in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad should be brought<br />
on board fully and specifically. But burying heads in the sand will not<br />
make the issue go away.<br />
So when Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi says that he<br />
failed to find any paper trail of earlier deliberations by his predecessors,<br />
he probably meant that he would like to do it all over again and perhaps<br />
in a different way — which, under the circumstances, is plausible.<br />
Those who participated in earlier peace-building efforts know that<br />
at that time, it was India that blew up any chance to make peace; this<br />
time, the onus of failure to capitalise on yet another opportunity may fall<br />
on the already strained PPP government. In an ideal world, parliament<br />
and the cabinet debates and the political leadership steers the process; but<br />
in our part of the planet nothing will work unless the two foreign offices<br />
synchronise and update their institutional memory with their respective<br />
GHQs. After all, <strong>Kashmir</strong> is a matter of peace — or a nuclear war.<br />
M. Ismail Khan, Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 22, 2010.<br />
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/<br />
dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/16-kashmir-what-next-hs-05<br />
47
48 IPRI Factfile<br />
KASHMIR LEADERS MEET BASHIR ON EVE OF<br />
INDIA-PAKISTAN TALKS<br />
Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir met leaders of <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
freedom struggle in New Delhi on Wednesday, a day before he was due<br />
to hold the first official talks with his Indian counterpart since the 2008<br />
Mumbai attack.<br />
The meeting came on the same day India alleged its troops came<br />
under fire from Pakistan in the Samba area of occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
although Pakistan denied any shooting by its troops. Mr. Bashir’s<br />
meeting with the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i leaders will likely reinforce <strong>Islamabad</strong>’s<br />
demand that Thursday’s talks with India include all outstanding issues<br />
between the two countries.<br />
India wants the talks to have a narrow focus on Pakistan’s actions<br />
on terrorism. New Delhi broke off talks after the Mumbai attacks, saying<br />
Pakistan had to first crackdown on militants. “This (meeting) gives<br />
Pakistan an additional moral and political argument that the talks<br />
between the two countries have to be comprehensive, composite and<br />
need to focus on <strong>Kashmir</strong>,” said Noor Ahmad Baba, dean of social<br />
sciences at <strong>Kashmir</strong> University.<br />
Mr. Bashir met three <strong>Kashmir</strong>i leaders, including the chief of the<br />
main alliance of several parties and groups the All <strong>Part</strong>ies Hurriyat<br />
Conference, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and Syed Ali Shah Gilani.“I stressed<br />
on a tripartite dialogue over <strong>Kashmir</strong>,” Mr. Gilani told Reuters, referring<br />
to a demand that <strong>Kashmir</strong>is be included in any negotiation between India<br />
and Pakistan over the disputed region which has sparked two of the three<br />
wars the two countries have fought since 1947.<br />
Progress in the talks between Mr. Bashir and his Indian counterpart<br />
Nirupama Rao could have ripple effects on the battle against militants in<br />
Pakistan and efforts to get <strong>Islamabad</strong> to go after the Taliban, by reducing<br />
its logic of keeping massive forces on the eastern border with India.<br />
Earlier on Wednesday, India said its troops came under fire from<br />
Pakistan.<br />
Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), February 25, 2010.<br />
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
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
INDIA’S SILENT AGGRESSION<br />
India maintains a huge military machine in Occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>, much<br />
larger than the United States and its allies, put together, have in Iraq and<br />
Afghanistan. In there, its three-quarters of a million troops are perhaps<br />
out number any such expeditionary force stationed in an occupied or<br />
disputed area since the Second World War. On the face of it, the<br />
deployment is tasked to deal with freedom fighters, which of course is a<br />
daunting challenge, but more importantly, it is there to change the face of<br />
the Muslim-majority landscape called <strong>Kashmir</strong>; its main weapon being<br />
brutal use of force against unarmed civilian population. But where its<br />
work goes almost unnoticed is the security it provides to Indian<br />
engineers, who are planning and working day and night to build dams on<br />
rivers that take water to Pakistan. So furiously are they working and in<br />
such so-far inaccessible areas that of late, New Delhi is thinking of<br />
bringing these projects under the enhanced protection cover of the<br />
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). All this work falls within the<br />
definition of an aqua war India is preparing to foist on Pakistan, courtesy<br />
a Chanakiya manoeuvre to ‘turn Pakistan into a desert’. Not that<br />
Pakistanis are not aware of Indian designs; there is plenty of information<br />
how India is trying to dam up rivers Jhelum, Chenab and Indus, whose<br />
waters under the Indus Water Treaty should reach Pakistan<br />
uninterrupted. According to reports, India is planning or building some<br />
three dozen big and small hydropower projects and reservoirs on the<br />
tributaries of these principal rivers, including quite a few mega-projects,<br />
keeping Pakistan completely un-informed or misinformed.<br />
One of these is Bursar Dam on River Chenab, for which New<br />
Delhi has invited bids for a ‘topographical survey’. Others in different<br />
stages of planning/construction include Kishenganga on River Neelam,<br />
Uri Todium on River Pooch, which is tributary for River Jhelum and;<br />
the Baglihar, Dul Husti and Salal dams on River Chenab. On River<br />
Indus, the Indian engineers are working to steal water at Kargil and from<br />
its 12 distributaries. Not content with depriving Pakistan of its waters<br />
from <strong>Kashmir</strong>, the Indians have recently stepped up their aid-assisted<br />
work in Afghanistan on two dams on River Kabul, which is a tributary<br />
of River Indus. Yes, Pakistanis know all this - and much more, given the<br />
fact that the growing water shortages are causing problems that have<br />
begun negatively impacting provincial harmony, power generation and<br />
industrial production. As Irsa stood bitterly divided over the opening of<br />
49
50 IPRI Factfile<br />
the Chashma-Jhelum and Taunsa-Panjnad link canals last week, the prime<br />
minister had to call an urgent meeting of the four chief ministers. But<br />
where the official state or quality of being pusillanimous is detected in<br />
raising the issue of India blocking Pakistani rivers at the concerned<br />
international forums. Recent reports suggest that Pakistan is ‘still<br />
undecided’ when to formally seek intervention of the International Court<br />
of Arbitration against the controversial construction of Kishenganga<br />
project by India, in violation of Indus Water Treaty. Of course, the Indus<br />
Water Treaty - under which Pakistan lost waters of its three eastern rivers<br />
- Ravi, Sutlej and Beas - hoping its monopoly of Indus, Jhelum and<br />
Chenab waters would remain uncontested by India - was badly negotiated<br />
and more than required was surrendered. But that Pakistan should not<br />
even get its allocated share under the treaty is all the more unacceptable.<br />
We hope and expect that at the forthcoming talks in New Delhi,<br />
later this week, Pakistani officials would raise the issue of dams India is<br />
building or planning to build in the Occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> in violation of<br />
Indus Water Treaty. Under international laws, India cannot carry out any<br />
major upstream alterations in a river system, and even minor changes<br />
have to be discussed and made only with the formal consent of<br />
downstream riparians. If allowed to go unchecked, what India is doing<br />
has the dangerous potential to stop Himalayan snowmelt reaching<br />
Pakistan in the next few years. It is a kind of silent strategic warfare India<br />
is waging against Pakistan, by creating conditions of perennial drought<br />
for a fundamentally agrarian economy that Pakistan is. It would be<br />
resisted resolutely and fought back valiantly; if world’s future wars would<br />
be fought over water and not oil, the first of these may well be in South<br />
Asia where India seeks to starve Pakistan to death.<br />
Editorial, Daily Mail (<strong>Islamabad</strong> /Beijing), February 26, 2010.<br />
http://dailymailnews.com/0210/26/Editorial_Column/DMEditorial.php#1<br />
US CONGRESSMAN FAVOURS PLEBISCITE IN KASHMIR<br />
A senior Republican Congressman has favored holding of plebiscite in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> arguing that it would resolve the ‘terrorist problem’ of the<br />
region.<br />
Expressing deep concern over the situation in <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
Congressman Dan Burton, who is the Ranking Member of House<br />
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said, “<strong>Kashmir</strong> has<br />
been the cause of two wars between the two countries”.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Burton was speaking at a Congressional hearing convened by<br />
Ackerman on “Building a Strategic <strong>Part</strong>nership: US-India Relations in the<br />
Wake of Mumbai.”<br />
An outspoken critic of India’s human rights record for past several<br />
years now, Burton, said, “Solving the <strong>Kashmir</strong> problem will not likely<br />
make the terrorist groups operating on and from <strong>Kashmir</strong> lay down their<br />
arms but it will, I believe, eliminate their ability to use the human rights<br />
situation in <strong>Kashmir</strong>”.<br />
He further said, “I personally believe that the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
should be given the plebiscite that they were promised by the United<br />
Nations decades ago. Regardless of the shape of the ultimate resolution,<br />
this situation someday be addressed and the sooner the better”.<br />
Sana online, March 2, 2010.<br />
http://www.sananews.com.pk/english/2009/03/02/us-cong-man-favoursplebiscite-in-kashmir/<br />
DEADLOCK IN PAKISTAN-INDIA TALKS<br />
Once again Pakistan-India talks have become the victim of a deadlock as<br />
is quite apparent from the result of our foreign secretary’s visit to India<br />
last week. A deadlock in Pakistan-India talks is nothing extraordinary. In<br />
fact, if one looks at the history of Pakistan-India relations, it has been a<br />
common feature of this complex and difficult relationship. The only<br />
thing which is different this time is that the bilateral talks in substantive<br />
terms have been deadlocked even before they could begin. This speaks<br />
volumes about the current status of Pakistan-India relations mired as they<br />
are in mutual mistrust, grievances and animosity.<br />
It was quite clear after the three-hour talks between the two foreign<br />
secretaries in New Delhi on February 25 that the positions of the two<br />
countries were far apart. In fact, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, while<br />
talking to the Pakistani media after the talks, remarked that the gap<br />
between the two countries was widening. India’s focus during the talks<br />
was on the issue of terrorism on which it handed over two dossiers to the<br />
Pakistani foreign secretary demanding the arrest and handing over by<br />
Pakistan of the founder of Lashkar-i-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed, and seven other<br />
operatives besides some Indian mujahideen and Khalistan militants. India<br />
expressed its inability to recommence the composite dialogue without the<br />
“unravelling of the full conspiracy” behind the Mumbai terrorist attack.<br />
Even before the talks began, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told<br />
51
52 IPRI Factfile<br />
his Pakistani counterpart in front of the media that her mandate was “to<br />
tell you that the territory of Pakistan must not be used for terrorism.”<br />
Pakistan, on the other hand, called for the recommencement of the<br />
composite dialogue and stressed that the issue of terrorism should not be<br />
allowed to make bilateral talks a hostage. The Pakistani side also called<br />
for a peaceful solution of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue, besides conveying to India its<br />
concerns over Indian activities aimed at supplying weapons to militants<br />
and terrorists in Balochistan from Afghanistan. Pakistan also handed over<br />
to India a paper on the water issue and expressed the hope that India<br />
would agree to resolve the issue under the Indus Basin Waters Treaty. As<br />
for the issue of terrorism, Salman Bashir pointed out to the media that<br />
Pakistan had already taken steps against the suspects of Mumbai attacks<br />
and would look into the dossiers handed over by India during the talks.<br />
The net result of the foreign secretary-level talks was merely the<br />
agreement to remain in touch with each other. The position remained<br />
unchanged even after Salman Bashir’s courtesy call on the Indian Foreign<br />
Minister Krishna who remarked that future engagement with Pakistan<br />
would be “predicated on Pakistan’s response to our core concern on<br />
terrorism.” This was not entirely surprising considering the high level of<br />
anti-Pakistan sentiment in India, especially after the Mumbai tragedy, and<br />
the criticism by some Indian opposition leaders of New Delhi’s move to<br />
invite the Pakistani foreign secretary for talks. It was a measure of the<br />
gulf between the two sides that the Pakistani foreign secretary did not<br />
invite his Indian counterpart for a return visit to <strong>Islamabad</strong>. In fact, he<br />
remarked after the talks that there was no need for secretary-level talks if<br />
India remained stuck to its stand on outstanding issues. The best<br />
interpretation that can be given is that the talks in New Delhi were<br />
exploratory in nature aimed at gauging each other’s position and that<br />
they marked the first step towards a gradual process of rebuilding mutual<br />
trust leading hopefully to the resumption of the composite dialogue.<br />
Obviously, the next SAARC Summit in Bhutan in April would provide a<br />
valuable opportunity to the prime ministers of Pakistan and India to<br />
carry forward the process of bilateral talks. But in view of the many ifs<br />
and buts involved, it is anybody’s guess as to the timeframe in which<br />
substantive dialogue on the outstanding issues of concern to the two sides<br />
would be resumed.<br />
The future prospects of Pakistan-India relations remain uncertain<br />
considering the high level of mutual mistrust, the historical baggage of<br />
mutual grievances, the complexity of the outstanding issues like <strong>Kashmir</strong>
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
and the clash of the strategic interests of the two countries in South Asia.<br />
According to well-known Indian analysts such as C Raja Mohan, India<br />
has sought “primacy and a veto over the actions of outside powers.”<br />
India’s quest for hegemony in South Asia is in direct clash with Pakistan’s<br />
strategic objective of preserving its independence and maintaining its<br />
ability to deal with India on the basis of sovereign equality. Until India<br />
changes its mindset in dealing with Pakistan and agrees to resolve<br />
outstanding issues including the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue through peaceful means,<br />
Pakistan-India relations will continue to suffer from tensions preventing<br />
the two countries from realising their full potential politically and<br />
economically.<br />
Peace between Pakistan and India is a strategic imperative<br />
particularly in view of the possession of nuclear weapons by them. It is,<br />
therefore, incumbent upon the two countries to defuse tensions in their<br />
relations, build up mutual trust through CBM’s, try to resolve their<br />
disputes through peaceful means, and promote mutually beneficial<br />
cooperation in economic, commercial, technical and cultural fields. The<br />
strengthening of the peace process would also enable the two countries to<br />
limit their military expenditures and divert resources to the urgent tasks<br />
of accelerating economic development and eradicating widespread<br />
poverty from which the people of the two countries suffer. Thus, the<br />
resumption of the composite dialogue is in the mutual interest of<br />
Pakistan and India. By engaging in it or resuming it, neither of the two<br />
countries would do any favour to the other. It would also be an<br />
unproductive approach by either side to predicate the resumption of<br />
substantive talks on the prior settlement of one issue or the other as India<br />
has done because talks are meant to pave the way for the resolution of<br />
mutual differences and disputes.<br />
Pakistan’s past policy concerning India in the past has suffered from<br />
oscillations between the hard-line position of the hawks who did not<br />
desist from risking war with India, as in the case of Kargil, and the meek<br />
approach of the doves who are prepared to go so far as to endanger the<br />
very existence of Pakistan, as a sovereign country enjoying political and<br />
economic independence, as reflected by the proposal to form an<br />
economic union with India. We should instead pursue a long-term<br />
approach towards India based on a realistic assessment of each other’s<br />
strategic objectives and potential, as well as of the international security<br />
environment, which rules out resort to violence by non-state actors.<br />
Above all, we should adopt a low-risk and non-adventurous approach<br />
53
54 IPRI Factfile<br />
towards India while combating extremism and terrorism internally and<br />
accelerating our economic development.<br />
Javid Husain, The Nation, March 2, 2010.<br />
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/Opinions/Columns/02-Mar-2010/Deadlock-in-PakistanIndia-talks/1<br />
TWO KASHMIRI TEENS HURT BY INDIAN FIRING<br />
Two children were wounded in “unprovoked firing” by Indian forces<br />
across the Line of Control, officials said on Tuesday.<br />
An Indian army spokesman claimed soldiers had retaliated after<br />
Pakistani troops opened fire.<br />
Pakistan said the shooting, in the Battal sector of Azad <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
took place on Monday night, just days after the nuclear-armed<br />
neighbours held their first official talks in more than year.<br />
“An innocent boy and a girl were seriously injured due to<br />
unprovoked firing by Indian troops across the Line of Control,” a<br />
military official said.<br />
“Pakistani troops responded effectively,” he said without giving<br />
details.<br />
Indian army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Biplab Nath said<br />
Pakistani troops also fired several rocket-propelled grenades.<br />
“We retaliated after 30 minutes, aiming only on Pakistani military<br />
posts,” Nath said. Both sides routinely blame the other for provoking fire<br />
in such incidents.<br />
There has been a spate of clashes in the past few months along the<br />
Line of Control and on the border to the south but they are not expected<br />
to spark a broader conflict.<br />
Pakistan and India have fought two of their three wars over<br />
Muslim-majority <strong>Kashmir</strong>, which is divided between the South Asian<br />
neighbours who both claim it in full.<br />
India suspended a tentative four-year-old peace process with<br />
Pakistan after an attack on the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008<br />
by Pakistan-based militants in which 166 people were killed.<br />
India accuses Pakistan of backing separatist militants fighting its<br />
forces in its part of <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Pakistan says it only offers <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
separatists political backing.<br />
Top diplomats from the two countries met in New Delhi last week<br />
in their first officials’ talks since the Mumbai attack.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
They agreed to “keep in touch” but India declined to resume a<br />
broad series of talks on outstanding disputes known as the composite<br />
dialogue. The United States wants to see ties between the countries<br />
improve so Pakistan can focus on fighting militants on its Afghan border.<br />
Pakistan Observer (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 3, 2010.<br />
http://www.pakobserver.net/201003/03/detailnews.asp?id=18271<br />
INDIA-PAKISTAN CONUNDRUM<br />
…<br />
Like many last decades, the recent Indo-Pak talks in Delhi did not make<br />
any breakthrough. As usual, they provided the forum for both countries<br />
to restate their positions. The US can force the horse to the water, but<br />
cannot make it drink. As a matter of fact, Indo-Pak reconciliation is<br />
becoming more difficult every passing year because of increasing scarcity<br />
of water, a mutual desire to pull the other side down, and conflicts<br />
riddling societies in both countries. Sometimes it appears that keeping the<br />
tensions up serves both sides.<br />
Pakistan was adamant to put the <strong>Kashmir</strong> and water issues on the<br />
agenda, while India was mainly interested in terrorism originating from<br />
Pakistan. For Pakistan, the territory of <strong>Kashmir</strong> may not be as important<br />
as the water issue. If the Pakistani claims are valid, then Indian<br />
infringements into the rivers running from its territory into Pakistan will<br />
leave major parts of Pakistan barren. Agriculture is not possible in Punjab<br />
and Sindh without river water. Therefore, unless Pakistan is assured on<br />
the supply of water, it will never abandon the proxies that can keep India<br />
on its toes by destabilising <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
Many world experts have predicted that future wars will be fought<br />
over water. States within India, like Punjab and Sindh in Pakistan, are<br />
continuously at each other’s throats because of this scarce natural<br />
resource. If federating units within India and Pakistan cannot forgo their<br />
claims, how will the two hostile nations? Therefore, the Indo-Pak dispute<br />
over water in the garb of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> problem is not unique and will not<br />
go away unless credible international organisations provide effective<br />
guarantees.<br />
Besides the real issue of water, future scenarios are also an unending<br />
source of tension. India is growing fast and may want to leave Pakistan<br />
behind so that the competition between the two neighbours becomes<br />
irrelevant. Following the Reagan strategy against Russia to raise defence<br />
55
56 IPRI Factfile<br />
expenditures to the level that your enemy breaks down if it tries to<br />
compete, India, by military expansion, is forcing Pakistan to follow suit<br />
and economically get destroyed.<br />
Pakistan, with a regressing economy, cannot keep up with Indian<br />
defence outlays even on proportional basis. Therefore, Pakistan has no<br />
choice but to detract and pull India back through other means. Pakistan’s<br />
strategy has not worked very well because, despite the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue,<br />
India has grown steadily. Probably, Pakistan’s military leadership is<br />
aware of its unsuccessful strategy and, therefore, trying to strengthen the<br />
state institutions to match Indian economic growth. However, it cannot<br />
let go of instruments developed to keep India distracted.<br />
Besides the real geographic and economic issues between India and<br />
Pakistan, the public opinion in both countries has hardened. The new<br />
electronic media, run by not-so-well-groomed people, looks for the easy<br />
formula to dub villains in a situation. The Indian media quickly blames<br />
Pakistan for any bomb blast in their country and the Pakistani media<br />
reflexively traces the tragic incidents on its territory to an Indian<br />
conspiracy. The situation has become so messy that it is hard to tell who<br />
is doing what.<br />
The public in both countries accept the media versions because of<br />
changing public psyche due to internal conflicts and extreme rightwing<br />
forces donning the mantle of patriotism. While Pakistan is fighting the<br />
Taliban and other jihadi outfits, India is also mired in communal, ethnic<br />
and guerrilla insurgency. The Gujarat massacre of Muslims, the Shiv Sena<br />
crusade to cleanse Maharashtra and Mumbai of North Indians, and the<br />
Maoist guerrilla war are just a few things that have embittered the public<br />
psyche. A psyche born out of a constant conflict-ridden atmosphere can<br />
easily be turned against other nations.<br />
The right wing’s monopoly over patriotism in Pakistan, a wellentrenched<br />
phenomenon, has been replicated in India. The rise of the<br />
Bharatiya Janata <strong>Part</strong>y (BJP), especially the Narendra Modi brand, and<br />
the likes of Bal Keshav Thackeray, founder of Shive Sena, have become<br />
the standard bearers of national pride. They have pushed the Congress<br />
<strong>Part</strong>y to the right as well in pursuit of patriotism. The decline of<br />
communist parties in North India has also been responsible for the<br />
unchecked rise of a jingoistic style of nationalism. The dynamics of<br />
generating hatred are becoming much more powerful than the forces<br />
preaching reconciliation within the country and in the international<br />
arena.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Settlement of longstanding issues between India and Pakistan is<br />
becoming more difficult than it was in the past. The fight over water with<br />
hardening public opinion in both countries is further complicating the<br />
situation. No one knows how and where the chips are going to fall.<br />
Dr Manzur Ejaz, Daily Times, March 3, 2010.<br />
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\03\03\story_3-3-<br />
2010_pg3_3<br />
KEEPING KASHMIR SECRET<br />
According to Richard Holbrooke, there is a place in the world so secret,<br />
so taboo, that even the special envoy of the most powerful country in the<br />
world dare not speak its name.<br />
Here is what he said at a briefing earlier this week, according to the<br />
State Department transcript:<br />
“Now, on the larger issue, let me just make a general comment<br />
about this. This is my own personal feeling about these three countries -–<br />
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The three countries are vastly different<br />
in culture, socioeconomic standing, political development, and – but they<br />
share a common strategic space. And in order to understand America’s<br />
policy and America’s policy dilemma, one has to understand that both<br />
India and Pakistan have legitimate security interests in the region.<br />
“And I’m not talking about that certain area between them which<br />
I’m not going to mention by name (Laughter.)”<br />
Just so that we remember that this “certain area” is actually a place<br />
with real people living in it, I’m posting a photo of street cricket in the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i capital Srinagar. Here is a link to one of the main newspapers in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. Here is a BBC map with various solutions to the <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
dispute. Here are links to United Nations Security Council Resolutions<br />
on <strong>Kashmir</strong>. And for good measure, here is a link to the 19th century<br />
poem Lalla Rookh — admittedly written by a poet who had never been<br />
there but who nonetheless acknowledged its existence with the<br />
words ”Who has not heard of the vale of Cashmere?”<br />
Holbrooke continued:<br />
“I am -– because I am not going to get involved in that. And people<br />
who have advocated that are making a proposal which I believe runs<br />
counter to stability in Afghanistan. Afghanistan must be dealt with on its<br />
merits.”<br />
57
58 IPRI Factfile<br />
Ok. But again let’s just remember that this idea of easing tension in<br />
Afghanistan by trying to resolve <strong>Kashmir</strong> was advocated by his boss, then<br />
presidential candidate Barack Obama, back in 2008.<br />
As discussed in this post, time has moved on and the argument that<br />
the road to Kabul lies through <strong>Kashmir</strong> makes little sense when you<br />
compare the time this would take against the 2011 deadline set by<br />
Obama for starting to draw down troops.<br />
But as a point of principle, is it enough to allow Holbrooke to<br />
reduce <strong>Kashmir</strong> to an elision at a briefing, without requiring the U.S.<br />
administration to explain this decision in public? The insiders would tell<br />
you they know already — India lobbied hard against having <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
included in Holbrooke’s remit and he has reportedly vowed never to use<br />
the “K” word. But what about the public who might want to hear it for<br />
themselves?<br />
Meanwhile, Indian opposition leader L.K. Advani is accusing Prime<br />
Minister Manmohan Singh of planning a secret deal on <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
(Under then president Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan and India held<br />
secret talks which sketched out a road map for peace in <strong>Kashmir</strong>, but<br />
which reached a dead end when the former general become embroiled<br />
in political problems at home which eventually forced him out of<br />
office. This, as far as I’ve been told, was never an actual deal, but more<br />
like a set of principles rather like the Oslo Accords between Israel and the<br />
Palestinians which left a great amount still to be agreed or contested, and<br />
which had the additional weakness of being secret and therefore without<br />
public approval or support.)<br />
So it looks like one way or the other, the question of <strong>Kashmir</strong> is<br />
going to be forced out into the open. Perhaps it’s time Holbrooke<br />
dropped his resistance to naming it.<br />
Reuters, March 4, 2010.<br />
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/03/05/keeping-kashmir-secret/<br />
CONFLICTING PERCEPTIONS<br />
The Indian political leadership, including their prime minister and<br />
interior minister, have once again started harping on (as they normally<br />
do) the need for normalising relations with Pakistan, as a key to peace<br />
and prosperity, in the region torn with tensions and terrorism. Certainly,<br />
the true face of India is concealed behind this cosmetic appearance.<br />
The latest peace talks held in Hyderabad House, New Delhi, between the
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
foreign secretaries of the two countries have once again highlighted the<br />
nature of different perceptions about the core issues. Undoubtedly, the<br />
conflict of perceptions has persisted all along; even when it was believed<br />
that normalisation of relations was within reach. The reason was because<br />
Pakistan never deviated from its basic stand on <strong>Kashmir</strong> as the core issue<br />
to be decided in accordance with the UN resolutions. India, on the other<br />
hand, regarded <strong>Kashmir</strong> as its integral part (Atut Ang). During the 90s,<br />
the peace process was almost at its peak when Prime Minister Atal Bihari<br />
Vajpayee made his historic ‘bus journey’ to the Wagah and later signed<br />
the Lahore Declaration with then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. But the<br />
Kargil war crashed the process. Later, the course of events in the region<br />
once again forced the two nuclear neighbours to resume the peace<br />
process; however it was derailed first at Agra and then immediately after<br />
the Mumbai terror strikes.<br />
History sometimes moves along an undefined and unpredictable<br />
path, as was in the case of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan<br />
suddenly emerged as a key state in the region and its armed forces<br />
assumed a vital role. However, the Pakistani forces could not fully<br />
perform that role along its troubled western border at the cost of its<br />
national security along its eastern border with ‘hostile’ India. Therefore,<br />
it was due to international pressure that New Delhi was forced to resume<br />
dialogue with <strong>Islamabad</strong>, in order to create the required peaceful<br />
environment along the Indo-Pak border as well as the Line of Control in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. So far so good!<br />
Such a dialogue for the restoration of relations between the two<br />
neighbours is essential and the need of the hour because the fate of one<br />
and a half billion poverty-stricken people of this underdeveloped/<br />
developing region hangs on this issue. Nevertheless the outstanding<br />
dispute between Pakistan and India, in which <strong>Kashmir</strong> stands on top of<br />
the list, is therefore the crying call of the people of South Asia. India is<br />
not prepared to show any flexibility on its stance on <strong>Kashmir</strong>, while<br />
Pakistan, as well as the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong>, demand a settlement in<br />
accordance with the UN resolutions. With this 60-year old record Indian<br />
rigidness, <strong>Islamabad</strong> should not have stumbled into the latest so-called<br />
dialogue offer from New Delhi without clarifying the agenda of the talks.<br />
One wonders what made <strong>Islamabad</strong> rush without taking into account the<br />
stark consequences of the failure of a series of such exercises held over<br />
many decades in the past. What were the compelling reasons? Was<br />
Pakistan being pressurised by the international community? Then, were<br />
59
60 IPRI Factfile<br />
all the stakeholders including the various political parties and the military<br />
leadership, as well as the representatives of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan<br />
governments, consulted? Were friends like China and other states in the<br />
Middle East and Central Asia, who are stakeholders in the future of this<br />
region, taken into confidence? Unfortunately, nothing is clear except that<br />
even Parliament was not consulted.<br />
Above all, the statements made by our Foreign Secretary Salman<br />
Bashir before his departure, painting a rosy picture as a result of the<br />
expected dialogue, was really surprising. He ought to have known -<br />
exactly - the nature of the hot soup awaiting at the Hyderabad House<br />
luncheon. Then on his return, Mr Bashir’s stated: “India must change its<br />
perception about Pakistan,” adding that, “<strong>Islamabad</strong> was not desperate for<br />
pursuing meaningless and cosmetic dialogue. We have made it clear to<br />
India that terrorism is an international challenge and it should not be<br />
portrayed as only Pakistan’s problem.” I wish our foreign secretary<br />
would have made such sentiments crystal clear to New Delhi before<br />
proceeding on a thoughtless joy ride to Delhi.<br />
It seems that Pakistan has learnt no lessons from past negotiations<br />
with India. But it is never too late.<br />
Ikramullah, The Nation (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 7, 2010.<br />
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/Opinions/Columns/07-Mar-2010/Conflicting-perceptions<br />
INDIAN TACTICS ARE UNCHANGED<br />
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi’s remark at his Press conference<br />
in Multan recently that Pakistan wants ‘result oriented and purposeful<br />
dialogue’ with India to resolve the outstanding issues, but ‘it’s not in<br />
hurry and can wait for meaningful dialogue’ seemingly represents<br />
Pakistan’s understanding of the Indian tactics on the issue of dialogue<br />
process between the two countries. He said that Foreign Secretary Salman<br />
Bashir, who visited India last month on Indian invitation, presented<br />
Pakistan’s point of view on all issues including <strong>Kashmir</strong> and water,<br />
besides highlighting its position on the dialogue process. The issue of<br />
terrorism was also discussed, he added.<br />
A cursory look at the history of Pak-India ties reveals the bitter<br />
truth that the Indian government has ridiculed Pakistani leadership again<br />
and again over its anxiety for resumption of the ‘composite dialogue’<br />
between the two countries. It has persisted with the ‘blow hot blow cold’
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
policy with Pakistan right from the beginning. It has now attached the<br />
condition that Pakistan should ‘control’ the non-state actors allegedly<br />
involved in the acts of terrorism on the Indian soil for resumption of the<br />
dialogue. In his latest remarks on the issue in the Indian Parliament,<br />
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh conceded that ‘dialogue is the only way<br />
forward for civilized countries to resolve their problems’, yet he<br />
adamantly said: ‘for any meaningful dialogue to proceed, the terror<br />
machine has to be controlled by Pakistan even if non state actors are at<br />
work’. And he said so despite the fact that the successive Indian<br />
governments have miserably failed over the decades to ‘control’<br />
insurgencies in several Indian states, where freedom fighters are pursuing<br />
their struggle for liberation from the Indian yoke.<br />
The people of these states are waging wars for freedom. And<br />
incidentally occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong> is one of those states where the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
people are also fighting for emancipation from Indian domination.<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>, in fact, has a unique status since India has committed itself at<br />
the UN Security Council to allow the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people their inalienable<br />
right to self determination to decide their own destiny. On the contrary,<br />
India is brutalizing the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is with the help of its military might to<br />
suppress their spirit for freedom. It can, however, dominate them<br />
militarily, but cannot crush their fortitude for freedom. It has failed to do<br />
so over the past six decades and shall not succeed in future as well since<br />
the people willing to render supreme sacrifices for freedom are bound to<br />
triumph ultimately. The attack on the Indian Parliament and the Mumbai<br />
incident are a manifestation of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is’ determination to liberate<br />
themselves from the Indian control. India should better accept this truth<br />
howsoever bitter and sour.<br />
India’s demand that Pakistan should ‘control’ the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is<br />
involved in the terror activities on the Indian soil is unjust and untenable.<br />
If India has not succeeded in crushing the insurgencies over the decades,<br />
how can Pakistan be expected to do so especially when the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is are<br />
engaged in their just struggle for freedom. If it wants to see them<br />
controlled, it should better redeem its pledges made to them at the world<br />
forum as well as by the first Indian Prime Minister Pandi Nehru directly<br />
about restitution of their right to self determination. It’s pertinent that<br />
India should ponder over its own conduct first before unjustifiably<br />
resorting to blame game against Pakistan. India is rather adopting<br />
coercive tactics to blackmail Pakistan so as to make her toe its line and<br />
submit to its unethical demand to abandon the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, which it shall<br />
61
62 IPRI Factfile<br />
never do under any circumstances. Interestingly, Manmohan Singh has<br />
conceded that the decision to hold Secretary level talks with Pakistan was<br />
‘calculated’ based on consideration of ‘costs and benefits’.<br />
India is least interested in human sufferings in occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
Balochistan and Tribal areas of Pakistan. It has no concern for <strong>Kashmir</strong>is’<br />
right to self determination or Pakistan’s sovereignty. Its decision was<br />
‘calculated’ one with political and economic ambitions viz-a-viz South<br />
and Central Asian region. Vajpayee had opted to initiate the composite<br />
dialogue with Gen Musharraf in 2005 with eye on the UN Security<br />
Council’s permanent slot. By entering into the composite dialogue with<br />
Pakistan, he wanted to improve India’s regional and international<br />
perception of being a quarrelsome and aggressive neighbour in the region.<br />
There is no change in India’s tactics to dominate the region politically,<br />
economically and militarily. And the irony is that the United States is<br />
pampering New Delhi in its obsession against China’s emerging status of<br />
an economic and military power. Under the garb of his contrived<br />
humility, Manmohan Singh has rather proven to be more shrewd and<br />
greater tactician in his Pakistan policy than his predecessors.<br />
He has kept <strong>Islamabad</strong> under constant pressure through persistent<br />
propaganda of terror attacks and has resorted to squeeze Pakistan’s water<br />
resources without making the world community feel the danger inherent<br />
in his plans. He has kept Pakistan confused with his assertions about<br />
India’s ‘willingness’ to discuss all issues including the issue of <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
yet refusing to budge on his position that there can’t be geographical<br />
change in <strong>Kashmir</strong> as a result of the dialogue. The notorious Indian<br />
intelligence agency RAW is indulging in unabated interference in<br />
Balochistan and Tribal areas through supply of funds and weapons to<br />
renegades and terrorists, yet he projects his country as victim of terror.<br />
And the irony is that the US, Britain and other countries are inclined to<br />
be responsive t the Indian viewpoint rather than recognizing the truth of<br />
Indian intrigues against Pakistan. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud<br />
Qureshi’s categorical statement that Pakistan is in no hurry to have<br />
meaningful talks with India if it is not ready to hold ‘purposeful dialogue’<br />
with Pakistan to resolve the outstanding issues between the two<br />
countries.<br />
It is good that Pakistan has at long last started understanding the<br />
Indian designs against her. India is not interested in resolving the<br />
outstanding issues with Pakistan. It wants to maintain an atmosphere of<br />
tension, confrontation and conflict in the region and to continue to spit
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
venom against Pakistan to undermine its interests at the region and<br />
international level.<br />
M Ashraf Mirza, Pakistan Observer (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 10, 2010.<br />
http://www.pakobserver.net/201003/10/detailnews.asp?id=19386<br />
NO CAUSE FOR DESPAIR<br />
Even though expectations of last month’s Delhi meeting between India<br />
and Pakistan’s foreign secretaries were minimal, there was nevertheless<br />
hope that it would ease at least some of the tension between the two<br />
countries.<br />
Instead, the foreign secretaries stuck close to their briefs, refusing to<br />
take the lead in demonstrating initiative or imagination. This is hardly<br />
surprising, given the media glare and the eagerness with which motives<br />
were surmised from innocuous observations.<br />
Nevertheless, the positive value of this meeting should not be<br />
dismissed. For one, it was the first formal meeting between the Indian<br />
and Pakistani foreign secretaries in over a year, and that too after India<br />
had pushed the pause button on the composite dialogue process while<br />
canvassing major powers to make Pakistan comply with its demands on<br />
terrorism.<br />
India appears to have realised that other than expressions of<br />
sympathy, nothing substantive was gained from this unimaginative<br />
policy. The country failed to appreciate that Pakistan’s cooperation on<br />
the ‘war on terror’ occupied a higher priority for these countries;<br />
consequently, over time, Pakistan was able to convince western powers<br />
of its inability to devote resources to the western front unless its concerns<br />
on the eastern front were allayed.<br />
Meanwhile, there has been a welcome national consensus in<br />
Pakistan on some critical issues, especially on domestic militancy and<br />
relations with India. The government’s initial naiveté, as evidenced in the<br />
Pakistani president’s statements on relations with India and on our<br />
nuclear doctrine, has given way to greater maturity and pragmatism.<br />
While the government claims credit for this, its critics see in it the army’s<br />
assertive role in the articulation of the country’s strategic goals, and the<br />
opposition’s support to the government on these issues.<br />
In truth, it is likely to be a combination of these factors;<br />
nevertheless resultantly, the Americans now appear more appreciative of<br />
our efforts against the militants and more cognisant of our concerns and<br />
63
64 IPRI Factfile<br />
interests — which has raised Pakistan’s level of confidence in its dialogue<br />
with India.<br />
In any case, with the ice having been broken and with both foreign<br />
secretaries having demonstrated their ‘nationalist’ credentials, they can<br />
hopefully go back to resuming meaningful negotiations. It is Pakistan’s<br />
strong belief that the only agreed upon mechanism, to which both<br />
countries have been wedded, is the composite dialogue process. India,<br />
however, fears that this structured ‘format’ makes an exchange on<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> unavoidable and is therefore seeking to sidestep it.<br />
This is neither feasible nor advisable. The disputed nature of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> is a matter of record for not only the United Nations but in<br />
terms of numerous bilateral understandings and agreements. Pakistan<br />
may over the years have extended more than diplomatic and political<br />
support to the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, but India is aware that no amount of external<br />
assistance can keep a liberation movement alive in the face of brutality<br />
unless it enjoys considerable domestic support.<br />
India must also recognise that even a complete end to Pakistan’s<br />
support to the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i cause will have, at best, only marginal impact on<br />
the freedom movement, which will continue to inflict enormous costs on<br />
India. More importantly, as long as it keeps millions of <strong>Kashmir</strong>is<br />
suppressed, India will never achieve the recognition it merits.<br />
Pakistan, too, must review its <strong>Kashmir</strong> policy. We have engaged in<br />
disastrous adventures to convince India to abandon its claim. None of<br />
them have advanced the <strong>Kashmir</strong> cause, or even marginally improved the<br />
lives of its people. In fact, this policy has had a deeply debilitating impact<br />
on our national economy while seriously distorting our psyche.<br />
If all this is true, is it not incumbent upon both sides to recognise<br />
the urgency of a solution? Neither India’s continued occupation of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>, nor Pakistan’s overwhelming preoccupation with ousting it, has<br />
earned either country any kudos. In fact, most foreign powers are tired of<br />
being asked to take sides in a wrangle the world has lost interest in,<br />
except when the temperature rises enough to raise the spectre of a nuclear<br />
confrontation.<br />
The latest evidence of this ennui was the silence maintained on the<br />
issue during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Riyadh. Not only<br />
did <strong>Kashmir</strong> fail to find any reference, but Singh found the occasion<br />
much too opportune to not berate Pakistan with unusual vehemence.<br />
Many Pakistanis were disappointed by references to their ‘strategic<br />
ties’ but this was inevitable given the two countries’ growing
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
cooperation, as evidenced by an annual trade of $25bn and oil sales to<br />
Delhi touching $3bn a year. If close friends such as the Saudis and the<br />
Chinese are averse to bringing up the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue in their interaction<br />
with India, can we expect anything better from the others?<br />
While abandonment of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> cause cannot be envisaged, we<br />
need to rethink our strategy. The use of violence by militants has been no<br />
less disastrous than the eagerness with which Musharraf was willing to<br />
give up established historic positions without seeking reciprocal<br />
concessions. However, it is time for India to recognise that for the first<br />
time, major political parties in Pakistan are committed to cooperative<br />
relations; meanwhile, in Manmohan Singh, Pakistan may have an<br />
interlocutor who appreciates that good relations with Pakistan are to his<br />
country’s advantage.<br />
In such a situation, it is not enough to merely engage in crisis<br />
management; the two countries need to resume their journey by pledging<br />
that terrorist incidents will not be allowed to derail the dialogue process,<br />
nor deter them from their strategic objective of resolving differences. The<br />
two countries need to begin by ending support for separatists and<br />
militants in each other’s territory and then shift gears by focusing on<br />
relatively simpler issues.<br />
Draft agreements on Siachen and Sir Creek are ready and await<br />
only formal approval. Thereafter, India can show good faith by<br />
accommodating Pakistan’s concerns on the water issue and Pakistan can<br />
think of relaxing the trade regime for India’s exports. If we can begin<br />
with these steps, we will already have brought about a qualitative change<br />
in our relations to the collective good of both countries.<br />
Tariq Fatemi, Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 11, 2010.<br />
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/editorial/no-cause-for-despair-130<br />
US REPORTS WIDESPREAD RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN<br />
OCCUPIED KASHMIR<br />
The US State Department on Thursday reported widespread human<br />
rights violations in the Indian occupied <strong>Kashmir</strong>, including encounter<br />
killings, disappearances and rapes. The department’s 2009 Human Rights<br />
report underlines dozens of violations in various parts of the occupied<br />
state.<br />
65
66 IPRI Factfile<br />
On March 20, the Indian army stated that three soldiers were guilty<br />
of killing two civilians on Feb 22 in Bumai. Authorities initially claimed<br />
the victims died in crossfire between militants and security forces. The<br />
army ordered disciplinary action against the soldiers.<br />
On May 29, in the Shopian, relatives and police discovered the<br />
bodies of two women in a stream. Local residents and examining doctors<br />
alleged that Indian security forces committed gang rape before killing<br />
Neelofar Jan and Asiya Jan, and government officials stated that police<br />
involvement in the killings could not be ruled out.<br />
On Jan 7, the Indian army ordered a high-level inquiry into the<br />
death of Abdur Ahad Reshi, a deaf and mute man in Veer Saran<br />
Pahalgam.<br />
On March 7, Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> police registered a complaint<br />
against the Central Reserve Police Force for the killing of Sahbbir Ahmad<br />
Ahangar in Nowhatta.<br />
On March 28, the CRPF admitted that two troopers of the 181st<br />
Battalion killed Ghulam Mohiuddin Malik on March 18.<br />
On May 18, the army ordered an inquiry into the alleged custodial<br />
death of Manzoor Ahmed Beig by the Special Operations Group in<br />
Srinagar.<br />
On Sept 13, the government ordered a magisterial inquiry into the<br />
alleged custodial death of Noor Hussain in Rajouri.<br />
On August 23, the Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> state government claimed<br />
that since 1990, 3,429 persons have been reported missing in the state. A<br />
private agency maintained that 10,000 persons remained missing.<br />
The Public Safety Act, which applies only in Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
permits state authorities to detain persons without charge or judicial<br />
review for as long as two years. During this time family members do not<br />
have access to detainees, and detainees do not have access to legal counsel.<br />
According to media reports, since 2004 Indian authorities arrested<br />
approximately 2,700 <strong>Kashmir</strong>is under the PSA. On Aug 28, the state<br />
government announced that officials had detained 121 persons under the<br />
PSA during the year.<br />
On Feb 5, the Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> High Court overturned the<br />
detentions of 10 persons arrested under the PSA during Amarnath land<br />
transfer agitation in 2008.<br />
On April 18, the Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> Bar Court Association<br />
informed the State Assembly that lawyers had filed 2,223 PSA petitions<br />
since 2004.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
On May 26, police placed Syed Ali Shah Geelani, chairman of a<br />
faction of the separatist Hurriyat Conference, under house arrest. Police<br />
invoked the PSA and accused him of leading protests regarding the rape<br />
and killing of two Shopian women and an alleged police cover-up of those<br />
events. In July the Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> High Court overturned the PSA<br />
charges against Geelani and directed authorities to release him; they did<br />
so on Sept 9.<br />
The report observes Courts in Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> often are<br />
reluctant to hear cases involving insurgent and terrorist crimes and failed<br />
to act expeditiously, if at all, on habeas corpus cases.<br />
According to a study by the South Asia Forum for Human Rights<br />
and the Centre for Law and Development, thousands of habeas corpus<br />
cases were pending in the courts throughout the <strong>Kashmir</strong> valley.<br />
Political Prisoners and Detainees<br />
NGOs reported that Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> held political prisoners, and<br />
the government from time to time temporarily detained hundreds of<br />
persons characterised as terrorists, insurgents, and separatists. Human<br />
rights activists based in the state estimated there were 150 political<br />
prisoners. Prisoners arrested under one of the special antiterrorism laws<br />
often were not formally charged, nor did their family or other visitors<br />
have access to them.<br />
In Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, Punjab, and Manipur, authorities have<br />
special powers to search and arrest without a warrant. Human rights<br />
groups reported that security forces in Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> targeted<br />
suspected terrorists, insurgents, and their supporters.<br />
Human rights groups maintained that in Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> and<br />
in the northeastern states, military and paramilitary forces continued to<br />
hold numerous persons. Human rights activists feared that many of these<br />
unacknowledged prisoners were tortured and some may have been killed.<br />
Dawn (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 12, 2010.<br />
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/international/14-us-reports-widespread-rights-violations-in-occupiedkashmir-230-zj-10<br />
KASHMIR HAS 97000 ORPHANS, 32000 WIDOWS: STUDY<br />
The two-decade conflict in <strong>Kashmir</strong> has rendered more than 32000<br />
women as widows and more than 97000 children as orphans, reveals a<br />
research study.<br />
67
68 IPRI Factfile<br />
“There were 32400 widows and 97200 orphans in 2008 in <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
and the number is growing. With the continuity and intensification of<br />
armed conflict, their life conditions have deteriorated to the miserable<br />
subhuman level,” says ‘A Sociological Study of Widows and Orphans’,<br />
conducted by noted Sociologist, Prof Bashir Ahmad Dabla.<br />
“The number of widows grew up from 16000 in 2000 to 32400 in 2008,”<br />
says the study.<br />
It says sudden death of male members has shattered thousands of<br />
families leaving behind impoverished and emotionally traumatized<br />
widows and orphans.<br />
However, the study reveals that condition of widows and orphans<br />
of security forces was better as compared to those of militants or civilians.<br />
“The widows and orphans belonging to military, security and police<br />
forces have been taken care of properly by providing pension and other<br />
monetary benefits to widows and scholarships/fellowships and<br />
reservation for orphans by their respective organisations. But at the same<br />
time, dominant majority of widows and orphans belonging to exmilitants<br />
and common people suffer extremely.”<br />
“Neither state nor NGOs have been able to help them in an<br />
organised and systematic manners. The tragic aspect of the situation is<br />
that the state has not adopted any specific social policy and programme in<br />
this regard. Their problems accumulate and intensify day-by-day,” it<br />
reveals.<br />
On how can be condition of widows and orphans improved, the<br />
study suggests: “For the welfare of widows and orphans, a 3-tier effort<br />
system is necessary. Individuals, society/community and the state must<br />
share responsibilities in terms of coordination, organisation and effective<br />
implementation of relevant programmes.”<br />
“The problems of widows and orphans can’t be solved effectively<br />
and in totality without taking help of broader society. The efforts of<br />
NGOs are highly needed, as their efforts are very small here. Immediate<br />
need is to take the help of NGOs in purposeful and effective<br />
implementation of governmental programmes and schemes,” it suggested.<br />
Zulfikar Majid, <strong>Kashmir</strong> Watch.com online, March 13, 2010.<br />
http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showhumanrights.php?subaction=showfull&id<br />
=1268477033&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&var1news=value1news
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
DEMORALISED INDIAN FORCES IN KASHMIR<br />
Despite the continued employment of various methods of state terrorism<br />
on the freedom fighters and the innocent protesters in the occupied<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>, Indian armed forces have been demoralised in crushing the war<br />
of liberation.<br />
In the Indian-held <strong>Kashmir</strong>, since 1947, Indian military troops have<br />
been using barbaric tactics of extra-judicial killings, burning the houses,<br />
torture etc. to suppress the genuine freedom movement of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>is.<br />
Last year, discovery of nearly 1000 graves of the unmarked Muslims in<br />
the Indian-held <strong>Kashmir</strong> showed another evidence of Indian military<br />
terrorism. Recently, more such graves have been discovered. Reports<br />
suggest that these Muslims were tortured to deaths [death] by the Indian<br />
army during custody.<br />
In fact, under the cover of various anti-terrorism laws of the<br />
country, Indian armed forces have committed multiple brutal crimes such<br />
as encounter killings, illegal custody, torture, forced confession, rape of<br />
women, corruption, robbing the houses, kidnappings etc.<br />
The fact of the matter is that when <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people lost faith in the<br />
international community, which persisted in ignoring their liberation and<br />
when it became obvious that the Indian occupying forces would not<br />
vacate the controlled areas through political means, the peoples [people]<br />
had no choice but to resort to armed struggle which was actually<br />
intensified in 1989.<br />
In fact, present different war between the Indian occupying forces<br />
and the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i freedom fighters is simply a ‘clash of wills’ between two<br />
entities. Military thinkers agree that although the physical force will<br />
determine the type and scale of war, yet it is the ‘will to fight’ or ‘moral<br />
force’ that determines the outcome of war. Clausewitz puts it this way,<br />
“One might say that the physical force seems little more than the wooden<br />
hilt, while moral factors are the precious metal, the real weapon”.<br />
In his book, “Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army<br />
Performance, 1939-1945”, Creveld identifies the elements of moral force,<br />
whom he calls “fighting power, the willingness to fight and the readiness,<br />
if necessary, to die.” The greater these elements, the less vulnerable an<br />
armed force will be to demoralisation. Moral force, then, is the crucial<br />
factor in determining the combat power of any belligerent.<br />
The ongoing different war between the Indian state terrorists and<br />
the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people has proved without any doubt that such elements<br />
69
70 IPRI Factfile<br />
like ‘will to fight’ and ‘moral force’ have been more noted in the latter<br />
who have exerted psychological impact of causing fear, shock, mental<br />
depression and stress, resulting in demoralisation of the Indian military<br />
and paramilitary troops.<br />
In this regard, numerous cases of suicides among Indian troops—<br />
opening fire on their colleagues and several other tense reactions have<br />
been reported in respect of Indian forces in the controlled territories of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
In the recent past, Lt. Col. Pankaj Jha shot himself with a service<br />
revolver, while Maj Sobha Rani, Capt Sunit Kohli, Lt Sushmita<br />
Chatterjee and a number of other officers of the Indian army also did the<br />
same in one or the other way.<br />
Indian defence analysts and psychologists have indicated various<br />
causes of suicides and fratricides, found in the Indian military, stationed<br />
in the Jummu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>. They have attributed these trends to<br />
“continuous work under extreme hostile conditions, perpetual threat to<br />
life, absence of ideal living conditions, lack of recreational avenues, and of<br />
course; the home sickness due to long separation from families.” While<br />
other experts have pointed out that the growing stress in the Indian<br />
armed forces is owing to “low morale, bad service conditions, lack of<br />
adequate home leave, unattractive pay and a communication gap with<br />
superiors.”<br />
Retired Maj Gen Afsar Karim, who has fought three wars, remarks,<br />
“The stress may be high among soldiers because of lack of leave.” He<br />
further explains, “The army is involved in a tough long running internal<br />
security environment. There is lack of rest…soldiers get angry when they<br />
are denied leave and their officers themselves take time off. It triggers a<br />
reaction, while they are well armed and they take their own lives” or<br />
those of their colleagues.<br />
Another Indian military analyst reveals, “then there is the question<br />
of what many say is low pay…starting salaries in many jobs in middleclass<br />
of India are double that of a new soldier, and for many of them, the<br />
army no longer holds out the promise of a good life.”<br />
According to the Indian Col SK Sakhuja, “soldiers kill each other<br />
when one of them perceives that they are being harassed by superiors or<br />
when they have heated arguments among themselves.”<br />
An Indian parliamentary panel had indicated that the military<br />
establishment was not taking reports of suicides and fratricides seriously.<br />
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, in its 31st report on
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
“Stress management in the armed forces”, stated that 635 suicides of<br />
soldiers were reported between 2003 and 2007. In addition, 67 fratricidal<br />
killings had occurred. The committee further said that the “alarming<br />
trend of suicides and fratricidal killings in the armed forces is attributable<br />
to increased stress environment leading to psychological imbalance in the<br />
soldiers”.<br />
However, with the rise in the cases of suicide and fratricide in the<br />
Indian armed forces parliament was informed in 2009. In this connection,<br />
Defence Minister A.K. Antony revealed in a written reply in the Lok<br />
Sabha that of these, there were 48 cases of suicide and one of fratricide in<br />
the three services—41 suicides were reported from the Indian Army, six<br />
from the Indian Air Force, and one from the Indian Navy. He further<br />
disclosed that overall, there had been a staggering 495 cases of suicide and<br />
25 cases of fratricide in the armed forces over the past four year. Of these,<br />
154 suicides and 13 fratricides occurred in 2006, 142 suicides and seven<br />
fratricides occurred in 2007 and 151 suicides and four fratricides occurred<br />
in 2008. Of the total cases, 412 suicides and 24 fratricides were reported<br />
from the army, 76 suicides and one fratricide were reported from the air<br />
forces and seven suicides were reported from the navy.<br />
Nevertheless, India has also hired the services of counselors, and<br />
stationed psychiatrists close to its troops especially in the occupied<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> in order to combat stress that has driven many soldiers to kill<br />
themselves or fellow soldiers. Director General Medical Sciences Lt. Gen.<br />
N.K. Parmar indicated, “Sixty psychiatrists have been trained and are<br />
working in close coordination with the troops…if there are any signs of<br />
stress, this will immediately be brought to the commanding officer’s<br />
notice.”<br />
Nonetheless, various security agencies of India, working in the<br />
Indian-held <strong>Kashmir</strong> have now not only engaged counselors and<br />
psychologists to combat stress among troops but have also found cure in<br />
meditation, music, exercises and yoga—all used as techniques against stress<br />
and mental disorder. No doubt, in any conflict zone, the cases of mental<br />
depression and stress are common phenomena, but in case of the<br />
controlled <strong>Kashmir</strong>, the trend has increased. It is because of this fact that<br />
that Indian armed forces have been so demoralised by fighting with the<br />
freedom fighters that either they commit suicide or kill their own<br />
colleagues and seniors. They completely lack ‘will to fight’ or ‘moral<br />
71
72 IPRI Factfile<br />
force.’<br />
Sajjad Shaukat, Pakistan Observer (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 15, 2010.<br />
http://www.pakobserver.net/201003/15/detailnews.asp?id=20227<br />
MUFTI FOR OPENING OLD TRADE ROUTES WITH PAK<br />
Former Chief Minister and PDP leader Mufti Mohammad Sayeed today<br />
suggested that all traditional routes with Pakistan should be opened for<br />
cross-LoC trade, as it would accelerate economic activity in the state in<br />
general and the Jammu region in particular.<br />
Addressing a function of party workers at Paloura, about 14 km<br />
from here, Mufti talked about ongoing cross-LoC trade on the Uri-<br />
Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalakote roads.<br />
Opening up of these routes for trade is a good beginning, but more<br />
is needed to be done, he said and suggested that all traditional routes that<br />
were closed after partition should be opened for facilitating trade across<br />
the border.<br />
Mufti specially mentioned that the Suchetgarh-Sailkote road, which<br />
was a traditional trade route between Sailkote and Jammu, should be<br />
opened to benefit traders of Jammu. Like Wagah crossing, the<br />
Suchetgarh-Sailkote road be made functional, he demanded and stressed<br />
on the need of opening such routes for boosting trade and other<br />
economic activities.<br />
A PDP patron, while analysing performance of the National<br />
Conference-led coalition regime, flayed the government for adopting<br />
arbitrary policies in releasing developmental funds. He claimed it was<br />
only during the PDP-Congress regime that equal treatment was given to<br />
all the regions and sub-regions of the state.<br />
He further said the PDP-Congress regime from 2002 to 2008 has set<br />
up as an example of good governance in the state, as it was for the first<br />
time after 1947 that equal treatment was given to all areas of the state.<br />
Before formation of the PDP led regime in 2002, there was complaint of<br />
discrimination with one or the other regions, he recalled, but hastened to<br />
add that his government had laid a foundation of mutual trust and<br />
confidence among inhabitants of different regions and sub-regions of the<br />
state.<br />
The Tribune online, March 15, 2010.<br />
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100315/j&k.htm#1
W<strong>Whither</strong><br />
Kashm mir?<br />
Pakistan<br />
has been b wise inn<br />
not dismisssing<br />
the sugggestion<br />
by AAll<br />
<strong>Part</strong>ies<br />
HHurriyet<br />
Con nference Chaiirman<br />
Mirwaaiz<br />
Umar Farrooq<br />
that Sauudi<br />
Arabia<br />
coould<br />
play a ro ole in resolviing<br />
the Kashmmir<br />
dispute. TThe<br />
recent viisit<br />
by the<br />
Inndian<br />
prime minister to the desert kkingdom<br />
andd<br />
his warm reception<br />
thhere<br />
indicate that the rellations<br />
betweeen<br />
Riyadh aand<br />
New Deelhi<br />
could<br />
sttrike<br />
a strong ger note. Thoough<br />
this is a developmennt<br />
Pakistan wwould<br />
not<br />
necessarily<br />
we elcome, this could also mmean<br />
more pootential<br />
for tthe<br />
Saudis<br />
too<br />
mediate on n <strong>Kashmir</strong>. TThe<br />
Mirwaizz<br />
is right inn<br />
saying thatt<br />
dialogue<br />
beetween<br />
India a and Pakistaan<br />
will remaain<br />
meaningleess<br />
unless the<br />
issue of<br />
K<strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
is pu ut at its foreefront.<br />
Whilee<br />
there is inddeed<br />
an arguument<br />
for<br />
otther<br />
matters s to be talkeed<br />
over aheaad<br />
of this too<br />
build the trust and<br />
coonfidence<br />
th hat vanishedd<br />
after the MMumbai<br />
attacks,<br />
we knnow<br />
that<br />
evventually<br />
the e matter of <strong>Kashmir</strong> has<br />
to be conffronted<br />
headd-on.<br />
The<br />
exxperience<br />
of the long, hoostile<br />
decadess<br />
since 1947 also suggestss<br />
that this<br />
unnfinished<br />
bus siness from P<strong>Part</strong>ition<br />
is noot<br />
somethingg<br />
the two couuntries<br />
are<br />
likely<br />
to thrash<br />
out with mmuch<br />
success.<br />
Third-pa arty mediatioon<br />
– so far coonsistently<br />
reejected<br />
by Inndia<br />
– will<br />
innevitably<br />
be required. r Sauudi<br />
Arabia coould<br />
play a vaaluable<br />
role. The links<br />
beetween<br />
it and d Washingtonn<br />
also mean iit<br />
could ensurre<br />
US cooperration<br />
and<br />
thhus<br />
maximise e influence onn<br />
India to moove<br />
towards a solution. TThousands<br />
inn<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> are<br />
missing, ccountless<br />
othhers<br />
have beeen<br />
killed annd<br />
almost<br />
evvery<br />
village has suffered as a result of action byy<br />
Indian troops.<br />
Any<br />
pllayer<br />
who ca an play a part to end this ddispute<br />
must do so.<br />
133 A<br />
KAASHMIR<br />
QUUESTION<br />
Editorial, The News (<strong>Islamabad</strong>),<br />
Marchh<br />
16, 2010.<br />
http:/ //www.thenewws.com.pk/daiily_detail.asp?iid=229256<br />
ABUSE CAS SES IN 6 YE EARS IN J&&K:<br />
ANTONNY<br />
MMore<br />
than 13 30 complaintss<br />
of human rights abuse were filed aggainst<br />
the<br />
arrmy<br />
during the t last six yyears<br />
in Jammmu<br />
and <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
but thhe<br />
Armed<br />
Forces<br />
Special l Powers Act (AFSPA) shiielded<br />
the solldiers.<br />
Defence Minister A K Antony toold<br />
Rajya Sabbha<br />
last weekk<br />
that 133<br />
coomplaints<br />
we ere made agaiinst<br />
army bettween<br />
2004 annd<br />
’09.<br />
The stat te governmennt<br />
made 38 requests to pprosecute<br />
solldiers<br />
but<br />
peermission<br />
was w not granted byy<br />
the Centre.<br />
The AFSPA<br />
prrohibits<br />
pros secutions from<br />
being inittiated<br />
withouut<br />
the go-ahhead<br />
from<br />
thhe<br />
Centre, if the allegationns<br />
are linked to the publicc<br />
duty of the accused.<br />
73
74 IPRI Factfile<br />
Activists have alleged that the Act has become a tool of state abuse.<br />
But the military defends it saying soldiers need special protection to<br />
discharge duties in J&K and Northeast.<br />
Colin Gonsalves, a Supreme Court lawyer, said, “Security forces<br />
have not been accountable to the people of <strong>Kashmir</strong>. This has led to<br />
alienation of the population. It is shocking that sanction to prosecute was<br />
not granted even in a single case.”<br />
The home ministry has finalised amendments to the Act to restrict<br />
powers of security forces to shoot at sight. The ministry is open to<br />
removing the overt reference to “causing death” as a permissible<br />
consequence of firing by a jawan and setting up a grievance redressal<br />
mechanism to deal with complaints abuse.<br />
Rahul Sing, Hindustan Times (New Delhi), March 16, 2010.<br />
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/133-abuse-cases-in-6-yrsin-J-amp-K-Antony/Article1-519899.aspx<br />
SAUDI SUPPORT TO KASHMIR SOLUTION REITERATED<br />
Saudi Arabia has reiterated that it would continue to support the solution<br />
of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute under the framework of the United Nations’<br />
resolutions and in accordance with the aspirations of the people of the<br />
area.<br />
The assurance came from the visiting Deputy Saudi Minister Dr<br />
Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al-Ammar while talking to The News at the<br />
Saudi House, where Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Aziz bin<br />
Ibrahim Saleh Al-Ghadeer hosted a dinner in the honour of the visiting<br />
delegation.<br />
The dinner was also attended by eminent scholars and politicians,<br />
including Senator Raja Zafarul Haq, who is the chairman of the Pakistan<br />
Muslim League-N, and Secretary General Motamar Alam-e-Islami,<br />
Senator Professor Khurshid Ahmad, Federal Ministers Maulana Atta-ur-<br />
Rehman and Ms Shagufta Jumani, Federal Secretary Aga Sarwar Raza<br />
Qizalbash, Chairman Islamic Ideology Council Dr Khalid Masood,<br />
Grand Imam and Khateebof the Badshahi Mosque Maulana Abdul Khabir<br />
Azad, Pir Naqueeb-ur-Rehman and others.<br />
Dr Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al-Ammar is the first high-ranking<br />
Saudi official who has come on the visit to Pakistan after the last month’s<br />
visit of Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to Saudi Arabia.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
To a question, he said that Pakistan and India had old rivalry on<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>, which has caused unrest among millions of the people across<br />
the world. The inter-state disputes must be settled peacefully and the<br />
people of <strong>Kashmir</strong> must be given the right to live in peace and to find<br />
opportunities to make progress, he maintained. The Saudi deputy<br />
minister will hold a number of meetings with important people before<br />
returning home early next week.<br />
75<br />
Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, The News (<strong>Islamabad</strong>), March 19, 2010.<br />
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=229896<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
The preceding study shows that the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute involves a large<br />
number of legal issues relating to questions of accession, aggression, selfdetermination<br />
and status of UN resolutions. The question arises whether<br />
or not the dispute in question can be approached from the juridical angle<br />
for conflict resolution. The answer to this question is to be found<br />
principally in the attitude of India and Pakistan towards its submission to<br />
the adjudicative process. Both have so far shied away from submitting the<br />
dispute to the World Court for judicial settlement or for arbitration by<br />
an arbitral body. Thus, when hostilities broke out between the two<br />
countries in <strong>Kashmir</strong> in 1947, the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee<br />
proposed to the Pakistan Government to refer the dispute to the World<br />
Court but the proposal did not find favour with the latter. Pakistan's<br />
attitude was again not encouraging when a European Union delegation<br />
proposed in the summer of 1997 for the submission of the dispute to the<br />
World Court. As far as India is concerned, as shown in the present study,<br />
she has never felt comfortable with the idea of the third party<br />
involvement including the World Court in her disputes with Pakistan.<br />
During the period the Security Council was actively seized of the matter<br />
the latter never deemed it appropriate to seek an advisory opinion from<br />
the World Court. Had it done so, the handling of the dispute, as observed<br />
by Joseph Korbel, would have been easier because "one of the parties<br />
would then have been in the wrong, and the Council would in turn have<br />
had a stronger moral and political position for the recommendation of<br />
appropriate measures". Unlike India, Pakistan has, however, shown<br />
flexibility by agreeing to selectively avail herself of the services of the<br />
Court. For example, on 21 February 1951, Great Britain and the United<br />
States proposed a resolution in the Security Council which, inter alia,
76 IPRI Factfile<br />
called upon the parties to accept, in case of failure of demilitarization of<br />
the State of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, arbitration by arbitrators appointed by<br />
the President of the World Court in consultation with the parties.<br />
Pakistan accepted the proposal while India rejected it. Subsequently<br />
during the Security Council debate on <strong>Kashmir</strong> in 1962, Pakistan's<br />
Foreign Minister, Sir Zafrulla Khan showed readiness to refer the dispute<br />
to any forum including the International Court of Justice in order to<br />
determine the obligations of parties and other matters blocking the<br />
progress. India refused to respond positively to the invitation on the<br />
pretext that it was a political matter.<br />
How do we explain the Indian and Pakistani reluctance to submit<br />
the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute to the World Court or to an arbitration tribunal?<br />
The Indian Prime Minister Pundit Nehru explained the Indian position<br />
by stating that the matter was of political nature and hence was not<br />
justiciable. Pakistan has not clearly spelled out its doctrinal position in<br />
the matter but presumably it is no different from that of India. But what<br />
does the statement of the Indian Prime Minister signify and how far is it<br />
tenable?<br />
Generally disputes are classified into two categories, namely, legal<br />
and political or justiciable and non-justiciable. Political or non-justiciable<br />
disputes are those which are not susceptible of settlement by the<br />
application of generally recognized rules of international law for reason<br />
of material insufficiency and inadequate development of the law of<br />
nations. The real test of the distinction between legal and political<br />
disputes is not the limitation of judicial function based on the<br />
applicability of legal rules but rather the relative importance of the<br />
subject matter of controversy. Those disputes are thus political and<br />
therefore non-justiciable which affect the important or vital interests of<br />
Stats [States]. In 1922 many members of the Institut de Droit<br />
International described as political all disputes affecting the independence,<br />
honour and the vital interests of nations.<br />
On the basis of the foregoing, Governments have often insisted that<br />
obligatory judicial settlement of disputes must be restricted to minor<br />
issues. The idea of unimportant matters falling in the category of legal<br />
disputes was the dominant theme of the two Hague Peace Conferences.<br />
However, it is by virtue of their conduct rather than general legal<br />
formulas that States have adopted the view that obligatory judicial<br />
settlement must be limited to matters of minor importance.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
If, on the one hand, it is obvious that all disputes between States<br />
are political in the sense that they involve more or less important<br />
interests of States, on the other, it is equally clear that all international<br />
disputes are irrespective of their gravity, legal in the sense that, so long as<br />
the rule of law is recognized, they are susceptible of being solved by the<br />
application of legal rules. In other words, short of accepting that<br />
international law is concerned with regulating matters of secondary<br />
importance only, it is hard to see how the political importance of the<br />
matter can be an obstacle to its being amenable to a legal decision. It<br />
signifies that the refusal of a State to submit the dispute to judicial<br />
settlement rather than the intrinsic nature of the controversy makes it<br />
political. However, a change has been occurring for quite some time now<br />
whereby no limit is being placed on the possibilities of judicial settlement;<br />
that all international political conflicts can be reduced to contests of legal<br />
nature; and that the criterion to determine the justiciability of a dispute is<br />
the consent of the parties in dispute to submit the conflict to the<br />
arbitrament of law. This is evidenced clearly from the survey of the<br />
following developments.<br />
As seen above, the distinction between "legal" and "political"<br />
disputes played an important role in the two Hague Peace Conferences.<br />
Thus, for example, the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of<br />
International Disputes (Convention I) in its article 16 referred to<br />
international arbitration in these terms:<br />
In questions or [of] a legal nature, and especially in the<br />
interpretation or application or [of] International Conventions,<br />
arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as the most<br />
effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means or [of]<br />
setting [settling] disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.<br />
Article 38 of the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of<br />
Disputes reinforced this distinction between legal and political disputes.<br />
As opposed to the Hague Conventions, the 1928 General Act for<br />
the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, through its article 1,<br />
removes this distinction in these words:<br />
Disputes or very [of every] kind between two or more <strong>Part</strong>ies<br />
to the present General Act which it has not been possible to<br />
settle by diplomacy shall, subject to such reservations as may<br />
be made under Article 39, be submitted, under the conditions<br />
laid down in the present Chapter, to the procedure of<br />
conciliation.<br />
77
78 IPRI Factfile<br />
Article 21 of the General Act relating to arbitration similarly refers<br />
to "any dispute", though article 17 dealing with judicial settlement<br />
narrows down its scope to disputes mentioned in article 36 of the<br />
Permanent Court of International Justice. Similarly, the Rio anti-War<br />
Treaty through article 1 provides that "[t]he settlement of disputes and<br />
controversies shall be effected only through the pacific means established<br />
by international law". A number of other treaties could be cited in which<br />
the traditional distinction between "legal" and "political" disputes has<br />
been set aside. However, a jarring note is made by the Charter of the<br />
United Nations which, through article 36, maintains the traditional<br />
distinction and the Statute of the World Court which restricts its<br />
jurisdiction to "legal disputes". But this is understandable because if these<br />
two instruments did not adopt traditionalist attitude in the matter, States<br />
in the international community would turn their back on the Court.<br />
Despite the distinction between legal and political disputes<br />
maintained in the UN Charter and the Statute of the World Court, there<br />
is considerable jurisprudential evidence to suggest that, the Court has not<br />
in practice upheld this distinction. The first case in which the Court<br />
enunciated its position in the matter <strong>Kashmir</strong> Dispute was the advisory<br />
opinion concerning Certain Expenses of the United Nations. Paying lip<br />
service to the above - mentioned distinction, the Court accepted that it<br />
could “... give an advisory opinion only on a legal question. If a question<br />
is not a legal one, the Court has no discretion in the matter; it must<br />
decline to give the opinion requested". Despite this pronouncement, the<br />
Court rejected the argument that it should refuse to give an opinion as<br />
the question asked by the General Assembly was intertwined with<br />
political considerations on the ground that “... most interpretations of the<br />
Charter of the United Nations will have political significance, great or<br />
small. In the nature of things it could not be otherwise. The Court,<br />
however, cannot attribute a political character to a request which invites<br />
it to undertake an essentially judicial task, namely, the interpretation of a<br />
treaty provision".<br />
Next, in the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran<br />
case, the Court again ignored this distinction when it upheld its own<br />
jurisdiction, although there was parallel action by the Security Council in<br />
the matter under consideration. Again in the case concerning Military<br />
and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United<br />
States of America), the Court, while dealing with the US objection to its<br />
jurisdiction based on the above distinction, took the same line as in the
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
foregoing case when it said: "Until the Security Council makes a<br />
determination under Article 39, a dispute remains to be dealt with by the<br />
methods of peaceful settlement provided under Article 33, including<br />
judicial settlement; and even after a determination under Article 39, there<br />
is no necessary inconsistency between Security Council action and<br />
adjudication by the Court". Last but not the least, in the recent case<br />
concerning Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed<br />
Conflict, it rejected the contention that the question posed was essentially<br />
political one in these words:<br />
The fact that this question also has political aspects, as in the<br />
nature of things, is the case with so many questions which<br />
arise in international life, does not suffice to deprive it of its<br />
character as a "legal question" and to "deprive the Court of a<br />
competence expressly conferred on it by its<br />
Statute"(Application for Review of Judgment NO. 158 of the<br />
United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion,<br />
I.C.J. Reports 1973. p.l72, para. 14). Whatever its political<br />
aspects, the Court cannot refuse to admit the legal character<br />
of a question which invites it to discharge an essentially<br />
judicial task, namely, an assessment of the legality of the<br />
possible conduct of States with regard to the obligations<br />
imposed upon them by international law.... The Court also<br />
finds that the political nature of the motives which may be<br />
said to have inspired the request and the political implications<br />
that the opinion given might have are of no relevance in the<br />
establishment of its jurisdiction to give such an opinion.<br />
Now taking up the Indian and Pakistani refusal to submit the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute to the international adjudicative process on the ground<br />
of its non-justiciability or intrinsic political character, we find the<br />
argument untenable. This is so for the reason, as seen above, that no<br />
dispute is intrinsically political or otherwise. It is the attitude of the State<br />
concerned towards the adjudicative process which makes it so. A<br />
favourable change in its attitude towards the arbitrament of law in<br />
dispute settlement can render it legal.<br />
Besides, as seen above, the traditional distinction between legal and<br />
political disputes has been blurred in practice as demonstrated by the<br />
conventional law and the jurisprudence of the World Court. In the light<br />
of contemporary developments in the matter, we would expect India and<br />
Pakistan to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice. To<br />
take care of the apprehensions and mistrust of the two countries towards<br />
79
80 IPRI Factfile<br />
the adjudicative process, we would suggest that they make a request to<br />
the World Court not for an actual settlement of the dispute but for<br />
indicating the guidelines on the basis of which they would then engage in<br />
bilateral negotiations to solve the dispute in the spirit of the Simla<br />
Accord. There is a precedent in the North Sea Continental Shelf case<br />
where the parties in dispute asked the Court to decide the applicable<br />
principles and rules of international law rather than actually delimit the<br />
boundaries of the continental shelf in dispute. On the basis of these<br />
guidelines they then proceeded to resolve their dispute.<br />
One may ask here as to how to overcome the hurdles created by<br />
the Indian Declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the<br />
World Court. There are at least four such hurdles which prohibit the<br />
submission of disputes to the Hague Court which are as follows:<br />
a) disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have<br />
agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method<br />
or methods of settlement (obliquely referring to the so-called<br />
bilateralism of the Simla Agreement);<br />
b) disputes with a State which is or has been a member of the<br />
British Commonwealth;<br />
c) disputes relating to or connected with, among other things,<br />
fulfilment of obligations imposed by international bodies: and<br />
d) disputes concerning or relating to, among other things, the<br />
status of its territory or the modification or delimitation of its<br />
frontiers or any other matter concerning boundaries (oblique<br />
reference to the State of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>). It is true that<br />
India has built a series of hurdles to protect herself against any<br />
country trying to drag her before the World Court.<br />
However, despite these hurdles, India can, if she so desires, set<br />
aside these hurdles by making a declaration accepting the<br />
Court's jurisdiction for the special purpose of seeking<br />
guidelines for the resolution of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute.<br />
As far as Pakistan's Declaration is concerned, it seems to pose much<br />
less problems. It takes out only two categories of disputes from the ambit<br />
of the Court which are as follows:<br />
a) disputes the solution of which the parties shall entrust to<br />
other tribunals by virtue of agreements;<br />
b) disputes relating to questions which by international law fall<br />
exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of Pakistan. It is
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Early History<br />
noteworthy that the question whether or not any question<br />
falls within the domestic jurisdiction of Pakistan is to be<br />
decided by the Court and not by Pakistan. This comes out<br />
clearly from the fact that the earlier two Declarations of<br />
Pakistan (of 9 July 1948 and of 23 May 1957) reserved this<br />
right to Pakistan. In short, Pakistan would not have to make<br />
special efforts to overcome the hurdles posed by its<br />
Declaration for submission of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute to the<br />
World Court.<br />
81<br />
Ijaz Hussain, <strong>Kashmir</strong> Dispute: An International Law Perspective<br />
(<strong>Islamabad</strong>: Quaid-i-Azam University, 1998), 234-240.<br />
TIMELINE OF THE KASHMIR CONFLICT<br />
• 1846: <strong>Kashmir</strong> is ceded: Sikh Empire ceded <strong>Kashmir</strong> to the East<br />
India Company via Treaty of Lahore. The British gave it to<br />
Maharaja Gulab Singh Dogra of Jammu, after the Treaty of<br />
Amritsar was signed.<br />
• 1857: The War of independence: The Subcontinent fractured into<br />
hundreds of states.<br />
• 1931: <strong>Kashmir</strong>’s first organized protest: The people of <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
hold their first organized protest against Maharajah Hari Singh’s<br />
cruelty. The 1931 protest led to the “Quit <strong>Kashmir</strong>” campaign<br />
against the Maharajah in 1946, and eventually to the Azad <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
movement which gained momentum a year later.<br />
• March 23, 1940: Pakistan Resolution passed: The Pakistan<br />
Resolution is passed at Iqbal Park, Lahore. The resolution demands<br />
the establishment of an independent state comprising all regions in<br />
which Muslims are the majority. The letter “K” in the word<br />
“Pakistan” represents <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• July 26, 1946: Azad <strong>Kashmir</strong> comes into being: The Muslim<br />
Conference adopts the Azad <strong>Kashmir</strong> Resolution on July 26, 1946<br />
calling for the end of autocratic rule in the region. The resolution<br />
also claims for <strong>Kashmir</strong>is the right to elect their own constituent<br />
assembly.
82 IPRI Factfile<br />
• June 3, 1947: British accept Pakistan plan: The British government<br />
announces its intention to accept the demand by Muslims for an<br />
independent Pakistani state. The new nation would comprise areas<br />
where Muslims are in the majority. All political parties, including<br />
the Muslim League (representing Muslims) and the Congress <strong>Part</strong>y<br />
(representing all including nationalist Muslims), accept the plan.<br />
Independence: 1947<br />
• August 14/15, 1947: Independence of the British India into India<br />
and Pakistan.<br />
• August 1947: <strong>Kashmir</strong>i resistance encounters Maharajah’s troops:<br />
The first armed encounter between the Maharajah’s troops and<br />
insurgent forces occurred in August 1947. At this time, Britain was<br />
liquidating its empire in the subcontinent.<br />
• October 25, 1947: Maharajah flees to Jammu: Faced with a popular<br />
revolt against his rule, the Maharajah flees to Jammu on October<br />
25, 1947. Once in Jammu, the Maharajah receives a commitment of<br />
military assistance from the Indian government in exchange for his<br />
signing the "Instrument of Accession" document.<br />
• Lord Mountbatten conditionally accepts the document on behalf of<br />
the British Crown and proceeds to outline the conditions for<br />
official acceptance in a letter dated October 27, 1947.<br />
"In consistence with their policy that in the case of any (native)<br />
state where the issue of accession has been subject of dispute, the<br />
question of accession should be decided in accordance with the<br />
wishes of the people of the state, it is my government's wish that as<br />
soon as law and order have been restored in <strong>Kashmir</strong> and her soil<br />
cleared of the invaders the question of state's accession should be<br />
settled by a reference to the people."<br />
• October 1947: Pashtuns from Pakistan's Afghania storm <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
Maharaja of <strong>Kashmir</strong> asks India for help. This was considered by<br />
India as a deliberate ploy by Pakistan to increase their support in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• November 1, 1947: <strong>Kashmir</strong>'s accession to India is not "bona fide":<br />
Jinnah: Governor General of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah<br />
meets Governor General of India, Mountbatten. Jinnah tells<br />
Mountbatten that <strong>Kashmir</strong>'s accession to India "was not a bona fide<br />
one since it rested on fraud and violence."
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
• November 2, 1947: <strong>Kashmir</strong>is have a right to determine future:<br />
Nehru: Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, in a speech aired<br />
on All-India Radio, reaffirmed the Indian Government's<br />
commitment to the right of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people to determine their<br />
own future through a plebiscite:<br />
"We have declared that the fate of <strong>Kashmir</strong> is ultimately to be<br />
decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the<br />
Maharajah has supported it, not only to the people of Jammu<br />
and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, but also to the world. We will not and cannot back<br />
out of it. We are prepared when peace and law have been<br />
established to have a referendum held under international<br />
auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just<br />
reference to the people and we shall accept their verdict."<br />
The Government of India accepted the "Instrument of accession"<br />
conditionally, promising the people of the state and the world at<br />
large that "accession" would be final only after the wishes of the<br />
people of the state were ascertained upon return of normalcy in the<br />
state.<br />
• January 1948: India brings <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue to UN Security Council:<br />
India brought the issue to the United Nations Security Council in<br />
January 1948. The rebel forces had been joined by volunteers from<br />
Pakistan and India charged Pakistan with having sent "armed<br />
raiders" into the state. It demanded that Pakistan be declared an<br />
aggressor in <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Furthermore, India demanded that Pakistan<br />
stop aiding Militants, and allowing the transit of tribesmen into the<br />
state. After acceptance of these demands, coupled with the<br />
assurance that all "raiders" were withdrawn, India would allow a<br />
plebiscite to be held under impartial auspices to decide <strong>Kashmir</strong>'s<br />
future status. In reply, Pakistan charged India with maneuvering<br />
the Maharajah's accession through "fraud and violence" and<br />
colluding with a "discredited" ruler in the repression of his people.<br />
Pakistan's counter complaint was also coupled with the proposal of<br />
a plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United<br />
Nations to settle the dispute.<br />
• April 21, 1948: UN resolution envisages cease-fire, withdrawals:<br />
The Security Council discussed the question from January until<br />
April 1948. It came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to<br />
determine responsibility for the fighting and futile to blame either<br />
side. Since both parties desired that the question of accession should<br />
83
84 IPRI Factfile<br />
be decided through an impartial plebiscite, the council developed<br />
proposals based on the common ground between them. These were<br />
embodied in the resolution of April 21, 1948, envisaging a ceasefire,<br />
the withdrawal of all outside forces from the state, and a<br />
plebiscite under the control of an administrator who would be<br />
nominated by the Secretary General. For negotiating the details of<br />
the plan, the council constituted a five-member commission known<br />
as "United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan," (UNCIP)<br />
to implement the resolution. After the cease-fire, positions on both<br />
sides of the cease-fire line were manned by regular military<br />
personnel of the respective countries. As withdrawal of outside<br />
forces has not taken place since, the resolution of 1948 is yet to be<br />
realized.<br />
• Indo-Pakistani War of 1948.<br />
• January 24, 1957: UN Security Council reaffirms 1948 resolution:<br />
The Security Council, reaffirming its previous resolution, further<br />
declared that any action taken by the Constituent Assembly formed<br />
in <strong>Kashmir</strong> "would not constitute disposition of the state in<br />
accordance with the above principles."<br />
Indo-Pakistani War: 1965<br />
• March 1965: India claims <strong>Kashmir</strong>: The Indian Parliament passes a<br />
bill declaring <strong>Kashmir</strong> a province of India.<br />
• August 1965: Pakistan sends infiltrators: India accuses Pakistan of<br />
sending infiltrators to <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Indian forces cross the cease-fire<br />
line in <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• September 6, 1965: India retaliates against Pakistan: India attacks<br />
Pakistan across the international border and tries to capture<br />
Pakistan's second largest city, Lahore.<br />
• September 23, 1965: Calls for an end to hostilities: The United<br />
Nations Security Council arranges a cease-fire Line.<br />
• January 10, 1966: Tashkent agreement signed: The Soviet Union<br />
arranges talks between Pakistan and India. The Tashkent<br />
Agreement is signed through the mediating efforts of the Soviet<br />
Prime Minister Alexi Kosygin. The agreement reaffirms that the<br />
dispute should be settled by peaceful means. The armies are to<br />
withdraw to their original positions.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Indo-Pakistani War: 1971<br />
• November 1971: [Indian] attack against East Pakistan: Indian Army<br />
liberates East Pakistan.<br />
• December 6, 1971: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971; Liberation of East<br />
Bangla.<br />
• December 16, 1971-Bangladesh is established: Pakistan surrenders<br />
East Pakistan to India. India declares East Pakistan as "Bangladesh.<br />
• July 2, 1972: Republic of India and Pakistan agree to respect the<br />
cease-fire as Line of Control, Simla Agreement signed: The Simla<br />
Agreement between Pakistan and India is signed. Both agree to<br />
make efforts toward establishing durable peace by seeking a<br />
solution to existing problems, including "a final settlement of<br />
Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>." The following principles were agreed in the<br />
Simla Agreement.<br />
(i) A mutual commitment to the peaceful resolution of all issues<br />
through direct bilateral approaches.<br />
(ii) To build the foundations of a cooperative relationship with<br />
special focus on people to people contacts.<br />
(iii) To uphold the inviolability of the Line of Control in Jammu<br />
and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, which is a most important CBM between India<br />
and Pakistan, and a key to durable peace.<br />
• 1978: Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> Public Safety Act, 1978: Human rights<br />
organizations have also asked Indian government to repeal the<br />
Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative<br />
detention for a maximum of two years without a court order."<br />
• April 13, 1984: The Indian Army takes Siachen Glacier region of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> Disputed 1987 State elections.<br />
• 1987: Since after 1987 disputed rigged Sate elections in Indian<br />
Administered <strong>Kashmir</strong> that an Indian Congress party leader called<br />
Khem Lata Wukhloo stated from BBC news page. “I remember<br />
there was massive rigging in the 1987 elections. It shook ordinary<br />
people's faith in the... democratic process”. Furthermore it had<br />
resulted in some of the 'states legislative assembly' 'formed militant<br />
wings' later on after the election forming and creating the catalsyt<br />
for the insurgency in 1989 and the Peacful[peaceful] Protest<br />
movement in 1989.<br />
85
86 IPRI Factfile<br />
Rise of Peaceful Protest Movement<br />
• 1989: The peaceful protest movement that started in 1989 has been<br />
a 'purely indigenous, purely <strong>Kashmir</strong>i' (by Washington post from<br />
Mirwaiz Farooq a <strong>Kashmir</strong>i party leader), 'Ghandi style' (stated by<br />
Wall Street Journal) peaceful protest movement in Indian<br />
Administered <strong>Kashmir</strong> since 1989 continues today. The movement<br />
was created for the same reason as the insurgency; the disputed<br />
rigged elections in 1987 <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute and grievances with the<br />
Indian government specifically the Indian Military that has<br />
commited [committed] human rights violations. This reinforced by<br />
the United Nations that has said India has commited [committed]<br />
Human rights violations, (the movement continues today).<br />
Rise of Militancy 1989<br />
• 1988: Operation Tupac launched by Pakistan's Inter-Services<br />
Intelligence to support militants in <strong>Kashmir</strong> with aim of<br />
disintegrating India. However Pakistan says (stated by BBC) and<br />
contends that they only give 'moral' and 'diplomatic' support to<br />
the 'movement' of what BBC called 'armed resistance' in <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
Timeline of the conflict.<br />
• 1989: Insurgency in Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>: In 1989, a widespread<br />
armed insurgency started in <strong>Kashmir</strong>, Since after 1987 disputed<br />
rigged Sate elections resulted in some of the 'states legislative<br />
assembly' 'formed militant wings' later on after the election<br />
forming and creating the catalyst for the insurgency which<br />
continues to this day furthermore 'in part' fueled by Afghan<br />
Mujahadeen in 1989. Pakistan has been accused of supporting the<br />
insurgency. Timeline of the conflict.<br />
• December 8, 1989: Kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed.<br />
• February 5, 1990: Solidarity day is observed throughout Pakistan<br />
and Azad <strong>Kashmir</strong> for the alleged massacres by Indian armed forces<br />
as Indian state Terrorism.<br />
• January 19, 1990: <strong>Kashmir</strong> brought under Indian control: The<br />
Indian government brings <strong>Kashmir</strong> under its direct control. The<br />
state legislature is suspended, the government is removed and the<br />
former Director General of the Indian Secret Service, <strong>Research</strong> and<br />
Analysis Wing (RAW), Mr. Jagmohan is appointed governor.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
• January 20, 1990: Gawakadal massacre: There are large-scale<br />
demonstrations and thirty people are killed by Indian security<br />
forces. A curfew is imposed in most cities.<br />
• February 25, 1990: Support from civil servants:<br />
Government Employees Join Demonstrations<br />
• February 27, 1990: United Nations not allowed in <strong>Kashmir</strong>: India<br />
refuses to allow any United Nations official to visit <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• February 28, 1990: Zakoora And Tengpora Massacre: In order to<br />
halt the people, who were to submit a memorandum to United<br />
Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan<br />
(UNMOGIP), Indian army opened fire at Tengpora bypass and<br />
Zakoora crossing in Srinagar, killing 26 and 21 demonstrators,<br />
respectively.<br />
• March 2, 1990: <strong>Kashmir</strong>is shot during Srinagar march: Forty people<br />
are killed when police open fire at a march of more than one<br />
million <strong>Kashmir</strong>is through the streets of Srinagar. Police are<br />
ordered to shoot at sight.<br />
• April 14, 1990: Military reinforcements in <strong>Kashmir</strong>:<br />
Indian Authorities Send Military Reinforcements to <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
• July 1990: Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> Disputed Areas Act passed: Under<br />
this act, India's security forces personnel have extraordinary powers<br />
over anyone who is suspected of disturbing the peace or harboring<br />
militants or arms.<br />
• July 5, 1990 - THE ARMED FORCES (JAMMU AND<br />
KASHMIR) SPECIAL POWERS ACT, 1990. The "Armed Forces<br />
Special Powers Act", enables certain special wide powers to be<br />
conferred upon members of the armed forces in the disturbed areas<br />
in the State of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Any officer in the armed forces<br />
may, in a disturbed area, after giving such due warning as he may<br />
consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the<br />
causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention<br />
of any law or order; prohibit the assembly of five or more persons;<br />
prohibit carrying of weapons; arrest, without warrant, any persons<br />
who has committed a cognizable offence. The Human rights<br />
organizations such as Amnesty International and the Human<br />
Rights Watch (HRW) have condemned human rights abuses in<br />
87
88 IPRI Factfile<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> by Indians such as "extra-judicial executions",<br />
"disappearances", and torture; and have asked India to repeal the<br />
"Armed Forces Special Powers Act."<br />
• February 23, 1991: Kunan Poshpora incident.<br />
• June 11, 1991: Syed Mansoor-Chota Bazaar massacre: The CRPF<br />
troops opened indiscriminate fire, having been frightened by the<br />
sound of a tire burst, leaving 32 civilians killed in the densely<br />
populated area of Chotabazar, Srinagar. The killed included,<br />
shopkeepers, passers-by, old persons, women and children.<br />
• November 1992: Amnesty International not allowed into <strong>Kashmir</strong>:<br />
Amnesty International is Barred from Going to the <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
Valley.<br />
• January 6, 1993: Sopore massacre.<br />
• April 10, 1993: Burning of Lal Chowk.<br />
• January 1 - 3, 1994: Another failure over <strong>Kashmir</strong>: Pakistan and<br />
India's foreign secretaries fail to narrow differences on <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
Pakistan rules out more talks unless India ends alleged human rights<br />
violations in <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• January 20, 1995: India doesn't want third-party involvement in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>: India excludes the possibility of third-party involvement<br />
in the resolution of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute. But it says it is prepared to<br />
hear from Pakistan directly about how much "elbow room" is<br />
necessary to commence talks between the two countries.<br />
• May 9, 1995: Fire rages through Chrar Sharif: Hundreds of homes<br />
are destroyed on Eid when a fire rages through Chrar Sharif. The<br />
Terrorists were under siege by the Indian army for two months in<br />
this town.<br />
• May 12, 1995: Anti-India protest in the wake of Chrar Sharif fire:<br />
Anti-India protests overwhelm the <strong>Kashmir</strong> Valley in the wake of<br />
the destruction of the 650-year-old mausoleum of Sheikh<br />
Nooruddin Wali (R.A.) and a mosque next to it. India accuses<br />
Pakistan of being behind the destruction of the shrine and issues a<br />
strong warning against interference in its internal affairs.<br />
• May 18, 1995: APHC rejects offer for talks on <strong>Kashmir</strong> with India:<br />
The APHC rejects an offer for talks on <strong>Kashmir</strong> by New Delhi.<br />
The organization says it will not enter into any dialogue with New<br />
Delhi unless India admits <strong>Kashmir</strong> is a disputed territory.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
• July 4, 1995: 1995 kidnapping of western tourists in Jammu and<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• July 20, 1995: Journalists' kidnapping in <strong>Kashmir</strong> a sign of media<br />
clampdown: The New York-based Committee to Protect<br />
Journalists (CPJ) says the kidnapping of four journalists in <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
is only one current example of a complete clampdown on any<br />
independent journalism in the area. In its report, On the Razor's<br />
Edge, the CPJ also notes the Indian government harasses and<br />
intimidates reporters.<br />
• November 11, 1995: India launches anti-Pakistan propaganda<br />
campaign: Upset about the media and human rights reports against<br />
its campaign of suppression and repression in Indian administered<br />
Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, India launches a multi-million dollar<br />
propaganda campaign against Pakistan. Pakistan is accused of aiding<br />
and abetting terrorism in <strong>Kashmir</strong> using money from the drug<br />
trade.<br />
• December 23, 1995: APHC seeks intervention of UN, OIC and<br />
others: The APHC seeks the intervention of the United Nations,<br />
Organization of the Islamic Conference, Amnesty International<br />
and other worldwide human rights bodies to help stop India's<br />
destruction of Indian administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• February 16, 1996: APHC calls for tripartite talks: <strong>Kashmir</strong>i groups<br />
ask India and Pakistan to begin tripartite talks to end the six-yearold<br />
rebellion against New Delhi. The groups say most Muslims in<br />
the area support the proposal.<br />
• May 5, 1996: Indian Prime Minister makes his first visit to <strong>Kashmir</strong>:<br />
Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao makes his first visit to<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. He says upcoming general elections in the region could<br />
not be foiled by what he described as Pakistani moves toward<br />
destabilization.<br />
• May 13, 1996: Government employees boycott Indian elections:<br />
Over 1.5 million government workers assigned to election duty by<br />
Indian authorities strike for 18 days to boycott the electoral process<br />
at the call of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> Government Employees<br />
Confederation.<br />
• June 8, 1996: APHC rejects greater autonomy: The APHC rejects<br />
the Indian government's offer of greater autonomy for Indian<br />
administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>. The organization says the problem cannot<br />
be resolved by remaining in India.<br />
89
90 IPRI Factfile<br />
• August 2, 1996: Gowda tries to sweeten the deal for <strong>Kashmir</strong>: HD<br />
Deve Gowda, Prime Minister of India, reveals a package of<br />
economic benefits for <strong>Kashmir</strong> just before state elections scheduled<br />
for the following month. Gowda announces outstanding loans of<br />
up to Rs.50, 000 will be waived, <strong>Kashmir</strong> will receive special<br />
assistance of Rs.3.52 billion for developing infrastructure in the<br />
state.<br />
• September 14, 1996: APHC leadership arrested: Prior to elections<br />
for the state assembly, Indian troops arrest the APHC's entire<br />
leadership.<br />
• September 16, 1996: Elections held in <strong>Kashmir</strong>:<br />
Peaceful Assembly Elections in <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
• March 3, 1997: Mujahedeen reject carving up <strong>Kashmir</strong>: <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
Mujahedeen reject the carving up of <strong>Kashmir</strong> between India and<br />
Pakistan. "The proposal for any kind of division of the state can<br />
never be accepted by the people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>, and we<br />
will always oppose it," says Shabir Ahmed Shah, a <strong>Kashmir</strong>i leader.<br />
• March 28, 1997: India and Pakistan begin negotiations: Pakistan's<br />
Foreign Secretary, Shamshad Ahmad, and India's Foreign Secretary,<br />
Salman Haider, meet at the negotiating table for the first time in<br />
three years. The issue of <strong>Kashmir</strong> is high on the agenda.<br />
• March 31, 1997: Talks look hopeful: Pakistan and India end four<br />
days of talks aimed at reducing tension and agree to meet again in<br />
<strong>Islamabad</strong>.<br />
• April 22, 1997: Change in government elicits cautious reaction in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>: The people in Indian administered Jammu & <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
react cautiously over the change of government in India.<br />
• May 12, 1997: India and Pakistan meet again: Pakistani Prime<br />
Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar<br />
Gujral agree to establish joint working groups to resolve all<br />
outstanding issues between the two countries since 1947.<br />
• May 15, 1997: Indian Government has been criticized by Amnesty<br />
and a party member from Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> Amnesty saying<br />
Amnesty International has documented violations in Jammu and<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> including torture, rape, deaths in custody, extrajudicial<br />
executions and "disappearances" over a number of years.<br />
Investigation and prosecution in cases of human rights violations<br />
are rare, and armed forces have been given a free rein in the region
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
with little civilian control over their operations and furthermore<br />
"Access to redress for victims of human rights violations, a right<br />
guaranteed under international law, is being denied to victims in<br />
Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>,". The party member from Jammu and<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> said “It’s high time that the Government of India put an<br />
end to impunity for the perpetrators of human rights violations,”<br />
the organization said. Further more. "The arrest and detention<br />
yesterday evening of Yasin Malik and others can only serve to<br />
undermine the government’s stated commitment to human rights.”<br />
For example in an incident on 22 April, several armed forces<br />
personnel forcibly entered the house of a 32-year-old woman in the<br />
village of Wawoosa in the Rangreth district of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
They reportedly molested her 12-year-old daughter and raped her<br />
other three daughters, aged 14, 16 and 18. When another woman<br />
attempted to prevent soldiers from attacking her two daughters, she<br />
was beaten. Soldiers reportedly told her 17-year-old daughter to<br />
remove her clothes so that they could check whether she was<br />
hiding a gun. They molested her before leaving the house.<br />
• June 22, 1997: India and Pakistan reach an agreement: Pakistan and<br />
India agree to establish a mechanism for enduring dialogue on issues<br />
between the two countries.<br />
• June 23, 1997: <strong>Kashmir</strong> is one of eight major issues: Pakistan and<br />
India pinpoint eight issues to be discussed in future talks including<br />
the issue of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>. However, Pakistani Prime<br />
Minister Nawaz Sharif says the country maintains its stand on<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• June 25, 1997: India says <strong>Kashmir</strong> is not a "disputed territory": At<br />
the conclusion of a second round of talks in <strong>Islamabad</strong>, India rejects<br />
Pakistan's assertion that Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> is a "disputed<br />
territory." Indian Foreign Minister, Salman Haider, says India will<br />
not discuss the status of Indian-held <strong>Kashmir</strong> with Pakistan. He<br />
says if anything is to be discussed it will be "Pakistan-held" <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
and northern areas illegally annexed by Pakistan.<br />
• July 27, 1997: Gujral does a turnaround: In a turnaround from the<br />
previous day's statement, Indian Prime Minister, Inder Kumar<br />
Gujral, says that <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Terrorists would have to surrender their<br />
arms before peace talks with the government could begin.<br />
• August 10, 1997: Increase in reports of harassment of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
women: Reports are coming through of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i women and girls<br />
91
92 IPRI Factfile<br />
being arrested, tortured and raped. The chairperson of the Indian<br />
Commission for Women, Dr. Mohini Giri, said <strong>Kashmir</strong>i women<br />
were being treated in the most inhumane way all over <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• October 12, 1997: Rioting after Jami Mosque desecration: Angry<br />
anti-India demonstrations are sparked by the desecration of the<br />
historic Jamia Mosque in Srinagar by Indian troops. They besieged<br />
the mosque, entered it wearing their boots and carried out an<br />
extensive search for three hours.<br />
• January 25, 1998: Wandhama massacre 23 <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Pandit villagers<br />
killed by militants.<br />
• April 2, 1998: Pakistan accused of fomenting war in <strong>Kashmir</strong>:<br />
India's new government accuses Pakistan of helping <strong>Kashmir</strong>i<br />
separatists and warns it is ready to respond to the "proxy war" in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• April 10, 1998: Pakistan and India should "go the extra mile":<br />
United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson,<br />
urges Pakistan and India to "go the extra mile" and hold a dialogue<br />
on <strong>Kashmir</strong> and other issues in order to stop the nuclear missile<br />
race in the area.<br />
• April 17, 1998: 1998 Prankote massacre 26 hindu villagers killed in<br />
village of Prankote by Islamic terrorists.<br />
• April 22, 1998: Appointment of new <strong>Kashmir</strong> governor: The<br />
Bharatiya Janata <strong>Part</strong>y (BJP) government appoints Girsh Saxena as<br />
Governor of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>. The appointment is resented by<br />
human rights activists and intellectuals who demanded a senior<br />
politician close to <strong>Kashmir</strong> be sent as governor.<br />
• May 11 and 13, 1998: India conducts five nuclear tests.<br />
• May 28 and 30, 1998: Pakistan responds by conducting its six<br />
nuclear tests (five on May 28 and one on May 30).<br />
• May 24, 1998: Major offensive against Mujahedeen: <strong>Kashmir</strong>'s Chief<br />
Minister, Farooq Abdullah, says India will launch a major offensive<br />
against "foreign" fighters in the northern state of <strong>Kashmir</strong> and that<br />
the Indian government is ready to "flush" the terrorists out of the<br />
state.<br />
• May 26, 1998: Indian troops and Mujahedeen clash: In Indian<br />
administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>, Mujahedeen clash with Indian troops in the<br />
Keri, Rajauri area.<br />
• May 30, 1998: India responds to nuclear testing: In response to<br />
Pakistan's nuclear testing, India warns <strong>Islamabad</strong> about <strong>Kashmir</strong>.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee says while India was<br />
ready to talk to Pakistan it should harbor no ambitions towards<br />
capturing <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Pakistan says it is prepared to have a nonaggression<br />
pact with India on the basis of just settlement of the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> issue.<br />
• June 6, 1998: Pakistan proposes <strong>Kashmir</strong> resolution and a halt to<br />
nuclear arms buildup: Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif,<br />
proposes talks between <strong>Islamabad</strong> and New Delhi to stop the South<br />
Asian arms race and urges the international community to help<br />
resolve the issue of <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• June 19, 1998: 1998 Champanari massacre 25 Hindu villagers killed<br />
by militants in Doda district of <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• August 1, 1998: "Massive" joint operations against Mujahedeen:<br />
India's Home Minister, L.K. Advani, says more forces are being<br />
sent to Indian administered <strong>Kashmir</strong> for "massive" joint operations.<br />
He said this is because the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Mujahedeen have intensified<br />
their efforts in the valley for the last many months.<br />
• August 19, 1998: Vajpayee wants new talks: India's Prime Minister,<br />
Atal Behari Vajpayee, offers talks with Pakistan. However, he says<br />
the dialogue has to be comprehensive and not just focused on<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• August 26, 1998: India bans Britannica CD-ROM: India bans<br />
importation of Encyclopedia Britannica on CD-ROM because it<br />
shows <strong>Kashmir</strong> as a disputed territory.<br />
• August 29, 1998: Nelson Mandela's involvement in <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue<br />
urged: The Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> Liberation Front (JKLF) calls on<br />
South African President, Nelson Mandela, to persuade Pakistani<br />
and Indian teams attending a Non-Aligned Movement meeting to<br />
solve the <strong>Kashmir</strong> issue in a peaceful, democratic and permanent<br />
manner.<br />
• September 2, 1998: NAM calls for resolution of <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute:<br />
For the first time in history, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)<br />
calls for a peaceful resolution of the dispute over Jammu and<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. Nelson Mandela, who chaired the 12th NAM summit,<br />
says everyone should hope the issue of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> is<br />
solved through peaceful negotiations and everyone should be<br />
willing to help resolve the matter.<br />
Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee says "third parties"<br />
should stay out of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute.<br />
93
94 IPRI Factfile<br />
• September 23, 1998: Pakistan and India agree to resume <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
talks: Pakistan and India agree to resume stalled dialogue on<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> and other security issues.<br />
• October 18, 1998: No agreement between India and Pakistan: The<br />
first diplomatic talks between the two countries since nuclear<br />
testing was conducted by the two in May, end in <strong>Islamabad</strong>. There<br />
is no agreement on how to ease tensions in the area.<br />
1999 Kargil War<br />
• May 26, 1999: Kargil War<br />
Armed conflict occurs between India and Pakistan due to the<br />
infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and <strong>Kashmir</strong>i militants into<br />
positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control. After three<br />
weeks of "intense skirmishes" between India and Pakistan, India<br />
launches air strikes against Mujahedeen supported by Pakistan<br />
Army in Kargil. India claims up to 680 "Afghan militants," backed<br />
by Pakistan, have invaded high ridges and another 400 are waiting<br />
to cross over to the Indian side of the Line of Control. Pakistan<br />
calls the air strikes "very, very serious" and puts its troops on high<br />
alert. India and Pakistan agree to hold talks over <strong>Kashmir</strong> in the<br />
first sign that the two sides might be trying to defuse escalating<br />
tensions.<br />
• June 1999: <strong>Kashmir</strong> peace hope flounders: As India promises to<br />
continue ground and air strikes against infiltrators, a senior Indian<br />
minister warns there is little point in peace talks with Pakistan. But<br />
after some time, talks on <strong>Kashmir</strong> are confirmed. Pakistan and<br />
India fix a date for their first significant attempt to defuse the<br />
tension over <strong>Kashmir</strong>. However, India continues its assault on<br />
suspected infiltrators holed up in the Himalayas with fresh air<br />
strikes, ahead of talks with Pakistan. India and Pakistan end their<br />
talks on the fierce fighting in <strong>Kashmir</strong> without agreement on how<br />
to halt the conflict. India presses ahead with its military offensive a<br />
day after US President Clinton asks Pakistan to persuade them to<br />
pull out.<br />
• July 1999: Clinton urges India-Pakistan talks: India announces it has<br />
taken the key Tiger Hill peak following an all-out assault.<br />
Mujahedeen fighters are reported to be leaving the mountains of<br />
Indian administered <strong>Kashmir</strong> as India emerges victorious in the
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
two-month conflict. As fighting in the territory dies down,<br />
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appeals for a permanent<br />
settlement of the <strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute.<br />
2000s<br />
• February 2000: US President makes statement: President Bill<br />
Clinton says he would be happy to mediate between India and<br />
Pakistan over the <strong>Kashmir</strong> conflict -- if asked.<br />
• March 2000: Killings in mosque: Indian troops in <strong>Kashmir</strong> kill<br />
three separatists in a mosque near the border town of Handwara. In<br />
the same month, 36 Sikhs are massacred in the village of<br />
Chattisinghpora by the Pakistani terrorists.<br />
• August 1, 2000: 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre<br />
• August 2000: More negotiations: The Indian government and<br />
Mujahedeen commanders prepare for a round of peace talks.<br />
• November 2000: Call for Muslim nations to cut ties with India: A<br />
leading separatist, Syed Salahuddin, calls on Muslim nations to cut<br />
diplomatic and economic ties with India. At the same time,<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>i leaders call on India to recognize the territory as disputed<br />
and to hold talks with Pakistan and <strong>Kashmir</strong>i leaders.<br />
• June 2001: fresh talks: A new round of talks is slated to begin<br />
between India and Pakistan on the issue of <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• July 14–16, 2001: General Pervez Musharraf and Atal Behari<br />
Vajpayee meet for peace talks, Agra Summit: Indian Prime<br />
Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and Pakistani President, Pervez<br />
Musharraf, meet in Agra, India for a summit on relations between<br />
the two nations.<br />
• October 2001: 2001 attack on Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> legislative<br />
assembly kills 38 people.<br />
• December 2001: Attack on Indian parliament in New Delhi<br />
initiates the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoffs.<br />
• May 14, 2002: Kaluchak massacre.<br />
• July 13, 2002: 2002 Qasimnagar massacre of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Pandits.<br />
• March 30, 2002: 2002 Fidayeen attacks on Raghunath temple.<br />
• March 23, 2003: 2003 Nadigram killings of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Hindus.<br />
• May 2, 2003: India and Pakistan restore diplomatic ties.<br />
• July 11, 2003: Delhi-Lahore bus service resumes.<br />
95
96 IPRI Factfile<br />
• September 24, 2004: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and<br />
President Musharraf meet in New York during UN General<br />
Assembly.<br />
• January 8, 2005: 11 killed in sectarian violence in Gilgit in Pakistan<br />
administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• February 15, 2006: United States Congress passes a resolution<br />
condemning ethnic cleansing of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i Pandits by Islamic<br />
militants in <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• April 30, 2006: 2006 Doda massacre of Hindus.<br />
• July, 2006: Second round of Indo-Pakistani peace talks.<br />
• Feb, 2007: Samjhauta Express firebombed, 67 killed.<br />
• June, 2007: Two Indian soldiers have been paraded naked for<br />
allegedly attempting to rape a girl in Indian-administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>,<br />
police say.<br />
• Nov 2007: Human rights organizations such as Amnesty<br />
International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW) have<br />
condemned human rights abuses in <strong>Kashmir</strong> by Indians such as<br />
"extra-judicial executions", "disappearances", and torture; and have<br />
asked India to repeal the "Armed Forces Special Powers Act".<br />
• June 2008: Amarnath land transfer controversy. Huge anti-India<br />
protests were held against the transfer of land to SASB (shrine<br />
board), which was an outside state organization, as it was a direct<br />
violation of article 370 of the Indian constitution.<br />
• August 13, 2008: After the Hindu-Muslim clashes in the town of<br />
Kishtwar, Doda district, India gave shoot on sight orders in<br />
Kishtwar. Kishtwar witnessed violent clashes between Hindus and<br />
Muslims on 12 August that left at least 28 people dead, while at<br />
least two people were killed as a result of alleged police firing.<br />
Amnesty International asked India to rescind the shoot on sight<br />
order.<br />
• August 25, 2008: All anti-Indian, separatist and Islamist organisation<br />
leaders arrested due to their uncontrolled anti-Indian activities, to<br />
restore the law and order in the Indian-administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• August 27, 2008: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human<br />
Rights is concerned about the recent violent protests in Indianadministered<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> that have reportedly led to civilian casualties<br />
as well as restrictions to the right to freedom of assembly and<br />
expression. …
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
• December 24, 2008: 2008 <strong>Kashmir</strong> Elections: Assembly elections<br />
held in Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>. With a record turnout of 62 per cent -<br />
the highest in 20 years.<br />
• December 30, 2008: Omar Abdullah of National Conference<br />
chosen the new Chief Minister of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> takes oath<br />
on January 5, 2009, becoming the 11th and the youngest Chief<br />
Minister of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• February 21, 2009: Bomai Killing: Army kills two devotees in an<br />
indiscriminate firing incident by 22nd Battalion of Rashtriya Rilfes<br />
in Bomai, Sopore, which results in massive valley-wide protests.<br />
• March 06, 2009: Nowhatta Killing: Army vehicle killed one youth<br />
and crushed another at Nawhatta during a protest against detention<br />
of separatist leaders. The killing triggered violent protests across the<br />
city. Authorities clamped curfew continuously for four days.<br />
• March 18, 2009: Khaigam killing: Barely a few hours after the<br />
union home minister, P Chidambaram, assured action against<br />
troopers found guilty for Bomai killings, 181 bn of paramilitary<br />
CRPF troopers shot dead a carpenter, Ghulam Mohiudin Malik son<br />
of Muhammad Akbar Malik, at Khaigam Pakherpora in south<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>’s Pulwama district.<br />
• March 23, 2009: UN Commissioner for Human Rights Navnetham<br />
Pillay asked India to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act<br />
which breaches contemporary international human rights<br />
standards. She also asked the government of India to address the<br />
cases of alleged disappearances in <strong>Kashmir</strong>. 16 militants from<br />
Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and 8 India army<br />
soldiers were killed in five day long gun battle in Shamsabari.<br />
• April 20, 2009: Senior separatist leader Sajjad Lone took part in the<br />
Indian democratic process by contesting in the Indian 2009 Lok<br />
Sabha elections from the Kupwara-Baramullah constituency.<br />
However, he lost the elections coming in third behind the winner<br />
Sharifuddin Shariq of the National Conference and PDP candidate<br />
Mohammad Dilawar Mir.<br />
• May 18, 2009: Extrajudicial killing of a civilian, Manzoor Ahmad<br />
Beigh, in the custody of Special Operations Group of Indian police<br />
triggered massive anti-India protests near his residence at Alochi<br />
Bagh.<br />
97
98 IPRI Factfile<br />
• May 26, 2009: Arif Ayub Wani of Ganderpora killed by Indian<br />
police during a protest in downtown against the custodial killing of<br />
Manzoor Ahmad Beigh.<br />
• May 31, 2009: Shopian rape and murder case: Protests over rape and<br />
murder of two young women allegedly by Indian Armed Forces.<br />
Pro-freedom leaders arrested and police and paramilitary forces<br />
resorted to firing at protesters in several places, including Shopian,<br />
Baramulla and Srinagar killing one person and injuring hundreds.<br />
Four Indian police officials were suspended Monday over the cover<br />
up of a rape and murder case that has sent shockwaves through the<br />
disputed Muslim-majority <strong>Kashmir</strong> region, officials said. The high<br />
court in Indian-administered <strong>Kashmir</strong> has appealed to the people of<br />
Shopian district to end their strike over the alleged murders of two<br />
women. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh assured the family of the two<br />
women that "we will go to the bottom of this matter and bring the<br />
culprits to justice".<br />
• June 2 2009: 17-year-old Nigeen Awan was shot and killed at her<br />
residence by Militants.<br />
• June 16 2009: 45-year-old Rashma Jan died when terrorists barged<br />
into her house at Sopore on June 16 and fired indiscriminately.<br />
• June 29 2009: An Indian soldier was killed due to firing from<br />
Pakistan's side.<br />
• June 30 2009: Two protesters were killed and 10 others injured<br />
some of them critically, when police opened fire on protestors<br />
demonstrating against the alleged misbehaviour of policeman<br />
Mohammad Amin with a woman in this North <strong>Kashmir</strong> town.<br />
• July 1 2009: Three militants belonging to Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT)<br />
militant outfit were killed in <strong>Kashmir</strong> during gun fighting with<br />
Indian army. LeT group is accused for carrying out the last year's<br />
Mumbai attack that killed over 170 people and injured over 300.<br />
• July 6 2009: Thirteen persons, including four policemen, were<br />
injured in a grenade attack by militants on a police party and in<br />
clashes with security personnel.<br />
• July 8 2009: Pakistani president Asif Zardari admitted Pakistan<br />
created terrorist groups to help achieve its foreign policy goals. Mr.<br />
Zardari confirmed that many of the Islamic militants now waging<br />
war against his government were once "strategic assets". He said<br />
and confirmed the military was now targeting those it had<br />
previously used as proxies in attacks on India.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
• July 21 2009: Two police officers were killed in Indian administered<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> attack. Sub-Inspector Sethi Ram was killed on the spot and<br />
Constable Shafiq Ahmad of the Special Operations Group (SOG)<br />
died later and three others were injured when suspected militants<br />
fired a rifle grenade at a police camp in Imam Sahib Village, a South<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> village. …<br />
• August 18 2009: Indian Government stated there had been 3429<br />
youth missing since 1990 - till date. However local and<br />
international rights groups have suggested over 8,000 people have<br />
disappeared in the region.<br />
• August 20 2009: Human Rights workers discovered several<br />
unmarked graves containing about 1,500 unidentified bodies in<br />
Indian Administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>. Last year in a report titled, "Facts<br />
Under Ground" APDP had reported finding the unmarked graves<br />
of about 1,000 people near Uri, an area near the de facto frontier<br />
that divides Indian and Pakistani controlled <strong>Kashmir</strong> and referred<br />
to as Line of Control. Human rights workers have complained for<br />
years that innocent people have disappeared, been killed by<br />
government forces in staged gunbattles, and suspected rebels have<br />
been arrested and never heard from again in Indian administered<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• October 2 2009: The world’s largest Muslim grouping, the<br />
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has named a special<br />
envoy to solve the <strong>Kashmir</strong> conflict between Pakistan and India,<br />
the Hindustan Times reported Friday, October 2. “We believe the<br />
OIC appointing a special envoy on <strong>Kashmir</strong> is a significant<br />
development,” Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of <strong>Kashmir</strong>’s All<br />
<strong>Part</strong>y Hurriyat Conference (APHC), said. Abdullah bin Abdul<br />
Rahman, a Saudi official, was named the pan-Muslim organization’s<br />
envoy to the disputed Himalayan region during a meeting of the<br />
OIC Contact Group at the UN headquarters on Monday. Farooq<br />
said the move would help solve the conflict in line with aspirations<br />
of the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people. "The OIC should press India to resolve the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> dispute in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of<br />
the <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people," he said.<br />
• October 3 2009: The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on<br />
Thursday firmly told the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC)<br />
to keep its hands off <strong>Kashmir</strong>, adding that it had no locus standi to<br />
comment on the region that was essentially an internal matter of<br />
99
100 IPRI Factfile<br />
India. The meeting of the 56-nation grouping of Islamic countries in<br />
New York earlier this week issued a statement, saying it supported<br />
people of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> in realisation of their legitimate<br />
right of self determination in accordance with relevant UN<br />
resolutions and aspirations of <strong>Kashmir</strong>i people. The Indian<br />
Government has already given a strong rejoinder, condemning and<br />
rejecting the OIC statement. A government spokesman said: "It is<br />
regrettable that the OIC has commented on India's internal affairs.<br />
We condemn and reject this." "Inherent in OIC's statements and<br />
actions on the issue of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> is a complete inability<br />
to understand India's position," he added. "<br />
• October 14 2009: Indian home minister P Chidambaram states he is<br />
willing to talk to every section in J&K. The stage seems set to<br />
restart the stalled talks with separatists. Union home minister P<br />
Chidambaram has said, "We will have a dialogue with every section<br />
of the people of Jammu & <strong>Kashmir</strong>. We mean dialogue process will<br />
start and it will be carried to its logical conclusion."<br />
• October 14 2009: India objects to Chinese activities in Pakistani<br />
administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• October 20 2009: A leader of a <strong>Part</strong>y from Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
accuses Indian 'Govt changing <strong>Kashmir</strong> demography'.<br />
• November 24 2009: A delegation from the European Union issued<br />
a statement that <strong>Kashmir</strong> is an integral part of India. Lord Olof<br />
Lindgren, the head of the European Union delegation, stated that it<br />
is the opinion of the European Union that <strong>Kashmir</strong> is an integral<br />
part of India. However, he also said they were concerned about the<br />
human rights violation in Indian administered <strong>Kashmir</strong>. "Well,<br />
there are a lot of human rights issues that we are looking into. I<br />
cannot go into the details of those but those are of concern to the<br />
European Union and we discussed them with the Indian<br />
government and we have met the Human Rights Commissioner in<br />
the state. So we will follow these things with interest like we follow<br />
the situation in all parts of India". The EU delegation also said<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> needs a solution through peaceful talks between India,<br />
Pakistan and concerned people in <strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• November 24 2009: A party from Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong> has said it<br />
was committed to a meaningful dialogue. Unless and until India<br />
takes steps as suggested by us no dialogue is possible.
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
101<br />
• December 02 2009: A <strong>Kashmir</strong> based group, International People's<br />
Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice, said that it had found 2600<br />
bodies in unmarked graves during a three year survey. While the<br />
group did not who the buried were, it alleged that some could be<br />
innocent people killed by security force, and called for an<br />
investigation.<br />
• December 04 2009: Unidentified men shot and critically injured<br />
Fazal Haque Qureshi, the senior most separatist leader and an<br />
important executive member of the moderate Hurriyat Conference<br />
in Srinagar. According to senior police officials, the attempt on the<br />
life of Qureshi was to "stall" the imminent dialogue process<br />
between New Delhi and the Hurriyat Conference. However, New<br />
Delhi and the separatist conglomerate (Hurriyat) reaffirmed its<br />
commitment to the dialogue process. The Al-Nasireen, a littleknown<br />
guerrilla group believed to be an operational combine of the<br />
Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba terror groups, has owned<br />
responsibility for the attack.<br />
• December 09 2009: Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari asked for<br />
United States to mediate between India and Pakistan on the<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> issue in his Op-ed in the New York Times.<br />
• December 11 2009: United States ruled out any mediatory role in<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> stating that it should be resolved ultimately between<br />
Pakistan and India with the active involvement of the people of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>.<br />
• December 18, 2009: India withdraws 30,000 troops from <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
in one of the largest troop withdrawals in response to dramatic<br />
improvement in security situation. India is believed to have 500,000<br />
to 700,000 army and paramilitary soldiers in the portion of<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong> it controls. The army won't confirm its deployment<br />
levels.<br />
• December 22 2009: A 'Row over World Bank's <strong>Kashmir</strong> clause'<br />
happened between Indian Government and the World Bank. The<br />
contested clause where the Indian state of Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong><br />
government loan will 'not be treated as a certificate that the<br />
disputed territory' was an integral part of India' (the disputed<br />
territory is Jammu and <strong>Kashmir</strong>). Indian finance minister Pranab<br />
Mukherjee has assured that the Indian government will oppose the<br />
contested disclaimer clause.
102 IPRI Factfile<br />
• January 6 2010: At least three soldiers were killed and 11 injured in<br />
a suicide bombing outside an army barracks in Pakistaniadministered<br />
<strong>Kashmir</strong>. Pakistani-administered-<strong>Kashmir</strong> has been<br />
largely free of violence over the years and has been said the incident<br />
was a 'rare attack', although recently attacks have been on the rise.<br />
Eight Shia Muslims were killed in a bombing last month. In<br />
November, three would-be suicide bombers blew themselves up in<br />
the regional capital, Muzaffarabad, as they were chased by police.<br />
The three men did not appear to be <strong>Kashmir</strong>is, police said. In June,<br />
a suicide bomber killed two soldiers and injured three others in<br />
Muzaffarabad. Wednesday's bombing is the first outside<br />
Muzaffarabad and comes a day after Pakistani President Asif Ali<br />
Zardari visited the area. It has raised fears the Taliban may be<br />
trying to expand their area of operations.<br />
• January 7 2010: A drawn-out gunfight between two militants and<br />
Indian security forces ended Thursday afternoon after the<br />
insurgents were gunned down inside a hotel in Srinagar's Lal<br />
Chowk area. One police officer was killed in the attack and one<br />
bystander succumbed to his injuries. The security forces also<br />
rescued 10 people from a neighboring hotel in what is a crowded<br />
business district in the city. Officials said that one of the gunmen<br />
belonged to the banned Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-<br />
Taiba. A pro-Pakistan militant group, Jamiat-ul-Mujahedin, claimed<br />
it was behind the assault. However, Indian police pointed the finger<br />
at the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). A terrorist<br />
killed during the Lal Chowk encounter had a pre-paid mobile<br />
connection used for communicating with his handlers in Pakistan.<br />
The terrorist, identified as Saifullah Qari, believed to be in his midtwenties,<br />
had kept the mobile connection with him for a long<br />
period, and had meant to use it only during "operations", official<br />
sources said. He was one of the two militants gunned down by<br />
security forces, to bring to end a 22-hour siege in the heart of<br />
Srinagar. This militant incident in Srinagar is almost two years after<br />
a consistent decline in violence. 'Several rebel groups have been<br />
waging a separatist struggle in Indian <strong>Kashmir</strong> since 1989, wanting<br />
the Muslim-majority region to either merge with Pakistan or<br />
become independent. But violence began declining after India and<br />
Pakistan began a peace process in 2004. The region is now much
<strong>Whither</strong> <strong>Kashmir</strong>?<br />
103<br />
calmer than it was at the height of the separatist insurgency in the<br />
1990's, even though the peace process is stalled.'<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_<strong>Kashmir</strong>_conflict