Kashmir Struggle Enters New Phase

Kashmir Struggle Enters New Phase 1
Kashmir Struggle Enters New Phase
E DITOR
D R N OOR UL H AQ
A SSISTANT E DITOR
M UHAMMAD N AWAZ K HAN
2 IPRI Factfile
C ONTENT
Preface v
1. Kashmir Communique in the Washington Times 1
2. Killing Fields of Kashmir 2
3. Amnesty International Takes Suo Motu Notice of Indian
Occupied Kashmir Killings 3
4. Kashmir Burns 4
5. The Killing Fields of Kashmir 5
6. Kashmir: the New Wave of Uprising 6
7. Kashmiri Intifada 10
8. India Faces Full-blown Uprising in Indian Occupied Kashmir 10
9. Fumbling for Solution 11
10. Kashmiris Want to Join Pakistan 12
11. How to Talk Kashmir 20
12. Why Silence over Kashmir Speaks Volumes? 22
13. Pakistan-Kashmir Correlation 25
14. Vigil before White House 27
15. The People of Kashmir Must be Allowed to Vote on their
Own Future 28
16. Sino-Indian Tensions over Kashmir 30
17. Indian Occupied Kashmir – An Open Prison 31
18. Indian Occupied Kashmir: Human Rights Violations 33
19. Kashmiri Carnage 34
20. New Turn of Events in Kashmir 36
21. India’s Festering Wound in Kashmir 39
22. Indian Occupied Kashmir: Pakistan Must Act 42
23. Go India Go 43
24. Kashmiri Intifada 44
25. Indian Occupied Kashmir Leaders Shun Indian Lawmakers’
Delegation 46
26. Kashmir is Burning, World is Silent 47
27. The Geopolitical Threat of Kashmir 51
28. OIC May Show Deeper Interest in Indian Occupied Kashmir 52
29. Indian Occupied Kashmir: Attique Sensitises Americans 53
30. No Dialogue with India Sans Kashmir 54
31. Bruce Riedel’s Kashmir Logic 55

32. Kashmir Conflict: The Expanding Ownership! 57
33. Kashmir is an Issue between Two Neighbours: Omar Abdullah 60
34. UN Confirms Indian Occupied Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh Not
Part of India 61
35. Kashmir Imbroglio: Thinking the Unthinkable 62
36. Kashmir’s Autumn of Discontent 64
37. Let European Parliament Delegation Visit Indian Occupied
Kashmir 66
38. Kashmir Not India's Integral Part: Arundhati Roy 67
39. Young Kashmiris Can’t be Cowed 70
40. Pity the Nation 73
41. I Fight for the Love and Pride of People: Arundhati Roy 74
42. Activist Arundhati Roy Defends Her Kashmir Statement 75
43. Indian Extremists Endangering the Life of Arundhati Roy Over
Kashmir Remarks 76
44. Shaky Start on Kashmir 78
45. Recalling the Black Day of Kashmir 81
46. Interview with Syed Ali Shah Geelani 83
47. Kashmir Black Day Observed 91
48. Indian Intransigence 93
49. Seeing Kashmir Without Indian Glasses 94
50. Resolution on Kashmir Passed in London 95
51. 4500 People Worldwide Petition Obama to Intervene in Kashmir 96
52. Something for the Media to Think About 98
53. India Bans U.S. Professor from Kashmir 99
54. Idea of U.S. Special Envoy for Kashmir 101
55. Azadi: Kashmir’s Rallying Cry 101
56. India is at War with Innocent Kashmiris 104
57. A Chronology of the Kashmir Dispute (1947-2002) 105
Publications 115
4 IPRI Factfile
P REFACE
On October 27, 1947, after the independence of South Asia from British
colonial occupation on August14/15, 1947, the British Governor-General of
India, Lord Mountatten ordered the British Commander of the Indian armed
forces on the basis of a hastily concluded controversial Accession Instrument,
to airlift Indian troops to Srinagar. As a counter measure, when the Governor-
General of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah issued similar instructions to the
British Commander of Pakistan’s armed forces, on the basis of an existing
non-controversial Stand-still Agreement, he declined to obey the orders.
On October 31, 1947, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of
India telegrammed to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan: “Our
assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace
and order is restored and leave the decision regarding the future of the state to
the people of the state is not merely a promise to your government but also to
the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of
it.”
The UN Security Council discussed the question from January 1948
onwards and decided that the question of accession of the state of Jammu and
Kashmir will be decided through the democratic method of a free and
impartial plebiscite under UN auspices1
It is now more than six decades that the promises made to the people
of Jammu and Kashmir have not been honoured. The recurrent elections held
in the state by the Indian government cannot be a substitute for the “free and
impartial plebiscite”. The people of the state have been demanding their birth
right since 1947. Since 2004, Pakistan and India have been grappling with the
Kashmir issue, but in vain. The main drawback is that neither the UN nor the
people of Kashmir are being included in the dialogue for resolution of the
dispute. Currently, since June last, the uprising which has entered a new phase
of peaceful defiance by the people is, as usual, being suppressed by the
overwhelming might of the Indian armed forces.
India, however, cannot continue to hoodwink the international
community by branding the Kashmiris’ just struggle for freedom as
“terrorism”. Pakistan, being a party to the dispute, will always extend its moral,
1 See UN Security resolutions of adopted on January 17, 1948 (S/651), January 20,
1948 (S/654), April 21, 1948 (S/726), June 3, 1948 (S/819), UNCIP resolution of
January 5, 1949 (S/1196, para 51), and UN SC resolutions of March 14, 1950
(S/1469), January 24, 1957 (S/3779), November 10, 1951 (S/2392), and December
23, 1952 (S/2883).
diplomatic and political support to Kashmiris’ fight for their right to self-
determination enshrined in the UN resolutions. Accordingly, the National
Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan have unanimously adopted resolutions
condemning Indian “state terrorism” and demanding India to “stop murder
and plunder”, withdraw the armed forces from the “state/urban population,
cancel black laws, lift curfew, end media blackout, release Kashmiri leaders and
thousands of imprisoned youth, refrain from obstructing the performance of
religious duties and locking mosques and allow international human rights
organizations to come to occupied Kashmir”. It said that the people of
Kashmir were engaged in a “peaceful struggle for their right of self
determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter, UN resolutions,
the Universal Declaration for Human Rights and resolutions of the Non
Aligned Movement as their basic right” and appealed to the international
community “not to remain silent spectators of the Kashmir situation and
compel India to stop injustice and repression on Kashmiris and resolve the
Kashmir issue, and take practical steps for the implementation of UN Security
Council resolutions.”2
The IPRI Factfile includes selected articles, appearing in the national
and international media, during July-November, 2010, after the recent uprising
in Kashmir.
November 30, 2010 Noor ul Haq
2 Khalid Iqbal “Kashmir Conflict: The Expanding Ownership”, Daily Mail

(Islamabad), October 1, 2010.
K ASHMIR C OMMUNIQUE IN THE W ASHINGTON T IMES
Washington, D.C. Nov 25: Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director,
Kashmiri American Council referred to a communique that was published in
the Washington Times on page 3 yesterday [November 24, 2009] that says “that
the United States paved the way for freedom around the world and the United
States can help the people of Kashmir achieve peace, freedom and self-
determination.
“That the Kashmir is recognized by the United Nations as a disputed
territory whose status is yet to be determined by its people.” “That Kashmir is
the most dangerous place in the world. (President Bill Clinton)” “That
Kashmir is the world’s most beautiful prison. (European Parliamentary
delegation)” “That Kashmir is the largest military concentration anywhere in
the world. (International Educational Development)”
The communiqu also reads, “Now is the time for President Obama to
listen to Candidate Obama who said on: September 25, 2008, “I will continue
support of ongoing Indian Pakistani efforts to resolve Kashmir problem in
order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and
Pakistan.” October 23, 2008, “Working with Pakistan and India to try to
resolve, and Kashmir, crisis in a serious way. Those are all critical tasks for the
next administration. Kashmir in particular is an interesting situation where that
is obviously a potential tar pit diplomatically. But, for us to devote serious
diplomatic resources to get a special envoy in there, to figure out a plausible
approach, and essentially make the argument to the Indians, you guys are on
the brink of being an economic superpower, why do you want to keep on
messing with this?” October 30, 2008, “We should probably try to facilitate a
better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the
Kashmir crisis.”
The communiqu emphasized, “That the unresolved Kashmir dispute is
a rebuke to the international community for its inaction.”
The communiqu concluded “that the people of Kashmir demand what
was pledged to them by both India and Pakistan and guaranteed by the
Security Council, with the unequivocal endorsement of the United States,
namely demilitarization of Kashmir and a free vote organized impartially to
ascertain popular will.”
Dr. Fai said that no international dispute is ever free from complexities
and Kashmir dispute is no exception. But conscience does not let itself be
distracted by them and statesmanship devoted to peace reaches and grasps the
human core of s dispute.
C:\Documents and Settings\ipri\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.IE5\UHMSJEUM\showheadlines.php-4.htm
2 IPRI Factfile
K ILLING F IELDS OF K ASHMIR

The Kashmir cauldron is boiling again and the killing fields of the once serene
valley are smeared with blood of the innocent Kashmiris. While the world is
preoccupied with the war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, India finds it
an opportune moment to target the hapless Kashmiris, whose only crime is
that they have demanded their rights assured to them by the UN Resolutions
of 1948, calling for a plebiscite to determine the fate of the Kashmiris but
denied by India for the last 62 years. On October 27 1947, which is considered
the blackest day in the history of Kashmir, India landed its army in Jammu and
Kashmir, in total disregard to the Indian Independence Act and Partition Plan
in 1947. In order to change the demographic composition of the territory,
Indian troops, the forces of Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh, and Hindu extremists
massacred over three hundred thousand Kashmiri Muslims within a period of
two months. The Indian Independence Act and Partition Plan of 1947 had
stated that the Indian British Colony would be divided into two sovereign
states, India, with Hindu-majority areas, and Pakistan, with the Muslim-
majority areas of Western provinces and east Bengal.India by landing its Army
in Jammu and Kashmir violated the guidelines set for deciding the future of
Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir, three of the independent Princely States at
that time, which were given the choice to either accede to Pakistan or India,
considering the geographical situation and communal demography. It forcibly
occupied the Hyderabad and Junagadh, which had Hindus in majority but their
rulers were Muslims. Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state and had a natural
tendency to accede to Pakistan, but its Hindu ruler sealed the fate of Kashmiri
people by announcing its accession to India under a controversial accession
document (Instrument of Accession, which probably never existed.
The Daily Mail opines that it is a historical fact that if the partition was
done on the principles of Justice then India had no land route to enter into
Jammu and Kashmir but the so-called Boundary Commission, headed by
British Barrister, Cyril Radcliff, that demarcated partition line, under a
conspiracy split Gurdaspur, a Muslim majority area, and handed it over to
India, providing it terrestrial access to the territory. Right from the day one,
the people of Kashmir did not accept India’s illegal occupation and started an
armed struggle with the total support of public in 1948, which forced India to
approach the UN Security Council to seek help of the World Body to settle
the dispute. The UN Security Council through its successive resolutions
nullified Indian invasion and occupation of Kashmir. It also approved a
ceasefire, demarcation of the ceasefire line, demilitarization of the state and a
free and impartial plebiscite to be conducted under the supervision of the
World Body.In 1989, the Kashmiris, disappointed by the world bodies in
granting them their rights, the Kashmiris took up arms in a just freedom
struggle to achieve freedom from the yoke of Indian tyranny. The forces of
evil let loose by India to crush the freedom movement have taken a toll of
more than 93,241 Kashmiris martyred to date from January 1989. The wanton
killing began a fresh spate of bloodletting after the Valley was hit by regular
protests over the past two weeks following the deaths of three Kashmiri
protesters allegedly at the hands of Indian security forces. In response to the
killings, Kashmiri leaders have been calling for demonstrations and general
strikes that have crippled Srinagar and other areas in the Muslim-majority
region. The Daily Mail notes that General V.K. Singh the Chief of Indian
Army, during an interview to the Times of India has called for a political
solution to unrest in Indian-administered Kashmir, saying the military should
step back from its security role in the region.The Daily Mail would like to
inform the Indian Military Chief and its political leaders that India has no
option but to grant Kashmiris their right guaranteed by the UN but usurped
by India.
Editorial, Daily Mail (Islamabad), July 2, 2010,
http://dailymailnews.com/0710/02/Editorial_Column/DMEditorial.php#1
AI T AKES S UO M OTU N OTICE OF IHK K ILLINGS

Kashmiris may heave a sigh of relief that international community is taking
notice of their sufferings and international media too has focussed on the
killings of innocent people by Indian security forces and the resultant protests
by the masses through reports and videos. What is more encouraging is that
Amnesty International on Saturday took suo motu notice of the deteriorating
situation and urged India to investigate the killings of civilians in the occupied
territory.
Kashmir valley has been hit by strikes, protest demonstrations and
curfews over the killing of about a dozen Kashmiri youths at the hands of
occupation forces in the past couple of weeks. The London based rights group
in a statement demanded that security personnel involved in wrongdoing
should be brought to justice. It also demanded of India to avoid excessive use
of force while dealing with demonstrators. The occupation forces have
established camps inside civilian areas and that is a big irritant for the people.
After the daily killings, the situation reached to a point where many areas were
placed under curfew and the Kashmiri leadership has either been placed under
house arrest or sent to jails. That shows the real face of the so-called Indian
democracy and secularism. Kashmiris have been suffering for the last over six
decades and it is regrettable that the international community had kept mum
and did not raise its voice against the excesses committed against them.
Thousands of Kashmiris have sacrificed their lives and they would continue to
offer more till the attainment of their goal, as they cannot be defeated by
4 IPRI Factfile
massive deployment of troops and killings. It is time that India must realize
that it has failed to crush the Kashmiris’ spirit of freedom, respect aspirations
of the people, stop committing gross human rights violations in the territory
and adopt the path of genuine negotiations to find a lasting solution in line
with the aspiration of people of the State.
Editorial, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), July 5, 2010,
http://www.pakobserver.net/201007/05/detailnews.asp?id=39791
K ASHMIR B URNS
The firing of Indian security forces on protesting mobs in Indian Held
Kashmir (IHK) has now become a pattern. Even if the crowds pelted stones
on the police and paramilitary troops, firing back in response can hardly be
justified. It is this tendency of the Indian security forces that has worsened the
situation in the Kashmir valley. On Tuesday, three Kashmiris, including a
woman, were shot dead by India security personnel while they were protesting
the death of a Kashmiri boy. Killing of innocent Kashmiris at the hands of
police, paramilitary forces and the army has seen a steep rise since the
mysterious murder of two women in Shopian. Last month, the Indian Army
claimed killing three militants. However, investigations by the local police
proved they were ordinary citizens and were not involved in any unlawful
activity. The current wave of protests has engulfed almost the entire valley.
Failing to control the inflamed situation, the state requested the army to assist
the police and clamped restrictions on the media. Curfew passes of local and
non-local media teams have been cancelled, limiting their mobility in the
valley, while the duration of one-hour news bulletins of local media outlets has
been slashed to 10 minutes. Short messaging service (SMS) has also been
restricted because several media organisations used this service to relay the
latest news. All this depicts that the state government expected a severe
backlash from the people. Protesters and security forces are engaging in
skirmishes in areas where curfew has not been imposed. However, this issue
cannot be resolved through repressive measures.
In addition to putting a check on the excesses of the security forces, the
state government of Kashmir and central Indian government would have to
make peace with local groups actively engaged in the freedom struggle for the
last two decades. We keep hearing renewed calls for freedom from Indian rule
whenever there is a new incident. Without resolving the issue internally, India
cannot hope to settle this matter with Pakistan. Meanwhile, IHK Chief
Minister Omar Abdullah has accused Pakistan of sabotaging the state
government’s negotiations with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. At the
same time he admitted that such negotiations could not succeed without the
involvement of Pakistan. Such statements only reveal the failure of the state
government to make any progress towards a negotiated solution. While both

India and Pakistan are party to this conflict, it is the Kashmiris whose opinion
is of paramount importance, which should be acceptable to both Pakistan and
India. Instead of clamping inhuman restrictions in Kashmir, the state
government should try to resolve the problem through political means.
Building of a favourable climate is essential for negotiations to succeed. A
positive outcome of India-Pakistan talks are expected to assist the intra-
Kashmir dialogue.
There are some positive indications on the Pakistani side, as the Azad
Jammu and Kashmir prime minister advised the Pakistan government to give
up its ‘Kashmir first’ stance and focus on the doable in relations with India.
This is a major policy shift because earlier the AJK administration was
explicitly pro-establishment. Resolution of small irritants would pave the way
for approaching bigger issues like Kashmir. Meanwhile, the Indian
government should come to some understanding with Kashmiri groups. If
serious investments are not made in sustaining an internal dialogue, Kashmir
will keep boiling for the foreseeable future.
Editorial, Daily Times (Lahore), July 8, 2010,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\07\08\story_8-7-2010_pg3_1
T HE K ILLING F IELDS OF K ASHMIR

Come summer and India's trigger-happy Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
lets loose a reign of terror in the occupied Kashmir. So this summer too, it is
on a killing spree in the Kashmir valley, as over the three weeks it has
murdered no less than two dozen civilians and injured over 70.
Meanwhile, all the important Hurriyat leaders have been placed under
house arrest and strict curfew imposed in Srinagar and all over the valley.
However, the deadliest day was last Tuesday when the security forces killed
three protestors and called in regular troops to quell demonstrations in major
population centres. But the rising tempo of brutality is being squarely matched
by the Kashmiris' determination to defy the forces of repression.
As a regular phenomenon, in defiance of curfew the protestors surge
onto the streets burning tyres and shouting "We want freedom" and "Blood
for blood". Since the Indian armed forces enjoy impunity in occupied Kashmir
they don't hesitate a bit in firing straight into the crowds. Their victims
invariably include women and children.
What would be more ironic and a shame of our times that the
international community is turning away from this enormous pogrom? The
Indian-held Kashmir today is the world's biggest slaughter-house where the
tally of killings since the wake of insurgency in 1989 exceeds 93,000 of which
no less than 7,000 are custodial deaths - leave alone thousands of cases of
6 IPRI Factfile
women molestations and gang-rapes. Human rights violations are rampant,

with incidents of extra-judicial killings, disappearances, arrests and desecration
of women an everyday affair.
But now that media has been barred from reporting of violence and
carnage throughout the Kashmir valley many a murder may go unreported - a
travesty of truth and reality that the world human rights organisations must
strongly reject. Likewise, the international forums of jurists must take up with
the United Nations and other relevant organisations and force India to
withdraw its draconian laws including Armed Forces Special Powers Act
(AFSPA) and Disturbed Areas Act. They should also ask India why these
black laws are only Muslim-majority Kashmir-specific while insurgencies rage
in its many other areas also.
But more than that, it is for Pakistan to bring the plight of Kashmiri
under sharper international focus. Ideally, at the meeting of the foreign
ministers in Islamabad next week Pakistan should insist on result-oriented
discussion with India on Kashmir, irrespective of revival or otherwise of the
Composite Dialogue. As a recognised party to the Kashmir problem it is its
bounden duty to actively support the Kashmiris' struggle for self-
determination.
Admitted, that during the Musharraf era, whether the Kashmir 'problem'
is fit for a solution/resolution became an 'issue' for discussion only and was
consigned to limbo in the name of some ineffectual CBMs. But the ground
reality is fast changing; in occupied Kashmir, a new younger generation has
come to fore to fight and die for independence. No wonder then the media
coverage of Kashmiris' recent protest marches and demonstrations clearly
suggests that their struggle has acquired the colour of a strong modern-day
freedom movement fully backed and joined by the entire population including
women and children. Wearing jeans and polo shirts they dare the heavily
armed security forces, responding to bullets with brick-bats.
Editorial, Business Recorder (Islamabad), July 10, 2010,
http://www.brecorder.com/news/editorials/1078965:the-killing-fields-of-
kashmir.html
K ASHMIR : THE N EW W AVE OF U PRISING

After Musharraf’s departure, the Kashmir issue has moved to the back
burner. His aggressive approach had forced the Indians to come to the
table for a serious dialogue with Pakistani and Kashmiri leadership. But
the PPP government that succeeded him did not take up the issue as
vigorously and urgently, partly on account of its incompetence and
partly due to its inability to deviate from the dotted line laid down by its
benefactors in Washington in matters of foreign policy.
Relations with India are icy at best. Playing a blame game on terrorism,
India has forced Pakistan to play on the back foot through its offensive on the
Mumbai issue.
For the US, which has a vested interest in South Asia and now enjoys
greater leverage over India through which to pressure it to negotiate a
settlement, Kashmir would be a distraction at this point. It fears alienating
India if it pressurises it or chastises it over human rights issue. And it has other
woes to worry about. Indian atrocities in Kashmir and tensions between India
and Pakistan do not bother it much, as long as the two do not go to war.
The United Nations is now impotent having increasingly turned into an
American mouthpiece after the demise of the Soviet Union and continued low
profile of both Russia and China on the international scene. It has failed to
provide any specific, actionable proposals for a permanent solution, which has
allowed the conflict to develop into one of the most intractable problems of
international politics.
All it has done so far is to extend diplomatic courtesies and suggest
vague formulas and generalities that are open to multiple interpretations and
lead nowhere.
The West, the US included, which shouts from the housetops in
support of human rights in other countries, shies away from applying same
standards to India. One sees alarm being raised over minor incidents of human
rights violation in China, a high profile campaign of condemnation against the
Iranian government in the aftermath of presidential elections, President
Mugabe being run down over his policies, but one sees the same West turning
a blind eye to much more serious violations of human rights that have kept
Kashmir and the region in a state of turmoil.
The plight of the Kashmiris has therefore been consigned to cold
storage at the international level, at least for the time being. And because the
issue has gone cold, with successive Pakistani political governments showing
only sporadic interest in it, it no more makes it to the list of disputes that need
most urgent attention.
A cartoon published in an American newspaper in 2002 showed former
president George Bush sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office, utterly
confused by a news report he was reading about India and Pakistan going to
war over Kashmir. “But why are the two countries fighting over a sweater,” he
asks Dick Cheney who stood by with his trademark sly smile on his face.
Apart from reflecting the intellectual capacity of the American president
of the time, the cartoon was a realistic portrayal of the understanding that the
new crop of international political leadership has generally shown of this
dispute.
This has encouraged India to come down heavily on the Kashmiris who
agitate for freedom. The murky cycle of violence is picking up speed. The
killing of innocent civilians at the hands of the army, para-military forces and
8 IPRI Factfile
police draws protests in all nooks and corners of the state by enraged people
which in turn provoke the security forces into letting lose a reign of terror.
Men and women — young and old, and even children are indiscriminately
killed, injured and maimed and women raped with impunity.
A recent report on Human Rights violations states that between 1989
and June 30, 2010 the number of Kashmiris killed at the hands of Indian
security forces stands at 93,274. Additionally, there have been 6,969 custodial
killings, over 107,351 children have been orphaned, 22,728 women widowed
and 9,920 women gang raped. In June 2010 alone, 33 people were killed
including four children, 572 people were tortured and injured and eight
women were molested, 117,345 people were arrested and 105,861 houses or
structures in the use of the communities were razed or destroyed.
This happens because the state or the central governments neither
explain their actions nor carry out investigations to punish those who use
excessive force. Human rights groups blame the culture of impunity among
security forces in Kashmir on a controversial 1990 national law granting
soldiers the right to detain or eliminate all suspected terrorists and destroy
their property without fear of prosecution. Critics call this provision a licence
to kill as it does not clearly define "terrorists".
India continues to treat the Kashmiri people as if they were not human
beings and as if they have no rights. It refuses to acknowledge the uprising to
be a home grown insurgency. Instead, it finds it easy to blame it all on groups
that it says Pakistan sponsors.
After six decades of bloodshed and armed confrontation, Indian leaders
should realise the impossibility of sweeping the issue under the carpet or
keeping the Kashmiris subjugated indefinitely through force, an option which
has acquired an entirely new dimension due to India and Pakistan having
become nuclear powers. It is now time that India should move with sincerity
towards resolving the dispute with the following in mind:
(a) A solution must be found on the basis of tripartite approach that
takes into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir, besides
India and Pakistan.
(b) India should consider with an open mind Pakistan’s proposals to
move away from old paradigms in search of a mutually acceptable
solution. Proposals such as an ‘independent state of Kashmir’
deserve consideration.
(c) Kashmir must be treated as an issue of basic human rights, which
forms part of the jus cogens of general international law. Kashmir
is also an issue of religious rights and identity where the majority
Muslim community has been adversely affected by the partition
along the “Line of Control”.
(d) Kashmir is not only a regional issue in terms of territorial claims

by three states, including China, it also has serious implications
for global peace and security. The fact that all three countries
actually controlling parts of the disputed territory are nuclear
powers cannot be ignored.
(e) The struggle of the people of Kashmir must not be confused with
the so-called “global war on terror”, which happens to be a
superpower agenda that is alien to this conflict. Instead of making
this issue further intractable, India needs to understand the
dictum: “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
The fact is that India promotes terrorism, like Israel, by denying
the people their rights and subjugating them against their will.
(f) India will have to move away from the police and military
approach and stop treating the insurgency as “a battle against
terrorists”. Instead of dealing with symptoms, it must address the
root cause of the conflict — the question of self-determination.
(g) Brutalities, rape and other human rights violations by security
forces must come to an end and these must be prosecuted with
full determination and without bias.
(h) The legacy of the Security Council resolutions 38 and 47 (1948) as
well as the resolutions adopted by the UNCIP in 1948 and 1949
cannot be discarded, in spite of the time that has elapsed since
their adoption, as these have neither become obsolete, nor invalid
nor have they been recalled by the Council at any stage. On the
other hand, ten years after the initial resolutions, Security Council
resolution 122 (1957) reaffirmed the same democratic principle as
basis of a just solution.
India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru fully endorsed this principle
when on November 2, 1947 he said: “We have declared that the fate of
Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given
[…] not only to the people of Kashmir but the world. We will not, and cannot
back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been
established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the
United Nations.”
It is time for the present Indian leadership to listen to its founding
fathers, if it does not wish to listen to the rest of the world.
Shahid R. Siddiqi, Dawn (Islamabad), August 1, 2010,
http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world
/04-kashmir-uprising-qs-06
10 IPRI Factfile
K ASHMIRI I NTIFADA
Has New Delhi learnt any lessons from all that has been going on in Indian-
held Kashmir — especially since June 11, when the current intifada began? On
Tuesday, India obliged Chief Minister Omar Abdullah by rushing more troops
to the valley. Does the Indian government really think that 1,500 more troops
will succeed where an army of over half a million men has failed? If the Indian
troops’ job is to crush the Kashmiri yearnings for freedom, then history says
brute force has never succeeded in denying freedom to a people for long.
Five more Kashmiris were shot dead on Tuesday as fresh protests
broke out in Srinagar, with a crowd of urban youths shouting anti-India
slogans. The extent of Kashmiri anger is obvious, for the demonstrators defied
curfew despite police warnings on loudspeakers that violators would be shot
dead. Some officials deny that any ‘shoot on sight’ order had been given. But
the way the troops have been behaving and given the rising number of
Kashmiri deaths make it clear the order exists for all practical purposes.
The second Kashmiri intifada is home-grown. There are no two
opinions about it. Even India’s rights bodies and sections of the media
acknowledge this truth, and barring those toeing the government line, no
responsible Indian sees a foreign hand in what undeniably is a spontaneous
reaction — mostly from urban youths — to India’s repressive policies that aim
at keeping the Kashmiris in bondage by force. One wishes India realised that
the stifling atmosphere in the valley and the violations of human rights by its
troops cause more violence and deaths, inviting censure from the world and
putting strains on the already tense relations with Islamabad.
The only choice New Delhi has is to talk — both to Kashmiris of all
shades of opinion and to Islamabad, for only that solution will be long-lasting
and acceptable to the people of Kashmir. Let us hope India doesn’t consider it
a provocation when Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi expresses
Pakistan’s concern over the “escalation of violence against the Kashmiri
people” and asks New Delhi to “exercise restraint”.
Editorial, Dawn (Islamabad), August 5, 2010,
http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-
newspaper/editorial/21-kashmiri-intifada-580-sk-05
I NDIA F ACES F ULL - BLOWN U PRISING IN IHK

India faces a full-blown uprising in Indian-held Kashmir that may sink hopes
for peace in the strategic region as disaffected Kashmiris rebel against a
government seen as leaderless, complacent and out of touch.
New Delhi paints the street protests as incited by militants or radical

bands of stone throwers. But the evidence is growing this may be a wider and
spontaneous movement led by young Kashmiris angry at years of misrule.
Critics say the risk is that India’s refusal to recognise the roots of the
alienation may ignite a vicious cycle of violence and return Kashmir to the
kind of upheaval seen during the 1990s. It all bodes badly for a disputed
region seen as key to wider long-term stability under South Asia’s security arch
of Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.
“This is the most serious challenge to central authority I have seen in 20
years,” said Siddharth Varadarajan, strategic affairs editor of The Hindu
newspaper. “And the (Indian) government doesn’t have much of a clue how to
resolve it,” he said.
The latest uprising started with the death of a teenage student in early
June. The state has been locked down for weeks, and protesters have defied
curfews to attack Indian armed forces and the police with stones. Basic foods
and fuel supplies are running short and families have been confined to their
houses for days, with schools and businesses shut.
For many Kashmiris, the whole population appears to support the
protests. Volunteers have established blood donation camps, pooled rice and
vegetables in community kitchens and supplied food to patients in hospitals.
“The protests seem to have taken a direction of their own, which we’ve never
seen before,” said Sajjad Ghani Lone, senior Kashmiri leader. “There is not a
leader who could say stop the protests and they would stop it,” he said.
“India’s political leadership took their eyes off the ball,” said political
analyst Mahesh Rangarajan. While Kashmir was a diplomatic football in the
1990s, this time round the troubles have had little international resonance,
with no criticism from the UN or the US. Pakistan has made some diplomatic
noise, but there is little sign that this will impact on relations.
Daily Times (Lahore), August 6, 2010,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\08\06\story_6-8-2010_pg7_7
F UMBLING FOR S OLUTION
AN increasing number of Kashmiri youth have been taking to the streets in

the Indian occupied part of the disputed state for the past two months to
demand freedom from the Indian yoke. They have defied the curfew
restrictions and remained undeterred by the security forces’ brutal repression,
which has resulted in the death of nearly 50 persons and drawn criticism of
human rights organisations and peace loving people around the world.
Rather than reading the writing on the wall and opting for the right course to
elicit the wishes of the Kashmiris, as clearly spelled out in the UN
resolutions, the Indians seem to be fumbling for a solution. Prime Minister
12 IPRI Factfile
Manmohan Singh has called an all-party conference to be held today to find

a way out of the current situation. What the Indian leadership should,
instead, be doing is to put an end to the charade of ‘atoot ang’ and accept the
contentious nature of the issue, as Pundit Nehru had done when he took the
matter to the UN Security Council and agreed to hold a UN-sponsored
plebiscite to settle it once and for all. Sitting across the table with Pakistan,
the required modalities of the plebiscite should be worked out. Nothing else
could give the poverty-stricken, peace-seeking masses of the subcontinent as
good tidings as such a wise and humane move. This would gradually remove
the distrust that basically the Indian usurpation of Kashmir has created
between the two countries, and usher in an era of genuine normalisation and
good neighbourliness.
The indefatigable freedom fighter, Syed Ali Geelani, has, on the other
hand, decided to observe August 14 as Pakistan Day and called upon the
world conscience to wake up and take note of India’s state-terrorism. He has
underlined the point by saying that Kashmiris have been “targeted with
bullets” while they were only reminding the Indians of Nehru’s promise of
holding a plebiscite. He conditioned participation in any talks with New
Delhi with its consent to discuss the modalities of holding a plebiscite. Along
with Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, he has also demanded the release of arrested
Kashmiris and an end to the black laws under which the security forces have
become trigger happy; for these laws do not hold them to account for killing
anyone considered to be working against the state.
The pity is that India continues to reiterate its charge, never
substantiated with evidence, of Pakistan’s involvement in the Mumbai
incidents, as it did on Sunday, stressing that Islamabad’s denial further
deepens the distrust. New Delhi would have to abandon such evasive tactics
and accept the reality of pervasive anger and discontent in the occupied area
due to its forcible occupation. If the 62 years of struggle, entailing the loss of
80,000 lives, have not subdued the Kashmiris’ urge for freedom from India;
more repression never will.
Editorial, Nation (Islamabad), August 10, 2010,
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-
online/Opinions/Editorials/10-Aug-2010/Fumbling-for-solution
K ASHMIRIS W ANT TO J OIN P AKISTAN –S TILL !

Kashmir Valley has been in turmoil over the past two months with tens of
thousands taking to the streets in protest against killings of civilians by the
Indian State which is seen as an occupying power by many of the people in
Kashmir valley. Since the recent unrest started, at least 32 civilians have been
killed and several hundreds injured, many of them due to Indian security
forces firing into the unarmed crowd of civilian protestors. This review article
examines the recent unrest and the historical roots of the present turmoil and
argues that there is a genuine freedom struggle going on against the repressive
Indian State by the Kashmiris who are alienated equally with India, Pakistan
and the militants and whose grievances have their historical roots in the events
of 1947.
Introduction
Kashmir Valley has been under brutal military occupation since a popular
insurgency erupted against the Indian Rule in 1989. The once serene and
lovely Kashmir Valley with its gorgeous mountains and rivers, which inspired
generations of poets to eulogize its beauty, has now become a Valley of Blood.
At least 40,000 people have been killed since insurgency began in 1989,
according to conservative official estimates. Unofficial estimates are well over
80,000-half of them are civilians. Thousands of Indian soldiers have been
killed and it costs billions of dollars to keep the security forces in Kashmir.
Since June 2010, a fresh round of protests has erupted in the Valley
since the killing of an innocent boy Tufail Ahmed by the Indian ‘security’
forces. These popular protests have been met with brutal repression by the
Indian State leading to a cycle of violence with more unarmed protesters killed
and some protesters engaging in arson and stone throwing as an expression of
their anger at the repression. Predictably, the Indian State authorities have
chosen to blame the unrest on Pakistan and project this popular anger out of
context and blame these victims of repression to justify more killings by the
State.
A young Kashmiri I had met in Srinagar some years ago made a sharp
remark which hit me hard: “We look upon your Indian State exactly as you
Indians used to regard British Raj before 1947: as Imperialist Occupiers.” The
heavy Indian military presence around every city block was menacing. She
narrated in chilling detail the humiliations Kashmiris had to endure on a daily
basis from the Indian presence: arbitrary cordone and search, arrests, torture,
rape, custodial and “encounter killings”. There is one soldier for every 10
Kashmiris in the Valley and daily life is a nightmare for the ordinary Kashmiri.
No wonder there is little love for the Indian State in the hearts of many
Kashmiris. The total alienation and hatred of the population is best summed
up by the graffiti on the walls of Srinagar alleys: “Indian Dogs Go Home”.
Kashmiri activists claim that India and Pakistan have historically treated
Kashmir conflict as a mere land dispute completely ignoring their legitimate
grievances. Ever since May 1998 nuclear tests by both countries, Kashmir has
become a nuclear flashpoint, besides bleeding the economy of the two
impoverished countries. Pakistan for its part claims that it is merely giving
“moral and diplomatic” support for an indigenous freedom struggle in
14 IPRI Factfile
Kashmir despite the fact that Pakistan-backed militants have killed numerous
Kashmiri civilians. The Indian State continues to insist that all would be well in
Kashmir but for Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism and the mainstream Indian
opinion continues to be along these lines which indirectly sanctions the Indian
State’s hardline repressive rule in Kashmir which has ravaged the lives of
millions of people. Who is right and how did we get here and can we
understand this tragedy amidst the nationalistic rhetoric on either side?
Genesis of the Conflict

The genesis of this bloody dispute dates back to the events of 1947 when
India and Pakistan became independent from British Rule. The State of
Jammu and Kashmir(J&K) was ruled by a much-hated tyrant Hari Singh who
was oppressive against the majority Muslim population.When the famous poet
and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal, himself of Kashmiri origin, visited
Srinagar in 1921, he wrote a couplet succinctly summarizing the plight of poor
Muslims under repression:
In the bitter chill of winter shivers his naked body. Whose skill wraps
the rich in royal shawls.
Kashmiris had begun a liberation movement in 1931 under the
leadership of the charismatic leader Sher-i-Kashmir (Lion of Kashmir) Sheikh
Abdullah which marked the beginning of a strong Kashmiri Nationalism. The
vacillating Hari Singh was compelled to accede to India under threat of
invasion from Pathan tribesmen backed by Pakistan. In theory, the Rulers of
the Princely States were allowed to accede their States to either India or
Pakistan, irrespective of the wishes of their people; But as a practical matter,
they were encouraged to accede to the geographically contiguous Dominion,
taking into account the wishes of their people and in cases where a dispute
arose, it was decided to settle the question of accession by a plebiscite, a
scheme proposed and accepted by India. Being a Muslim majority State and
contiguous to Pakistan, Kashmir was expected to accede to Pakistan; since the
Hindu Ruler acceded instead to India, a dispute arose in the case of Kashmir.
The Promise
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian Prime Minister hailed from a Kashmiri
Hindu(Pandit) family whose ancestors had lived in the lush-green Kashmir
Valley(Vale) and hence had a great deal of emotional attachment towards the
Vale(as can be inferred from the beautiful poems he had written comparing
the Vale to a beautiful woman). Besides, he was a great friend of Sheikh
Abdullah to the extent that when the Lion of Kashmir was arrested by Hari
Singh for his Quit Kashmir movement in 1946, Jawaharlal had rushed to his
rescue braving imprisonment.
Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession (IOA) document replete

with smudges and strikes on 26th October 1947. Following the accession of
Kashmir to India, Nehru promised the Kashmiri people in a famous speech at
Lal Chowk in Srinagar that their wishes would be consulted in a plebiscite or
referendum regarding the future of J&K. Naturally he was confident that the
popular leader Sheikh Abdullah would be helpful in convincing his people to
choose India in a plebiscite to be held in future and thus his beloved Vale
would remain the Jewel in the Indian Crown. He would repeat this promise
time and again in various speeches from 1947-1951 and the 1948 Indian White
Paper clearly records that the accession of Kashmir to India is provisional until
such time as the will of the people(self-determination) of the State could be
ascertained by a plebiscite. Some of the aging locals i met in Kashmir still
remember the promise of plebiscite given by Jawaharlal Nehru in an emotional
speech at Lal Chowk Grounds in Srinagar more than half a century ago.
The strongly nationalistic Kashmiris were fearful of joining India given
the communal holocaust raging elsewhere in India during the Partition. This is
clearly articulated in a famous speech by Sheikh Abdullah on 22nd October
1947 where he explains the apprehension of the Kashmiri Muslims in joining
India, given the massacre of Muslims in Kapurthala and elsewhere in India.
However, Abdullah would consent to provisional accession to India on 27th
October clearly stating that it was an ad-hoc accession ultimately to be decided
by a plebiscite. Throughout the next few decades, he would continue to
oscillate between a pro-India position and demand for self-determination,
constantly torn between his friendship with Nehru and promise to his people.
The Plebiscite Conundrum

Following the first Kashmir War in 1947-48, India and Pakistan agreed to a
ceasefire and did sign the 1948 and 1949 UNCIP resolutions agreeing to a
plebiscite to be carried out in 3 stages: Ceasefire; Truce Agreement followed
by a Truce Stage; Plebiscite Stage. However, a plebiscite was never carried out
due to differences in interpretation of the resolutions, some of them being-
Procedure for and extent of demilitarization; whether actual withdrawal of
Pakistan’s troops is to be done before or after the Truce Agreement. This is
the origin of the famous Indian accusation, “Pakistan did not withdraw the
troops first”. Further, India would resist plebiscite efforts from 1954 citing
Cold War alliances between Pakistan and the US. Both India and Pakistan
criticize each other for the failure till date. Who was the real culprit? Whoever
it was, Kashmiris would consider this as a breach of promise by India and
denial of self-determination.
16 IPRI Factfile
Elections: Substitute for Plebiscite?

The Indian State continues to argue that elections held in J&K since 1951 are
effectively a substitute for a plebiscite- that people have come out and voted
and indicated acceptance of the Indian Rule. However, Kashmiris reject this
argument saying that they were merely voting to elect leaders for local day to
day governance that the larger question of self-determination has been denied
and that in any case the elections have been rigged since 1951 and that the
Center was effectively installing local puppets in the State and ruling indirectly.
The fact that every single Assembly election in J&K since 1951 till date
has been rigged (with the possible exceptions of 1977 and 2002 which were
relatively free and fair. Even they have been marred by allegations of rigging
and coercion) has been meticulously documented by reputed Kashmiri
activists like Prem Nath Bazaz. The election farce has been captured succinctly
by none other than B.K. Nehru, who was Governor of Kashmir from 1981 to
1984, in his memoirs published in 1997.
“From 1953 to 1975, Chief Ministers of that State [of J&K] had been
nominees of Delhi. Their appointment to that post was legitimised by the
holding of farcical and totally rigged elections in which the Congress party led
by Delhi’s nominee was elected by huge majorities.”
Article 370: Autonomy or Erosion of Rights?

In 1949, the Indian Constituent Assembly adopted Article 370 of the
Constitution, ensuring a special status and internal autonomy for Jammu and
Kashmir with Indian jurisdiction in Kashmir limited to the three areas namely
defence, foreign affairs and communications. This was confirmed by Abdullah
in 1952 Delhi Agreement and the State was allowed to have its own flag.
Much has been made out of this allegedly special status for J&K with
the Hindu Right demanding abrogation of Article 370. In reality, Article 370
which was envisioned as a temporary measure till self-determination has been
seriously eroded over years with the collusion of local puppet Ministers
installed in rigged elections, by extending various articles like 356 and 357 to
the State, by virtue of which the Centre can assume the government of the
State and exercise its legislative powers. Today, Kashmiris are worse off than
people in other States in many respects: having been denied self-
determination, Article 370 eroded and repressive acts such as Armed Forces
Special Powers Act which lead to arbitrary arrests, torture and killing of
thousands of innocent civilians.
Such trampling of democratic rights planted the seeds of a second wave
of Kashmiri Nationalism: Jammu and Kashmir National Liberation Front
(NLF) was founded by Amanulla Khan and Maqbool Butt in the late sixties,
which would later become JKLF and would play a major role in the 1989
insurgency.
1989: Popular Insurgency or Terrorist movement?

With the rising discontent against the Indian Rule: long promised and denied
self-determination, erosion of autonomy, consistently rigged elections and lack
of employment opportunities, the 1987 rigged election was a watershed event
in the Kashmiri politics. The Muslim United Front (MUF) candidate
Mohammad Yousuf Shah was imprisoned though he was on the lead and he
would later become Syed Salahuddin, chief of militant outfit Hizb-ul-
Mujahedin (Hizb). His election aides (known as the HAJY group) – Abdul
Hamid Shaikh, Ashfaq Majid Wani, Javed Ahmed Mir and Mohammed Yasin
Malik – became disenchanted with the electoral farce and joined the JKLF.
Thousands of young disaffected Kashmiris in the Valley were recruited
by the JKLF and a full-fledged Freedom Movement against the Indian Rule
began in 1989. The insurgency was not only militant but also popular –
Hundreds of thousands of unarmed people marched on the streets of Srinagar
between January and May 1990 demanding a plebiscite. This popular
insurgency was brutally handled by the hardline Governor Jagmohan by firing
indiscriminately at unarmed demonstrators. An officially estimated 10,000
desperate Kashmiri youth crossed over to Pakistan for training and
procurement of arms.
What was Pakistan’s Role?

Pakistan has long held the resentment that Kashmir, which rightfully belonged
to it as a Muslim majority State, was snatched from right under its nose by a
clever India. Hence Pakistan has invaded Kashmir/India and gone to war four
times over Kashmir in 1947, 1965 (Operation Gibraltar), 1971 and 1999
(Kargil). Pakistan had hoped that Kashmiris would rise against the Indian Rule
in 1965 following Operation Gibraltar, but that did not happen. Thus, when a
full-blown indigenous insurgency erupted in 1989, Pakistan was only too
happy to take advantage of the golden opportunity and would fuel the
insurgency enormously by supplying arms and training to both indigenous and
foreign militants in Kashmir, thus adding fuel to the smouldering fire of
discontent in the valley.
The pro-independence JKLF had a secular agenda and this was not to
be tolerated. After all, Pakistan has not been too keen on the independence
option and would love to have Kashmir to be part of Pakistan and thus
backed the Hizb which favoured accession to Pakistan and played a role in
decimating the JKLF by cutting off financing and in some instances provided
intelligence to India against JKLF. JKLF eventually declared a ceasefire in
18 IPRI Factfile
1994 and remains a political group. Militant groups with Islamic agenda would
proliferate through the nineties and have eventually hijacked the indigenous
Kashmiri movement. Today, roughly the indigenous Kashmiri fighters account
for only one-third of the total number of militants.
The Human Toll:

As mentioned earlier, the human toll has been of horrendous proportions.
According to official handouts [PTI release, 13 September 1998], which tend
to be conservative in the number of civilians killed by the security forces and
mostly exclude thousands of custodial killings, 2477 civilians had been killed
by Indian security forces between 1990-98; 6673 civilians and 1593 security
personnel had been killed by the militants including 982 Hindus and Sikhs .
Number of people missing since 1990 runs over 3000, according to J&K
Govt’s official release. The Kashmiri Pandits have borne the brunt of this
bloody conflict as well- they were forced to quit the Valley in a massive exodus
in 1990 and many of them still languish in the refugee camps in Jammu and
Delhi.
As of June 1999, an estimated 400,000 troops and other federal security
forces were deployed in the Valley, including those positioned along the Line
of Control (LoC) ; There is roughly one soldier for every 10 Kashmiris and the
people suffer from the brutality of the Indian occupation on a daily basis:
arbitrary arrests, torture, rape, custodial and “encounter” killings, exacerbated
by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and Disturbed Areas Act with
draconian powers and thousands of dreaded renegade militants used by India.
This is not to suggest that militants have been angelic. They have
committed similar human right violations and killings as well and innocent
civilians are caught in the cross-fire between the militants and Indian security
forces. However, there is an important difference between Militant and State
Violence: the latter is an order of magnitude more repressive than the former
for an equal number of killings, because the hapless people have no one to run
to.
Is the Kashmiri Movement communal?
The Kashmiri Freedom movement is often portrayed as a communal
movement where Kashmiri Muslims are pitted against the Hindus, but this is
far from true. There is a rich tradition of Kashmiriyat – a composite cultural
identity with the glorious traditions of communal amity, tolerance and
compassion – in the Valley dating back several centuries.
In fact, when communal holocaust had been raging in Jammu,
Kapurthala and elsewhere in India in 1947, Kashmir Valley was quiet and 5%
Pandit minority totally safe. In 1990, when Pandits felt insecure given the
killings of innocent community members, secular JKLF tried to explain that
the killings of prominent Pandits were not communal but merely for political
reasons like media bias and sentencing of Maqbool Butt. Kashmiris came out
in large numbers and demonstrated in support of their Pandit brethren as they
still do every time innocent Hindus are killed, as witnessed in the 2003
massacre at Nadimarg. There have been instances of Muslims helping build
temples for Hindus- an example being the village of Ichhigam in Budgam.
What is clear is that Kashmiri civilians are not communal by and large
and Kashmiriyat continues to flourish. What is not clear is: who are these
communal forces which target minority Hindus periodically? It could be jihadi
militants with an Islamic agenda; It could be Indian sponsored renegade
militants to communalize the conflict. Opinion remains divided. Only an
independent investigation by an impartial agency can reveal the true identity of
these killers. Kashmiris have repeatedly demanded inquiry into these killings
by unidentified gunmen and it continues to be ignored.
Is There a Solution?
India continues to insist that the accession of Kashmir to India is final and
complete; Till recently, Pakistan had insisted on the implementation of UN
resolutions- a unitary plebiscite for the whole of J&K; Kashmiris are alienated
from both countries given brutal repression by India and violence by pro-
Pakistan militants. Is there a solution to this seemingly intractable issue?
One reason why previous efforts to solve the problem have failed is
this: India and Pakistan have not included Kashmiris as a legitimate party in
tripartite unconditional dialogues. Many observers think that UN resolutions
are out-dated, since the dispute has evolved into tripartite. That other regional
solutions should be considered given that various regions in Kashmir have
evolved independently since 1947 and that the conflict is restricted to the
Kashmir Valley whose area is less than 16% of the total area of Indian
controlled J&K.
One compromise regional solution which could potentially work was
proposed by eminent historian Alastair Lamb in 1998 called Andorran
Solution and a similar variant was proposed by the Kashmir Study Group.
Following the well established precedent of Andorra on the border between
France and Spain, both Azad Kashmir and the Kashmir Valley could be
declared as autonomous regions with its internal self-government but with its
external defence and foreign affairs controlled jointly by India and Pakistan.
Major advantage of this Andorran solution: No territory under Indian control
would be transferred to Pakistan and no territory under Pakistani control
would be transferred to India. Existing LoC will become the border. India
retains Jammu and Ladakh, Pakistan retains Northern Territories.
20 IPRI Factfile
Hearts and Minds

It is high time India reconsidered its continuing policy of holding Kashmir at
gunpoint to showcase its secular credentials to the world. It is imperative that
India puts an end to its present brutal occupation of the Valley and
implements confidence building measures to restore the people’s trust. That
will bring down the incidents of militancy considerably. Whatever be the final
solution, it is worthwhile remembering the emotional speech made by
Jawaharlal Nehru (ironically the very same leader who played a major role in
the origin of the dispute, by way of his sentimental attachment to the Vale) in
Lok Sabha on August 7, 1952:
“..Ultimately – I say this with all deference to this
Parliament – the decision will be made in the hearts and
minds of the men and women of Kashmir; neither in this
Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else
…” (Kashmir In Turmoil By Akhila Raman, 11 August,
2010 Countercurrents.org)
Dawn, August 11, 2010,
http://thedawn.com.pk/2010/08/11/kashmiris-wants-to-join-pakistan-still/
H OW TO ‘T ALK ’ K ASHMIR
We have travelled so far along the road to a settlement of the Kashmir dispute
that the slogans and mantras of old have become utterly irrelevant.
Those days are behind us when successive governments in India said
that the Shimla Agreement bound the parties to a bilateral approach; only to
contend that there was nothing to discuss. It was an internal affair.
As late as on July 16, 2001 at Agra the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
regime wrecked a summit because it would not accept even this procedural
formulation in Article 1 of the draft declaration though its foreign minister,
Jaswant Singh, had accepted it in writing, jointly with Pakistan’s foreign
minister, Abdul Sattar: “Progress towards settlement of J&K issue would be
conducive towards normalisation and will further the establishment of a
cooperative relationship in a mutually reinforcing manner”.
In sharp contrast, since 2004, for the first time in decades, Pakistan and
India have been grappling with the substance, not mere procedures, of the
Kashmir dispute. By 2007 they had reached the gates of an accord. Domestic
developments in India had slowed the process somewhat, earlier. Similar
development in Pakistan, of a seismic character, brought it to a halt.It was
statesmanlike of Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi to declare in
Islamabad on July 15 that progress made in the talks in the past will not be set
at naught. This was widely hailed in India. It would be unhelpful to dismiss the
significant shift in India’s position.
Idealism, doubtless, motivated it. So did a sensible mature appraisal of
the nation’s interest in settling the Kashmir dispute. Here we come up, again
and again, with a virus that attacks the parties whenever either of them makes
a concession. It produces the delusion that “external factors” (read the US) or
“internal compulsions” or both inspired change; ergo, it is insincere and not to
be taken seriously.
In all these years India had prime ministers who were products of its
political process. Dr Manmohan Singh broke the pattern. An economist of
repute, with friends in Pakistan’s academia and other figures, he decided
consciously to break from the past and proclaimed the resolve publicly before
taking the oath of office.
On May 20, 2004 an Indian daily published his interview at breakfast to
a foreign correspondent Jonathan Power “a few months ago”. Neither the
guest nor the host imagined that the host would become India’s prime
minister before long. In the tour d’ horizon Pakistan loomed very prominently.
His remarks bear quotation in extenso for they reveal a sound blend of
enlightened self-interest and idealism. “Then, we have to find a way to stop
talking of war with Pakistan. This is stopping us realising our potential. Two
nuclear-armed powers living in such close proximity is a big problem. We have
an obligation to ourselves to solve this problem.”
Jonathan Power reported: “I pushed him on how far he himself would
accept compromise with Pakistan over Kashmir.” This is crucial. Dr
Manmohan Singh’s reply was candid and positive. “Short of secession, short
of redrawing boundaries, the Indian establishment can live with anything.
Meanwhile, we need soft borders — then borders are not so important.” A
year later he said they would become “irrelevant”.
What of a plebiscite? “No government in India could survive that.
Autonomy we are prepared to consider. All these things are negotiable.” In the
negotiations in the back-channel India accepted grant of self-rule to both parts
of Kashmir, demilitarisation, redundance of the Line of Control, and — a joint
mechanism. No previous government had gone so far.
Dr Manmohan Singh became a symbol of the peace process. In the
2009 general election, the BJP leader, L.K. Advani, bitter at the collapse of his
prime ministerial ambitions in 2004, launched a sustained personal attack on
the prime minister in language that revealed his true colours. The attack was
renewed in the wake of the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement last year and last
month after the fiasco at Islamabad. Imagine the furore if there had been an
explicit commitment to ‘talk’ Kashmir on a fixed date.
One can only wonder why such issues are not resolved in private
understandings. Be that as it may, if Pakistan must understand India’s
compulsions India must respect Pakistan’s compulsions. We have reached a
22 IPRI Factfile
stage when progress on terrorism will be better achieved by conducting talks

than by avoiding them.
There is another aspect which must be faced. Let alone its government,
Pakistan’s civil society — even committed supporters of the peace process —
resent what they perceive to be India’s pressure tactics, its rhetoric and
recourse to diplomatic pressure directly and through the US.
More than one interlocutor complained to this writer during a visit last
March that India was “trying to isolate Pakistan internationally and put it in the
dock”. Perceptions matter and this one can be removed only by engaging in
dialogue. The Pakistani is torn between his nationalism, vis-à-vis India, and his
loathing for the jihadis.
Where, then, are we today? First, we have the back-channel on Kashmir
which registered significant progress. Next the aborted Islamabad accord of
July 15. Both must be revived and pushed ahead. The prime ministers of both
countries should meet in New York during the UN General Assembly’s
session and set both processes in motion. They should institute on a priority
basis informal talks on visa relaxation, exchange of journalists, artists,
academics and public figures and impose a ban on abrasive rhetoric. The
foreign ministers have agreed to meet in December. These steps will go a long
way to improve the atmosphere.
On Aug 9, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said, “I believe that
dialogue is the most effective means to tackle outstanding issues with
Pakistan.” She indicated that the government might be thinking of a new way
to engage the Pakistani establishment, which may include the military too.
India has undertaken such an exchange with China’s military leaders. An
exchange of ideas between the top military leaders of Pakistan and India will
help both sides enormously. It is long overdue.
A.G. Noorani, Dawn (Islamabad), August 14, 2010,
http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-
newspaper/editorial/how-to-talk-kashmir-480
W HY S ILENCE OVER K ASHMIR S PEAKS V OLUMES

Once known for its extraordinary beauty, the valley of Kashmir now hosts the
biggest, bloodiest and also the most obscure military occupation in the world.
With more than 80,000 people dead in an anti-India insurgency backed by
Pakistan, the killings fields of Kashmir dwarf those of Palestine and Tibet. In
addition to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews, raids, and
checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000 Indian soldiers, the valley's 4 million
Muslims are exposed to extra-judicial execution, rape and torture, with such
barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into penises.
Why then does the immense human suffering of Kashmir occupy such
an imperceptible place in our moral imagination? After all, the Kashmiris
demanding release from the degradations of military rule couldn't be louder
and clearer. India has contained the insurgency provoked in 1989 by its rigged
elections and massacres of protestors. The hundreds of thousands of
demonstrators that fill the streets of Kashmir's cities today are overwhelmingly
young, many in their teens, and armed with nothing more lethal than stones.
Yet the Indian state seems determined to strangle their voices as it did of the
old one. Already this summer, soldiers have shot dead more than 50
protestors, most of them teenagers.
The New York Times this week described the protests as a
comprehensive"intifada-like popular revolt". They indeed have a broader mass
base than the Green Movement does in Iran. But no colour-coded revolution
is heralded in Kashmir by western commentators. The BBC and CNN don't
endlessly loop clips of little children being shot in the head by Indian soldiers.
Bloggers and tweeters in the west fail to keep a virtual vigil by the side of the
dead and the wounded. No sooner than his office issued it last week, the UN
secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, hastened to retract a feeble statement
expressing concern over the situation in Kashmir.
Kashmiri Muslims are understandably bitter. As Parvaiz Bukhari, a
journalist, said early this week the stones flung randomly by protestors have
become "the voice of a neglected people" convinced that the world
deliberately ignores their plight. The veteran Kashmiri journalist Masood
Hussain confessed to the near-total futility of his painstaking auditing of
atrocity over two decades. For Kashmir has turned out to be a "great
suppression story".
The cautiousness – or timidity – of western politicians is easy to
understand. Apart from appearing as a lifeline to flailing western economies,
India is a counterweight, at least in the fantasies of western strategists, to
China. A month before his election, Barack Obama declared that resolving the
"Kashmir crisis" was among his "critical tasks". Since then, the US president
hasn't uttered a word about this ur-crisis that has seeded all major conflicts in
south Asia. David Cameron was advised a similar strategic public silence on
his visit to India last fortnight.
Those western pundits who are always ready to assault illiberal regimes
worldwide on behalf of democracy ought not to be so tongue-tied. Here is a
well-educated Muslim population, heterodox and pluralist by tradition and
temperament, and desperate for genuine democracy. However, intellectuals
preoccupied by transcendent, nearly mystical, battles between civilization and
barbarism tend to assume that "democratic" India, a natural ally of the
"liberal" west, must be doing the right thing in Kashmir, ie fighting
"Islamofascism". Thus Christopher Hitchens could call upon the Bush
administration to establish a military alliance with "the other great multi-ethnic
24 IPRI Factfile
democracy under attack from Muslim fascism" even as an elected Hindu

nationalist government stood accused of organising a pogrom that killed more
than 2,000 Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat.
Electoral democracy in multi-ethnic, multi-religious India is one of the
modern era's most utopian political experiments, increasingly vulnerable to
malfunction and failure, and, consequently, to militant disaffection and state
terror. But then the west's new masters of humanitarian war, busy painting
grand ideological struggles on broad, rolling canvases, are prone to miss the
human position of suffering and injustice.
Indian writers and intellectuals, who witnessed the corrosion of India's
secular democracy by Hindu supremacists, seem better acquainted with the
messy realities concealed by stirring abstractions. But on Kashmir they often
appear as evasive as their Chinese peers are on Tibet. They may have
justifiably recoiled from the fundamentalist and brutish aspect of the revolt in
the valley. But the massive non-violent protests in Kashmir since 2008 haven't
released a flood of pent-up sympathy from them.
Few people are as well positioned as the much-revered Amartya Sen to
provoke national introspection on Kashmir. Indeed, no one can fault Sen's
commitment to justice for the poor and defenceless in India. Yet Sen relegates
Kashmir to footnotes in both of his recent books: The Argumentative Indian
and Identity and Violence.
Certainly, as Arundhati Roy's recent writings prove, anyone initiating a
frank discussion on Kashmir risks a storm of vituperation from the Indian
understudies of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. The choleric TV anchors,
partisan journalists and opinion-mongers of India's corporate media routinely
amplify the falsehoods and deceptions of Indian intelligence agencies in
Kashmir. Blaming Pakistan or Islamic fundamentalists, as the Economist
pointed out last week, has "got much harder" for the Indian government,
which, has "long denied the great extent to which Kashmiris want rid of
India". Nevertheless, it tries; and, as the political philosopher Pratap Bhanu
Mehta, one of the few fair-minded commentators on this subject, points out,
the Indian media now acts in concert with the government "to deny any
legitimacy to protests in Kashmir".
This effective censorship reassures those Indians anxious not to let
mutinous Kashmiris sully the currently garish notions of India as an
"economic powerhouse" and "vibrant democracy" – the calling cards with
which Indian elites apply for membership to the exclusive clubs of the west. In
Kashmir, however, the net effect is deeper anger and alienation. As Bukhari
puts it, Kashmiris hold India's journalists as responsible as its politicians for
"muzzling and misinterpreting" them.
"The promise," Mehta writes, "of a liberal India is slowly dying". For
Kashmiris this promise has proved as hollow as that of the fundamentalist
Islam exported by Pakistan. Liberated from political deceptions, the young
men on the streets of Kashmir today seem simply to want to express their
hatred of the state's impersonal brutality, and to commemorate lives freshly
ruined by it. As the Kashmiri writer Basharat Peer wrote this week in a moving
Letter to an Unknown Indian, Indian journalists might edit out the "faces of
the murdered boys", and "their grieving fathers"; they may not show "the
video of a woman in Anantnag, washing the blood of the boys who were killed
outside her house". But "Kashmir sees the unedited Kashmir."
And it remembers. "Like many other Kashmiris," Peer writes, "I have
been in silence, committing to memory the deed, the date." Apart from the
youth on the streets, there are also those with their noses in books, or pressed
against window bars. Soon this generation will make its way into the world
with its private traumas. Life under political oppression has begun to yield, in
the slow bitter way it does, a rich intellectual and artistic harvest: Peer's
memoir Curfewed Night will be followed early next year by a novel by Waheed
Mirza. There are more works to come; Kashmiris will increasingly speak for
themselves. One can only hope that their voices will finally penetrate our
indifference and even occasionally prick our conscience.
Pankaj Mishra, Guardian, August 14, 2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/aug/14/silence-over-kashmir-conflict
P AKISTAN -K ASHMIR C ORRELATION

The modern nation state system is based on “The Peace Treaty of Westphalia-
1648.” The Westphalian Peace has set three guiding principles for the
establishment of a nation state. These principles include: one; the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of states while maintaining the right of political self-
determination of the people. Two; the legal equality between the states,
irrespective of their size and strength. Three; the non-intervention of one state
in the internal affairs of another state. Since its establishment, the peace treaty
is under constant evaluation. However, these basic principles remained
constant and acted as the guidelines for the betterment of humanity. These
principles remained the basic feature of the five European Powers existed
prior to World War-I and maintained world peace from 1815 to 1914. These
were part of the covenant of the League of the Nations, established at the
conclusion of World War-I in 1919 and United Nations Organization charter
came into being at the end of World War-II in 1945.
National security, an essential part of the nation state(s), has also
undergone though a constant evolutionary process. In the modern times, the
security of a state is not only restricted to its defence, achieved through armed
forces, but a wholesome package whose essential elements are; the military
power, economy and the political power, exercise through a strong diplomacy.
Having a strong military power would ensure one aspect of the national
26 IPRI Factfile
security. Nevertheless, even this aspect would call for a sound economy for its
sustenance as well as victuals for other aspects. Out of many facets of the
economic power, self-sustenance of the state is the basic aspect. Pakistan is
such a state whose principal economy is agrarian based. This agrarian based
economy needs a constant availability of water. Traditionally, the water
catchment areas (water heads) are located somewhere in the mountainous
region of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. For centuries, water flows down to
irrigate the agricultural lands of Punjab, Sindh and other parts of the Indus
Valley and the locals as well as the people of Kashmir consumed its product,
food grains. Indeed, there existed a historical mutuality between the Kashmir
and the areas forming part of Pakistan. This relationship of interdependence is
pre-partition of the sub-continent and even pre-canal system, hence everlasting
in nature. It was indeed, in the same context that six decades earlier, the father
of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah through his visionary
statement declared Kashmir as the “jugular vein of Pakistan.”
Unfortunately, because of the conspiracies between British
Government, then a colonial power in the sub-continent and the Hindu
leadership, the fate of Kashmiris was kept indecisive by denying them to
become part of Pakistan. Later India invaded Kashmir once Kashmiris tried to
make their way for the accession with Pakistan in October 1947. A part of the
state was liberated by Kashmiri people from the Indian yoke, whereas, the
bulk remained under the forceful Indian occupation. In the subsequent years,
India fully exploited the situation and successfully planned desertification of
Pakistan by stopping the water of all rivers flowing from the areas of Kashmir
under its occupation. So much so, India did not abide by the Indus Basin
Water Treaty, concluded through the arbitration of World Bank in 1960. Over
the year, India has constructed a number dams and water reservoirs on the
Western rivers, whose water is exclusively dedicated for Pakistan through the
Indus Basin Water Treaty. In this way, India gained total control over the
water sources of Pakistan. This control has enabled her to stop the Pakistani
water once it is required for irrigation and power generation and release it to
cause the floods in Pakistan once there is enough of it during monsoon or
during the rainy season.
Apart from the economic interdependence and unbreakable linkages
between Pakistan and Kashmir, the security of Pakistan and Kashmir is
synonymous and interlinked. Historically, all natural routes to and from
Kashmir are through Pakistan. This holds good to all parts of the state, viz;
Jammu, Vale of Kashmir, or the Gilgit-Baltistan. Historically all armed
invasion in Kashmir (except Indian invasion of 27 October 1947) took place
through the areas currently forming part of Pakistan. Major invasions and
foreign rules on Kashmir include; Mughals; from 1586 to 1752, Afghans; from
1752 to 1819, Sikhs; from 1819 to 1846, and Dogra rule; from 1846 to 1947.
Similarly, Indian aggressions on Pakistan in the form of three wars have been
through Kashmiri territories. Besides, military and economic security linkages

between Pakistan and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the recent torrential
rains followed by unprecedented floods throughout the country have proved
that the security of Pakistan against natural calamities does not lie only within
the geographical boundaries of Pakistan, but somewhere in the high
mountains of the Jammu and Kashmir. Another natural calamity, the
devastating earthquake of October 2005, simultaneously hit Kashmir and parts
of Pakistan including the Federal Capital Islamabad. Together in both areas, it
caused the deaths of over 73,000 people. Indeed the geo-politics of Pakistan
and Kashmir is such that even nature does not divide them.
Although the losses incurred due to the current floods are
unprecedented, but there have been floods due to heavy rains in Kashmir
throughout the history. In the last two decades, there have been ruthless
floods in 1992 and 2006. These floods also caused enormous losses in
Pakistan. Indeed, in spite of the water storages, dams, water reservoirs and
diversions, made by India in its occupied portion of the State, the water always
take its natural course. The natural course of the water from Kashmir is
through the land of Pakistan to the Arabian Sea.
Owing to the aforementioned historical inalienability, the people of
Kashmir are fighting a war for their freedom from India to become part of
Pakistan. Indeed the freedom struggle of Kashmiri people started alongside
the Pakistan Movement, thus another analogy between the two parts. In order
to support the rightful Kashmiri cause, Pakistan has always provided moral,
political, and diplomatic support to them. Diplomatically Pakistani stance is
very clear that people of Kashmir through a fair and impartial plebiscite will
decide the future of the state, as per the UN resolutions. Alongside the
Kashmiris, Pakistan also rejects the Indian stance that, Kashmir is the integral
part of India. Pakistan feels that India is an illegitimate occupant of the state
and it is about time that it should accept the Kashmiris right of self-
determination as mandated in the internationally recognised UN resolutions.
Dr Raja Muhammad Khan, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), August 16, 2010,
V IGIL BEFORE W HITE H OUSE

The 100-hour long candle-light vigil before the White House by the people of
Kashmiri origin was a stirring wake-up call to the superpower as well as the
world community to realise their obligation to protect Kashmiris against the
human rights abuses that the Indian security forces are freely and blatantly
committing in the Valley. To President Obama, in particular, it was a reminder
to honour the commitment he had made when as candidate he presented
himself before the American public as a harbinger of peace in the world,
28 IPRI Factfile
determined to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of

the people. The slogan most commonly voiced by the marchers on
Pennsylvania Avenue and written on the placards was “Quit Kashmir”, clearly
addressed to India. Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri
American Council said, “now, bleeding and betrayed, they (the Kashmiris) ask
for the pledge (made by the UN) to be redeemed.”
The situation on ground in the Indian occupied part of the state and the
call from the Diaspora are ample proof of the yearning of the people to be
free of India’s stranglehold. The passage of 62 years under its illegal
occupation and the coming of age of the new generation of Kashmiris have
not blunted the desire to exercise the right of self-determination to decide
their future. The Kashmiri settlers in Canada have not stayed behind and they
held demonstrations in front of the Indian consulate in Toronto shouting the
“Quit Kashmir” slogan. They were joined by the Sikh immigrants, who like
most other minorities in India, have grievously suffered at the hands of the
Hindu leadership. For the past nearly three months, the Indian occupied part
has either presented a haunted look with shops and business houses,
government offices and educational institutions, closed down in response to a
strike call by the Kashmiri leadership; or alive with angry shouts of protesters
demanding an end to Indian rule.
The unnerved and desperate security forces have responded to the
stone-pelting with live bullets that have so far killed 62, mostly young people,
some as young as nine. Forty-eight of them, including 14 security personnel,
were injured on Sunday. The urge for freedom from India is so widespread
and strong that the protest rallies are now joined by the womenfolk. Since the
troops are protected against prosecution under a draconian law they have
become outrageously trigger-happy. The situation has come to a boiling point
and it is high time for the world community to compel India to honour its
word. The people of Kashmir and the rest of the justice-minded world are
looking up to President Obama not to sacrifice a beleaguered people’s lives
and honour for the sake of strengthening Washington’s strategic relations with
New Delhi.
Editorial, Nation (Islamabad), August 24, 2010,
online/Opinions/Editorials/24-Aug-2010/Vigil-before-White-House
T HE P EOPLE OF K ASHMIR MUST BE A LLOWED TO V OTE ON

T HEIR O WN F UTURE
Pankaj Mishra's article was a concise and accurate examination of the Kashmir
crisis (Why silence over Kashmir speaks volumes, 14 August). He pointed out
that the protesters "has a broader mass base than the Green Movement does
in Iran. But no colour-coded revolution is heralded in Kashmir by western

commentators."
Virtually everyone – men, women and children – of the capital city of
Kashmir, Srinagar, has taken to the streets to lodge a non-violent protest at the
office of the United Nations against the continuance of Indian occupation.
But such non-violent protests have received little or no press coverage, even
though they have been taking place, as Mishra reports, since 2008. Is it any
wonder that Kashmiris feel "that theirs is the voice of a neglected people"?
Mishra speaks about the Indian media amplifying "the falsehoods and
deceptions of Indian intelligence agencies in Kashmir", which argue that the
Kashmiri protests are the work of Islamic fundamentalists and/or terrorists.
But in the case of Srinagar, the population of a major town cannot be
composed entirely of such elements.
Kashmiris simply demand a speedy implementation of the pledge
solemnly extended to them by India and Pakistan and the UN – to be allowed
to decide their future through an unrigged and uncoerced vote.
The protests are an unmistakeable expression of Kashmiris' resentment
against the indifference of world powers – and their failure, largely because of
toxic power politics, to implement international agreements.
As Mishra stated: "India is a counterweight, at least in the fantasies of
western strategists, to China." This contributes to the policies of inaction.
So Kashmir continues to bleed under a renewed outpouring of revolt
against occupation, as the world continues to ignore it. There is a deliberate
and direct targeting of young people by the military forces, intent on crushing
the anti-occupation movement. Mishra states: "Already this summer, soldiers
have shot dead more than 50 protesters, most of them teenagers." Their
weapons? Rocks and stones. Hardly the tools of terrorists.
Apart from the magnitude of violence unleashed by the military forces
against protesters, the most poignant aspect of the situation is the acute
suffering of the whole population caused by the frequent curfews, disregard of
normal life, arrests, detentions and sometimes disappearances of innocent
civilians by the authorities. This is a situation without precedent in the south
Asian subcontinent and with few parallels in the world today.
During his US presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged he would
appoint a special envoy to the region – as Mishra says, "he declared that
solving the 'Kashmir crisis' was one of his 'critical tasks'". However: "Since
then the US president hasn't uttered a word about this ur-crisis that has seeded
all major conflicts in south Asia."
If only Obama would keep his promise, it would certainly hasten the
process of peace and stability in south Asia – home to one-fifth of the human
race.
Ghulam-Nabi Fai, Guardian, August 31, 2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/31/kashmir-india
30 IPRI Factfile
S INO -I NDIAN T ENSIONS OVER K ASHMIR

China has refused visa to an Indian general, interestingly for Pakistan, because
he oversees military operations in a 'disputed' area. Lieutenant General B.S.
Jaswal, the top military officer in Indian-occupied Kashmir was to travel to
China to participate in a high-level exchange programme.
Predictably, the incident has caused outrage in India, where the Chinese
Ambassador was summoned for a formal protest, and the main Opposition
party, the BJP, termed it "worst kind of insult inflicted upon India." This
though, is not the first time that China has annoyed India over the issue. For a
while, it has hardened its position on Kashmir. Last year, it adopted a dual visa
issuing policy for Indian citizens and Kashmiris, for whom the visas were
stamped on separate papers, instead of Indian passports. Needless to say,
Delhi disallowed Kashmiris to travel on those visas, terming them invalid.
However, like last year, the present spat is unlikely to have a negative
impact on bilateral relations. Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony has been
quick to say that the "ties with China will continue," while another official tried
to paper over obvious discord, saying no defence exchange has been cancelled,
and that the matter is being resolved. Defence exchanges between the two
counties are already limited, but trade and commerce have been expanding
fast. China, at present, is India's biggest trading partner. Bilateral deals have
grown thirty-fold during the last decade, and are expected to surpass the $60
billion mark this year. Both sides, of course, would want this mutually
beneficial relationship to stay strong.
But China and India are two emerging global giants, gearing up for a
long-term contest for influence. The present case is a sign of China's new
assertive mood. It has already attained great clout, and last month, officially
overtook Japan as the world's second largest economy. Both countries are
competing for energy and raw materials in different parts of the world. In
order to promote broader relations, they decided, a while ago, to postpone
resolution of the border dispute for later. Many have been suggesting that
Pakistan should also adopt the same pragmatic policy, and normalise relations
with India, putting the Kashmir issue on the backburner. The two situations,
though, are quite different. While one is purely a border dispute, the other is
about a people's right to determine their future.
The truth of the matter is that in the 1962 Sino-Indian war, which ended
in a humiliating defeat for India, the Chinese emerged victorious both in
Kashmir's Ladakh region and in the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA)
located south of Tibet, taking over the territories they claimed as theirs. But
they declared unilateral cease-fire and withdrew from most areas. China's
existing border dispute is related largely to Arunachal Pradesh. Upping of the
ante over the Kashmir region could be seen as a move aimed at strengthening
old friendships, such as with Pakistan, with a view to shaping a favourable

future.
Editorial, Business Recorder (Islamabad), September 4, 2010,
http://www.brecorder.com/news/editorials/1099274:sino-indian-tensions-over-
kashmir.html
I NDIAN O CCUPIED K ASHMIR – A N O PEN P RISON

Kashmir is the oldest and most intractable disputes in the world; older than
Gaza. Forcible occupation of two-third Kashmir by Indian forces in 1947
against the wishes of Kashmiris impelled freedom fighters and Pak troops to
get Kashmir freed from its stranglehold. When India saw that it was on the
verge of losing the battle, it sought intervention of United Nations. United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution of 21 April 1948 clearly states
that the question of accession of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to India or
Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and
impartial plebiscite.
Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) Resolutions of 3 August
1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC Resolutions. However, despite
Nehru’s repeated pledges that right of self determination will be given to the
people of Kashmir, Indian leaders have mulishly held on to their
uncompromising stance that Kashmir is an integral part of India. In defiance
of UN Resolutions, they sing this song ad nauseam ignoring the fact that
Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory and Kashmiris hate
them and long to join Pakistan. They get highly disturbed when Pakistan or
any other country reminds them of this hard reality. They are fuming ever
since China has started treating Indian officials serving in disputed territory
accordingly.
After 2008 manipulated state elections in J&K, Indian leaders had
proudly claimed that majority of Kashmiris were least interested in violence
and had accepted Kashmir as part of Indian Union. They declared that armed
insurgency had for the most part been successfully crushed, cross border
movement from Pakistan effectively blocked and Kashmir was no more an
issue. Drums are beaten by Indian leaders after every stage-managed election
held under shadow of guns and boycotted by majority that a popular mandate
has been won from people of Kashmir. Indians forget that neither military
force had ever quelled popular movements nor military occupation justified.
Who doesn’t know that Indian intelligence agencies have had a big role in
shaping phony political parties and politicians having no roots in the masses,
holding fraudulent elections and installing puppet regimes detested by the
people?
32 IPRI Factfile
No sooner these tall claims were made the whole Kashmir valley
resounded with chants of ‘Azadi’, following Amarnath Shrine Board dispute in
summer of 2008 which coalesced into a massive non-violent uprising. Tens of
thousands of unarmed protestors from all walks of life with placards in their
hands defied gun totting security forces and marched through the streets of
Srinagar protesting against state atrocities and injustices. Instead of redressing
their grievances, Indian forces fired indiscriminately at the crowds. Volleys
were fired not to scare and disperse the crowds but to kill innocent people
since value of a Muslim Kashmiri is no better than a sewer rat. One of the
reasons behind enacting Mumbai drama on 26/11 was to deflect the attention
of the world from Kashmir and to exert pressure on Pakistan to stay out of it.
Another round of protest marches led by young people triggered in
summer of 2009. This flare up coincided with unfolding of vicious propaganda
war against Pakistan Army from August 2009 onwards. It was alleged that Pak
Army had committed large-scale human rights violations in Swat. Stories about
unearthing of mass graves, bodies found dumped along roadsides carrying
marks of torture, corpses found with hands tied behind backs, and some
corpses beheaded were splashed. Western media and RAW cultivated writers
in Pakistan backed up the theme and series of articles appeared in local and
international print media. Idea of this false projection was to cover up brutality
of Indian forces against unarmed adolescent Kashmiris.
Making good use of their draconian laws they pickup slogan chanting
young men on charges of arson, torture them in Kashmir under siege secret
dens and later kill them in fake encounters. This gory practice of missing
persons and fake encounters has been going on since triggering of armed
resistance in late 1989. Since then, Indian forces have been killing Kashmiris
like flies. Figure of missing persons run in thousands, while number of killed
persons has overshot 100,000. Hardly any missing person has rejoined his
family. Each fake encounter is presented as a clash with armed militants and
those shooting the handcuffed prisoners are rewarded for bravery. Huge
numbers of unmarked mass graves and marked graves stand witness to the
atrocities of Indian security forces.
Besides killing every able bodied person or maiming them for life
through torture, rape is being used as a weapon to break the will of the
Kashmiris. Thousands of women and young girls have been raped. There have
been numerous incidents of gang rape reported by Amnesty International (AI)
and NGOs. AI has reported criminal activities of police and Indian security
forces and has also reported that almost every house in Kashmir has been
traumatized. They are living in a prison house and are being constantly
punished on account of asking for right of self determination.
Their miseries are never ending since they can neither escape from the
open prison nor their cries can be heard by the world. Biased US and Western
media, think tanks and NGOs have remained mum over massive abuses of
human rights occurring in Kashmir and in Gaza since perpetrators of crimes

are non-Muslims and victims are Muslims. Instead of coming to the rescue of
the bereaved, the US and western world are patronizing and encouraging India
ruled by devilish Brahman rulers to continue with their reign of terror and
cleanse the erstwhile paradise on earth now turned into hell from the presence
of Muslims. India and Israel are two sides of the same coin and qualify to be
declared terrorist states because of their callousness and barbarism but are
treated as darlings by Christian world since Muslims are their common
enemies.
Indian Police and paramilitary forces deal with the protesters under non-
bailable Public Safety Act 1978 (PSA), which authorize them to arrest anyone
on a flimsy charge, award two-year imprisonment through court and re-arrest
the accused upon release. Even freedom of expression and right to protest
peacefully is declared a crime. PSA is applied on minors as well. There were
large numbers of cases where adults and minors were arrested and re-arrested
several times under PSA. Apart from black law of PSA, Indian Army has
license to kill without fear of accountability under Armed Forces Special
Powers Act (AFSPA). Security forces have never bothered about human rights
violations since their gruesome acts are shielded by their political government,
psychological warfare, USA and western world.
Indian forces are not differentiating between armed freedom fighters
and unarmed protesters resorting to non-violent means to seek freedom. They
are applying black laws on teenagers with equal impunity. Massive crackdowns
have been unleashed; shoot at sight orders given and Kashmiri leaders’ house
arrested to stifle protests. Continuing with its past practice of blaming Pakistan
whenever Kashmiris raised their voice against India’s atrocities, India promptly
blamed Pakistan that it was instigating the teenagers.
Brig (R) Asif Haroon Raja, Daily Mail (Islamabad), September 4, 2010,
http://dailymailnews.com/0910/04/Editorial_Column/DMColumn.php#2
H UMAN R IGHTS V IOLATIONS

Atrocities by Indian security forces in occupied Kashmir continue unabated
riding roughshod over people’s rights and religious sentiments, even in the
holy month of Ramazam. The pity is that the Kashmiris have even been
denied the right to attend to their religious obligations like Aitkaaf. It was quite
chilling to see how the Indian army unleashed its savage fury and brutally
tortured a number of the faithful, busy praying in a mosque in Srinagar.
Reportedly seven men who were inside the mosque were forced out of the
mosque at gunpoint and then savagely beaten. On the same day, the police
opened fire on a crowd and injured dozens of people. This simply shows that
the Indian security forces not only target the active freedom loving population,
34 IPRI Factfile
but they feel no qualms in suppressing those who are totally docile. The
Indians indulge in violence for the sheer sake of deriving pleasure out of it. In
other words, it is violence for violence’s sake and years of Occupation have
virtually predisposed the Indian forces towards barbarism.
On the other side of the spectrum, where the world community
continues to maintain a guilty silence over illegal Indian Occupation, and
western capitals have given preference to courting India over listening to the
cries of help by the suppressed Kashmiris, the adjournment motion submitted
by PML-N leader Mian Nawaz Sharif in the National Assembly in order to
check Indian human rights violations is a ray of hope in that at least it would
send a strong message to New Delhi that it was not a free for all in Kashmir.
The house arrest of a notable freedom fighter and the fact that the Indian
forces unleashed their fury on everyone who came out on the streets to
protest, was among the factors that prompted the PML-N to swing into
action. This would also serve to remind the Indians that patriotic Pakistanis
have rejected Musharraf’s Kashmir policy and would under no circumstances
abandon their Kashmiri brethren.
At the same time, greater stress needs to be put on the UNSC
resolutions, which have been wickedly thrown into cold storage on account of
India’s clout in the Western world. Besides, the world community cannot
afford to ignore the issue so casually, as its very own peace and security
indirectly depends on the Kashmiri conundrum, which has to all intents and
purposes become a nuclear flashpoint and threatens a global conflation of
horrific proportions. It is high time that all that is happening in Kashmir was
recognised not just as a writing on the wall but also a slur on India’s claims
about democracy.
Editorial, Nation (Islamabad), September 11, 2010,
online/Opinions/Editorials/11-Sep-2010/IHK-HR-violations#
K ASHMIRI C ARNAGE
Does Kashmiri blood come cheap? It is now for more than three months that
a trigger-happy Indian military is playing holi with the blood of Kashmiri
teenaged boys in the occupied Kashmir. Just on Monday, it slaughtered 15
youths on the streets of the Kashmir valley. With impunity, it indeed has
murdered 86 teenagers with firing and tear-gas shelling since June 11 blithely.
Yet not even a whimper has been heard over this bloodbath of the Kashmiris
from any of the western capitals that tire not in flaunting their postures of
being the champions of human rights worldwide. Only UN secretary general
Ban Ki-moon had statedly expressed shock. But he too backed out quickly.
The UN chief was misreported, said his spokesman. So he too was not
shocked. The bottled-up Kashmiris are really an unfortunate people. Their

cause is very legitimate and lawful. It has the UN mandate on its back. No
lesser than the UN Security Council has decreed that they will determine their
own destiny in an UN-supervised plebiscite. Yet not only has India reneged
upon its commitment to this UN decree but has all through been employing a
brute military force to suppress the Kashmiris’ freedom aspiration without
ever being held to account by the world community. Since 1989, when they
rose up in a popular uprising to secure their lawful right to self-determination,
the Indian occupation military has killed, according to Kashmiri resistance, no
lesser than 100,000 Kashmiris in a bid to quell their movement. In a brutal
campaign, over half a million-strong Indian army has inflicted unspeakable
wholesale atrocities on them to crush their uprising, but only failingly. Their
movement continues, at times intensely, at times haltingly. The Indian
militarists also got a big shot in the arm when the Bush administration
peremptorily equated even legitimate freedom struggles with terrorism in the
wake of the 9/11 holocaust. More savagery they put thenceforth in their
campaign to suppress the risen Kashmiris without any questions being asked
by the world powers, all happening to be signatories to the UN Security
Council resolutions mandating right to self-determination for the Kashmiris.
Yet the Kashmiri freedom struggle neither withered away nor died down. The
current uprising is being waged and spearheaded by the Kashmiri youths who
were born in the shadows of Indian bayonets, bred in the boiling cauldron of
Indian military’s bloodbath and whose kith and kin were murdered, raped and
brutalised by a savaging army leaving not a Kashmiri home without a personal
tragedy. They are angry youths. They are burning with revenge. They want
freedom from India’s colonialism. And no barrel of gun can cow them down;
nor any appeasement can dissuade them away form their objective now. And if
the ruling Congress in India knows its own history it will know such risen
people cannot be crushed or curbed. In the pre-independence days, the British
colonial rulers had at one time thrown the entire Congress leadership behind
bars to languish for several years. Yet the Quit India movement continued
rolling on, unremittingly, ferociously and powerfully. And so it would be with
this Kashmiri uprising in all probability, no matter howsoever the Indian State
employs savagery to crush it. Indeed, its barbarity will give yet greater fillip to
the Kashmiris’ driving aspiration for freedom. A recent opinion poll by one of
India’s own leading newspapers tellingly tells of this. According to Hindustan
Times, of the Kashmiri respondents it polled 66 percent wanted complete
freedom and independence, though only six percent were for a merger with
Pakistan. Of course, what else could you expect if a voice from the tallest
official mansion of Islamabad rises to coo to an American newspaper that the
Kashmiris’ freedom movement is terrorism, just to please some powerful
American ears, forgetting cruelly how legitimate is this struggle and what heavy
human and material costs have the Kashmiris incurred on this count? But
36 IPRI Factfile
more to the point, the Indian State arguably cannot keep the risen Kashmiris
perpetually corralled under its stranglehold, which in spite of all its use of
brute force is already becoming feebler and thinner. And stray voices in India
itself are now coming out that if the Kashmiris do not want to stay with India
they better be let go. The contrivances of autonomy and more economic
progress surely can no longer work now. Nothing short of freedom would
satisfy the Kashmiris. The Indian government hence would do well to sit
down with the Kashmiris and Pakistan, which too by the UN decree is a
legitimate party to the Kashmir dispute, and seek a political way out in
consonance of the Kashmiris’ will and wishes.
Editorial, Frontier Post (Peshawar), September 15, 2010,
http://thefrontierpost.com.pk/News.aspx?ncat=ed&nid=56
N EW T URN OF E VENTS IN K ASHMIR

Kashmiri uprising, spearheaded by stone-throwing children and teenaged boys,
which began three months ago, has spread to all parts of occupied Kashmir
Valley. Aside from Srinagar city, during the last few days, town after town has
come under curfew from Baramula to Badgram districts in the north and
Anantnag and Bijbehara districts in the south.
Yet tens of thousands of protesters have kept taking to the streets in
different parts of the occupied Kashmir, throwing stones at the security forces,
and chanting the slogan, "go India, go back! We want freedom!" The security
forces fired bullets at the crowds in about a dozen different places on Monday,
and according to the state police figures, 13 people were killed and another 45
wounded.
This took the toll of the three-month peaceful demonstrations to over
83, that is, if the official casualty figures are reliable, which usually they are not.
Again on Tuesday, stones and bullets exchanges continued. The fact that this
new form of uprising is peaceful-the protester pelt only stones in place of
bombs and bullets the militants used - large-scale, and widespread has
unnerved the Indian government.
First, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went into a huddle with the
Congress core group, and then on Monday he presided over a special cabinet
meeting, which said it was "deeply distressed by the turn of events," but found
the situation too serious to come up with any remedial measures on its own,
deciding instead to hold an all parties conference.
An official statement issued at the end of the cabinet meeting also
averred "we hope that following the all parties meeting, we will be able to
engage with the people of Jammu and Kashmir and take certain initiatives and
measure that will build confidence of people." The initiatives, under
consideration, are an economic relief package, job opportunities for the
unemployed, and possibly a partial lifting of the notorious Armed Forces

(Special Powers) Act better known as AFSPA. New Delhi is acting as if the
uprising began, and a few favours here and there will help bridge what it terms
"trust deficit and the governance deficit."
The question at this point is not of a trust or governance deficit, it is of
freedom, which has cost nearly 100,000 lives since an armed struggle against
Indian rule surfaced in 1989. It started as an indigenous and spontaneous
movement. Later, militants from the Pakistani side joined in, doing more harm
than good. The Kashmiris have kept up the fight in the face of a brutal
military suppression.
The killing of a 17-year-old boy three months ago, ie, June 11, by a
teargas shell triggered pent up anger, bringing young people out on the streets
to throw rocks - as a symbol of rejection of Indian rule - at police and
paramilitary personnel. It has changed the entire character of the movement
from militancy to a massive people's uprising, and robbed the Indian
government of its usual argument that Kashmir would be peaceful but for
Pakistan sponsored militancy.
All these years, New Delhi has tried every trick in the trade from
ruthless suppression through AFSPA and Public Safety Act, to holding of
elections. The list of its atrocities in the Valley is long and ugly, and includes
horrendous human rights violations from indiscriminate firing into protest
processions to custodial killings, and from the use of gangrape of women
(Amnesty International has recorded countless cases) as a weapon of war to
demolition of entire neighbourhoods.
Still, it has failed to dampen the Kashmiris' urge for freedom. In fact,
brutal suppression has only reinforced the feeling that India is an occupation
power, which must be ousted. People did participate in the elections, but that
has not helped New Delhi to legitimise its rule. The present situation amply
illustrates that Kashmiris refuse to accept elections as a substitute for self-
determination a UN resolution entitles them to exercise.
The mood in the Valley though favours independence rather than a
union with Pakistan. A recent survey conducted by The Hindustan Times
shows that a majority of Kashmiris is inclined towards the third option: an
independent Kashmir. The poll found that 66 percent of respondents in the
Muslim majority Valley want "complete freedom to entire Jammu and
Kashmir as a new country."
This surely is not the biased view of an Indian newspaper. For the
option 'complete freedom' does not sit well with the dominant view in that
country where a major argument against any concessionary approach towards
Kashmiris is that it will encourage secessionist insurgencies in other parts of
India.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, what should matter to us are the
Kashmiri people's wishes; if they want independence, we should have no
38 IPRI Factfile
problem with that. The sentiment, in fact, dates back to the late 1920s when all
Kashmiris - Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists - rose against the Dogra Raja to
demand independence.
A pro-independence strain, opposed to merger, either with Pakistan or
India, has also been a part of the freedom movement, which erupted 21 years
ago and remained embattled with the Indian state under the umbrella of All
Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), until the stone throwing youth overtook
the Hurriyat and turned the resistance into a peaceful yet formidably powerful
movement.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated the other day that his
government is willing to talk to the Kashmiris, but within the framework of
the Indian constitution. The events on the ground suggest the offer is
irrelevant. In any case, Kashmir is unlike any other part of India even within
the constitutional confines.
Article 370 of the constitution gives it a special status, limiting
parliament's powers to matters "which, in consultation with the government of
the state are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in
the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the state to the
dominion of India."
Needless to say, the Kashmiris and Pakistan challenge the validity of the
Instrument of Accession as well. Besides, as per a 1948 UN resolution,
Kashmir is a subject of dispute between India and Pakistan, which needs to be
resolved through a plebiscite to determine whether the Kashmiris wish merger
with Pakistan or India. No other state within the Indian Union has a similar
status; hence any concessions for Kashmir cannot serve as a precedent for
others seeking to break away from India.
Nonetheless, it needs to be recognised that India is in a difficult
position, given its long adversarial relationship with Pakistan, and the fact that
it is expected to cede territorial control. Also, morality is seldom a factor in
decisions nations make, particularly powerful ones like India, is in the present
context.
But unending strife within and conflict with a neighbour can drag it
down in a changing world wherein its chief competitor, China, as Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh noted at a recent meeting with editors, has become
increasing assertive, and that it could use the "soft underbelly" of Kashmir " to
keep India in a low level equilibrium." It is a decisive moment for New Delhi
to either resolve Kashmir or to remain embroiled in an unending conflict that
could dent its dreams of becoming a big global power.
Saida Fazal, Business Recorder (Islamabad), September 16, 2010,
http://www.brecorder.com/news/articles-and-letters/articles/1102728:new-turn-of-
events-in-kashmir.html
I NDIA ’ S F ESTERING W OUND IN K ASHMIR

It is of utmost importance to counter the impression that the Kashmir issue
has somehow lost its urgency or shed its significance or is being addressed in
some kind of a mythical peace process. The impression needs to be countered
because it is false, because it ignores the agony of the people of Kashmir and
because it thereby hardens the psychological underpinning of the current
diplomatic inaction regarding the issue.
What kind of thinking is responsible for the prevailing attitude of the
world powers towards the Kashmir problem? Nobody can claim that it is an
attitude of active interest or earnest desire to promote a settlement. The best
that can be said about it is that it is one of benign non-intervention stemming
from the fear that any act or word which smacked of interference would be
resented by the occupying power, India, and would harden her intransigence
even more. This passivity in the face of a wilful defiance of the demands of
peace and stability would look quite demeaning if it were not for three
covering factors:
First, the Kashmir dispute has persisted for more than six decades and,
to put it simply, the world has become used to it. Second, the United Nations
has been marginalised during the last two decades with the consequence that
the Charter is beginning to be looked upon as almost an antique. Third,
callousness, if not outright cynicism, has become the reserve fund of
diplomacy. A blindness to human reality is reflected in the vocabulary
employed when situations of international conflict are talked about. Two
adjectives used when an indirect reference (a direct reference, mind you, would
be frowned upon by India) is made to Kashmir: the adjectives: ‘historical” and
‘long-standing’. Factually, the adjectives are not wrong. But they come handy
because by drawing a curtain over reality, they provide a moral justification for
studied inaction.
We might interpose a question or two here. What is ‘historical’ about
the young woman who has just been widowed and gang-raped? What is ‘long-
standing’ about the elderly man whose only son, his sole support, has been
killed? Again, what is ‘long-standing’ about the hordes of unarmed teenagers
who are resorting to the practice of pelting the Indian occupation troops with
stones in Srinagar and other cities? Incidentally, these young men are mostly
those whose rage has been aroused when they have seen or been told of whole
families wiped out by the Indian troops.
Whatever were the legal constituents of the Kashmir question at the
starting point, whatever were the strengths of the claims and counterclaims of
India and Pakistan, the commission of mass murders by the Indian army –
sixty to ninety thousands Kashmiri civilians slaughtered – has added a
transforming dimension of reality to the dispute. Partly by the working of
40 IPRI Factfile
Indian policy, partly by the connivance of others and partly by the passivity of
the media, a haze has been made to spread over Kashmir. How many people
realise the extent to which Kashmir under Indian occupation is densely
militarised? India stations more troops in Kashmir than the United States did
or does in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Can this situation be dismissed as
‘historical’ and ‘long-standing’?
If it is being so dismissed at present, the dismissal is aided by the
language employed. We are being told of an ‘insurgency’ in Kashmir. The term
may not be inaccurate but it promotes a misperception. What is going on in
Kashmir is not an insurgency against an authority that was once regarded as
legitimate; it is a resistance to alien military occupation.
In the same way, those who are staging this Resistance are being falsely
described as ‘separatists.’ How can we separate, they say, from what we never
joined? Indeed, to class them with separatists in other lands is to betray stark
ignorance of the character and inception of the dispute in which their lives and
future are involved. As soon as the dispute arose, an overarching promise was
made by India to Kashmir in all available forms — in solemn public
declarations, in submissions to the United Nations, in communications to
Pakistan and even to other governments. This was done in 1947 when India
first marched its troops into Kashmir and it was repeated a number of times in
the following five years.
Yes, this promise is now sixty-three years old. But does its age diminish
its relevance or reduce is applicability? To assert so is to concede primacy to
the law of the jungle. Promises may be forgotten, dishonourably or otherwise,
by those who make them but they are never forgotten or lost sight of by those
to whom or for whose benefit they are made. The tone and content of the
promise is apparent in numerous statements. For the sake of brevity we may
here just sample three.
In a telegram on October 31, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime
minister of India and the chief originator of India’s Kashmir policy, conveyed
to the prime minister of Pakistan: “Our assurance that we shall withdraw our
troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order is restored and leave the
decision regarding the future of the state to the people of the state is not
merely a promise to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and
to the world.”
In a broadcast to the nation on November 3, 1947, Mr Nehru said “we
have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the
people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir but to
the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”
One of the points on which primary emphasis is laid in current
statements of the Indian official position is the inalterability of the Indian
constitution and hence of Kashmir being an integral part of India.
The late Mr Nehru had this to say about it in the statement he made to
the Indian parliament on June 26, 1952: “If, after a proper plebiscite, the
people of Kashmir said, ‘we do not want to be with India’, we are committed
to accept it though it might pain us. We will not send an army against them.
We will accept that however we might feel about it. We will change the
constitution, if necessary.”
For us, this may be matter which exists only in the archives we seldom
open. For the Kashmiri, however, it is a matter which continues to reverberate
in his consciousness. While visiting Indian-occupied Kashmir, I have
witnessed different Kashmiri-speaking people, some educated, others barely
literate, none of them political activists, making references to Kashmir’s
accession to India being only ‘arzi (in Urdu: ‘provisional’) and subject to “rai-
shumari” (popular vote). Nowhere does the Kashmiri who is not an
opportunist (first and foremost) evince the natural belongingness to India. The
most he will show is a coerced attachment.
One of the reasons the Kashmiri’s resistance to Indian occupation is not
being taken abroad as a decisive phenomenon is that it does not stay at the
same level of intensity over a period of time. But only stark ignorance of the
living conditions of a poor society would expect its members to sustain a
movement for freedom with the same force and as steadily over a period of
time as people in a developed environment can. Such a movement requires a
stamina and sophisticated organization which a poor people can certainly
throw up but only in spurts. In a poor society, movements for liberation are
bound to ebb and flow. To take a periodic exhaustion of the insurrectionary
activity as reconciliation can be a colossal misjudgement. The crucial factor is
not the physical eruptions but the extent and depth of the movement and its
rooted-ness in the popular psyche.
How does one gauge this? The uprising in Kashmir has been marked
more than once by the entire male population of the cities (excepting only the
aged, the sick and children) coming out together in the streets to demonstrate
peacefully against India’s military presence in their homeland. Could such a
pointer have been mistaken, or would it have been allowed to be mistaken, far
less ignored, if it had happened in a Western country?
The proponents of a just and peaceful solution of the Kashmir conflict
have to contend not only with the bigotry and obduracy that have combined
to sustain the policy India has pursued so far, but also with certain settled
notions that exist in the outside world and inhibit support for a constructive
course in India-Pakistan relations. One emanates from the malign thesis that
there is an innate hostility between India and Pakistan which can never be
eradicated and which will outlast even the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.
It is astonishing that such a belief should be so tenaciously held which has no
empirical support. There have been occasions recently, some relating to sports,
when the people of both countries have demonstrated warm sentiments
42 IPRI Factfile
towards each other. There is a vast reserve of cordiality which will be tapped
once a major political dispute is removed.
Related to this baseless belief is the view that India’s policy is
unchangeable because it rests on the unanimous support of the whole nation.
This bubble has been pricked in India by prominent Indian publicists who
belong to the mainstream and none of whom can be called a maverick. One of
them has spoken of the mass killings in Kashmir by Indian forces being a stain
“on our honour as a nation.” The notion that the present Indian policy is
unshakeable, and will remain so, betrays a very shallow and, indeed an
unrealistic and unfair view of India itself.
Is it imaginable that a society as large and resourceful in thought and
intelligence as India’s would remain locked forever in a destructive and, at
best, a sterile course? Were the world powers to summon a little moral courage
and beckon India to a rational settlement of the Kashmir dispute, they would
be surprised to se the volume of support that would well up from patriotic and
thoughtful sources within India itself.
Lastly, the attitude that needs to be fought in the context not only of
Kashmir but of every major international problem is that of turning our backs
to the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter is not scripture or a book of
morals but, let us not forget, a multilateral treaty as binding on the largest or
most powerful member state of the world organisation as on the smallest or
weakest. The sanctity of international agreements must remain one of the
bases of a sane and stable international order. The Kashmir issue involves that
principle most pointedly.
M Yusuf Buch, Dawn (Islamabad), September 17, 2010,
http://thedawn.com.pk/2010/09/17/indias-festering-wound-in-kashmir/
IHK: P AKISTAN M UST A CT

AS the death toll rises daily in Occupied Kashmir (standing at 102 on
Saturday), the silence of the international community in the face of this state
terrorism by Indian Occupation forces, is shameful. Even more disturbing is
the Pakistan government's rather belated and muted response to these Indian
atrocities. As the freedom struggle's mantle passes on to yet another
generation of Kashmiris, we are seeing disaffection being expressed openly
against this ambivalent Pakistani posturing by some of the Kashmiri leaders
who have been the most committed to Pakistan. In the forefront is the long-
suffering and uncompromising leader, Syed Ali Geelani. In a television
interview with Waqt, he has pointed out that the younger generation of
Kashmiris do not tilt towards Pakistan or India but want to rid themselves of
Indian Occupation which is enslaving them. He also explained that this
generation does not see any harm coming to Pakistan by their cry for
independence. Geelani was clear that the Kashmiris would struggle for their
independence till their last breath.
It is this determination of the Kashmiris that has sustained the freedom
struggle against the barbarity of India and its Occupation forces in the face of
the appeasing silence of the international community - especially the UN. Its
Secretary General has a legal duty to speak against Indian barbarism in
Occupied Kashmir since the Kashmir dispute is in the UN Security Council.
While other states may have vested interests with India and so are
unashamedly bolstering India's human rights abuses in Occupied Kashmir, the
UNSG needs to fulfil the legal obligations of his office, and if the Indian
nationals on his staff are so able to dominate his thinking and statements then
it is time these personnel were removed. Now that Foreign Minister Qureshi is
in New York for the UNGA session, he should raise these issues not just with
the UNSG, but also with Pakistan's allies and within the OIC representatives.
Pakistan should also seek China's support on Kashmir since India has war-like
intentions towards both these countries. The Indian strategists have admitted
to formulating two-front war strategies. Given the history of Indian aggression
towards both China and Pakistan, such strategising should not only be viewed
with concern but Pakistan and China should form joint responses to the new
Indian threats.
It is also hoped that Pakistan will not maintain a silence on Kashmir in
the UNGA. It is truly tragic that we have driven the Kashmiris away from us
by our servitude before the US and its demands vis a vis India. It is time to
reassert our commitment to the Kashmiris and their struggle for independence
from Indian Occupation. How the Kashmiris really envisage their future can
only truly be assessed by giving them their right to self-determination as
committed to by the UN and India. But one fact is clear: Generation after
generation of Kashmiris have rejected, and are still rejecting, living under
Indian Occupation and any form of union with India.
online/Opinions/Editorials/20-Sep-2010/IHK-Pak-must-act
‘G O I NDIA G O ’
The Kashmiri leadership deserves a pat on the back for standing its ground
against Indian demands for negotiations. The assumption in Indian foreign
policy circles and the government was that the ongoing wave of protests and
popular anger in Held Kashmir could be quelled by striking some sort of a
deal with the leaders. They were gravely mistaken. The all-party delegation led
by Home Minister Chidambaram was cut to size when it realised that no
Kashmiri leader was willing to meet them and soon after the Indian security
forces came along to pronounce the house arrest of notable freedom fighters.
44 IPRI Factfile
But even then, the talks did not take place. Instead, the APHC and the JKLF
made the withdrawal of troops a prerequisite for talks. Chairman of the All
Parties Hurriyet Conference Mirwaiz Umar Farooq got it right that India was
talking through the barrel of a gun.
However, an even bigger insult to the Indian delegation was the slogan
of ‘go India go’ reverberating throughout the valley. This should provide a
reality check for India’s rulers who are constantly harping on the theme of
atoot ang. The recent intifada must underline the fact that the only viable
solution to the conflict is to give Kashmris the right to decide their fate
through a plebiscite guaranteed by the UNSC Resolutions. Every other option
that has been tried has miserably failed. Despite 80,000 deaths since partition,
the Kashmiris remain unfazed in their determination to offer the ultimate
sacrifice. During the past week, the Indian army has shot dead over 100 people
and made arrests of hundreds of people. Recent events have once again shown
that Kashmiris can never be subdued with the use of force, however intense.
Rather, the flames of conflagration in the valley have invariably harmed the
prospect of peace. It would be childish to assume that India and Pakistan both
nuclear powers would ever be able to coexist peacefully without a just
settlement of Kashmir.
India must realise that it is only reaping the whirlwind of the atrocities it
is committing in Kashmir. Not surprisingly, a number of Indians are beginning
to frankly admit the fact that violence in India for instance, the Mumbai
attacks, is directly linked with the Kashmir issue. The Indian ruling circles
would be further endangering the lives of their countrymen as well as the
people of the region by sticking to their stand that Kashmir is India’s integral
part. A solution in line with the UNSC Resolutions must be found before it is
too late.
online/Opinions/Editorials/22-Sep-2010/Go-India-go
K ASHMIRI I NTIFADA
Intifada, means “a shaking off” in Arabic, is a term commonly used for the
Palestinian revolt, especially by the youth, against the Israeli occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza. It was basically a spontaneous reaction to the 20 years of
occupation and worsening economic conditions. According to the
International Red Cross estimates, some 800 Palestinians, more than 200
under the age of 16, had been killed by the Israeli forces till 1990. Anyway, the
intifada pressure helped in making the 1993 Israeli-PLO Agreement on
Palestinian self-rule possible. But a breakdown in further negotiations in late
2000 led to another outburst of violence that still continues.
If viewed in this context, the plight of the Kashmiris is not much

different from the Palestinians. Having been promised the right to self-
determination by the UN, following the ceasefire to the 1948 uprising after the
Indian forces had illegally occupied the valley, the Kash-miris waited for
successive Indian administrations to fulfil their solemn pledge. But exasperated
by the continuous Indian oppression and UN’s failure to implement its
resolutions – allowing them to join either India or Pakistan - the Kashmiris
took up arms in order to free their land from the occupation forces. But the
freedom struggle was met with brute force, as 700,000 Indian forces launched
a reign of terror, killing, arresting and torturing Kashmiris; raping their
women; and burning, looting and plundering their houses and shops. In the
last 21 years, over 80,000 Kashmiris have been killed, thousands are
languishing in jails on trumped up charges, while a large number is still
missing. Moreover, the Indian propaganda machinery has been constantly
trying to brand the freedom struggle as ‘militancy’ accusing Pakistan of
training, arming and abetting the Kashmiris bringing about an international
pressure on our country. Yet, the Kashmiris have not given up hope of
securing their freedom. Ultimately, this June, a 19-year-old Kashmiri boy was
murdered by the Indian police, which triggered protest rallies in the valley, and
perhaps this was the beginning of the Kashmiri intif-ada.
In the last 90 days, over 100 young men, besides a few women and children,
have embraced shahadat at the hands of the bestial Indian forces. But this,
instead of diluting their fervour, has further emboldened the freedom fighters.
Now, the well aware Kashmiri intifada is not only confined to peaceful
protests, but they are also capturing the images of Indian cruelty on their
mobiles phone cameras and posting the videos on several websites or
distributing them worldwide through MMS, which has indeed exposed the
spiteful and malicious face of ‘Shining India’.
Meanwhile, to dupe the international community, an all party
conference was called by New Delhi to look into the increase in violence in
IHK. But the farcical exercise failed to even consider repealing the draconian
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), while the ban on media coverage
of the events in Kashmir continues. The conference, which was convened by
Indian PM Manm-ohan Singh to resolve the spiralling protests in IHK, ended
in a deadlock, as 18 more protesters were killed in police clashes. However, the
only decision taken was to send a delegation of politicians to Kashmir to
assess the ground situation. History is replete with examples where a brave and
resolute nation has snatched its freedom from the jaws of repression and
domination, despite being outnumbered and devoid of weapons and the
wherewithal to face its tormentors. Their resolute and unyielding spirit guided
them through the period of oppression and darkness.
Pakistan, which is a stake-holder and party to the Kashmir dispute, has
to play its due role in providing moral and diplomatic support to the Kash-
46 IPRI Factfile
miris. It was not for naught that the Quaid had declared Kashmir as “the
jugular vein of Pakistan”, since its entire waters route through Kashmir, which
the Indians are trying to choke or control, to the detriment of Pakistan.
Furthermore, President Bar-ack Obama is due to visit India in November and
the Indians are hoping to secure full US support for a permanent seat in the
UNSC. However, India should pay heed to the clarion call of the Kashmiri
intifada or its inability to heed to its UN obligations will cost it dearly.
S.M. Hali, Nation (Islamabad), September 22, 2010,
online/Opinions/Columns/22-Sep-2010/Kashmiri-intifada
IHK L EADERS S HUN I NDIAN L AWMAKERS ’ D ELEGATION

Following the farcical All Parties Conference (APC) on Kashmir last week,
called by Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, a fact-finding mission
comprising Indian lawmakers was dispatched to Indian Held Kashmir (IHK).
Since the APC had refused to consider the lawful and justified demands of the
Kashmiri leaders including repealing the draconian Armed Forces Special
Powers Act (AFSPA), IHK leaders refused to meet the Indian delegates,
snubbing them. Supposedly as a gesture of goodwill, the Indian
Parliamentarians comprising the fact-finding mission, visited a hospital in
Srinagar, where some of the patients are victims of the Indian brutality
following the three month old Intifada. Upon arrival, the Indian delegates
were heckled with chants and slogans of “Go India go!” The hostility of the
relatives of the patients should not have come as a surprise to the group of 37
Indian politicians led by their Home Minister P. Chidambaram. After the snub
at the hospital, the Indian delegates visited the volatile town of Tangmarg,
where on September 13, Indian security forces killed six protesters and later
butchered 17 more. The Kashmiris of Tangmarg too rejected the fact-finding
mission vehemently. The Indian delegates invited Kashmiri leaders for
discussions at a conference centre in Srinagar. Neither the hardliner Kashmiri
leaders like Syed Ali Geelani nor moderates like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq were
willing to meet the Indian fact-finding mission. The Indian security agencies in
Kashmir tried to pull a fast one by arresting the Kashmiri leaders and for the
face saving of the Indian parliamentarians, forced the imprisoned Kashmiris to
meet them. Reluctantly, the determined Kashmiris leaders came face to face
with their Indian counterparts on gunpoint but declared pointblank that the
visit of the Indian delegates and the fact-finding mission is a facade. Syed Ali
Geelani declared that talks could only be held if India accepts that Kashmir is
an international dispute, releases all political prisoners and starts the
withdrawal of hundreds of thousands of troops from the region. “It’s a dream
to restore normalcy unless India accepts this proposal. We will not surrender,”
he said.
Some black sheep including pro-India politicians in the Muslim-majority
region asked the delegation for political concessions, including autonomy for
the region and for the repeal of a widely hated law that gives security forces
immunity in cases of civilian deaths. But Syed Ali Geelani spurned New
Delhi’s offers of economic assistance for the region, saying “we want
independence,” while Indian communist lawmaker Gurudas Dasgupta retorted
that: “We do not agree with the Hurriyat demand for Azadi (freedom). You
must help in restoring the peace.” Heavily armed security forces patrolled
deserted streets and loudspeakers mounted on police vehicles asked residents
to stay indoors in a bid to head off more protests, witnesses said. Seven people
were injured when police fired at stone-pelting protesters in north Kashmir.
The Kashmiri leaders declared that Indian security forces had converted the
entire Kashmir region into a prison and now a delegation had been sent to
meet the besieged people, which was a cruel joke on the Kashmiris. India must
get the bigger message that Kashmir is not an integral part of India, never was
and never will be. The sooner it realizes that it needs to make positive efforts
for providing the people of Kashmir the facility of the plebiscite assured to
them by the UN, and engages in peace talks involving both Pakistan and the
Kashmiri leaders, there will be no solution. However continued brutality and
cruelty on the part of the Indian Security forces and the reign of terror
unleashed on the hapless Kashmiris is going to backfire and India will have to
suffer the consequences. The rot that has set in the system, with the Naxalites
pulling it apart, the Kashmiris demanding their rights and 23 other freedom
movements, India is bound to implode and shatter into smithereens.
Editorial, Daily Mail (Islamabad), September 24, 2010,
K ASHMIR IS B URNING , W ORLD IS S ILENT

The continued political conflict in Indian Held Kashmir is a threat to the
existence of peace and security in South Asia, not the rise of any ideology
The imprint ‘Kashmir’ has on the consciousness of a Kashmiri is
undeniable and everlasting. As a friend often says “You may leave Kashmir
but Kashmir doesn’t leave you,” The youth of Kashmir in the renewed 2010
uprising are facing bullets for stones in their hands. These unequal equations
of power and powerlessness on the streets of Kashmir are shaking the
conscience of people in almost all the states of India. The activists, defenders
of human rights and indigenous peoples’ groups in India are beginning to feel
the urgency to address Kashmir uniquely in each state, and in their respective
48 IPRI Factfile
agendas. Networks among civil society and human rights groups are being
forged across India for intervening in Kashmir.
In Bombay, after returning from Kashmir that continues to reel in state
imposed curfews and killing (69 people, mostly teenagers, killed till date by
CRPF and Police), I felt the urgent need to speak out in whatever forums were
made available by the conscious citizens and civil rights groups of India. What
prompted me to address Kashmir in these platforms was an occasional talk
with a common Indian citizen on the train, who casually asked: ‘do we need a
passport to go to Kashmir?
Unawareness about ‘Kashmir Issue’ in the civil society of India, as
Swami Agniwesh said in his interview to a local newspaper in Kashmir, is a
huge concern. This concern is not restricted to civil society alone, but is in fact
manifold. A common man who spends half of his day moving to and fro on a
train for earning a living is understandably ignorant about Kashmir, while elite
intellectuals and an AC office dweller in metropolitan city seem to be arrogant
and reluctant to accept the ground realities of Kashmir. Can it be dismissed as
a simple unawareness about Kashmir among the civil society in India, or is it
“forced ignorance” which of course benefits the state?
A friend, who returned from Scotland to India, was disturbed by the
question a Scottish woman asked her there in a conference, “Do Indians have
access to internet as some year’s back even toilets were missing in India? My
friend labelled this as jealously, but I interrupted, “It comes from the
knowledge that their country allowed to be disseminated among their citizens
about India”.
It’s true about India that it’s a country where there is access to internet
and at the same time no toilets are available in almost half of India. But why is
it that people there would know about the darker side of the ‘other’ which is a
bit exaggerated? The state chooses carefully what its population must know
and keeps other information inaccessible. The same friend talks about the
‘beauty of Kashmir’ for hours and is equally ignorant about what has been
happening in Kashmir ever since 1947.
When you ask a common Indian about the Arab world, the immediate
reaction is wealthy sheikhs, multiple wives, women’s subjugation etc. Most of
it may be true, but India also has mutually beneficial relationship with the
Middle East. Arab world provides employment to a huge section of southern
states but this fact is not bought upon a common Indian’s consciousness
because these stereotypes feed into the existent myth of ‘Islam as an enemy’.
The result is that the State is the beneficiary of this forced ignorance. The
jingoistic nationalism blossoms from the ‘Us against them’ discourse which
leads to acceptance of state as a sovereign entity which is unquestionable and
cannot be contested.
The awareness about Kashmir in the civil society of India can be
summed up in a single sentence: “It is a beautiful place and a hub of
terrorism”. And then the intellectual class in India questions Kashmir’s

‘victimhood’. The solutions are narrowly reduced to ‘economic packages’, the
best the Indian State can do for Kashmir. Why does intelligentsia function in
this corrupt routine? No deliberations are made by the intelligentsia to dig
deeper into the Kashmir fiasco. There are only two reasons for this
premeditated arrogance, either intelligentsia is a beneficiary of the Indian state
or Intelligentsia is a ruling class in India. Both are correct. Recently a meeting
on Kashmir in Mumbia was addressed by Bashir Manzar, a Kashmiri journalist
and editor of Kashmir Images newspaper. His talk exposed me to the critical
nature of the intellectual arrogance in India. The accepted fact is that there
have been over one lakh deaths in Kashmir since 1989, but during his speech
he reduced the number to 50,000 only. Why? Because 50,000 is an official
figure and no one quotes such figures unless they have access only to
government reports, or one restricts to these figures alone as downplaying the
facts lead to some personal benefits.
Intellectual Arrogance Twists the Truth

Tossing into Kashmir discussions the fundamentalism and radicalism of Islam
as a threat to existence to Indian state as a whole is a gross exaggeration, and
only comes from the fascist global understanding of Islam as an enemy. But
many of the radical thinkers in India still buy this view because it justifies the
false filming around the Kashmir issue and also clears up their personal
conscience and eradicates their duty towards humanity. When the experts
from Kashmir are implanted in Bombay for consciously re-establishing lies
about Kashmir by enforcing readymade answers via the media and
intelligentsia, this feeds into the ignorance of a common Indian citizen
continuously. And that has been happening ever since 1947. The current youth
uprising is a political movement, which is an established fact on the ground.
And it has happened before as well, in 1989. It is time to listen to the streets in
Kashmir and understand with an open mind what the Indian state has been
doing in Kashmir over the years.
Kashmir has been presented as a ‘Kashmir threat’ to the common
people in India to an extent that the ‘threat’ is accepted as truth. The Indian
intelligential which does not know what the people of Kashmir are looking
for, or how the youth movement is evolving and emanating, reflects poorly on
such intelligentsia which is a ruling class unable to interpret the concerns of
the young who are out on the streets of Kashmir.
“What kind of Azadi do they want?” Such questions are often naively
raised by the Indian civil society and media. Every wall in Kashmir reflects the
desperation of the youth to do away with the occupational hegemony of
Indian state. Every stone is hurled as a cry for justice and freedom denied to
the people. Azadi is a state of mind where one is not questioned in his or her
50 IPRI Factfile
own homeland by an outsider. In Kashmir this has been a social reality for
decades now. The young in Kashmir can’t make the difference between Indian
state and the civil society because the everyday reality of Indian army is his or
her only awareness. The youth has grown under the shadow of gun. Every
death is counted as a contribution to achieve this ultimate ‘state of mind’,
which they call Azadi or Freedom.
In Kashmir the blame of brutality suffered by the youth and the shame
of the denial of justice does not only end at the door of the Indian state alone.
The responsibility of the crimes against humanity committed by the Indian
sate in Kashmir also lies equally on the Indian intelligentsia, which is part of
the ruling party politics in India and is a beneficiary of the state.
The Indian Intelligentsia Discusses ‘Kashmir’ Post Independence

Such discussions are consuming the energies of the concerned Indian
intelligentsia these days. Whether Kashmir can sustain on its own or would be
taken-over by the threat that they construct as ‘radical Islamic
fundamentalism’? In this regard only two prepositions could be offered. If
Kashmir intends to become an Islamic state, such states can be secular in its
functionality as well. Here the point is not what brand of Islam to subscribe
but the acceptance is sought around the fact that explicit religious humanism is
realistic and very much inscribed by the prophetic teachings.— Opinion-
Maker
But if one understands the discrepancies of the politics of religion today,
then the idea of religious state stands void.
Blaspheming and seeing religion as a threat to the existence per say is a
hyperbole. What is a threat to the existence of the South Asian Peace and
security is the continued Political conflict in Kashmir, and not rise of any
ideology. The threat continues to be the flourishing arms trade, and no one
seems to question this weird reality. The overemphasis on the ‘Secular
democracy’ in Kashmir by the Indian intellectuals basically emanates from the
failure of Indian state for executing either of them. Secularism and democracy
both originate from moral richness of the society. Even then Secularism needs
to provide space for religion and respect the rights and concerns of all
religions alike. If one goes by the fact that religion is a personal experience,
then why demonize the personal expressions of faith? Such debates only
ignore the bigger reality in Kashmir.
Given the widespread stereotypes and ignorance about the ground
realities in Kashmir, presenting Kashmir as ‘victim’ in the consciousness of
Indian society will still take a lot of time and effort. And until that happens,
there is no moving forward.
Kashmir continues to make itself heard globally but sadly it needs more
innocent lives from the street of Kashmir to end the ‘forced ignorance’ and
‘intellectual arrogance’ in India. There is no life of dignity in Kashmir, and

street will not retreat till it catches the Indian society and intelligentsia by its
moral conscience.
Inshah Malik, Daily Mail (Islamabad), September 24, 2010,
T HE G EOPOLITICAL T HREAT OF K ASHMIR

Once again, the media is sidelining the cries of abuse and violence pouring out
of Kashmir. My extensive contacts on the ground in Kashmir have told me of
the tortures, abuses, rapes and murders of innocent civilians, but despite
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s claims that talks between Pakistan
and India will address these gross human rights abuses, Kashmir has been on
the political agenda for over twenty years, during which time abuses by the
Indian Army are still going unnoticed and have been strategically censored.
International news crews are simply disallowed from covering what is taking
place, so they cover instead the so called ‘talks’ between India and Pakistan.
These feeble attempts at decision-making, however, are not enough to prevent
the conflict in Kashmir from expanding into a wider geopolitical threat.
Pakistan has a pivotal role to play in Afghanistan and in the region’s nuclear
disarmament, and now is the time that Britain should put pressure on the
Indian government to address the Kashmir issue definitively.
US Special Representative Richard Holbrook said that the Kashmir issue
is an internal matter for India. This is an unfortunate and regrettable statement
based on perceived American interests that are not in keeping with the gravity
of the true situation. Kashmiris are now saying that Pakistan should stop
cooperating with USA as it is no longer a credible peace broker – an opinion
that America certainly does not want to stick.
Addressing Kashmir is an effective way of ensuring that Pakistan
continues to play a role in the region and is on-side with Britain, especially
when it comes to eradicating strands of the Taliban and al-Qaeda from
Afghanistan and bordering regions. At the moment, the Pakistani army is tied
up in Kashmir due to threats from the Indian Army about the stability of the
area. What this means on the ground is that if efforts of the Pakistani army are
mainly directed at protecting the border, it cannot concentrate its efforts on
the War on Terror, and it has little means and resources to fight the Taliban on
the Western border near Afghanistan. Given the West’s concern that
Afghanistan is falling into the hands of the Taliban and the increased number
of casualties on Nato’s side, it would be in Britain’s – and indeed America’s -
best interests to address Kashmir and support the efforts of the Pakistani army
near the Afghan border. If the situation continues to escalate, the promise of
52 IPRI Factfile
leaving Afghanistan will be impossible to keep as Nato will be able to count on

fewer and fewer resources from Pakistan.
We are also looking at a situation that is quite sensitive economically.
The constant conflict in Kashmir is also a burden on India’s part, and if PM
Cameron wants to continue with his new policy of strengthening economic
ties with India, Britain and western countries need to focus on relieving
Kashmiris of the curfew and stabilizing the region so that future economic
endeavours prove to be more possible and more sustainable. Stability in the
Kashmir region is imperative if Britain and India, and hopefully Pakistan, are
to work together to pave the way for stronger economic ties. PM Cameron has
made an important starting point by planning economic ties with India and
standing up to gain EU support for trade concessions for Pakistan in the wake
of the worst floods in centuries, but in order to truly build long-term
sustainability, economically, politically, and socially, Kashmir must be spoken
for.
Quelling dissonance between India and Pakistan by putting pressure on
resolving Kashmir will also reduce the possibility of a nuclear attack between
the two countries. At the moment, the India-Pakistan relationship is quite a
red-zone, the hottest issue of which is that of Kashmir. Given that efforts to
deter President Ahmadinejad of Iran from pursuing further nuclear
development have failed, it would be wise to keep nuclear frictions in the
region to a minimum wherever possible. As other pressures on resources in
the region are drained, as the region is, more than ever, in the public eye and
held to scrutiny, and as events in neighbouring and distant countries are both
threatening existing relationships and building dangerous new ones, the issue
of Kashmir, if not taken seriously now, could literally explode.
The bottom line about Kashmir is that the unrest in this region is not an
isolated event. If Britain, the EU, and the US do not respond to the chaos and
human rights abuses sneaking by, the conflict could spiral out of hand just
enough to reach the tipping point that could prove disastrous for the whole
region – we have a powderkeg situation that simply cannot be ignored any
longer.
Lord Nazir Ahmed, Daily Mail (Islamabad), September 24, 2010,
OIC M AY S HOW D EEPER I NTEREST IN IHK

It is encouraging that the OIC which represents over one billion Muslims
across the world has shown serious concern over the deteriorating situation in
Indian Held Kashmir and asked India to enter into a constructive and result-
oriented dialogue for the resolution of the problem. The OIC Contact Group
on Kashmir at a meeting in New York Wednesday through a resolution
reiterated its support to the legitimate struggle of the Kashmiri people for their
right to self-determination.
For the past several months entire Kashmiri population has risen up
against the State sponsored terrorism and flagrant violation of human rights at
the hands of Indian occupation forces. Innocent youths are being killed and
incidents of rape, abuse of human rights, arrests, detentions and curfews have
become order of the day in Kashmir. The Indian Government did not allow
the APHC Chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq to attend the OIC Contact Group
meeting despite an invitation from the Secretary General. That is a proof of
the high-handedness of Government in New Delhi which is bent upon
suppressing the indigenous movement. AJK Prime Minister Sardar Attique
Ahmad Khan and other Kashmiri leadership presented a memorandum to the
OIC Secretary General highlighting the gravity of the situation and rightly
urged the Muslims Representative Body to take up the issue with the UN,
permanent members of the Security Council and EU Parliament. We are of the
firm opinion that mere showing of concern at the worsening situation in
Kashmir by the OIC is not sufficient and falls short of the purpose for which
it was formed. Muslims around the world are facing problems of enormous
proportions like those in Palestine and Kashmir. The OIC is a big forum and
many of its member countries enjoy clout the world over. If the OIC and its
major members show interest and emphasise upon the world powers for the
resolutions of the ticklish issues, we believe it will have desired impact. We
would therefore impress upon the OIC to show a deeper interest to the
situation in IHK, adopt a pro active role and utilize all the options available to
get the Kashmir problem resolved in line with the aspirations of the oppressed
people.
Editorial, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), September 24, 2010,
IHK: A TTIQUE S ENSITISES A MERICANS

AJK Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan led a protest demonstration
of Kashmiris outside the UN Headquarters in New York on Monday against
Indian brutalities in IHK. The demonstration took place when it was the turn
of India to address the General Assembly session and the protestors reminded
the international community that the so-called biggest democratic country,
aspiring to become permanent member of the UNSC was defying the
resolutions of the world body and its commitment for a plebiscite in Kashmir.
The demonstration was keenly watched by a large number of
Americans, nationals of other countries and international media. Thus the AJK
Prime Minister rightly and timely sensitized the Americans about the volatile
situation in the occupied territory where he said flagrant human rights
54 IPRI Factfile
violations and brutal killings were the order of the day and the State had been
turned into a jail with continued curfews and deployment of more than seven
lac troops. In addition to leading the protest, Sardar Attique availed the
opportunity by attending the meeting of OIC contact group on Kashmir and
several other functions which were pre-planned and briefed the participants
about the consequences of the new indigenous surge. Supporters of the
Sangbaaz Tehreek (stone-pelters movement) that is spearheading the agitation
in the Valley are passionate about the struggle to get freedom from Indian
occupation. According to reports, the latest Indian offer has cut little ice with
them which they say is way off the mark. The only thing that will calm
emotions whipped up by months of street agitations is a serious negotiation
with Azadi (Freedom from India) as the benchmark, they insist. New Delhi
must understand that secession from India is the widespread sentiment in
Kashmir and that has to be the starting point of any dialogue. There is no
other option except that India must put Azadi on the table for discussion and
negotiate with the separatist leaders with a clear time frame. In view of the
prevailing situation the American media too has started taking notice of the
developments and we think the AJK Prime Minister should start similar inter
action with various groups, think-tanks and media in Britain and France to
sensitise the people and leadership there about Intefada in Kashmir.
Editorial, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad) September 28, 2010,
N O D IALOGUE WITH I NDIA S ANS K ASHMIR

For the first time in decades, a very pertinent and saner advice has been
rendered to the Foreign Office by a body that truly reflects the aspirations of
the people of this country. After a meeting in Islamabad on Tuesday,
Chairman Parliamentary Kashmir Committee informed the media that the
Committee had recommended to the Government not to enter into dialogue
with India if Kashmir was not on the agenda of talks.
The situation in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir is again volatile
and this time even New Delhi is finding it difficult to raise any accusing fingers
towards Pakistan as Indian as well as international media is unanimous in its
analysis that the renewed Intifada of Kashmiri people was totally indigenous.
The situation is so precarious that the occupation forces have clamped curfew
almost in the entire Valley but even then Kashmiris come on roads to lodge
protests against atrocities by Indian troops and to raise voice for their right of
self-determination. Ever since, New Delhi unilaterally discontinued the
Composite Dialogue process on the pretext of Mumbai attacks, Indians have
been evading any discussion on the core issue during bilateral engagements but
the latest developments have forced them to see the writing on the wall and
they are conveying their desire to discuss all issues including Kashmir but still
insist that Jammu and Kashmir is their ‘Atoot Ang” (inseparable part), which
effectively means rejection of any substantial talks on the real dispute. In this
backdrop, there is no point in discussing even Kashmir if Indians are not ready
to acknowledge it as an unresolved dispute and, therefore any engagement
sans meaningful discussions on Kashmir issue would be mere an eye-wash and
a ploy to hoodwink the international public opinion. Therefore, our policy-
makers should not fall in the Indian trap and insist on dialogue on the dispute
itself and not the peripheries as we did in the past and ended up in agreeing to
some so-called Kashmir related CBMs that have served only Indian purpose.
The right course would be to continue to raise the issue and expose Indian
brutalities against Kashmiri people at all available forums as did the Foreign
Minister during his address to the UN General Assembly session in New York
where he forcefully made a case for Kashmir. Effective lobbying with
parliamentarians of influential countries should also be done to mould
international public opinion in favour of the legitimate struggle of the
Kashmiri people, forcing India to agree to a permanent solution of the
problem in line with the UN resolutions and aspirations of Kashmiris.
Editorial, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), September 30, 2010,
B RUCE R IEDEL ’ S K ASHMIR L OGIC

Bruce Riedel who served as Barack Obama’s presidential election campaign
adviser, a former official of the CIA, and a senior fellow in the Saban Centre at
the Brookings Institution, is considered great supporter of the then-likely
‘Musharraf-Manmohan Kashmir’ agreement reached through back channel
diplomacy between Pakistan and India. And urges President Obama to resolve
the matter under the same formula: i.e. “the ceasefire line that divides Kashmir
between India and Pakistan, the line of control, would become the agreed
international border between the two countries. At the same time, it would
become a permeable border for Kashmiris, who could move back and forth
easily. Both countries’ currencies would be valid on both sides of the line. The
two parts of Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Held Kashmir and Jammu, would
handle local issues like tourism, sports, and the environment in joint shared
institutions along the lines of how Ireland and Ulster work together now on all
Northern Ireland issues.” In his recent article “Kashmir is a bigger problem
than Afghanistan” published in the Daily Beast, Mr Bruce Riedel claimed that
“Musharraf told me that while a deal was not consummated, they were very
close when his domestic political problems shut down the exercise.” He
further says that the new uprising in the IHK capital of Srinagar makes it
imperative to get back to the back channel and finish the talks. “Pakistani
56 IPRI Factfile
President Asif Zardari probably would embrace them eagerly, but he is too
weak to go alone. He needs the Pakistani army on board, and it is unclear if
the army chief, General Kayani, Musharraf’s intelligence chief during the old
talks, is on board.” It will take strong and brave leadership to seal a deal, he
added. It is noteworthy that during the presidential election campaign for
Obama, Bruce Riedel’s book “The Search for al-Qaeda” came out in the
market as a best seller, which primarily provided the Obama administration
policy guidelines as to how to get out of the political and military morass they
have inherited. But most importantly he links the victory against al-Qaeda and
Taliban threat with the resolving of Kashmir imbroglio. “President Obama’s
strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a Kashmir
component to succeed; that need is becoming more urgent and obvious now.
His trip to India in November will be a key to addressing it.” Here are some
excerpts from his book that underline the importance of Kashmir: In a best-
case scenario, the international community should seek to allay Pakistan’s
anxiety about India by resolving the underlying dispute between the two
countries, which is centered in Kashmir. This would reduce the need for a
nuclear arsenal or jihadist backup to compel India to withdraw from the valley.
(p.141) (Since) India has no intention of withdrawing from Kashmir, the US
quiet diplomacy initiative can bring both the countries to resolve the issue
through dialogue process. Washington should be more prepared to press New
Delhi to be more flexible on Kashmir. It is clearly in the US interest and also
in India’s interest. (142-143) A Kashmir solution would have to be based on a
formula that would make the LoC both a permanent border (perhaps with
some minor modifications). The solution would free Pakistan of the need to
fight an asymmetrical war against India with allies like the Taliban, LeT, and al-
Qaeda. (p.143) It would also help prevent nuclear war between Pakistan and
India. (p.144) Commenting on the recent developments, homegrown upsurge
and indigenous movement for independence, he observes that the young
Kashmiris are protesting against what they allege are Indian occupation forces’
human rights abuses. Up to 700,000 Indian army and police garrison the
province with a very heavy hand. Stone-throwing produced clashes with the
Indian army. Over a hundred have died in what is becoming a Kashmiri
version of the first Palestinian intifada of the late 1980s. Polling shows that
majority of the Muslim population wants independence. Bruce Riedel urges
the Obama administration to quietly help Islamabad and New Delhi work
behind the scenes to get back to the deal Musharraf and Singh negotiated.
Obama will have a chance to work this subtly when he visits India in
November. “The new Kashmiri intifada has put the issue back on the front
burner. A deal is good for America, India, Pakistan, and especially the
Kashmiris, who have suffered enough.” He also warns that “if left to itself,
Pakistan will be tempted to intervene in IHK again to help the until now
largely indigenous revolt, running the risk of another Indo-Pakistani
confrontation.” But the question is whether the Pakistani nation and the
people of Kashmir are willing to surrender their principled stand i.e. the
solution under the UNSC Resolutions, which means giving right of self-
determination to Kashmiris to decide whether to annex to Pakistan or remain
with India, particularly when the Musharraf-Manmohan ‘secret deal’ has now
been unfolded. It is, however, understood that the Zardari-led Gilani
government in Islamabad would be, in words of Bruce Riedel, willing to such a
settlement, if takes place. If so then I think the government would fulfill
another part of the US agenda, which it has pledged to undertake before riding
the bus to Islamabad. The question remains to be answered whether or not the
military chief, who witnessed Musharraf-Singh back channel talks as
intelligence chief, will follow the same policy in the coming parleys. The past
experience does not conform to the notion because the military command and
control structure teaches the officers and jawans to follow when commanded
and take decisions independently when command. The COAS has taken a
number of initiatives, bypassing the legacy of his predecessor, which has led to
the rise in the military’s popularity both at home and abroad. Islamabad needs
to brainstorm, deliberate upon the issue threadbare and wholesome, evolve a
strategy with complete national consensus, and then should stick to the
principled stand on Kashmir, the jugular vein for Pakistan is not only atoot
ang for India but also now the unavoidable part of the US interests in the
region. The government and the state must be aware that the question which
way they opt for resolving the Kashmir issue would determine the future of
Pakistan.
Eschmall Sardar, Frontier Post (Peshawar), October 1, 2010,
http://thefrontierpost.com.pk/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=303
K ASHMIR C ONFLICT : T HE E XPANDING O WNERSHIP !

It is interesting to observe that ownership of Kashmir conflict is expanding,
the stakeholders are far greater that can be visualised. Now even the non-
Muslim Kashmiris are also getting on board. Kashmiri youth has taken the
lead and assumed the responsibility of carrying forth the struggle to its logical
conclusion. Old guard Kashmiri leaders and veterans of first generation
struggle are extending full support to the youngsters. Its like a change of
leadership that is in its transitional phase. Entire IOK is in a state of defiance.
With death tolls exceeding psychological number of 100, the struggle sees to
have entered in an irreversible phase. Secretary Generals of UN and OIC have
expressed their concern over the brutalities being committed by Indian
security apparatus in Kashmir.
Unable to sustain a protracted state of denial, India has, yet once again,
acknowledged the disputed status of the territory. Recently, Prime Minister
58 IPRI Factfile
Singh held an emergency APC in New Delhi, which decided to send a 37-
member delegation to occupied Kashmir to talk to local politicians and
business groups in an effort to ease tensions. Though it was a lacklustre ‘All
Parties Conference’, it has kick-started a fresh political initiative by the Indian
bi-partisan political leadership. While at the same time, erratic statement of
Indian foreign minister in New York UN has demonstrated Indian’s
Machiavellian approach to the issue.
Indian initiative may however be a non-starter due to the condition that
talks should be held within the framework of the Indian constitution, whereas
first assertion of the Kashmiri leadership is that Jammu and Kashmir is a
disputed territory as such Indian Constitution does not apply here; and that
India has made several promises at the international level, which ought to be
fulfilled.
To coincide with the arrival of the Indian fact-finding mission in
Srinagar, identical resolutions were adopted unanimously by the National
Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan, condemning “state terrorism” in the
region and reaffirming Pakistan’s “diplomatic, political and moral support” for
Kashmiris in their struggle.
Resolution adopted by the assembly expressed “grave concern on the
situation in occupied Kashmir”, condemned “India’s state terrorism” and
demanded that India “stop murder and plunder”, withdraw occupying forces
from the “state/urban population, cancel black laws, lift curfew, end media
blackout, release Kashmiri leaders and thousands of imprisoned youth, refrain
from obstructing the performance of religious duties and locking mosques and
allow international human rights organisations to come to occupied Kashmir”.
It emphasized that Kashmiris were engaged in a “peaceful struggle for their
right of self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter, UN
resolutions, the Universal Declaration for Human Rights and resolutions of
the Non-Aligned Movement as their basic right”. It appealed to world nations
“not to remain silent spectators of the Kashmir situation and compel India to
stop injustice and repression on Kashmiris and resolve the Kashmir issue, and
take practical steps for the implementation of (relevant) UN Security Council
resolutions.”
Kashmiri peoples’ and political leadership’s response to Indian
parliamentary delegation clearly indicates that its not just a huge trust deficit
between New Delhi and freedom fighters but a complete rejection of Indian
hegemony over Kashmir. Main stream political leadership of IOK decided to
abstain from directly interacting with the parliamentary delegation because
they are now wary of such visits as these represent only an effort at short-term
crisis management and that there is neither any clear commitment towards
effective resolution of the issue nor any path finding effort for addressing the
aspirations and interests of the IOK masses. However, a memorandum was
addresses by the IOK political leadership to the visiting delegation,

recommending a negotiation based plan of action for resolving the dispute.
Kashmiri political leadership is right in following this approach because
Kashmiris have repeatedly seen in the past that it is only when a major crisis
erupts that visible efforts are made by India to engage and understand peoples’
aspirations; and as soon as the immediate crisis subsides, inherent political
complacency and negligence is restored.
IOK political leadership has made it a point to not to ask for unilateral
political concessions, rather they are pursuing for a joint commitment to a
meaningful process that guarantees results. They are of the opinion that this is
possible only if serious efforts are made to create a conducive environment for
dialogue by removal of the harsh and repressive measures, like Armed Forces
Special Powers Act (AFPSA), which are in force in IOK, to suppress
aspirations and fundamental democratic rights of Kashmiris.
IOK leadership has suggested that to begin with, resolution of the
Kashmir dispute in accordance with aspirations of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir should become a ‘Common Minimum Programme’ shared by all
political parties in India and in Pakistan, so that such a process is transparent
and is designed to deliver a negotiated solution to the Kashmir issue that is
mutually worked towards by and is acceptable to all parties concerned.
Making a fresh demand for a result-oriented dialogue, the moderate
faction of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and Jammu and
Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) have demanded setting up of Kashmir
committees in India and Pakistan to find an everlasting solution to the
Kashmir issue. “We look forward to entering into a dialogue based on shared
commitments… Let the Government of India establish and empower an
official body, a Kashmir Committee, consisting of senior representatives of
major political parties to develop and enter into a process of engagement with
representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir,” the Chairman of
APHC Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and JKLF Chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik
said in a joint memorandum. “We believe that a similar Kashmir Committee,
bringing together all political forces, should also be established in Pakistan. We
will suggest to political parties in Pakistan that this be done.”
The memorandum further said, “This (setting up of Kashmir
committees) will ensure that all major political forces in India and Pakistan are
on board with the peace process and it will help institutionalise and sustain the
process to resolve the Kashmir problem.
“On our part we are ready and willing to engage and sustain a
meaningful and irreversible process of dialogue designed to avoid the failures
of the past and to jointly develop and implement a solution to the Kashmir
dispute that is acceptable to all sides – India, Pakistan and above all the people
of the State,” the memorandum said.
60 IPRI Factfile
It is unwavering determination of the people of Kashmir that has

sustained the freedom struggle against the barbarity of India and its occupation
forces in the face of the placatory silence of the international community, for
example President Obama conveniently skipped the issue during his recent
address to UNGA. It is disappointing to see what has become of ‘candidate
Obama’ who was an ardent supporter of the cause of Kashmiris.
It is UN Secretary General’s legal obligation to stand for Kashmiris
against Indian homicide in occupied Kashmir since the Kashmir dispute is on
the agenda of UN Security Council. Moreover, being a depository of all
resolutions on Kashmir dispute, UN is the rightful sponsor for undertaking a
concerted campaign to throw up a viable solution to the dispute. Time has
come for the UN to own the conflict, dust off archives and jump-start the
process. Let’s go beyond rhetoric!
Air Cdre (Retd) Khalid Iqbal, Daily Mail (Islamabad), October 1, 2010,
‘K ASHMIR IS A N I SSUE BETWEEN T WO N EIGHBOURS ’

O MAR A BDULLAH
Kashmir cannot be Put on Back Burner
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Wednesday sought to dispel the impression
that New Delhi was running the government in Jammu and Kashmir. “We are
not puppets,” he said.
Speaking in the Assembly he differed with the Centre on including “re-
opening of schools” as one of the confidence-building measures in the eight-
point formula announced by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram.
“We are not puppets. We take decisions for our people and for their
benefit.”
The Chief Minister was reacting to the Opposition charge including by
People’s Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti, who said on
September 30 that the Centre was running the affairs of the State. CPI(M)
leader M.Y. Tarigami had also raised the issue in the House.
Dig at G.K. Pillai

Taking a dig at Union Home Secretary G.K. PIllai, Mr. Abdullah said, “I have
a grievance. There have been some instances when people have talked more
than what is required. The Union Home Secretary should not have spoken
about curfew [on July 9].”
Mr. Pillai, in an interview to Doordarshan on the eve of Shab-e-Meraj,
announced the lifting of curfew.
By making such statements and disseminating information through the

media, “they were undermining the institutions of the State,” the Chief
Minister said.
Political Issue
Mr. Abdullah said Kashmir was a political issue and needed a political solution.
Jammu and Kashmir, he said, had not merged with the Union but acceded to
it under an agreement.
Winding up a debate on the crisis in the Valley, Mr. Abdullah said the
Kashmir issue could not be resolved by addressing development alone. The
issue could not be put on the back burner once again and hoped that the
interlocutors to be appointed by the Centre would “initiate a sustained political
dialogue” covering all shades of opinion.
‘Between Neighbours’
“Kashmir is an issue between two neighbours. It is not an issue about
development, employment or ration. Even if we provide all these things to the
people of Jammu and Kashmir, the issue will remain,” he said.
“New Delhi has accepted Kashmir as an issue. Had that not been the
case, why did the former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, go to Lahore?
Why was Kashmir discussed in Agra and Delhi?”
In the Shimla agreement, both countries had agreed to talk about “all
outstanding issues, including Kashmir.
“This is an outstanding issue. If somebody assures me that the Kashmir
issue would be resolved with my exit, I will step down. Not only will I quit, I
will leave politics forever.”
He said the crisis was not related to governance alone. How long could
we see graveyards being filled and how long do “we have to salute the graves
of our brave soldiers?”
Dawn, (Islamabad), October 9, 2010,
http://thedawn.com.pk/2010/10/09/kashmir-is-an-issue-between-two-neighbours-
omar-abdullah/
UN C ONFIRMS IOK, A RUNACHAL P RADESH NOT

P ART OF I NDIA
Indian Occupied part of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s occupied Chinese
state Arunachal Pradesh have been finally listed as "independent entities" and
not being part of India by the United Nations as it has finally stated that this
was its approach towards "disputed" areas.
62 IPRI Factfile
The categorisation came as a shock to the Indian government here at

New Delhi becuase the UN has, in the past, been only treating Indian
occupied area of Jammu and Kashmir as a dispute between India and Pakistan
while viewing Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India. However, in its latest
report, FAO has shown Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal
Pradesh (a disputed territory between India and China) as separate countries
along with India. The Indian states figure in country grouping for East Asia.
The names are there in annexure five of the 2010 FAO report to assess
greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector.
When contacted, FAO representative in India Gavin Wall said the
country grouping is based on FAO's Global Administrative Unit Layers
(GAUL), which aims at compiling and disseminating information on
administrative units for all countries in the world and it complies with the
UNCS international boundaries map. Wall said because the GAUL is
developed at the global level, controversial boundaries cannot be ignored.
"The selected approach is to treat disputed areas as independent entities not
dependent from countries.
"In this way the GAUL preserves national integrity for all disputed
countries. Areas of then classified from a purely geographic point of view," he
said. Arunachal Pradesh has been spelt as 'Arunashal' Pradesh in the list which
also shows Aksai Chin as a separate country. China maintains that Aksai Chin
is its integral part while India says it is part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Christina Palmer, Daily Mail (Islamabad), October 9, 2010,

http://dailymailnews.com/1010/09/FrontPage/index.php?id=1
K ASHMIR I MBROGLIO : T HINKING THE U NTHINKABLE

Back in the bad old days of the Cold War, the heaviest of the backroom hawks
of the Pentagon, Herman Kahn, coined the phrase ‘thinking the unthinkable,’
meaning strategies for wiping out the Soviet Union with nukes. Luckily for all
of us, Ronald Reagan had a better idea; the same result could be achieved by
an undeclared economic war and arms race that would force the communists
to scratch themselves out of the tournament.
Can we use similar hard-line approaches to review the Kashmir
imbroglio? The first question to ask is, do Indians need Kashmir? By Indians,
we mean the ordinary aam janta of the poor, and the struggling middle classes.
The answer clearly is a resounding ‘No’! There are no ‘resources’ of any kind
from Kashmir, the supply of which is crucial for our well-being. The American
people are dependent on oil from the Middle East, and that is the real reason
for their hegemonic control over the region. Indians have no such reason to
retain control of Kashmir.
If Indian troops are out of Kashmir, would it jeopardise the security of

Indians? Not really. The mountainous barrier between the Kashmir Valley and
India is a better defensive line to guard than the present long untenable
frontier of the Line of Control. Should we be there in Kashmir against all odds
out of moral obligation, because the people of the Valley are dependent on our
protection? ‘No’, is the answer once again, because the people there do not
consider themselves ‘Indians,’ and wish all Indians to go to the devil, perhaps
unjustly, but that is the end result of poor governance, high-handedness,
cruelty, and a bankrupt diplomatic policy.
Could Indian withdrawal from Kashmir initiate the Dulles nightmare of
a domino effect, with all Indian Muslims rising up as one man to demand
more partitions? While few Indian Muslims have any reason to thank the
Indian State for the non-benign neglect they have received over 60 years, they
are spread thinly everywhere and new partitions are a geographical
impracticality. Would withdrawal increase militancy? Most probably, because
discontent against corrupt, elitist, and non-democratic rule is widespread, not
only among Muslims but across a wide section of the poor and middle-classes.
Hanging on to the great economic resource drain of Kashmir will only worsen
the situation. The government must cauterise the Kashmir wound, tighten
military spending, and strictly prevent any more human rights abuses, to regain
if possible, modern standards of governance.
Let us ask another hard question. What will be lost along with Kashmir?
An unreal and bloated sense of self-importance. It has taken Great Britain 60
years to realise it is no longer the centre of an empire. Indian rulers have yet to
realise they are no longer in charge of ‘the jewel in the crown.’ Indians are not
the leaders of Asia — the Chinese are. If India wishes to be considered a good
second to China, it should not fritter away its resources on nuclear weapons,
aircraft carriers, or Commonwealth Games. India should use its scarce
resources where they are most needed, to help people raise themselves out of
poverty.
And India should not play dirty pool with China, and harbour Tibetan
governments-in-exile. Let it not be forgotten that one of the causes of the
India-China border war of 1962 was the covert activities of the CIA from
Indian bases. Yes, it is sad, the Buddha lived in India 2,500 years ago, but none
are true to his vision; nor are the Tibetans. India should mend its fences
pronto with China, and accept the glaring fact that they are bigger, and better
— just as it wants Pakistan to acknowledge its leadership. Would not letting
Kashmir go give the palm to Pakistan, India’s inveterate enemy? On the
contrary, it might catastrophically weaken its real enemy, and the real enemy of
the people of Pakistan, and dismantle its offensive structures. The Pakistani
people have been held in thrall by a corrupt military dictatorship. For the last
50 years or so America, for its own Byzantine reasons, has maintained this
whole awful structure which oppresses the people of Pakistan and suppresses
64 IPRI Factfile
the development trends that are fast changing the face of Egypt, Libya, Jordan,
Iran, and even Iraq till the Americans set the clock back a few decades. Will
America discontinue support for this militaristic cabal now that they have
experienced the result of their policies in 9/11?
Unlikely, for they are too Micawberish to change course. They will keep
hoping that by supporting the Pakistan military, its ISI, and through it the
Taliban, while at the same time giving alms to the unhappy Karzai, somehow
something will turn up. They are dead wrong as they always have been.
Nothing awaits them or India but sorrow. The Pakistan military has propped
up its power over people by rattling the bogey of Indian threat. If Indians end
the Kashmir siege unilaterally, the Pakistani military will lose currency with
their oppressed people. Yes, but India should not do it stupidly, or in a
shamefaced manner.
Since everyone else in reality has been fishing in Kashmir’s troubled
waters, let India make the security of the Valley an international issue, which
requires international guarantees from everyone else, the US and NATO,
China, Pakistan, Russia, and all other nearby neighbours. Let India insist on a
UN Peace Keeping Force and annual subventions from Pakistan and others,
including India, to help the Kashmiris. India could insist that South Asia
should be made a nuclear weapons-free zone, retaining crushing military
superiority. Let it ask for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to be simultaneously
liberated, and since the Pakistani military cannot possibly accept that demand
without immediately abdicating all power, India might have to redraw the
frontiers, absorbing Jammu and Ladakh into India without any special status.
Whatever the final shape of the outcome, India must be proactive in
demanding an immediate international settlement of a problem created by
Nehru.
Dr Vithal Rajan, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), October 13, 2010,
K ASHMIR ’ S A UTUMN OF D ISCONTENT

The Chaopraya Dialogue—named after the turbid, arterial river that runs
through the heart of Bangkok—took an uncharted bend when Indian
participants acknowledged that the current trouble in India-administered
Kashmir is not because of Pakistan. The unofficial “Track Two” dialogue
among opinion leaders and policymakers in India and Pakistan took place in
late August and was organized by Pakistan’s Jinnah Institute, which I lead, and
India’s Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. After official talks came to a
halt, we initiated the unofficial dialogue to explore opportunities that the two
states fear to publically approach. At best, informal dialogues help construct
confidence building measures and shape public discourse. At worst, such
interactions between foreign policy mandarins, academics, and media mavens

from both countries narrow space for conflict through their embrace of
“rational nationalism.” But this latest dialogue was unique because opinion
leaders from India took the unprecedented step of conceding that the strife in
Srinagar—with its moving scenes of young men armed only with stones facing
off Indian soldiers, and housewives wailing and protesting against Indian
rule—is purely indigenous. As talks progressed, a consensus emerged: India
has fueled this crisis by ghettoizing Kashmir as a non-political problem.
Instead of attempting to defuse the uprising through political means, New
Delhi deployed yet more troops into an already heavily militarized area.
Repeated failures to read the pulse of India-administered Kashmir have led to
widespread unrest, including previously peaceful areas of Jammu. Long seen
merely as the heart of the dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi, some in
India are beginning to see that Kashmir now has its own politics, its own
identity, and its own genuine aspirations.
Just as there can be no military solution to the Kashmir dispute between
Pakistan and India, a solution to New Delhi’s troubles in India-administered
Kashmir based on force is equally unviable. But does the Congress-led
government understand this? Does it want to revisit its failing bargain with
Indian Kashmir’s political leadership? The new, post-jihadist generation has
not been radicalized by religion, but by incessant violations of rights and
dignity, by the absence of justice, and by the deprivation of amenities and
opportunities that are available to Indians. These lost tribes living on the
margins of Jawaharlal Nehru’s narrative of plurality have become the unarmed
soldiers of the intifada against Indian rule.
Yet, as demands for change and freedom—azaadi—ring louder than
they ever have in India-administered Kashmir, New Delhi is bringing more
intellectual poverty than creativity to the table. In fact, part of the problem is
the size of the table and who gets a seat on it. Between holding conferences of
political parties that leave out key players from the affected Valley and
increasing the military heat against protesters, New Delhi is losing the capital
and capacity to address the legitimate concerns of the Kashmiri people.
Instead of addressing these by reaching out to grassroots Kashmiri leaders,
India chooses to shy away from real reform by refusing to repeal the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act and moving toward demilitarization. Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh’s inaction, in spite of his shock at the virulence and
depth of Kashmiri emotion against New Delhi, has embittered the Kashmiris
who once sought accommodation with India. This policy drift has, in fact,
revived the flagging political stock of separatists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani,
who now holds more cards than he did when he was being patronized by
Islamabad.
This time Indian officials bunkered in New Delhi cannot blame the
nonviolent mass protests in Kashmir, which have claimed at least 100 lives
66 IPRI Factfile
since June, on jihadist thought or on Pakistan. Kashmiris are weary of the

curfews, the disappearances, the political disengagement, and the state
oppression. They are asking for that most fundamental of liberties: the right to
govern themselves. For its part, at this sensitive moment, Pakistan should do
nothing more than press for diplomatic and political support for the
aspirations of the Kashmiri people at forums that have failed them in the past.
Kashmiris are coming in loud and clear. They want respect. They want peace.
They want azaadi.
Sherry Rehman, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), October 18, 2010,
L ET EP D ELEGATION V ISIT IHK

AJK Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan has said that the European
Parliament (EP) has offered to play as facilitator in seeking a peaceful solution
to the lingering Kashmir dispute. At a press conference in Muzaffarabad on
Monday Sardar Attique said that Kashmir situation was being internationalized
with full force of conviction and clarity of goal.
It was in this perspective that Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani in
his address to the nation particularly paid compliments to the energetic AJK
Prime Minister who over the past few weeks visited the United States and the
European countries to mobilize international opinion over the sufferings of
the Kashmiris who are living under constant curfew for the last four months.
Indian occupation forces have let loose a consistent and massive reign of
terror on unarmed civilians. Men, women, and children, young and old, are
being indiscriminately killed, injured and maimed and women are being raped
with impunity. Human rights groups blame the culture of impunity among
security forces in IHK on a host of Draconian laws, specific to occupied
Kashmir which have made these forces take on the role of an occupying army.
In this situation, we would suggest that European Parliament should be
persuaded to send a delegation to have an on the spot assessment of the
situation. Though Kashmiri delegations abroad serve a useful purpose yet
when the Parliamentarians of Europe and the US would visit they would see
with their own eyes the factual situation as an entire civilisation in the Valley is
out protesting today and demanding freedom from Indian occupation.
Regrettably the International community is keeping mum and not condemning
India for massive use of force against the protesting Kashmiris. These protests
are also an unmistakable expression of Kashmiris’ resentment against the
indifference of world powers – and their failure, largely because of toxic power
politics. Therefore it is high time that in the name of humanity, the world must
stand up and listen to Kashmiris. A heavy responsibility lies on think-tanks
and human rights organisations in Europe and America who raised their
voices in support of the people in East Timor to stand up and pressurize their
governments for implementation of UN resolutions for the sake of Kashmiris
and peace and stability in the region.
Editorial, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), October 20, 2010,
K ASHMIR NOT I NDIA ' S I NTEGRAL P ART : A RUNDHATI

Srinagar, Oct 24: Reiterating that Kashmir was not an integral part of India,
noted writer and Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy Sunday accused India of
launching “a protracted war” to suppress the ongoing movement in Kashmir
by its military might. She said it was high time for Kashmiris to set goals for
Azadi and achieve them systematically.
“I believe Kashmir is not an integral part of India. It is a historical
fact,” Roy said at a seminar titled ‘Whither Kashmir? Freedom or
Enslavement’ organised by the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society
here. “By describing the pro-freedom leaders in the Valley as separatists, India
in a sense has already acknowledged that secession has taken place,” she
added.
Roy who has been vociferously advocating the cause of Maoists and
Kashmiris minced no words in accusing India of waging war against
minorities. “In Nagaland, the troopers have been targeting Adivasis, in
Telangana Dalits and in Punjab, they target Sikhs. India is an upper caste
Hindu state that is certainly at war with minorities. It has waged a protracted
war in Nagaland and Kashmir to force inclusion of people into its system,”
she said.
Maintaining that the ongoing movement has highlighted the aspirations
of Kashmiris, Roy underscored the need for initiating a debate on Azadi.
“Resistance is a beautiful thing. It is high time for Kashmiris to set goals for
Azadi and steer the movement,” she said.
However, she cautioned that there is an elite section in Kashmir which
is allowing the oppression. “Your struggle has raised the consciousness about
Kashmir dispute and the oppression you face. But you must decide what type
of society you have in mind once you are allowed to decide your future,” she
said.
Elaborating she said imperial colonialism is fast being replaced by
corporate colonialism. “Kashmiris will have to make a choice whether or not
they want the Indian oppression to be replaced by a future corporate
oppression of the local masses,” she said.
Roy stated that Kashmiris recruited in the army and paramilitary forces
are being used to suppress the voices of dissent in the Northeast and other
states. “I was heart broken when I saw Kashmiri BSF personnel in
68 IPRI Factfile
Dantewada. Mothers in Nagaland recalled their kins who were posted in army
and other security agencies. I urge Kashmiris to ensure that they are not used
to as tools of suppression,” she said.
Hailing the role of Kashmiri women in the ongoing movement, Roy
asked them to contribute to the struggle in one way or the other. “Kashmiris
have been breathing and inhaling through the barrel of AK 47.” Terming India
as a prison with many nationalities, Roy said attempts are being made to
implement the policy of divide and rule. “After attaining freedom from the
British, India itself has become a colonial power. It has left the legacy of
partition in the shape of Kashmir. India opened the locks of two issues
including Babri Masjid and tried to give it Islamist colour to act like a victim.
The Home Minister, P Chidambaram has been maintaining that he wants to
see 80 percent people of India who live in villages to shift to cities. They want
to divide and rule. It can only happen with the help of Army,” she said.
Roy said during her visit to southern India state, she asked her a friend to
show her the grave of a Dalit who was killed in Kashmir. “An SP accompanied
us and showed the grave in a garbage dump. He said the people did not allow
the body to be carried in front of their homes saying it will pollute them. One
should not have any expectation from a country whose Prime Minister (Dr
Manmohan Singh) has not been ever elected,” she said.
She said India has been using the façade of democracy to cover up the
rights violations. In New Delhi she said 3000 bodies were recovered in recent
past besides 20,000 children disappeared. “But nobody asks the questions as
people in Delhi are not fighting for freedom. Democracy has become another
form off tyranny,” she said.
Prominent human rights activist Gautam Navlakha said the gun has
played an important role in highlighting the Kashmir dispute. “Gun kept the
Kashmir issue alive. Now the stone pelters have taken over the mantle. Now
the stones have the power and there is no need of guns. Azadi is not round the
corner but you have fight for it. Whether all party delegations and
interlocutors will visit Valley, talk and go back. But it is the Kashmiris who
have to decide their future,”
Navlakha said there has been criminalization of dissent as all voice in
Kashmir have been suppressed.
Navlakha impressed upon the civil society to establish its own
institutions. “Their foundations have been laid in past four month and it is
high time to give it a practical shape. The students should start exhibitions like
draw paintings on what their concept of Azadi is,” he said. Criticizing the
Kashmiris who give vent to feeling through Facebook, Navlakha said battles
are not fought from drawing rooms. “I am not against the face bookers but it
is a shame on them. They have to openly support their fellow Kashmiris.
Mere slogans can’t fetch us freedom. But if we maintain unity, steadfastness
we will achieve Azadi and sacrifices will not go waste,” she said.
Noted Trade Unionist Ashim Roy underscored the need for

strengthening trade union movement in the State saying it will help garner
support for Kashmir cause. Ashim said he was privileged to organize a trade
union conference in “three countries comprising Jammu and Kashmir, India
and Pakistan.”
“Trade Union movement in Kashmir has the potential to garner support
for the just cause in India. So we should promote and strengthen the
movement,” he added.
Senior journalist Zahir-ud-Din said the Trade Union Movement in
Kashmir was the oldest in the World. “On 29th April 1865, Trade Union
Movement was launched in Kashmir after 28 shawl weavers were killed at
Zaldagaar. 20 years after the incident, the Movement started in Chicago which
is celebrated as May Day,” he said.
Prominent filmmaker Sanjay Kak said it is high time for Kashmiris to
what he said push the curtains on their victim hood. Pertinently Kak, a
Kashmir Pandit shot into prominence for his documentary ‘Jashn-e- Azadi’ in
2007 depicts the ground situation in the Valley during the last two decades.
“The perception of majority of Indians in changing towards Kashmir issue. I
was surprised when Jashn-e-Azadi was received well by the Indian audience.
At least there is a ten fold change in India’s attitude towards Kashmir due to
protests on Kashmir streets,” he said.
“You have to see what you can offer to Indian people. You have to
show them the strength of Azadi. We have to understand that the stone pelters
on streets of Kashmir are not pleading but demanding the rights of Kashmiris.
We want somebody else to fight the battle of Kashmiris. Arundhati and
Gautam have earned their right to call spade a spade by struggling for it. So
have the Kashmiris to do,” he said.
Kak said the Facebook has emerged as a powerful tool for Kashmiris to
give vent to their aspirations.
“The Facebook has a diversity of opinions on Kashmir and nobody can
neglect them. I want to maintain that what we see on Indian media regarding
Kashmir is not opinion of Indian people. Corporate media outlets are driven
by their own compulsions,” he said.
Najeeb Mubarki, the Assistant Editor of the Economic Times said the
Kashmiris have achieved a moral victory due to the ongoing movement. He
accused the Indian media of delegitimizing the struggle of Kashmiris. “After
9/11, there has been a tendency to link every thing in Islamic context. Indian
media sometimes states that there are militants among the protesters and
blame Pakistan for fomenting trouble in the Valley. This is done to
delegitimize the struggle of Kashmiris,” he said.
Pervez Bukhari, noted journalist said a big part of Kashmiri’s population
is silent due to fear and highly militarized presence. “The troopers are making
efforts not only to suppress but make Kashmiris their part. The aspirations of
70 IPRI Factfile
Kashmiris surfaced on the streets. Due to crackdown unleashed to crush the

protests, the whole generation has gone underground. It is a horrifying thing.
People are reluctant to even talk on phones as most of them are tapped. This
has made the people vulnerable and silent,” he said.
“Ironically, I see the new generation protesting lonely. It is responsibility
of each Kashmiri to share their views and give support to the cause. Ways and
means have to be developed for giving space to the silence majority of
Kashmir,” he added.
Pervez Imroz the chairman of JKCCS said the civil society has an
important role to shape up the opinions in Kashmir. “At a time when seven
lakh troopers besides cops are leaving no stone unturned to suppress the
movement, it is the responsibility of the civil society to give vent to aspirations
of Kashmiris. We have invited those people to speak in the seminar who are
considered to be enemies by India for speaking for the Kashmiris,” he said.
Imroz accused the Government of India of holding the media hostage and
spreading misinformation about Kashmir. “Many NGOs have been
formulated who portray false picture of Kashmir. These NGOs have intruded
into our society. If we have to achieve freedom we have to ourselves fight for
it. We can wait for others to fight for our cause. We have to shape up our
future ourselves,” he said.
The seminar was followed by an interacting session in which the people
from different walks of life interacted with the speakers.
Arif Shafi Wani, October 25, 2010,
http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/Oct/25/kashmir-not-india-s-integral-
part-arundhati-36.asp
Y OUNG K ASHMIRIS CAN ’ T BE C OWED

Can anybody, whether he’s Kashmiri or Pakistani, living in Rawalpindi-
Islamabad or elsewhere, think of achieving peace for socio-economic well-
being without solving the Kashmir question? Perhaps not, for “Kashmir is our
‘shah rug’ (jugular vein)” in the words of the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali
Jinnah. The entire human life, especially of Muslims, depends upon hypocrisy-
free resolution of the issue, say old men and women who migrated from the
valley after it was occupied by India. “The new young generation can’t be
cowed,” they assert.
The tragedy is that ever since Pakistan came into being on August 14,
1947, the issue has been lying unresolved with the United Nations despite
many resolutions adopted unanimously, which empowered Kashmiris to
exercise their right to self-determination. That’s called plebiscite which simply
means the direct vote of Kashmiris, wherever they are, on the issue. Relevant
to this day, in this context, is the appeal made by the people of Jammu and
Kashmir to members of the British Parliament 21 years back.
The appeal, inter alia, said: “The wave of independence and right of self-
determination against colonialism in various parts of the world was honoured
by the British Empire and the British people, who believe in democracy and
rule of law, granted independence to the people of Indo-Pakistan sub-
continent in 1947 with an option and liberty to at least 561states, either to join
Indian dominion or Pakistan, or to remain independent. The state of Jammu
and Kashmir wanted to exercise that right, but the Indian Armed Forces
committed naked aggression on the state…We, the people of Kashmir hereby
appeal to the honourable members of the Parliament to raise our voice and
help the 12 million Kashmiris in their struggle for freedom by compelling the
Indian Government to honour her pledges.”
The memorandum annexed to the appeal mentioned the people’s
struggle against the oppressive and tyrannical Dogra rule and establishment of
a de jure revolutionary government in liberated part of the state on October
24, 1947. The notable part thereof was the bitter fact that the fleeing Maharaja
Hari Singh secretly entered into an unholy treaty with the Indian government
on October 27, 1947, and a provisional treaty of accession was executed on
the basis of which the Indian Army troops were dropped and pushed into the
state to fight against the Kashmiri freedom fighters. That so-called treaty
provided that the people of Jammu and Kashmir would have the right of self-
determination as soon as normal life is restored. India has not fulfilled its
commitment to the UN yet. The day of Indian army attack has come to be
known as the Black Day in Kashmir and is observed as such by Kashmiris and
advocates of human rights everywhere.
Recently, Indian Foreign Minister S.M.Krishna trumpeted that the
disputed territory was an integral part of India, but soon came the rebuttal
from Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah who claimed on
October 7 that his state had acceded to India not merged with India. Mr.
Abdullah told the state assembly in Srinagar that J and K “cannot be placed at
par with Hyderabad and Junagarh,” which were forcefully occupied by India.
He said “it is still a fact that Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India is under
an agreement and it’s not the merger.” Former chief minister Farooq Abdullah
had adopted the same stance in his public speech in Srinagar on July 13, 2004.
That’ how India’s brazen lie gets exposed in occupied valley also.
Kashmiris say Pak stand on the dispute has always been principled and
in accordance with the UN Charter: there has to be a free and fair plebiscite in
the occupied Valley under the auspices of the world body as envisaged in its
resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949. Pakistan rightly drew the
world attention to the new unprecedented wave of protests against occupation
of Jammu and Kashmir and suppression of the voice of the youths who are
demanding right to self-determination. In fact, they seem determined to
72 IPRI Factfile
achieve their object and political volcano has started erupting. The occupied
valley has been racked by street protests since June 11 when a 17-year-old
student hit by a tear-gas shell lost his life. Reportedly, as many as 145 youths
have been gunned down by Indian security forces during the past four
months. The widespread protest against state terror is indigenous. Before the
situation gets worsened and is more dangerous than ever before, the world
community should persuade India to learn that the peace of the region hinges
upon a quick end to repression in the disputed territory.
People have taken note of Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s
September 28 speech to the UN General Assembly, which emphasised the fact
that Jammu and Kashmir forms the central part of all the outstanding issues
between the two neighbouring countries. The human rights of the people of
Kashmir have to be respected and their voice heard to establish an
environment suitable for peaceful solution to the long-standing dispute. The
Pak call for solving the question cannot be overlooked by any sane person in
any peace-loving country of the world in the backdrop of the situation which
has deteriorated swiftly following violent response to the young and old
Kashmiris’ demand for right to self-determination. A peaceful resolution of
Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN resolutions and taking into
account the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, as pointed by the minister,
would surely create an atmosphere conducive to durable peace and stability in
South Asia where millions are haunted by poverty, hunger and disease.
The commitment of Pakistan and its masses to the cause of the
oppressed people is known to the world, according to which they have always
extended their unswerving moral, diplomatic and political support to
Kashmiris fighting for their right to self-determination acknowledged by the
UNO. The oppressed people are at the heart of the issue, and their fate and
future are at stake. The UN Resolution of January 5, 1949, clearly states that
“the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or
Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and
impartial plebiscite.” But, as former chief minister of the state Dr. Farooq
Abdullah told a public meeting in Srinagar on July 13, 2004, the government of
India has “illegally taken over control of the whole state of Jammu and
Kashmir.”
The matter of the fact is that India’s state terrorism has not relented in
anyway until now, members of a migrant family disclosed to this scribe the
other day. According to them, “life and honour of a Kashmiri woman is not
secure.” The farewell greeting has changed from “Khuda hafiz” (God be with
you) to “sahi salamat lot aana” (return safe). “A youth walks in fear—-fear of
being named a suspect or militant, picked up, interrogated, tortured, and killed.
And that’s not the end of Indian way of terrorism, the Kashmiri women live in
fear of humiliation, harassment, molestation, gang-rape by Indian troops.”
Five years back, violence figures were: killings 89,008; houses/shops destroyed
104,751; orphaned 106,205; women molested 9532; and widowed 22,158.

There has been more to it by hundreds in the past five years (2005-2010), and
there’s no end yet.
Zafar Alam Sarwar, Daily Mail (Islamabad), October 26, 2010,
P ITY T HE N ATION
I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir. This morning’s papers say that I may be
arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings
on Kashmir. I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I, as
well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who
cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were
fundamentally a call for justice. I spoke about justice for the people of
Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the
world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven
out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I
visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor
who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now
learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state.
Yesterday I traveled to Shopian, the apple-town in South Kashmir
which had remained closed for 47 days last year in protest against the brutal
rape and murder of Asiya and Nilofer, the young women whose bodies were
found in a shallow stream near their homes and whose murderers have still not
been brought to justice. I met Shakeel, who is Nilofer’s husband and Asiya’s
brother. We sat in a circle of people crazed with grief and anger who had lost
hope that they would ever get ‘insaf’—justice—from India, and now believed
that Azadi—freedom— was their only hope. I met young stone pelters who
had been shot through their eyes. I traveled with a young man who told me
how three of his friends, teenagers in Anantnag district, had been taken into
custody and had their finger-nails pulled out as punishment for throwing
stones.
In the papers some have accused me of giving ‘hate-speeches’, of
wanting India to break up. On the contrary, what I say comes from love and
pride. It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned or
have their finger-nails pulled out in order to force them to say they are Indians.
It comes from wanting to live in a society that is striving to be a just one. Pity
the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the
nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice, while communal killers,
mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on
74 IPRI Factfile
the poorest of the poor, roam free.

Arundhati Roy, October 26 2010
Arundhati Roy, Counter Currents, October 27, 2010,
http://www.countercurrents.org/roy271010.htm
I F IGHT FOR THE L OVE AND P RIDE OF MY P EOPLE :

A RUNDHATI R OY
Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy who has been canvassing for
freedom of Jammu and Kashmir from years of military occupation said
on Tuesday that far from seeking a break up of India, as alleged by her
rightwing detractors, she fights for the love and pride of the people of
India.
Amid reports that the Indian government had given permission for her
arrest for alleged sedition following her recent call for justice for all Kashmiris,
Ms Roy, who is currently on a visit to the Valley said in a statement to the
Indian media that it would be a sad day for her country if its writers were jailed
for expressing their ideas while “communal killers, mass murderers, corporate
scamsters” roamed free.
Some rightwing newspapers and TV channels close to the opposition
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been campaigning for her arrest after she
addressed a meeting on Kashmir in New Delhi last week at which Kashmiri
leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani reiterated his call for azadi.
Ms Roy reminded the Kashmiris at the meeting that she was hurt by
their slogan – bhooka nanga Hindustan, jaan se pyara Pakistan – saying that
the slogan insulted the poor masses of India. But some reports distorted this,
and the headlines screamed that she had asked for secession from poverty-
stricken India.
Analysts recalled that senior Indian leader Jaiprakash Narayan had once
called for the Indian army to revolt against the autocratic government of then
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The BJP had supported him then. Mr Narayan
was subsequently celebrated as Lok Nayak, or people’s leader. “There is
nothing rigid about the law on sedition. It is always a political choice on who
you want to target,” said a senior lawyer. “Right now Arundhati Roy is in
everyone’s crosshairs. She has dared to take on powerful corporate interests
and has even exposed their link with the powerful home minister.”
Following is the text of the statement emailed by Ms Roy to Indian
newspapers and TV channels.
“I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir. This morning’s papers say that I
may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public
meetings on Kashmir. I said what millions of people here say every day. I said
what I, as well as other commentators have written and said for years.
Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they
were fundamentally a call for justice. I spoke about justice for the people of
Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the
world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven
out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I
visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor
who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now
learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state.
“Yesterday I traveled to Shopian, the apple-town in South Kashmir
which had remained closed for 47 days last year in protest against the brutal
rape and murder of Asiya and Nilofer, the young women whose bodies were
found in a shallow stream near their homes and whose murderers have still not
been brought to justice. I met Shakeel, who is Nilofer’s husband and Asiya’s
brother. We sat in a circle of people crazed with grief and anger who had lost
hope that they would ever get ‘insaaf’ —justice — from India, and now
believed that Azadi — freedom — was their only hope. I met young stone
pelters who had been shot through their eyes. I traveled with a young man
who told me how three of his friends, teenagers in Anantnag district, had been
taken into custody and had their finger-nails pulled out as punishment for
throwing stones.
“In the papers some have accused me of giving ‘hate-speeches’, of
wanting India to break up. On the contrary, what I say comes from love and
pride. It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned or
have their finger-nails pulled out in order to force them to say they are Indians.
It comes from wanting to live in a society that is striving to be a just one. Pity
the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the
nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice, while communal killers,
mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on
the poorest of the poor, roam free”.
Jawed Naqvi, Dawn (Islamabad), October 27, 2010,
http://public.dawn.com/2010/10/26/i-fight-for-the-love-and-pride-of-my-people-
arundhati-roy.html
A CTIVIST A RUNDHATI R OY D EFENDS H ER K ASHMIR

S TATEMENT
Under attack over her statements on Kashmir, activist and writer Arundhati
Roy on Tuesday said she only spoke what "millions of people" in Kashmir say
everyday for years.
"Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds,"
Roy said in a statement from Srinagar where she is on a visit. "Pity the nation
that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass
76 IPRI Factfile
murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the
poorest of the poor, roam free," she said.
Her statement came against the backdrop of the government
contemplating taking action against her and hardline Hurriyat leader Syed Ali
Shah Geelani under charges of sedition and seeking legal opinion in this
regard. Roy has made two speeches in New Delhi and Srinagar in the past few
days in which she sought independence for Kashmir from India. The writer
said she has read in newspapers that she may be arrested on charges of
sedition for her remarks supporting 'Azadi' for Kashmir.
"I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I as well
as other commentators have written and said for years. "Anybody who cares
to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a
call for justice," she said. Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily too has been
critical of Roy’s remarks while the BJP had sharply attacked her and Syed
Geelani for ther pro-separatists statements and suggesting Pakistan should be
made party to any Kashmir solution.
R. Vasudevan, Asian Tribune, October 27, 2010,
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2010/10/27/activist-arundhati-roy-defends-her-
kashmir-statement
I NDIAN E XTREMISTS E NDANGERING T HE L IFE O F

A RUNDHATI R OY O VER K ASHMIR R EMARKS
Lynching Arundhati Roy: Extremists inside and outside Indian

government and the ruling political elite are hounding the rights
activist.
For the first time in 63 years, India is divided over occupied
Kashmir thanks to one woman. And it’s time for her to pay for
embarrassing the aspiring superpower. The fact that she is a minority
Christian is working against her with Hindu extremists.
You don’t antagonize a superpower-wannabe, especially one that is so
serious it is spending $30 billion on latest weapons. But if you do, get ready to
pay the price.
That’s the lesson Arundhati Roy, Booker Prize winner, is learning the
hard way. She is India’s most famous international face. And she has
embarrassed the entire Indian political, religious and military establishment like
no one has done before.
For the first time in the 63-year-old international dispute with Pakistan
over Kashmir, which India forcibly annexed, Roy sat next to a Kashmiri
freedom leader and declared in the heart of the Indian capital that Kashmir “is
not an integral part of India”.
If that’s not enough, she also said, “No one should be killed, raped,
imprisoned or have their fingernails pulled out in order to force them to say
they are Indians.” This was a direct attack on the Indian military, whose half a
million soldiers occupy the tiny Kashmir valley near Pakistan’s border despite
daily protests by Kashmiris shouting, ‘We’re not Indian.’
This is big. So far no one in India had the courage to speak up against
Indian human rights violations in occupied Kashmir, which are otherwise well
documented by rights organizations outside India.
For those who don’t understand how big a deal this is, consider this: All
mainstream Indian newspapers and television networks strictly adhere to the
state policy on Kashmir. It is impossible to find a major Indian news outlet
breaking away from this unspoken consensus. [In other words, for India, this
is bigger than Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010.]
Now an environment is being created in New Delhi to arrest Roy, or at
least terrorize her enough to silence her and any other Indians who might be
having similarly dangerous thoughts. Unfortunately for Roy, she is a Christian,
coming from a minority group vulnerable to attacks by Hindu fundamentalists.
Indian Christians have been burned alive in acts of violence as recently as
winter 2008.
There are early signs of a whisper campaign and intimidation against Ms.
Roy inside India. Prominent Indian news outlets confirmed a sedition case was
being prepared against her. Normally the accused in Indian sedition cases
receives harsh treatment even before a trial and conviction.
More worrying is that her opponents – a motley crew of extremist
politicians, Hindu fanatics, Hindu terror groups, media affiliates of extremist
politicians, and sympathizers inside Indian security agencies – might get to her
in other ways without making it look like payback for her Kashmir remarks.
Already there are reports suggesting she might be dragged to court in other
cases. Funny how these reports suddenly appeared just in time to take her
down.
So no one should be surprised if there is a sudden news blackout on her
and she slips off the headlines any minute.
The mainstream India media has begun whipping up religious
sentiments against Roy. This is dangerous in a religious boiling pot like India
where rumors in 2002 resulted in Hindu mobs burning alive 2,000 Indian
Muslim men, women and children in the Indian state of Gujarat, in what was
21st century’s first incident of religious genocide.
Ironically, mainstream India media is at the forefront of inflaming
passions. For example, the Indian Express has dedicated a page on its internet
version of the newspaper to lynching Roy.
“If I were the prime minister I would stripped her citizenship and
deport her to Pakistan,” wrote one reader who signed his name as ‘Indian’.
78 IPRI Factfile
Another Indian, Sunanda, based in Manchester, UK, ironically chides

Roy for her Western links. She writes: “looking for some more European
awards missy? By selling your nation that too (…) You remain a pointless non
productive self serving woman, your life is wasted. Dont pride yourself with a
thinkers cap, clearly you are a confused ugly face, pretending to be an angel.”
Karan titled his comment, “Arundhati, a publicity hungry maggot.”
To be fair, there is the occasional supportive comment, like that of Mr.
I. Gill, who writes: “How many of you have been to Kashmir (I am talking for
last 40 years, since I have been there)? If you have been then you will
understand what Kashmere’s think of India. If you want to bring India pride
then listen to your people and give them freedom.”
But the worry is from rabble-rousers aiming to activate extremists. An
Indian apparently based in the United States wrote this: “In America, we have
a way to deal with these crazies. The rest of the media will make them look like
clowns incessantly. That will shut them off permanently (…) Wake up [local]
scribes go for the kill.”
Ahmed Quraishi, October 27, 2010,
http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/2010/10/27/indian-extremists-endanger-the-life-of-
arundhati-roy-over-kashmir-remarks/
S HAKY S TART ON K ASHMIR

When the Indian government announced "a new political initiative" on Jammu
and Kashmir on September 25, lofty expectations were raised that high-level
interlocutors would soon begin a dialogue with the state's parties and civil
society. This was considered the only novel, and most important, feature of
the 8-point plan of action, which otherwise recycles the shop-worn "package"
approach to Kashmir. It was also the logical follow-up to the all-parties
delegation's September 20-21 visit to J&K.
However, the announcement of three panelists - journalist Dileep
Padgaonkar, conflict resolution academic Radha Kumar, and Information
Commissioner M M Ansari - has disappointed most people and attracted
anger and ridicule. To many, it represents a desperate anxiety to pretend - just
before President Obama's visit to India - that the government is sincerely
grappling with the Kashmir issue. The Valley's moderates as well as extremists
have declared the panel a non-starter. Indian parties, from the Left to the
Right, have attacked its exclusion of politicians, who they feel should lead it.
Their unanimous opinion is that the Centre is not serious about finding a
Kashmir solution. There is no support for the panel from political, civil society
or intellectual opinion, not even the ruling Congress.
Apparently, the government first approached Congress leaders Digvijay
Singh (a heavyweight who mentors Rahul Gandhi), Prithviraj Chavan (close to
the prime minister) and Salman Khurshid to join/head the panel. They
refused. Hence the present "Team B" panel, without a proper chair of Cabinet
rank. Given this hostile reception, it will be extremely difficult to persuade a
senior politician to head the panel. His/her authority would already be dented
by the absence of a chance to choose the other members.
How did the hope of September dissipate into the disappointment of
October? None of the three nominees knows much about Kashmir, carries
much political weight in general, or a positive profile in the Valley, in
particular. Padgaonkar and Kumar have only had limited exposure to the
Valley. Kumar recently coordinated a European Union-delegation visit there
and also held conflict-resolution seminars. But she neither conveys gravitas
nor an incisive grasp of Kashmir's complex situation. Ansari is a non-entity,
without a nodding acquaintance with J&K.
Kumar ventured in 2006 into "Frameworks for a Kashmir Settlement",
co-authored with ultra-hawkish Pakistan-bashing former diplomat G
Parthasarathy. This contains some interesting suggestions for building
governance structures from the bottom-up. But they are all based on the
obviously unrealised presumption that India and Pakistan have already agreed
to "soft borders". Kumar carries ideological baggage from her involvement in
the former Yugoslavia and the Council on Foreign Relations (US). The
baggage, and her conservative pro-Western reputation, further weaken her
acceptability. She's regarded a political lightweight who wouldn't bother with
getting to know the nitty-gritty of Kashmiri society and politics. Nor is
Padgaonkar distinguished for his grasp of Kashmir, or imaginative out-of-the-
box solutions.
Several candidates, with superior understanding, experience,
acceptability and reach, come to mind, including Chief Information
Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, an Indian Administrative Service officer of
the J&K cadre. He's so highly regarded in the Valley that when he had a near-
fatal accident some years ago, thousands prayed for him. There are also
eminent individuals from J&K, including educationist Agha Ashraf Ali,
economist Haseeb Drabu and vice-chancellor of the Islamic University of
Science and Technology Siddiq Wahid (originally from Ladakh).
Among the politicians from the all-parties team who visited Kashmir, two
made a particularly favourable public impression: the Communist Party
(Marxist)'s Sitaram Yechury and Ram Bilas Paswan. Yechury grasped the nettle
by knocking on hardline leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani's door. Paswan visited
the grieving family of Tufail Ahmad Mattoo, the 17-year-old, whose killing in
June sparked a wave of protests.
As for the Valley's politicians, it would have been eminently wise to
associate people like Yasin Malik and CPM MLA Yusuf Tarigami with the
panel. None of this was done. But let's not focus solely on individuals and
ignore the content of their mandate. A democratic government wrestling with
80 IPRI Factfile
a thorny dispute should have initiated the broadest possible consultation to

generate the contours of a feasible solution. This alone can adequately clarify
the interlocutors' task and enable them to prepare for conciliation. Yet, the
government, in its usual imperial style, consulted nobody - not even those
involved for years in the Track-II and civil society dialogue with Kashmiris,
nor the key individuals engaged in back-channel diplomacy with Pakistan,
which by all accounts had almost yielded fruit by 2007.
Instead, it thoughtlessly nominated three panelists and entrusted them
with "the responsibility of undertaking a sustained dialogue with the people of
J&K to understand their problems and chart a course for the future". Nothing
suggests that the panel will "understand" the "problems" through a few
desultory visits to Kashmir and that it's better placed to suggest a way forward
than dozens of recent civil society initiatives. It's not easy to instil confidence
among Kashmir's widely divergent actors and produce worthy, consensual and
practical solutions. In all probability, key groups in the Valley will boycott the
panel. Kashmir is indeed the burial ground of countless attempts at mediation.
In constituting the interlocutors' panel the way it did, the government is
making two blunders. First, the present team patently lacks New Delhi's
confidence and a mandate to negotiate a deal - unlike the few past instances of
successful reconciliation in Kashmir, like the defusing of the Hazratbal crisis
of 1963 (caused by the alleged theft of a relic of the Holy Prophet) or the
Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdullah accord of 1975. Second, there's no indication
that the Centre intends to treat the Kashmir issue qualitatively differently from
other separatist/insurgency problems like those associated with the Nagas,
Mizos, Bodos and other Northeastern ethnic groups, to whom it has been
talking.
So far only the Mizo problem has been "solved"- mainly through
financial inducements and lucrative offers of office. But this manipulative
strategy hasn't worked with the other ethnic groups. Dragging out talks with
the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isaac-Muivah), while playing off
various ethnic factions against one another, hasn't produced a lasting truce or
agreement on a contiguous state of the Nagas. The Kashmiris won't be fobbed
off with such manipulative negotiations or with flimsy half-solutions. The
Kashmir problem is unlike any other because of its international dimensions
and a long history of alienation of the Valley's population from the Indian
state, which has violated Article 370 of its own constitution. Military
repression of the azaadi movement further aggravated matters after 1989.
Pakistan cynically fished in the troubled waters.
Although the 2006 Assembly elections and the 2009 parliamentary
elections restored a degree of normality in J&K, the Centre failed to use it to
promote conciliation. The outbreak of the stone-pelters' protest this past June
was another ominous warning against New Delhi's complacency - and an
injunction to correct course. But the state substituted the all-party delegation
visit - and now, the interlocutors' team - for strategy.
The interlocutors could spread yet more despair, cynicism and anger in
the Valley, obstructing a real solution. The Centre should go back to basics:
wide consultation, formulation of a broad-framework solution, exploration of
areas of agreement, and a clear mandate for a newly constituted interlocutors'
team which carries authority and political credibility.
Praful Bidwai, Bangladesh Today, October 27, 2010,
http://www.thebangladeshtoday.com/viewpoints.htm
R ECALLING THE B LACK D AY OF K ASHMIR

October 27, each year, is remembered as the Black Day across the length and
breadth of Pakistan and the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir for the reason
that on this inauspicious day the Indian occupational forces landed in Srinagar
that started a chain reaction of events, which has continued to haunt the
subcontinent to this very day.
On this day, in 1947, the festering tragedy of Kashmir was born; an act
of aggression that has consigned the prospects of normalising the Indo-Pak
relations to the realm of perpetual animosity, which has already led to two
wars, in addition to the Kargil skirmishes of 1999.
Even when the partition of India and Pakistan had been formalised and
announced on August 14, the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir - ruled by
Maharaja Hari Singh - remained in a state of limbo. It was one of the 584
princely states, which - with the lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown in
August - had to make the choice of acceding either to India or Pakistan.
Kashmir’s predominantly Muslim population, their contiguity to Pakistan and
the layout of major communication infrastructure made its accession to
Pakistan a natural corollary of the unfolding events. However, given Nehru’s
pathological fixation over Kashmir, strengthened by Lord Mountbatten’s
machinations, this was not to be.
The invasion of Kashmir was on the cards, even as the boundary
between India and Pakistan was being carved out through an award by Sir
Cyril Radcliffe. When the Boundary Award was announced its most
controversial decision dealt with the awarding of the Gurdaspur district to
India, despite its Muslim majority and contiguity to the Pakistani territory. It is
now certain that Nehru by manipulating his intimate contacts with Lord
Mountbatten contrived through the Boundary Award to provide a land route
to India for its ultimate occupation of Kashmir. In an interview with the Daily
Telegraph on February 1992, Radcliffe’s Secretary, Christopher Beaumont,
confirmed that the Boundary Award was manipulated by Mountbatten at the
behest of Nehru. Developing the Gurdaspur access enabled India to
82 IPRI Factfile
effectively link up with the Kashmir Valley through a land route and be able to
support large-scale operations in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Nehru now sought two politico-military objectives: First, to force the Maharaja
to sign an instrument of accession and secondly to wrest Kashmir by force.
The plan envisaged that if the situation threatened to spiral out of control,
legal niceties could be set aside and troop landing could proceed regardless of
other factors. As it was, the landing of the Indian forces in Srinagar on
October 27, 1947, took place without the signing of any instrument of
accession. On that fateful day, the State of Jammu and Kashmir existed in the
same constitutional limbo of insecure independence that it had enjoyed since
the partition of India, following the lapse of the British paramountcy.
As October progressed, the public unrest and communal strife paralysed the
Maharaja’s administration. There was a rebellion in the state forces, which
revolted against Hari Singh’s authority. More so, they were also joined by some
pathan tribesmen voluntarily. The Indians started a propaganda campaign to
un-nerve the Maharaja by projecting this local threat as a systematic invasion
by the tribesmen from Pakistan along the Jhelum Valley Road.
As the situation in Jammu and Kashmir deteriorated, Lord Mountbatten, as
Governor General of India, called a meeting of the Defence Committee to
assess the situation on October 25. The committee, under his chairmanship
decided to immediately send V. P. Menon, along with senior army and air
force commanders to land in Srinagar the same day, reconnoitre the ground
situation and advise the Maharaja to abandon Srinagar for the safety of Jammu
across the Banihal pass.
Mountbatten also ordered the British Commander of the Indian forces
to assemble a fleet of 10 transport aircraft for an airlift operation after 48
hours for landing troops in Srinagar. Menon’s visit of October 25 so unnerved
the Maharaja that he packed all his valuables and left for Jammu by road in the
morning of October 26, without signing any instrument of accession.
Mountbatten chaired another meeting of the Defence Committee on October
26 and ordered the landing of the first battalion of the Sikh regiment in
Srinagar on October 27, even though no evidence exists of any instrument of
accession having been secured thus far. On the same day, at about 0900 hours,
the Sikh regiment was airlifted from Gurgaon and landed at the deserted
Srinagar Airport.
The State of Pakistan, struggling to find its feet in its infancy, was
stunned by the Indian aggression. So on October 27, Quaid-i-Azam asked
General Douglas Gracey, acting Commander in Chief, to send the Pakistani
troops to Kashmir. But the General refused, saying that he would need the
approval of Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, who held supreme command
over the Indian and Pakistani forces.
Auchinleck flew to Lahore on October 28 with the line that sending the
Pakistan army into Kashmir would amount to a formal declaration of war and
that if Pakistan went to war he would withdraw all the British officers serving
in the Pak Army. It was many months after that Pakistan was able to respond
militarily in Kashmir, and when the ceasefire occurred on January 1, 1949, the
Kashmir issue stood internationalised, by no one other than Nehru, who
himself sought to take the matter to the United Nations for resolution and
promised to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.
Thus, in the context of the Indo Pak relations, October 27 truly stands
out as a ‘Black Day’, constituting the tragic benchmark that sealed all prospects
of peace and prosperity in the subcontinent. Such a monumental crime,
however, has extracted from India its price in flesh and blood. Sixty-three
years might have passed since the aggression, yet the Indian Held Kashmir has
known no peace and the demand for Azadi - loud and strong - is making it
impossible for the Indian leadership and its puppets in Kashmir to know any
peace.
Momin Iftikhar, Nation (Islamabad) October 27, 2010,
online/Opinions/Columns/27-Oct-2010/Recalling-the-Black-Day-of-Kashmir
I NTERVIEW WITH S YED A LI S HAH G EELANI

Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Jamaat-e Islami of Jammu and Kashmir is a veteran
Kashmiri politician. Presently, he heads the Tehrik-e Hurriyat-e Jammu Kashmir. He talks
about the Kashmir conflict and its possible solution in this exclusive interview with Yoginder
Sikand
Q: In your writings, and in those of other similar Islamist ideologues,
the Kashmir conflict is often described as a war between Islam and
‘disbelief’. Do you really think it is so? Is it not a political struggle or a
nationalist struggle, actually?
A: The Kashmir dispute is a fall-out of the Partition of India. The Muslim-
majority parts of British India became Pakistan, and the Hindu-majority
regions became the Dominion of India. There were, at that time, some 575
princely states in India under indirect British rule. Lord Mountbatten gave
them the choice of joining either India or Pakistan, and instructed that their
choice must be guided by the religious composition of their populace as well
as by the borders they might share with either India or Pakistan, as the case
might be.
On this basis, almost all the princely states opted for either India or
Pakistan. There were, however, three exceptions to this. Hyderabad, a Hindu-
majority state with a Muslim ruler, opted for independence, but India argued
against this on the grounds that the state had a Hindu majority, and so ordered
the Police Action to incorporate the state into the Indian Dominion.
Junagadh, another Hindu-majority state with a Muslim ruler, opted for
84 IPRI Factfile
Pakistan, but India over-ruled this decision, again on account of the state’s
Hindu majority, and annexed it. If India had adopted the same principle in the
case of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state with a Hindu ruler, there
would have been no conflict over Kashmir. After all, more than 85% of the
population of the state at that time were Muslims; the major rivers in the state
flowed into Pakistan; the state shared a border of over 750 kilometres with
Pakistan; the only motorable road connecting Kashmir with the outside world
throughout the year passed from Srinagar to Rawalpindi; and the majority of
the people of the state had cultural and historical ties with the people of
Pakistan.
However, over-ruling these factors, which would have made Jammu and
Kashmir a natural part of Pakistan, in October 1947 the Indian Army entered
the state in the guise of flushing out the Pathan tribesmen, who had crossed
into Kashmir in the wake of large-scale killings of Muslims in Rajouri and
Poonch. Using this incursion an excuse, Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir,
engineered the intrusion of Indian forces. The British scholar Alistair Lamb
says that the so-called Instrument of Accession that Haris Singh is said to have
signed to join India temporarily was itself fraudulent. He claims that Hari
Singh did not even sign it.
Thereafter, India itself took the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations.
The UN passed some eighteen resolutions related to Kashmir, recognizing the
status of the state as disputed and calling for a resolution of the conflict based
on the will of the people of the state, which the first Indian Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, himself also publicly promised. Now, all that the people of
Jammu and Kashmir are saying is that India should live up to this promise that
it made of holding a plebiscite in accordance with the UN resolutions. So, this
is the basic issue.
Q: So, aren’t you here saying that the conflict is essentially political, and
not specifically religious?
A: For a Muslim, no action is permissible which is against Islam. How can we
say that the sacrifices that the Muslims of Kashmir make, the tortures that they
suffer, and the martyrdom that they meet have nothing to do with Islam, and
that they won’t be rewarded by God for this? In this sense, it is a religious
issue also. Islam teaches that Muslims must follow the guidance of Islam in
every action of theirs—not just in prayers but also in matters such as war and
peace, trade, international relations and so on, because Islam is a complete way
of life. If a true Muslim participates in any struggle, it is for the sake of Islam.
So, how can you say that the Kashmir conflict has nothing to do with religion?
Q: This might be true in theory, but surely many Kashmiris who are
involved in the movement for separation from India might be motivated
by other factors, including for economic and political reasons, or also

due to a commitment to Kashmiri nationalism, as distinct from Islam?
A: I agree that there may be various reasons why different people may
participate in the movement. Yes, there can be many who do not adopt the
guidance of Islam in this regard. They might champion secular democracy and
irreligiousness. Their sacrifices might be motivated by nationalism or ethnicity,
rather than Islam. They might have no problem with the system of governance
in India, their opposition to Indian rule being simply because of the brutalities
of Indian occupation. Of course, one cannot say that all Kashmiri Muslims
think alike. But I am speaking from the point of view of a practicing Muslim,
who accepts Islam as a complete way of life. For such self-conscious Kashmiri
Muslims, it is undoubtedly a religious issue and their sacrifices are for the sake
of the faith.
Q: Maulana Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e Islami, who is a

major source of inspiration for you, opposed the creation of Pakistan.
So, then, why is that that you have consistently been advocating
Kashmir’s union with Pakistan?
A: You are wrong here. Maulana Maududi was not opposed to the creation of
Pakistan and to the ‘two nation’ theory. What he was opposed to was the
practice of the Muslim League leaders, who were leading the movement for
Pakistan. He told them that while they talked of the ‘two-nation’ theory and
Islam, they were not serious about establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan.
They were not preparing the activists of the League for an Islamic state.
Maulana Maududi wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state, and this was the
grounds for his opposition to the Muslim League. But he, like the League,
supported the ‘two-nation’ theory. In fact, the League did not have any
theoretical justification for its ‘two nation’ theory until this was provided by
Maulana Maududi through his copious writings.
Q: But do you really see Indian Hindus and Muslims as two separate
‘nations’? After all, they share so much in common.
A: They are totally separate nations. There is no doubt at all about this.
Muslims believe in just one God, but Hindus believe in crores of gods.
Q: But the Prophet Muhammad, in his treaty with the Jews and other
non-Muslims of Medina, described the denizens of Medina as members
of one nation. The leader of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind and a leading
Deobandi scholar, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, even wrote a book
to argue against the League’s ‘two nation’ theory, stressing a composite
Indian nationalism that embraced all the people of India. So, how can
the Muslims and Hindus of one country be considered separate
‘nations’, even by Islamic standards?
86 IPRI Factfile
A: Islam lays down that in an Islamic system (nizam) all non-Muslims,

including even atheists, will get equality, justice, security of life and property
and freedom of faith. Maulana Madani’s arguments were critiqued by Maulana
Maududi.
Q: In your prison memoirs, Rudad-e Qafas, you write that ‘It is as

difficult for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim society as it is for a fish to
live in a desert’. But how can this be so? After all, the pioneers of Islam
in India and in Kashmir itself, mainly Sufi saints, lived and preached in
a society in which Muslims were a very small minority.
A: I meant to say this in a particular sense. Islam, as I said, is a complete way
of life. No other path is acceptable to God. So, in the absence of an Islamic
polity, it is difficult for Muslims to lead their lives entirely in accordance with
the rules of Islam, which apply to social affairs as much as they do to personal
affairs. For instance, Muslims in Kashmir under Indian rule live in a system
where alcohol, interest and immorality are rife, so how can we lead our lives
completely in accordance with Islam? Of course, Muslim minorities are
Muslims, too, but their duty must be to work to establish an Islamic
dispensation in the lands where they live so that they can lead their lives fully
in accordance with Islam and its laws. Missionary work to spread Islam is as
much of a duty as is praying and giving alms to the poor. Now, as for your
question about those Sufis who lived and worked in societies where Muslims
were in a minority—they may have been pious people, but we take as our only
model the Prophet Muhammad.
Q: But, surely, no one is forced to drink alcohol, deal in interest or act

immorally in Kashmir?
A: True, but these things automatically spread since they are allowed by the
present un-Islamic system. So that is why you see the degeneration of our
culture and values happening on such a large scale.
Q: You mentioned about preaching Islam being a principal duty of all

Muslims. But, surely, for this you need a climate of peace, not of active
hostility, as in Kashmir today?
A: Absolutely. I agree with you entirely. No one can deny this. We need to
have good relations with people of other communities. Only then can we
communicate the message of Islam to them. But if one side continues to
oppress the other and heap injustices and says that this should be considered
as ‘peace’, how can it be accepted? If, for instance, Narendra Modi says that
what happened with the Muslims in Gujarat represents peace, how can anyone
accept it? If India stations lakhs of troops in Kashmir and says this is for
establishing peace, how can it be, because these troops themselves are
disturbing the peace?
Q: You, following other Islamist ideologues, have consistently been

advocating what you call an ‘Islamic state’, seeing this as an
indispensable Islamic duty. To your mind, which is the best functioning
‘Islamic state’ in the world today?
A: The world-wide Muslim community ummah is today in such a sorry state
that there is no Islamic state anywhere in the real sense. Saudi Arabia is
described as an Islamic state, but it is run by a monarchy, and monarchy has
no sanction in Islam. If Muslim countries, including those that claim to be
‘Islamic’, were truly Islamic states they would never have been enslaved to
America, as is the case today. They all support America’s policies and adopt its
dictates. They are completely, on all accounts, dependent on America. They
cannot even defend themselves. They have to rely on America and Europe to
do this. They keep their money in American banks. We say that they should
use their wealth to empower themselves and get out of America’s clutches and
convert themselves into genuine Islamic states.
Q: In the wake of the attacks of 11 September, 2001, how do you see the
impact of American pressure on Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, to
change their position on Islamist movements?
A: The events of September 2001 have caused most Muslim states to change
their policies and to toe America’s line even more closely. You can see this
happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only Muslim country that refuses
to cave under American pressure is Iran.
Q: And now America is seeking an excuse to attack Iran, is it not?

A: Yes. America is trying to stoke Shia-Sunni rivalries in order to undermine
Iran. It is trying all other such weapons, dividing the Muslims on the basis of
sect, nationality, race and ethnicity against each other so as to weaken them.
And the leaders of most Muslim countries are now playing the role of agents
of the USA, be it in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Palestine or as is the case with
the Saudi monarchs. See what’s happening in Waziristan, the Frontier
Province and Baluchistan, in Pakistan. A climate is being deliberately created in
those parts of Pakistan to justify American attacks and bombings in the name
of flushing out militants.
Q: If Pakistan is now so pro-American, acting against its own people,

and if it is not an authentic ‘Islamic state’, then why have you been
advocating Kashmir’s union with it?
A: As I said earlier, the Muslim League claimed that Pakistan was won in the
name of Islam, but it did not give its cadre the necessary training to establish
an Islamic state there. Because of this, the influence of the Army and the
country’s Westernised leadership, Pakistan failed to become an Islamic state.
But it was meant to become such a state, which is something that we want. So,
88 IPRI Factfile
if the people of Jammu and Kashmir were given the right to decide between
India and Pakistan, the majority, I think, would prefer the former.
I admit that there are weaknesses in Pakistan, but these can be
addressed. India has a secular system, which we can under no condition
accept. Because of the oppression that we have been suffering under Indian
rule for the last sixty years, how can we opt for India? In just a few weeks, in
late 1947, some five lakh Muslims were killed by Dogra forces and Hindu
chauvinists in Jammu. In the last seventeen years, over one lakh Kashmiri
Muslims, mainly innocent civilians, have been killed. So many localities have
been burned down, women raped and men rendered missing. After such
brutal experiences, only a blind person would opt in favour of India.
Q: Many Kashmiri Muslims would rather be independent than join

India or Pakistan. Do you agree?
A: The UN resolutions provide for only two options: joining India or Pakistan,
and if this rule is followed then the majority would, I think, opt for Pakistan.
However, if the three parties to the dispute—Pakistan, India and the people of
Jammu and Kashmir—come to a consensus on an independent Jammu and
Kashmir, then, as I have repeatedly said, we will accept that formula also.
Q: In some of your writings you have argued against Kashmir being an

independent state, even claiming that this is an Indian ‘ploy’. Can you
elaborate?
A: This is true. It is an Indian ploy, because India does not want to see
Pakistan strengthened, which it would be if Jammu and Kashmir joins
Pakistan. The slogan of Azadi is aimed at weakening Pakistan. Independence
would result in a territory that would have been a natural part of Pakistan
being taken away from it. But, then, compared to staying with India,
independence is a lesser evil.
Q: Many Kashmiris, seeing the current political and economic troubles

in Pakistan, might say that they would prefer to be independent.
A: If we get independence, we will accept it.
Q: What if most people of Jammu and Kashmir wish to live in a secular

or democratic set-up, and not a Taliban-style ‘Islamic’ state?
A: We don’t want to bring Taliban-type Islam, but the real Islam of the
Quran and the Practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet.
Q: But the Taliban argued that their state was in accordance with the
Quran and the Sunnah.
A: To claim something is different from acting on that claim. For instance,
while Islam makes it a duty for every Muslim male and female to acquire
education, as soon as the Taliban came to power they banned girls’ education.
What they should have done, instead, was to set up separate schools for girls.
So, like this, there are many issues on which we can differ. The Islamic state
that we would like to establish in Jammu and Kashmir would be one based on
the understanding that all of humanity are children of the same primal parents,
Adam and Eve. They will all be treated equally and justly. There shall be no
discrimination based on religion. After all, the Prophet once remarked that all
creatures are of the family of God and that the best is he who treats members
of God’s family—which obviously includes non-Muslims, too—in the best
way.
Q: You advocate Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, but today minority

nationalities in Pakistan, such as the Baluchis and the Sindhis, suffering
under Punjabi domination, are struggling for independence. Might not
the same thing happen to the Kashmiris if the state were to join
Pakistan?
A: We want to join Pakistan, not be absorbed into it. We would have internal
autonomy.
Q: But, surely, despite Pakistan’s claims, the part of Jammu and

Kashmir under its control—‘Azad Kashmir’—lacks real autonomy?
A: Yes, Azad Kashmir cannot be said to be really autonomous since there, too,
everything happens according to the wishes and directions of the Federal
Government. But we would make sure that our autonomy
be written into the Constitution.
Q: Do you see any significant changes in Pakistan’s policies vis-à-vis

Kashmir in recent years, perhaps under American pressure?
A: Yes, considerable changes can be noticed. Earlier, Pakistan used to insist on
the right to self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Musharraf was the first to change this, arguing for a solution outside that of
the UN resolutions, an out-of-the-box solution. This constituted the first
deviation in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Then, Musharraf began talking of
seven zones in Jammu and Kashmir, soft borders and his four-point formula,
which is nothing but a means to preserve the status quo.
Q: How do you respond to media allegations that the Kashmiri

movement for self-determination is ‘anti-Hindu’?
A: How can our struggle be called ‘anti-Hindu’? It is a struggle for certain
principles. In Hindu mythology, when the Kauravas and the Pandavas, cousins
of each other, were arrayed against each other on the battlefield, Arjun turned
to Krishanji Maharaj, and told him that he could not bear to fight his own
brothers. Why, he asked him, was he asking him to fight them? He wanted to
90 IPRI Factfile
refuse to fight. But, then, Krishanji Maharaj said, ‘Arjun, this is a battle for
certain principles. In this, do not consider the fact that those who are opposed
to you are your relatives’. We Kashmiris, too, are engaging in such a battle for
certain principles with the Indian Government, for occupying us against our
will and for not acting on its promise to let us decide our own political future.
It is not a war against Hindus or the people of India. It is not a communal
conflict. In fact, there are many Indians who support our stand on the right to
self-determination.
Q: Then why is it that the Indian media, and large sections of the
Western media, too, present the movement as ‘Islamic extremism’ or
‘terrorism’?
A: The Indian media is bound to support India’s military occupation. How can
you expect it to support our cause? I’ve seen so many massacres by the Indian
Army here, but often the media describes them as ‘encounters’ with ‘militants’.
You know how the agents of the Indian Army engineered the massacre of so
many innocent Sikhs in Chhatisinghpora and falsely attributed this to
‘militants’, in order to convey the misleading message to the then American
President, Bill Clinton, at that time on a visit to India, that our struggle is a
‘communal’ one, and not a freedom movement. I can cite so many more such
cases to prove this point.
Q: But, if that is so, why is it that you and people like you have not
condemned killings by militants in the same way as you condemn
similar crimes by the Indian Army?
A: Wherever such incidents have happened, we have condemned them,
irrespective of the religion of the victims. The Quran clearly states that enmity
with a people should not make one stray from the path of justice, because
justice is closer to piety.
Q: If Jammu and Kashmir becomes independent, how do you envisage

its relations with India and Pakistan?
A: It should have brotherly relations with both countries.
Q: Some radical groups active in Kashmir argue that all Hindus are
‘enemies’ of Islam. What do you feel?
A: No, this is erroneous. There should be no enmity or discrimination with
anyone simply because of his religion, caste, race, colour or country. We are
permitted to fight only those individuals who fight us or place hurdles in the
path of our faith. With others we should have good relations, and that applies
to our relations with ordinary Hindus as well. So, when some people argue that
as a community the Hindus are ‘enemies of Islam’, it is wrong. It is not an
Islamic way of thinking.
Q: Certain militant groups active in Kashmir say that they will not stop
their war with India until India itself is ‘absorbed’ into Pakistan and the
Pakistani flag flies atop Delhi’s Red Fort. What is your opinion?
A: This is emotional talk and should not be paid attention to. We don’t agree
with this argument. Our fight with India is only to the extent that India has
taken away our right to self-determination. Once we win that right we will
have no problem with India. In fact, if by exercising this right the majority of
the people of Jammu and Kashmir say that they want to be with India, we will
also accept that.
Q: But don’t you feel certain radical groups active in Kashmir who
preach hatred against Hindus and call for India’s ‘absorption’ into
Pakistan are actually defaming the religion whose cause they claim to
champion?
A: Islam has been given a bad name more by Muslims themselves and less by
Hindus. Islam has been damaged less by open ‘disbelief’ (kufr) than by hidden
hypocrisy (munafiqat), by people who claim to be Muslims but are really not
so in practice.
Q: So, would you agree that these groups who condemn all Hindus as
‘enemies’ are actually misinterpreting Islam?
A: We cannot take responsibility for what others say. You can ask these people
yourself.
Q: What message do you have for the people of India?

A: I will only say that India should honour its promise to the people of Jammu
and Kashmir to let them decide their own political future. Honouring one’s
promise is a major principle of the Hindu religion. Raja Dasharath, honouring
the promise he made to his wife Kaikeyi, gave his throne to his son Bharat and
ordered Ram Chandraji to go into the forest in exile. Simply in order to keep
his promise he sent his elder son to fourteen years in the forest and gave the
throne to Bharat instead. Bharat was a man of character, and so he placed Ram
Chandraji’s sandals on the throne, believing that his elder brother deserved to
rule. So, the Hindu religion teaches that one should live up to one’s promises,
and if India were to act on the advice of the Hindu scriptures in this regard on
the issue of Kashmir the conflict will easily be solved.
Yoginder Sikand, Counter Currents, October 28, 2010,
http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand281010.htm
K ASHMIR B LACK D AY O BSERVED

October 27 was observed in Pakistan, Azad Jammu Kashmir, Indian Occupied
Kashmir and by the Kashmiri Diaspora across the world as “Black Day” since
92 IPRI Factfile
this the day, Indian troops illegally occupied the Valley of Kashmir,
commenced their massacre of the predominantly Muslim population of
Kashmir and tried to change the demographic dispensation of the Valley. The
Indian Independence Act as well as the Partition Plan of 1947 for the Indian
Subcontinent had declared that accession of the princely states with Hindu
rulers but Muslim subjects or Muslim Rulers with Hindu subjects, would be
decided by the people of the state. The Indians trampled this principle under
the boots of their military. They forcibly occupied Hyderabad, Junagadh and
Kashmir three princely states, to which the principle of accession was to be
applied. Indian government made Maharaja Hari Singh sign the letter of
accession to India at the point of a bayonet. The accession was totally
illegitimate because the Hindu Ruler did not have the authority to sign away
the future of the Kashmiris who were predominantly Muslim; moreover the
accession was obtained under coercion. Many neutral observers opine that
such a letter never even existed. Pakistan tried to upset the balance by sending
its troops to help the Kashmiris get liberated. Pakistan and India went to war
over Kashmir. Seeing the ill-equipped Pakistani forces advance towards
Srinagar, India cried foul and approached the United Nations, who instituted a
cease fire. After deliberations, the UN declared Kashmir as a disputed territory
and passed Resolutions calling for the people of Kashmir to decide their own
fate, whether they would opt to join Pakistan or India through a UN
sponsored plebiscite. India’s prime minister then was Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru,
himself a Kashmiri, who not only accepted the UN Resolutions but promised
to implement them at the earliest. However, he was speaking with a forked
tongue since he not only reneged on his promise but went to the extent of
constitutionally declaring Kashmir as an integral part of India. This act is not
only illegal but illegitimate, since it is in direct contravention of the UN
Resolutions. Pakistan and India went to war twice more in 1965 and 1971, but
the fate of the Kashmiris did not change and they continued to be suppressed
under Indian rule. In 1989, Kashmiris arose enmasse in a freedom struggle, to
throw away the yoke of Indian tyranny and slavery. India retaliated by sending
over seven hundred thousand troops to crush the just struggle. Over one
hundred thousand Kashmiris embraced shahadat, Kashmiri women were
raped, their houses and shops were looted and thousands were incarcerated.
India tried to hoodwink the world by labelling the freedom struggle as an act
of terrorism and falsely implicating Pakistan as harbouring, training and
arming the Kashmiris. Unfortunately the Kashmiris are no nearer the end of
their struggle than they were in 1989. Having sacrificed thousands of precious
lives, they still yearn to see the fruition of their dreams but even the world is
becoming oblivious to their plight. What the world needs to recognize that
Kashmir is the main bone of contention between India and Pakistan, who
since 1998 have declared themselves as nuclear weapons capable states.
Kashmir is a flashpoint, which is on a short fuse which could erupt into a

nuclear war, engulfing not only the region but devastating the whole world.
President Obama, in his prescience had recognized this acute threat
during his presidential election campaign and promised to help resolve the
crisis. However, after taking oath of presidency, Indian lobbyists and
propaganda machinery have made him forget his promise. He will be visiting
India on November 5th and if he is truly a man of conscience, he owes it to
Kashmiris, nay the whole world to save the Kashmiris from their dark and
dank life of slavery as well as avert the danger of world annihilation. Mr.
Obama can spare a thought for Tibet, which is not even a real issue, but he
chooses to be oblivious of the Kashmir issue. The Daily Mail urges the US
President to keep his word on Kashmir, since by resolving it, he would also
expedite the process of the return of peace in Afghanistan too, besides the
Indo-Pak Subcontinent.
Editorial, Daily Mail (Islamabad), October 29, 2010,
I NDIAN I NTRANSIGENCE
Pakistan has warned India that it must bring a positive attitude to the
negotiating table, and must pay attention to the current freedom movement in
Held Kashmir. While addressing a press briefing in Islamabad on Thursday, a
Foreign Office spokesman has said that India was in the habit of blaming
everything on Pakistan’s ISI, such as the Samjhota Express blast. He dared the
Indian authorities to bring forward the perpetrators of the blast and have them
punished. As the investigations into the 2007 blast have shown, the blast was
carried out by RSS extremists. If the RSS does not form the main opposition
in the shape of the BJP, as it does now, it forms the government, as it did
from 1998 to 2004. The RSS has a closer link to the BJP than the rest of what
is called the Sangh Parivar, the loose grouping of Hindu extremist
organisations which have provided the BJP its support base. The RSS, a pre-
Independence group, has always been marked by violence, with the Samjhota
blast being one example, the 2005 Godhra massacres another, not to mention
the recent assassination attempt on Syed Ali Geelani, of its violence. However,
the Indians have not brought to trial even the perpetrators of the Samjhota
Express blast, even though its investigations have been conducted time and
again, and have been most thorough in covering the ground. Though a
Congress-led coalition is in power, it has neither taken steps to bring the RSS
under control or to prosecute the perpetrators of the Samjhota blasts.
So long as the Indian establishment continues to blame the ISI for its own sins
of omission and commission, it will not be able to clean up the mess that is in
that country, nor convince anyone of its claimed secular credentials. This is
94 IPRI Factfile
especially true when it continues to pamper its Hindu extremists, whose

organisations are not placed on the terrorist lists maintained around the world,
particularly by the US State Department and the UN, with Muslim
organisations included on them at the drop of a hat. The Indian establishment,
the rapacious and exploitative body which has its origins not so much in
Hinduism as in its attempts to cause harm to Muslims, must give up its
blinkered insistence on continuing its illegal occupation of Kashmir, and
engage all parties, including Pakistan, in meaningful talks on Kashmir.
Merely blaming the ISI will not stop Kashmir from remaining in an uproar at
being forcibly occupied without the exercise of the right of self-determination.
The sooner New Delhi realises that the best mechanism for this is the UN-
sponsored plebiscite it agreed to, the better.
Editorial, Nation (Islamabad), October 30, 2010,
online/Opinions/Editorials/30-Oct-2010/Indian-intransigence
S EEING K ASHMIR W ITHOUT I NDIAN G LASSES

For too long India misled the international community on Kashmir, claiming
Kashmiris were eager to share in India’s economic prosperity and that Pakistan
was holding them back by infiltrating terrorists to spread mayhem.
Two good things happened that India did not anticipate. It even
welcomed one of those two things not knowing what was coming down the
road.
First, former Pakistani president Musharraf ordered all Pakistan-based
Kashmiri groups to cease support for their kin in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
This he did in 2004 as an exaggerated gesture of goodwill to make new peace
talks with India a success. The Indians dragged the peace talks and rendered
Musharraf’s effort a failure. But they were jubilant nevertheless at this
unilateral concession from Pakistan. What they didn’t know is that something
will happen five years down the road that will set New Delhi’s Kashmir policy
fifty years back.
This is where the second good thing happened. In 2009, slowly the
Kashmiris began coming out on the streets in mass protests. This unnerved
more than half a million Indian soldiers crammed into the tiny occupied
territory. Indian soldiers were used to confronting hardened Kashmiri freedom
fighters. Ordinary Kashmiris provided the fighters all kinds of support but
avoided direct clashes with the Indian military. Thanks to Indian soldiers going
overboard in the organized rape of women as a tool of punishment, June 2009
saw the outpour of Kashmiri anger against the 63-year-old Indian occupation.
It was even bigger than 1989, when Kashmiris began an armed struggle against
the occupation. There were other triggers attributed to Indian arrogance, like
gifting Kashmiri land to build Indian religious temples.
By summer 2010, this turned into what many now call the Kashmir
Intifada, likening it to the Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation.
I remember a time when Pakistanis used to be rebuffed when they tried
to make this comparison. Not anymore. Take a look at the 29 Oct. 2010
Foreign Policy magazine online cover [seen above]. The world is taking note
of the courage of unarmed Kashmiris, men, women and teenagers facing off a
large organized force.
Not just that. The world is also beginning to question why India is
persecuting fair-minded Indians like novelist Arundhati Roy who questions
India’s unnecessary occupation of a land and people who are not Indian and
do not want to be Indian.
See this slideshow prepared by Foreign Policy magazine. It doesn’t
roundly condemn Indian atrocities, not yet at least. But considering the past, it
is three-steps forward for the Am-Brit media, and hopefully the beginning of a
trend that might help reduce Pakistani hostility to American double standards
in the region.
Ahmed Quraishi, International Analyst Network, October 30, 2010,
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3613
R ESOLUTION ON K ASHMIR P ASSED IN STWC C ONFERENCE

IN L ONDON
In London, Stop the War Coalition (STWC), a United Kingdom group has
passed a resolution on Kashmir in its general conference. The resolution,
which was moved by Khaja Aslam, a journalist from Indian occupied
Kashmir, on behalf of Britain/south Asia solidarity forum (BSASF),
condemned the recent killings of over 111 innocent and unarmed young men
and teenagers in the occupied territory.
It maintained that Kashmir was not a dispute of land between India and
Pakistan but was a core political issue concerning to the future of millions of
oppressed Kashmiris who had been deprived of justice since the partition of
Indian sub-content. “The issue of Kashmir is the issue of self-determination
which was guaranteed under successive United Nations Security Council
resolutions. The self-determination of peoples is a basic principle of the
United Nations Charter, which has been reaffirmed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and applied countless times to the settlement of
many international conflicts,” it added.
“Presence of 700,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces without any
moral, political and legal code has made Jammu and Kashmir the heaviest
concentration in human history,” it added. It pointed out that India had put in
96 IPRI Factfile
force draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the
Disturbed Areas Act in occupied Kashmir that gave Indian troops to act with
impunity.
The STWC resolution said that the lingering dispute needed the
immediate attention of the world powers. It emphasised that the time had
come when the world powers especially the US President, Barack Obama, who
is going to visit India next week, should play an effective role in helping to
secure a permanent settlement to the dispute in accordance with the
Kashmiris’ aspirations.
It is to mention here that the STWC was founded in October 2001, one
month after the then US President, George W Bush announced the ‘war on
terror’, and has since been dedicated to ending the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, bringing the troops home and forcing the British and US governments to
change their disastrous foreign policies.
It is for the first time that SWTC has included the Kashmir dispute in its
agenda. In the conference it was decided that in future there would be a full
day discussion on the Kashmir issue to highlight it on international forum.
Kashmir Media Service, October 31, 2010
http://kmsnews.org/news/resolution-kashmir-passed-stwc-conference-london
4500 P EOPLE W ORLDWIDE P ETITION O BAMA T O I NTERVENE

I N K ASHMIR
“The visit to India by President Barack Obama may well prove truly historic if
it begins to move the Kashmir dispute towards a genuine settlement.
India has exploited American statements on US neutrality in the dispute
since the start of the resistance in 1989. Pronouncements to the effect that
India and Pakistan must settle the dispute bilaterally have been taken by Indian
policy-makers as endorsement of their stand. This is why the Kashmir
American Council releases today this petition titled, “Tragic Situation in
Kashmir Demands the Urgent Attention of President Obama”.
The petition has been signed by more than 4,500 people all over the
world so far. And more are coming.
Dr. Fai said that Kashmiri Americans have faith that, under the
leadership of President Obama, the United States policy towards Kashmir will
be shaped not by the relative strategic value to the U.S. of India or Pakistan
but by the principles of a just and durable peace. We also hope that the United
States will not endorse any attempt to ignore the wishes of the people of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir and bypass the expression of those sentiments.
“We, the undersigned, have been deeply moved,” reads the petition, “by
reports of almost the entire population of major towns in Kashmir coming out
in the streets and staging demonstrations (…) We take this massive,
spontaneous, indigenous and peaceful upsurge as an unmistakable expression

of resentment by Kashmiris against the neglect of the human tragedy caused
by the international community’s failure to resolve the dispute.”
Whatever is the level of violence committed by over 700,000 Indian
military and paramilitary forces, the far more important and poignant aspect of
the situation is the acute suffering of the whole population caused by frequent
curfews, disruption of normal life, arrest and detention of innocent civilians by
the occupation authority. This is a situation without precedent in the South
Asian subcontinent.
Far from seeking to rectify its atrocious human rights record, India has
legalized its state-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir. It has given its forces
powers to shoot to kill and the license to abuse the people of Kashmir in
whatever ways they like in order to suppress the popular movement for basic
human rights and human dignity. Words can only cheapen the acute grief and
afflictions experienced by the entire Kashmiri population. Every person has
one or more tales of weeping and sobbing to recount. And their pain is
compounded by the silence and indifference of the international community.
Despite the faint murmur of protest by the international community and an
occasional report in the world press, India has felt no pressure whatsoever to
desist from its genocidal campaign. As long as the international community
allows India to hide its atrocities in Kashmir, there would be no end to the
ever-increasing gross and consist violations of human rights in that
unfortunate land.
If a response to the gravity of the situation is intended, we firmly believe
that the following measures are essential:
This can be done by:
• The immediate and complete cessation of military and
paramilitary actions against the civilian population in Jammu &
Kashmir;
• Withdrawal of the military presence from towns and villages;
• Dismantling of bunkers, watch towers and barricades;
• Releasing of all political prisoners;
• Annulling various special repressive laws; and
• Restoring the rights of peaceful association, assembly and
demonstrations.
We trust that your personal involvement in this matter will bring its
influence to bear on both India and Pakistan to initiate a peace with which the
United Nations as well as the people of Jammu & Kashmir will be associated
so as to ensure that settlement arrived at will be based on the principles of
justice.
98 IPRI Factfile
We also believe that an appointment of a special envoy on Kashmir will

go a long way to hasten the prospect of peace and prosperity in the region of
South Asia.
Ghulam Nabi Fai, PakNationalists, October 31, 2010,
http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/2010/10/31/4500-people-worldwide-petition-
obama-to-intervene-in-kashmir/
S OMETHING FOR THE M EDIA TO T HINK A BOUT

This is the text of the statement issued by writer Arundhati Roy:
A mob of about a hundred people arrived at my house at 11 this
morning (Sunday October 31st 2010.) They broke through the gate and
vandalized property. They shouted slogans against me for my views on
Kashmir, and threatened to teach me a lesson. The OB Vans of NDTV, Times
Now and News 24 were already in place ostensibly to cover the event live. TV
reports say that the mob consisted largely of members of the BJP's Mahila
Morcha (Women's wing). After they left, the police advised us to let them
know if in future we saw any OB vans hanging around the neighborhood
because they said that was an indication that a mob was on its way. In June
this year, after a false report in the papers by Press Trust of India (PTI) two
men on motorcycles tried to stone the windows of my home. They too were
accompanied by TV cameramen.
What is the nature of the agreement between these sections of the
media and mobs and criminals in search of spectacle? Does the media which
positions itself at the ‘scene' in advance have a guarantee that the attacks and
demonstrations will be non-violent? What happens if there is criminal trespass
(as there was today) or even something worse? Does the media then become
accessory to the crime? This question is important, given that some TV
channels and newspapers are in the process of brazenly inciting mob anger
against me. In the race for sensationalism the line between reporting news and
manufacturing news is becoming blurred. So what if a few people have to be
sacrificed at the altar of TRP ratings? The Government has indicated that it
does not intend to go ahead with the charges of sedition against me and the
other speakers at a recent seminar on Azadi for Kashmir. So the task of
punishing me for my views seems to have been taken on by right wing storm
troopers. The Bajrang Dal and the RSS have openly announced that they are
going to “fix” me with all the means at their disposal including filing cases
against me all over the country. The whole country has seen what they are
capable of doing, the extent to which they are capable of going. So, while the
Government is showing a degree of maturity, are sections of the media and
the infrastructure of democracy being rented out to those who believe in mob
justice? I can understand that the BJP's Mahila Morcha is using me to distract
attention from the senior RSS activist Indresh Kumar who has recently been
named in the CBI charge-sheet for the bomb blast in Ajmer Sharif in which
several people were killed and many injured. But why are sections of the
mainstream media doing the same? Is a writer with unpopular views more
dangerous than a suspect in a bomb blast? Or is it a question of ideological
alignment?
Hindu, (Delhi), November 1, 2010,
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article861711.ece
I NDIA B ANS US P ROFESSOR FROM K ASHMIR

Threatens Indian writer with sedition charges
On November 1, 2010, shortly after 5.10 am, Professor Richard Shapiro was
denied entry by the Immigration Authorities in New Delhi. Richard Shapiro is
the Chair and Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at the
California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco. He is also the
life partner/husband of Angana Chatterji, who is the Co-convener of the
International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-
administered Kashmir (IPTK) and also Professor of Anthropology at CIIS.
Richard Shapiro, a US Citizen, has been accompanying Angana
Chatterji, a citizen of India and a permanent resident of the US, to India since
1997, and has travelled here approximately thirty times. His area of work is not
India or Kashmir, but focuses primarily on issues of race, class, gender, and
alliance building in the United States, and discourses on power and
subjectivity. He is not someone who has made India a “career,” but invested in
thinking and learning through the various struggles that Angana has been a
part of across India.
Since July 2006, Richard regularly travelled to Kashmir, and interacted
with various human rights defenders, scholars, youth, to bear witness and learn
from their experiences. He has been conscientious in not violating the
conditions of his tourist visa. He has not participated in formal conferences,
and has not conducted any applied research in Kashmir or in India. He also
helped form a Jewish-Muslim Friendship Circle. Richard Shapiro had written
an op-ed in 2009 and another in September 2010. These were analytical pieces
based on articles and newspaper reports, and not on primary research that had
been conducted by him. Any scholar can do that. This is a matter of academic
freedom, and beyond the control of states and their desire to regulate thinking
on the injustices they perpetrate.
This Monday, Richard Shapiro had travelled a long way from San
Francisco to be with Angana Chatterji, who was traveling to Kashmir for
work, to think and learn. When he first presented his passport to the
Immigration Authorities, he was stamped an entry permit. Then, they started
100 IPRI Factfile
processing Angana Chatterji’s passport. She has been stopped regularly since
the inception of IPTK in April 2008. As they paused over her passport, the
Immigration Officer again asked Richard Shapiro for his passport. Then, he
was informed that he may not enter India, and that the ban was indefinite. The
Immigration Authorities insisted that Richard return immediately. They
stamped “cancelled” on the entry stamp they had provided minutes ago. They
did not stamp “cancel” on his visa. However, Professor Shapiro was not
deported. His visa was not cancelled. The Immigration Authorities refused to
pay for his return airfare. He was made to leave at 11.50 am that same
morning. The Immigration Authorities refused to give any reason, while
stating that Professor Shapiro had not been charged with anything.
While no charges were framed against Professor Shapiro, the persons at
the airport were categorical in stating that he is not to return to India,
impinging on his academic freedom, freedom of movement, and rights to
travel with his legal partner, and visit his family in Kolkata.
The Government of India has initiated various “peace” processes and
confidence building measures without the consent of the Kashmiri people.
With friends like Richard Shapiro, we are able to think and learn together. This
is what is urgently required to build an atmosphere in which Kashmiris are not
isolated from new ideas, other worlds, from the friendship and hospitality
offered by those who seek out a place that has been forsaken by so many. The
ban on Professor Shapiro days before the visit of the US President speaks
volumes to the arrogance of the Indian State. It is ironic too because the
Government of India desires that the US Government grant more visas to
Indians, even as it just evicted a US Citizen without warning or due cause.
The ban on Richard Shapiro also further seeks to intimidate and target
Angana Chatterji and the work of IPTK with Parvez Imroz, Gautam
Navlakha, Zahir-Ud-Din, Mihir Desai, and Khurram Parvez. JKCCS
condemns this ban.
The ban on Richard Shapiro is also a ban on Kashmiris, condemning
them to isolation.
The Indian state has targeted those that have been outspoken on
injustices and military governance in Kashmir. Since 2008, Parvez Imroz and
his family have been attacked in their home. Angana Chatterji and Zahir-Ud-
Din have been charged under Section 505 of the Ranbir Penal Code, with
writing to incite against the Indian State. Last week, Arundhati Roy has been
threatened with charges of sedition. JKCCS condemns the attack on the home
of Arundhati Roy in New Delhi, and the continued targeting of her stand on
Kashmir, and the dangerous role being played by the mainstream Indian media
in inciting violence against her.
These actions speak to the intent of the Indian State as it continues it
impunity rule in Kashmir, with deliberate actions to isolate Kashmiris from the
world and the world from Kashmiris. In the past, several academics and
journalists have been banned from entering India, and numerous Kashmiri
scholars, journalists, and activists have also been banned from leaving Kashmir
to travel abroad.
Kashmir Watch, November 2, 2010,
http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showhumanrights.php?subaction=showfull&id=1288
714276&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&var0news=value0news
I DEA OF US S PECIAL E NVOY FOR K ASHMIR

Twelve US lawmakers have sent a petition to President Barack Obama,urging
him to appoint a special envoy for Kashmir as he did for Afghanistan and
Pakistan. The petition, prepared by the Kashmir-American Council, has been
signed by more than 4,500 people, including prominent Kashmiri leaders,
human rights activists across the world and US and British lawmakers.
The move is significant and meaningful as it comes on the heels of
President Obama’s visit to India and we hope would help sensitize him on the
crucial issue of fundamental rights of Kashmiri people, who are being
trampled by a country that claims to be the biggest democracy in the world
and is dreaming to become permanent member of the UN Security Council. It
is also relevant because even before assumption of power, Obama had
expressed his intention to pay special attention to the resolution of this long-
standing conflict but his plans to appoint a special envoy were scuttled by
Indian lobby and some powerful circles in American bureaucracy. The demand
also shows that there is greater realization among the international community
and especially within the US itself about the need to resolve the issue as per
aspirations of the Kashmiri people. We are confident that it would not be
possible for President Obama to ignore the burning issue during his
forthcoming visit to India, as Kashmiris are writing their history with blood.
According to accounts by the world media and international human rights
organizations, India is guilty of State terrorism in Occupied Kashmir and the
United States that spearheads the campaign against terror must not ignore this
manifestation of the menace.
Editorial, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), November 2, 2010,
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=60086
A ZADI : K ASHMIR ’ S R ALLYING C RY

Kashmir brings out the worst in the Indian state and its mainstream media; but
it is also bringing out the best on some Indian human rights groups,
courageous individuals and other subjugated minorities. Of course, Arundhati
Roy is, perhaps, the most visible symbol of an individual speaking the language
of truth in support of the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination
102 IPRI Factfile
and of suffering as a consequence. It is a shame that our human rights activists

are so silent on the Indian state’s abuse of human rights in Occupied Kashmir.
Lessons on conviction can certainly be learned from Roy!
Her family and home were targeted on Sunday (October 31) morning by
a fanatical mob that broke into her house and threatened to teach her a lesson
because of her views on Kashmir. Interestingly, the media was all in place to
cover this mob terror simply because Roy had stated that Kashmir was never a
part of India and the Indian government had recognised it as a disputed
territory taking it to the UN under Chapter VI of the Charter. According to
Roy, part of the campaign of terror against her was simply to divert attention
away from the debate on Hindu terror that was centres-tage because a senior
RSS activist Indresh Kumar had been named in connection with the Ajmer
Sharif bomb blast.
Clearly, Roy has touched a raw nerve within mainstream India and
exposed the myth of Indian tolerance and democracy on which it harps ad
nauseam. Obama may seek to avoid using the K word on his trip to India –
which has a massive propagandist agenda beginning with the Taj meeting and
statement – and Pakistan may continue to sustain a confused official stance on
Kashmir, but the Kashmiris themselves with their valiant struggle are
beginning to awaken the Indian conscience on their inalienable right to self-
determination. In this process, Pakistan will get sidelined by default as Indian
citizens, especially other dispossessed minorities and human rights activists,
move their state to fulfil the promises made to the Kashmiris by Nehru and
the UNSC resolutions.
In fact, if developments continue in this fashion and Pakistan refuses to
play its due role in supporting the Kashmiris right to self-determination, it will
become irrelevant in the Kashmir equation, as the Kashmiris’ struggle for self-
determination is centred on the call for Azadi. A reflection of this was the
convention on Kashmir that was held in New Delhi, on October 21, with the
straightforward title: Kashmir - Azadi the Only Way. It was organised by the
Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners (CRPP). It was not just the
participants, who were interesting, but the manner in which the issue was
discussed with the underlying premise being that the Kashmiris must be given
their right of self-determination. The repression and duplicity of the Indian
state not just towards the Kashmiris, but also towards its other minorities. The
Final Report is an amazing document – a testament to people committed to
truth and justice. For instance, Najib Mubarki, Assistant Editor of the
Economic Times, talked about how the Indian media misrepresented the
Kashmiri popular movement by claiming that the protests were only by
Muslims demanding a theocratic state. He pointed out that even though the
majority of Kashmiris were Muslims, the people’s struggle was for their
inalienable and legitimate political rights.
Speaker after speaker referred to the present struggle as having opened

up some space for a better understanding by Indians of what the Kashmiri
struggle is all about. And in that struggle the central slogan is all about Azadi –
the powerful rallying cry of the Kashmiri youth leading the present intifada.
The speakers reflected a broad ethnic spectrum from Sujato Bhadra, a
prominent human rights activist from Bengal, to Varavara Rao, a revolutionary
poet who pointed out that Kashmir was taken to the UNSC by the Indian
rulers themselves and even Gandhi had declared that if people wanted to stay
separately they could. He equated the Kashmiri struggle with other anti-
imperialist struggles and pointed out that wherever people were struggling
against oppression by the Indian state, they were also supportive of the
Kashmiri struggle. Dr N. Venuh, Secretary General of the Naga Peoples’
Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR), pointed out how Nagas had been in
talks with the Indian government for the last 13 years and with more than 76
rounds of talks, the Indian state had not moved an inch towards fulfilling any
of its commitments. Har Charanjit Singh, President of Dal Khalsa, opened his
remarks by saying they stood for an Azad Sikh state and expressed solidarity
with the Kashmir resistance. The speakers list ran the gamut of different
oppressed people struggling against Indian imperialism and the repression that
that symbolised.
Arundhati Roy once again showed her fearless commitment to the rights
of the oppressed and began her speech by saying that those who wanted to
throw shoes at her should do so “now”. She repeated her position on Kashmir
and pointed out how militarised the Occupied State had become. Roy
reminded the audience that the British colonialists had also considered Indians
unfit for self-rule or Azadi at one time and now India was using the same
arguments to deny Azadi to the Kashmiri people. Academics like Amit
Bhattacharya, a professor of History, narrated his own experience of
harassment and detention in Occupied Kashmir when he visited there in 2007.
The chief guest at the Convention was Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who also raised
the cry of Azadi as he narrated the oppression and abuse of the Kashmiris –
men women and children – at the hands of the Indian state forces. He referred
to the Five-Point Charter put forward in August which could be the basis for a
dialogue with the Indian state, but first the status of Kashmir as an
international dispute had to be accepted.
The resolution adopted by the convention recognised the right of the
Kashmiris to self-determination and Azadi, and highlighted the oppression by
the Indian government, which had militarily Occupied the State. It called on
the Indian state to:
• Formally admit that Kashmir is an internationally recognised dispute.
• Immediately take steps toward complete demilitarisation of the
region.
104 IPRI Factfile
• Release all political prisoners in Kashmiri and Indian jails.

• Removal of draconian laws like AFSPA, Disturbed Areas Act, etc.
It was interesting to note that despite disturbances by intelligence
agencies and their paid lackeys, the participants patiently continued to
deliberate and speak their minds. That this convention took place in
the heart of the Indian capital is also not without significance and
equally important, Pakistan was not mentioned at all by any of the
speakers, including Syed Ali Geelani. It is apparent that the Kashmiris
have taken the lead now in their struggle for freedom from Indian
Occupation and for Pakistan that is a warning signal that if it
continues to remain confused or ambivalent on Kashmir, it will find
itself sidelined from the main stakeholders. Is this by default or a
deliberate policy of the present government? Either way, the
Kashmiris are moving their struggle ahead on multiple tracks and the
Indian state will have to begin accepting the reality of the Azadi cry.
Where will Pakistan be in this speeded up Kashmir dynamic: right
beside the Kashmiri people or lost in the webs of its self-created
confusion?
Shireen M Mazari, Nation (Islamabad), November 3, 2010,
online/Opinions/Columns/03-Nov-2010/Azadi-Kashmirs-rallying-cry
I NDIA IS AT W AR WITH I NNOCENT K ASHMIRIS
Geelani urges people to march towards Eidgah to build a

memorial wall
Veteran Kashmiri Hurriyat leader in Indian Kashmir Syed Ali Geelani has said
that India is at war with innocent Kashmiris and is using all its resources to
suppress their liberation movement.
According to Kashmir Media Service, Geelani said that even aged
people and children were being booked under the “black law” called the Public
Safety Act (PSA) and youths were being subjected to third degree torture in
various jails. “We would hold marches, rallies and protests against such
atrocities, but the authorities have closed all such doors on us and we are left
with no option but strikes to decry this oppression, he said.
The veteran leader urged the people to march towards Eidgah in
Srinagar on Friday after Juma prayers to build a memorial wall for the civilians
killed in the valley during the past five months. He also called for a complete
shut-down on Saturaday.
Several people were injured when Indian police resorted to brute
force against protesters in Islamabad town of Srinagar. A large number of
people took to the streets in Lal Chowk, Reshi Bazar, Achabal Adda,
Malakhnag, Dangerpora, Mattan Chowk and other areas of the town to protest
against the arrest of youths on fake charges.
Express Tribune (Islamabad), November 25, 2010
A C HRONOLGY OF THE K ASHMIR D ISPUTE

1846: British sold Kashmir to Hindu warlord: The British colonial rulers of
India sold Kashmir, including its population, through a deed of sale to a
Hindu warlord who had no roots in the area. This warlord began calling
himself the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. His was a particularly brutal
regime, memories of which persist to this day. Several mosques were occupied
and shut down by his forces. The slaughtering of a cow was declared a crime
punishable by death.
1846 to 1947: discrimination against the Muslim majority: Maharajah Hari

Singh continued this policy of discrimination against the Kashmiri population,
94 percent of which is Muslim.
1931: Kashmir's first organized protest: The people of Kashmir hold their
first organized protest against Maharajah Hari Singh's cruelty. The 1931
protest led to the "Quit Kashmir" campaign against the Maharajah in 1946,
and eventually to the Azad Kashmir movement which gained momentum a
year later.
March 23, 1940: Pakistan Resolution passed: The Pakistan Resolution is

passed at Iqbal Park, Lahore. The resolution demands the establishment of an
independent state comprised of all regions in which Muslims are the majority.
The letter "K" in the word "Pakistan" represents Kashmir. (The name was
formulated from: P for Punjab, A for the Afghanis of the north-west frontier,
K for Kashmir, S for Sind and Tan denoting Baluchistan.)
July 26, 1946: Azad Kashmir comes into being: The Muslim Conference
adopts the Azad Kashmir Resolution on July 26 1946 calling for the end of
autocratic rule in the region. The resolution also claims for Kashmiris the right
to elect their own constituent assembly.
June 3, 1947: British accept Pakistan plan: The British government

announces its intention of accepting the demand of Muslims for the
independent state of Pakistan. The new nation would be comprised of areas
where Muslims are in the majority. All political parties, including the Muslim
League (representing Muslims) and the Congress Party (mainly representing
Hindus), accept the plan.
106 IPRI Factfile
August 1947: Kashmiri resistance encounters Maharajah's troops: The

first armed encounter between the Maharajah's troops and insurgent forces
occurred in August 1947. At this time, Britain was liquidating its empire in the
subcontinent.
August 14, 1947: Pakistan created: State of Pakistan comes into being with
Muhammad Ali Jinnah as Governor General.
August 15, 1947: India gains independence: State of India comes into being
with Lord Mountbatten as Governor General.
August 1947: Kashmir Ruler Did Not Join India: When the Indian
subcontinent became independent from Britain, all the rulers of the 565
princely states had to decide which of the two new dominions to join, India or
Pakistan. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, whose state was situated between
the two new countries, could not decide which country to join. He was Hindu,
his population was almost all Muslim. He therefore did nothing.
He signed a "standstill" agreement with Pakistan in order that services
such as trade, travel and communication would be uninterrupted. India did not
sign a similar agreement.
October 25, 1947: Popular Revolt Against Maharajah who flees to

Jammu: Faced with a popular revolt against his rule, the Maharajah flees to
Jammu on 25th October 1947. Once in Jammu, the Maharajah received a
commitment of military assistance from the Indian government in exchange
for his signing the "Instrument of Accession" document.
Lord Mountbatten conditionally accepts the document on behalf of the
British Crown and proceeds to outline the conditions for official acceptance in
a letter dated 27th October 1947.
"In consistence with their policy that in the case of any (native) state
where the issue of accession has been subject of dispute, the question of
accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of
the state, it is my government's wish that as soon as law and order have been
restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of state's
accession should be settled by a reference to the people."
November 1, 1947: Kashmir's accession to India is not "bona fide":

Governor General of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah meets Governor
General of India, Mountbatten. Jinnah tells Mountbatten that Kashmir's
accession to India "was not a bona fide one since it rested on fraud and
violence."
November 2, 1947: Kashmiris have a right to determine future: Nehru:

Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, in a speech aired on All-India Radio,
reaffirmed the Indian Government's commitment to the right of the Kashmiri

people to determine their own future through a plebiscite:
"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided
by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharajah has supported it,
not only to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but also to the world. We will
not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law have been
established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the
United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people and we
shall accept their verdict."
The Government of India accepted the "Instrument of accession"
conditionally, promising the people of the state and the world at large that
"accession" would be final only after the wishes of the people of the state were
ascertained upon return of normalcy in the state.
Following this, India moved her forces into Srinagar and a drawn-out
fight between Indian forces and the forces of liberation ensued. The forces of
Azad Kashmir successfully resisted India's armed intervention and liberated
one-third of the State.
January 1948: India brings Kashmir issue to UN Security Council:

Realizing it could not quell the resistance, India brought the issue to the
United Nations Security Council in January 1948. The rebel forces had been
joined by volunteers from Pakistan and India charged Pakistan with having
sent "armed raiders" into the state. It demanded that Pakistan be declared an
aggressor in Kashmir. Furthermore, India demanded that Pakistan stop aiding
freedom fighters, and allowing the transit of tribesmen into the state.
After acceptance of these demands, coupled with the assurance that all
"raiders" were withdrawn, India would allow a plebiscite to be held under
impartial auspices to decide Kashmir's future status.
In reply, Pakistan charged India with maneuvering the Maharajah's
accession through "fraud and violence" and colluding with a "discredited"
ruler in the repression of his people. Pakistan's counter complaint was also
coupled with the proposal of a plebiscite under the supervision and control of
the United Nations to settle the dispute.
April 21, 1948: UN resolution envisages cease-fire, withdrawals: The

Security Council discussed the question from January until April of 1948. It
came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to determine responsibility
for the fighting and futile to blame either side. Since both parties desired that
the question of accession should be decided through an impartial plebiscite,
the council developed proposals based on the common ground between them.
These were embodied in the resolution of 21st April 1948, envisaging a
cease-fire, the withdrawal of all outside forces from the state, and a plebiscite
under the control of an administrator who would be nominated by the
108 IPRI Factfile
Secretary General. For negotiating the details of the plan, the council
constituted a five-member commission known as "United Nations
Commission for India and Pakistan," (UNCIP) to implement the resolution.
After the cease-fire, India began efforts to drag the issue down, and
under various pretexts tried to stop the UN resolution from being
implemented. To this day, India pursues the same plan, and the resolution of
1948 has yet to be realized.
1947 - 48: India, Pakistan at war over Kashmir: India and Pakistan went to
war over Kashmir from 1947-48. All early UN Security Council Resolutions
admonished both countries, demanded an immediate cease-fire, which would
be followed by a UN-directed plebiscite.
January 24, 1957: UN Security Council reaffirms 1948 resolution: The

Security Council, reaffirming its previous resolution, further declared that any
action taken by the Constituent Assembly formed in Kashmir "would not
constitute disposition of the state in accordance with the above principles."
February 5, 1964: India fails to keep her promise: India reneges from her
pledge. The Indian representative tells the Security Council, "I wish to make it
clear on behalf of my government that in no circumstances we can agree to the
holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir." Defense Minister, Krishnan Menon, gives
the reason: "Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and no Indian Government
responsible for agreeing to plebiscite would survive”.
March 1965: India claims Kashmir: The Indian Parliament passes a bill
declaring Kashmir a province of India.
April 1965: Pakistan Defeats India in the Rann of Kutch: A clash between
border patrols erupted into fighting in the Rann of Kutch, a region along the
south-western Indo-Pakistani border. When the Indians retreated after intense
fighting, Pakistan claimed victory.
August 1965: Pakistan accused of sending infiltrators: India accuses

Pakistan of sending infiltrators to Kashmir. Indian forces cross the cease-fire
line in Kashmir.
September 6, 1965: India launches attack against Pakistan: India attacks

Pakistan across the international border and tries to capture Pakistan's second
largest city, Lahore.
September 23, 1965: calls for an end to hostilities: The United Nations
Security Council arranges a cease-fire.
January 10, 1966: Tashkent agreement signed: The Soviet Union arranges
talks between Pakistan and India. The Tashkent Agreement is signed through
the mediating efforts of the Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin. The
agreement reaffirms that the dispute should be settled by peaceful means. The
armies are to withdraw to their original positions.
November 1971: attack against East Pakistan: Taking advantage of

political strife and armed conflict between Pakistan army and East Pakistan's
Awami League, Indian Army attacks East Pakistan.
December 16, 1971-Bangladesh is established: Pakistan's 90,000 soldiers
surrender East Pakistan to India. Bangladesh is declared.
July 2 1972: Simla Agreement signed: The Simla Agreement between

Pakistan and India is signed. Both agree to make efforts toward establishing
durable peace by seeking a solution to existing problems, including "a final
settlement of Jammu and Kashmir."
1987: a new Kashmiri resistance begins: The current uprising of the people
of Kashmir starts out as a protest against inefficiency, electoral fraud,
corruption and religious discrimination.
January 19, 1990: Kashmir brought under Indian control: The Indian
government brings Kashmir under its direct control. The state legislature is
suspended, the government is removed and the former Director General of
the Indian Secret Service, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Mr. Jag Mohan
is appointed governor.
January 20, 1990: hostilities increase: There are large-scale demonstrations

and thirty people are killed by Indian security forces. A curfew is imposed in
most cities.
February 25, 1990: support from civil servants: Government employees

join demonstrations.
February 27, 1990: United Nations not allowed in Kashmir: India refuses
to allow any United Nations official to visit Kashmir.
March 2, 1990: Kashmiris shot during Srinagar march: Forty people are
killed when police open fire at a march of more than one million Kashmiris
through the streets of Srinagar. Police are ordered to shoot at sight.
March 28, 1990: Refugees flee to Pakistan: Refugees start pouring into
Pakistan from occupied Kashmir.
110 IPRI Factfile
April 14, 1990: Indian military reinforcements in Kashmir reaches

700,000: India sends reinforcements to Kashmir bringing the total number to
700,000 Indian military personnel.
July 1990: Jammu and Kashmir Disputed Areas Act passed: Under this
act, India's security forces personnel have extraordinary powers over anyone in
Kashmir.
November 1992-Amnesty International is barred from entering Kashmir

January 1 - 3, 1994: Another failure over Kashmir: Pakistan and India's
foreign secretaries fail to narrow differences on Kashmir. Pakistan rules out
more talks unless India ends alleged human rights violations in Kashmir.
January 9, 1995: India declares occupied Kashmir "backward": India
declares occupied Jammu and Kashmir territory a "backward" state. It offers
tax breaks and concessions to businesses in an attempt to get rid of the
Kashmiri freedom movement.
May 18, 1995: APHC rejects offer for talks on Kashmir with India: The
APHC rejects an offer for talks on Kashmir by New Delhi. The organization
says it will not enter into any dialogue with New Delhi unless India admits
Kashmir is a disputed territory.
July 20, 1995: Journalists' kidnapping in Kashmir a sign of media

clampdown: The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
says the kidnapping of four journalists in Kashmir is only one current example
of a complete clampdown on any independent journalism in the area. In its
report, On the Razor's Edge, the CPJ also notes the Indian government
harasses and intimidates reporters.
November 11, 1995: India launches anti-Pakistan propaganda campaign:

Upset about the media and human rights reports against its campaign of
suppression and repression in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, India launches a
multi-million dollar propaganda campaign against Pakistan. Pakistan is accused
of aiding and abetting "terrorism" in Kashmir using money from the drug
trade.
May 13, 1996: government employees boycott Indian elections: Over 1.5
million government workers assigned to election duty by Indian authorities
strike for 18 days to boycott the electoral process at the call of Jammu and
Kashmir Government Employees Confederation.
June 8, 1996: APHC rejects greater autonomy: The All Party Hurriyat
Conference (APHC), the representative alliance of all Kashmiris, rejects the
Indian government's offer of greater autonomy for occupied Kashmir. The

organization says the problem cannot be resolved by remaining in India.
September 14, 1996: APHC leadership arrested: Prior to elections for the
state assembly, Indian troops arrest the APHC's entire leadership.
September 16, 1996: Sham elections held in Kashmir: Widespread coercion

of voters by the Indian forces takes place during the second phase of the state
assembly elections in occupied Kashmir.
A BBC correspondent, who saw many constituencies, said in some places the
Indian army broadcast messages from mosques telling people to come out to
vote. In other places, people complained they were coerced into voting.
Journalists also reported seeing buses and trucks commanded by the region's
paramilitary forces bringing out reluctant voters.
May 12, 1997: India and Pakistan meet: Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral agree to establish joint
working groups to resolve all outstanding issues between the two countries
since 1947.
July 26, 1997: Indian Prime Minister Gujral warns army: At the beginning
of a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir, India's Prime Minister, Inder
Kumar Gujral, warns Indian soldiers in occupied Kashmir against committing
human rights abuses. He offers to hold unconditional talks with Kashmiri
groups to end seven long years of violence in the region.
July 27, 1997: Gujral does a turnaround: In a turnaround from the previous
day's statement, Indian Prime Minister, Inder Kumar Gujral, says that
Kashmir's freedom fighters would have to surrender their arms before peace
talks with the government could begin.
October 12, 1997: rioting after Jamey Mosque desecration: Angry anti-
India demonstrations are sparked by the desecration of the historic Jamia
Mosque in Srinagar by Indian troops. They besieged the mosque, entered it
wearing their boots and carried out an extensive search for three hours.
February 8, 1998: fear over "Kashaf commandos": The APHC's executive
committee expresses grave concern over the formation of a secret force, the
"Kashaf commandos," by Indian forces. The newly formed force creates
dissension among the Kashmiris and fans the flames of communal violence by
killing members of the Hindu minority in Muslim majority areas and then
blaming the Kashmiris for the actions.
March 19, 1998: Governor confesses India's human rights violations: The
governor of Jammu and Kashmir, KV Krishna Rao, confesses that Indian
112 IPRI Factfile
forces were responsible for massacre of Kashmiri people on several occasions

and that he felt deeply for these human rights violations.
April 22, 1998: appointment of new Kashmir governor: The Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) government appoints Girish Saxena as Governor of Jammu
and Kashmir. The appointment is resented by human rights activists and
intellectuals who demanded a senior politician close to Kashmir be sent as
governor.
May 11, 1998: India explodes nuclear weapons
May 26, 1998: Indian troops and Kashmiris clash: In Indian-occupied
Kashmir, Kashmiri freedom fighters clash with Indian troops in the Keri,
Rajauri area.
May 28, 1998: Pakistan becomes a nuclear power responding to Indian

nuclear test
May 30, 1998: India responds to nuclear testing: In response to Pakistan's

nuclear testing, India warns Islamabad about Kashmir. Indian Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee says while India was ready to talk to Pakistan it should
harbor no ambitions towards capturing Kashmir. Pakistan says it is prepared
to have a non-aggression pact with India on the basis of just settlement of the
Kashmir issue.
August 1, 1998: "massive" joint operations against Kashmiris: India's

Home Minister, L.K. Advani, says more forces are being sent to Indian-
occupied Kashmir for "massive" joint operations. He said this is due to the
fact that the Kashmiris have intensified their efforts in the valley for the last
many months.
August 26, 1998: India bans Britannica CD-ROM: India bans importation
of Encyclopedia Britannica on CD-ROM because it shows Kashmir as a
disputed territory.
August 29, 1998: Nelson Mandela's involvement in Kashmir issue urged:

The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) calls on South African
President, Nelson Mandela, to persuade Pakistani and Indian teams attending a
Non-Aligned Movement meeting to solve the Kashmir issue in a peaceful,
democratic and permanent manner.
May 26, 1999: India launches air strikes against Kashmiri fighters in
Kargil: After three weeks of "intense skirmishes" between India and Pakistan,
India launches air strikes to "flush out" Kashmiri fighters on its side of a
Kashmir cease-fire line. India claims up to 680 "Afghan militants," backed by
Pakistan, have invaded high ridges. Pakistan calls the air strikes "very, very
serious" and puts its troops on high alert. Under pressure from the US,
Pakistani Prime minister uses his influence to persuade Kashmiris to withdraw.
India admits loosing 520 soldiers, although the journalists speculate the real
numbers to be much higher.
June 1999: India bans watching of Pakistan TV
July 1999: Clinton urges India-Pakistan talks: India announces it has taken
the key Tiger Hill peak following an all-out assault. Kashmiri fighters are
reported to be leaving the mountains of Indian-occupied Kashmir as both
Pakistan and India claim victory in the two-month conflict. As fighting in the
territory dies down, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appeals for a
permanent settlement of the Kashmir dispute.
July 8, 1999: India lifts ban on Pakistani newspaper: The Indian

government blocked access to the most liberal & forward looking Pakistani
newspaper Dawn's Website [http://dawn.com] to Internet users in India.
February 2000: Clinton a willing mediator: President Bill Clinton says he

would be happy to mediate between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir
conflict - if asked.
November 2000: call for Muslim nations to cut ties with India: A
Kashmiri leader, Syed Salahuddin, calls on Muslim nations to cut diplomatic
and economic ties with India. At the same time, Kashmiri leaders call on India
to recognize the territory as disputed and to hold talks with Pakistan and
Kashmiri leaders.
July 2001: Agra Summit a failure: Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari
Vajpayee, and Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, meet in Agra, India for a
summit on relations between the two nations. The summit ends with no
conclusive changes or progress. The talks fail to produce a joint statement on
Kashmir.
October 29 2001: UN observer group calls for US mediation: The Chief of

the United Nations Military Observers Group (UNMOGIP) in India and
Pakistan, Major General Herman Loidolt, accuses both countries of playing
''political games'' on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and suggests the US
might have to step in to resolve the issue. India responds, as it always has, by
saying Kashmir is an "internal issue", with no need for third party intervention.
November 19 2001: Ceasefire offer: Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee

announces a unilateral ceasefire offer in Kashmir for the month of Ramadan.
114 IPRI Factfile
November 28 2001: 16 Pakistani soldiers killed: At least 16 Pakistani

soldiers killed and their 14 bunkers destroyed in shelling and firing by Indian
troops along the Line of Control (Loc) in Poonch sector.
December 5 2001: India rejects talks: India rejects a demand from Pakistan
for tripartite talks about Kashmir.
December 13 2001: Attack on Indian Parliament, Kashmiri fighters blamed

Fourteen people are killed in an attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi.
India blames Pakistani-backed Kashmiri fighters. A build up of troops from
both sides along the Indo-Pakistan border follows.
December 27 2001: Thousands flee border areas in Kashmir: Following

intermittent mortar shelling and heavy firing by Indian and Pakistani troops
along the international border (IB), over 3000 people have migrated from
different border villages in Samba and R S Pura areas of Jammu sector.
Pakistani Army troops, who have taken over from Pakistan rangers, continued
their offensive for the second day on Tuesday, the sources said.
May 4 2002: 490 killed in Indian occupied Kashmir: A senior Indian police
officer said that 490 people had been killed in the first four months of this year
in the Kashmir valley, a dramatic increase from 2001
May 14 2002: Attack on Indian army camp: Kashmiri fighters open fire on
an army camp in Indian Kashmir, killing at least 30 people and wounding 40.
Tension between India and Pakistan follows.
May 21 2002: Abdul Ghani Lone murdered: Gunmen open fire on a

meeting of Kashmir's main separatist Hurriyat alliance. Separatist leader Abdul
Ghani Lone is killed.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/ipri/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20In
ternet%20Files/Content.IE5/SX6ZO1IV/Bangladesh%20Center%20For%20Internat
ional%20Studies.htm

Kashmir Struggle Enters New Phase - 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kashmir Struggle Enters New Phase - 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kashmir Struggle Enters New Phase 1

31. Bruce Riedel’s Kashmir Logic 55

November 30, 2010 Noor ul Haq

2 Khalid Iqbal “Kashmir Conflict: The Expanding Ownership”, Daily Mail

K ASHMIR C OMMUNIQUE IN THE W ASHINGTON T IMES

K ILLING F IELDS OF K ASHMIR

AI T AKES S UO M OTU N OTICE OF IHK K ILLINGS

government to make any progress towards a negotiated solution. While both

T HE K ILLING F IELDS OF K ASHMIR

women molestations and gang-rapes. Human rights violations are rampant,

K ASHMIR : THE N EW W AVE OF U PRISING

(d) Kashmir is not only a regional issue in terms of territorial claims

I NDIA F ACES F ULL - BLOWN U PRISING IN IHK

New Delhi paints the street protests as incited by militants or radical

F UMBLING FOR S OLUTION

AN increasing number of Kashmiri youth have been taking to the streets in

Manmohan Singh has called an all-party conference to be held today to find

K ASHMIRIS W ANT TO J OIN P AKISTAN –S TILL !

Genesis of the Conflict

Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession (IOA) document replete

The Plebiscite Conundrum

Elections: Substitute for Plebiscite?

Article 370: Autonomy or Erosion of Rights?

1989: Popular Insurgency or Terrorist movement?

What was Pakistan’s Role?

The Human Toll:

Hearts and Minds

stage when progress on terrorism will be better achieved by conducting talks

W HY S ILENCE OVER K ASHMIR S PEAKS V OLUMES

democracy under attack from Muslim fascism" even as an elected Hindu

P AKISTAN -K ASHMIR C ORRELATION

through Kashmiri territories. Besides, military and economic security linkages

V IGIL BEFORE W HITE H OUSE

determined to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of

T HE P EOPLE OF K ASHMIR MUST BE A LLOWED TO V OTE ON

in Iran. But no colour-coded revolution is heralded in Kashmir by western

S INO -I NDIAN T ENSIONS OVER K ASHMIR

old friendships, such as with Pakistan, with a view to shaping a favourable

I NDIAN O CCUPIED K ASHMIR – A N O PEN P RISON

human rights occurring in Kashmir and in Gaza since perpetrators of crimes

H UMAN R IGHTS V IOLATIONS

shocked. The bottled-up Kashmiris are really an unfortunate people. Their

N EW T URN OF E VENTS IN K ASHMIR

unemployed, and possibly a partial lifting of the notorious Armed Forces

I NDIA ’ S F ESTERING W OUND IN K ASHMIR

IHK: P AKISTAN M UST A CT

If viewed in this context, the plight of the Kashmiris is not much

IHK L EADERS S HUN I NDIAN L AWMAKERS ’ D ELEGATION

K ASHMIR IS B URNING , W ORLD IS S ILENT

terrorism”. And then the intellectual class in India questions Kashmir’s

Intellectual Arrogance Twists the Truth

The Indian Intelligentsia Discusses ‘Kashmir’ Post Independence

‘intellectual arrogance’ in India. There is no life of dignity in Kashmir, and

T HE G EOPOLITICAL T HREAT OF K ASHMIR

leaving Afghanistan will be impossible to keep as Nato will be able to count on

OIC M AY S HOW D EEPER I NTEREST IN IHK

IHK: A TTIQUE S ENSITISES A MERICANS

N O D IALOGUE WITH I NDIA S ANS K ASHMIR

B RUCE R IEDEL ’ S K ASHMIR L OGIC

K ASHMIR C ONFLICT : T HE E XPANDING O WNERSHIP !

addresses by the IOK political leadership to the visiting delegation,

It is unwavering determination of the people of Kashmir that has

‘K ASHMIR IS A N I SSUE BETWEEN T WO N EIGHBOURS ’