Wednesday 30 September 2015

The Crown Princes of Kashmir, Andrew Whitehead

The Crown Princes of Kashmir, Andrew Whitehead
Kashmir dispensed with princely rule two generations and more ago - yet there are plenty of crown princes still at hand. The political order has changed utterly but there's no shortage of aspirants to power whose status has in large part been inherited.

That was brought home to me while reading the new and much talked about book by A.S. Dulat, the former head of the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW).  In Kashmir: the Vajpayee years, Dulat asserts that the 'four likely players for the future in Kashmir are Omar Abdullah, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Mehbooba Mufti , and Sajad Lone. 

You can argue with that, of course. Shouldn't someone from the Geelani-wing of Kashmir's politics be part of the mix? And you could take the view that a former intelligence chief, whose professional life has been about advancing Delhi's cause in Kashmir, is not a disinterested observer.

A.S. Dulat, however, has spent a lot of time talking to Kashmiris of all political hues. His assessment - which he defended at the London launch of his book, where I moderated a discussion between him and Dr Farooq Abdullah - deserves attention. What is particularly striking is that all four of those he names as key players in Kashmir's future are dynastic political figures. Indeed, two of them are third generation political leaders. 

Princes and maharajahs are no longer our masters. Those royal families around the world that continue to rule are, with a handful of exceptions, simply emblems of national identity. And those that have airs and graces but no throne - there are a few - seem as if they are stranded on some Jurassic Park of human governance, living fossils from a bygone era.

Yet the hereditary principle, that political power comes down from father to son (and just occasionally to daughter or son-in-law), or moves within the household from husband to wife, remains evident in dictatorships and democracies alike.  

Sons and daughters of political families should not of course be discouraged from entering public life or disqualified from office. They may well have imbibed a sense of civic duty, and they in any event now require the endorsement of an electorate. But politics is too often a family business and that limits the space for others to make their mark. To put it bluntly, the preponderance of political dynasties constrains the democratic process.

The Indian National Congress, one of the most successful political parties anywhere in the world - the movement which achieved India's independence and has dominated post-independence politics - has cleaved to one family with an allegiance which feels intensely anti-meritocratic. If Rahul Gandhi makes it to the top job, he will be the fourth successive generation of that family to lead the country. The world's biggest democracy is also the most dynastic.

American politics is also more about family than makes political sense. Going as far back as 1989, the only incumbent of the White House other than a Bush or a Clinton is the current one, Barack Obama. And both a Bush and a Clinton are in contention to succeed Obama. There's a real prospect that the only choice American voters will face in next year's Presidential election will be between these rival dynasties.

It's not quite the same in Britain. You have to go back well over 200 years, to the era of the Pitts and the Grenvilles, to find families in which both father and son became prime minister. But of late, a different form of dynasty has resurfaced - not about surname but school tie. David Cameron is the nineteenth British prime minister to have attended the elite and hugely expensive Eton College - his great rival within the Conservative party, Boris Johnson, hopes to be the twentieth.

Part of the issue in Kashmir is the sad and troubling propensity for political violence. Two of Dulat's  four likely brokers of Kashmir's future have taken on the mantle of a murdered father - and as well as the profound personal tragedies here, the distorting of the political process through premature and violent death clearly puts enormous pressure on the next generation to carry forward the father's standard.

That has been evident across South Asia - in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh. When a leader dies violently, the political legacy is championed most keenly within the family. Often wives and daughters have taken on that role. Indeed, one seasoned political observer has suggested that political dynasties have served to give women greater space in public life: 'being part of a clan has helped women break through glass ceilings', says the Berlin-based writer Leonid Bershidsky. 

Across the region, it's difficult to think of women leaders who have achieved success without being related to a male political leader. Mayawati and Mamata Banerjee are the ones that spring to mind as breaking the dynastic mould and making their own way.

On balance, Bershidsky argues, the darker side of dynastic politics outweighs what might be seen as the positives of family rule. 'Wherever there are dynasties, there's less competition for votes. There's nothing wrong with members of prominent political figures wanting to serve the country. But there's nothing wrong, either, with voters rejecting self-perpetuating government.'

India's recent history is full of examples of voters rejecting dynastic leaders as well as embracing them. But the occasional assumption that parties and movements are family fiefdoms, and the confusing of the interests of dynasties and of those they claim to serve, chips away at confidence in the political system.

Democracy is not simply about elections. It is about the principle that those who are not born to position and privilege can aspire to lead and represent their communities as much as anyone else. 
(Andrew Whitehead is a distinguished journalist. He worked with the BBC as correspondent for 35 years and later as Editor of BBC World Service).


UNGA address Nawaz proposes agenda to diffuse tensions with India

 “Cooperation, not confrontation, should define our relationship with India," said Nawaz.
Yet today ceasefire violations along the Line of Control and the Working Boundary are intensifying, causing civilian deaths including women and children, he added.
“I want to use the opportunity today to propose a new peace initiative with India, starting with measures that are the simplest to implement.”
Nawaz suggested that Pakistan and India should formalise and respect the 2003 understanding for a complete ceasefire on the Line of Control in Kashmir.
For this purpose, he called for UNMOGIP’s expansion to monitor the observance of the ceasefire.
Secondly, the premier urged both the countries to reaffirm their resolve that they will not resort to the use of force under any circumstances. He pointed out that this is a central element of the UN Charter.
Nawaz also proposed that steps should be taken to demilitarise Kashmir.
“Pakistan and India should agree to an unconditional mutual withdrawal from Siachen Glacier — the world’s highest battleground,” he said.
Nawaz said an easing of threat perceptions through such peaceful efforts will make it possible for Pakistan and India to agree on a broad range of measures to address the peril posed by offensive and advanced weapons systems.
“Pakistan neither wants to, nor is it engaged in, an arms race in South Asia,” he asserted.
As a responsible nuclear weapon state, Pakistan will continue to support the objectives of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, he added.
Nawaz said South Asia needs strategic stability and this requires serious dialogue to achieve nuclear restraint, conventional balance and conflict resolution.
"Pakistan looks forward to playing its part to build a brighter era of peace and prosperity in South Asia."
Referring to the menace of terrorism, Nawaz emphasised the need to address the underlying causes of the challenge.
He pointed out that Muslims are suffering across the world: Palestinians and Kashmiris oppressed by foreign occupation; persecuted minorities; and the discrimination against Muslim refugees fleeing persecution or war.
Pak-Afghan relations underwent a positive transformation after the advent of the national unity government in Kabul, said Nawaz.
"Pakistan made strenuous efforts to facilitate the process of Afghan reconciliation. Dialogue did open between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, which was an unprecedented first.
"But it was unfortunate that certain developments stalled the process. Thereafter, militant attacks intensified, which we unequivocally condemn," he stressed.
Nawaz said, "Pakistan greatly appreciates China’s proactive role in promoting peace and prosperity in Afghanistan and our region."
"The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, announced during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Pakistan earlier this year will spur regional economic integration and bring prosperity to the entire region and beyond."



The Crown Princes of Kashmir, Andrew Whitehead

The Crown Princes of Kashmir, Andrew Whitehead
Kashmir dispensed with princely rule two generations and more ago - yet there are plenty of crown princes still at hand. The political order has changed utterly but there's no shortage of aspirants to power whose status has in large part been inherited.

That was brought home to me while reading the new and much talked about book by A.S. Dulat, the former head of the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW).  In Kashmir: the Vajpayee years, Dulat asserts that the 'four likely players for the future in Kashmir are Omar Abdullah, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Mehbooba Mufti , and Sajad Lone. 

You can argue with that, of course. Shouldn't someone from the Geelani-wing of Kashmir's politics be part of the mix? And you could take the view that a former intelligence chief, whose professional life has been about advancing Delhi's cause in Kashmir, is not a disinterested observer.

A.S. Dulat, however, has spent a lot of time talking to Kashmiris of all political hues. His assessment - which he defended at the London launch of his book, where I moderated a discussion between him and Dr Farooq Abdullah - deserves attention. What is particularly striking is that all four of those he names as key players in Kashmir's future are dynastic political figures. Indeed, two of them are third generation political leaders. 

Princes and maharajahs are no longer our masters. Those royal families around the world that continue to rule are, with a handful of exceptions, simply emblems of national identity. And those that have airs and graces but no throne - there are a few - seem as if they are stranded on some Jurassic Park of human governance, living fossils from a bygone era.

Yet the hereditary principle, that political power comes down from father to son (and just occasionally to daughter or son-in-law), or moves within the household from husband to wife, remains evident in dictatorships and democracies alike.  

Sons and daughters of political families should not of course be discouraged from entering public life or disqualified from office. They may well have imbibed a sense of civic duty, and they in any event now require the endorsement of an electorate. But politics is too often a family business and that limits the space for others to make their mark. To put it bluntly, the preponderance of political dynasties constrains the democratic process.

The Indian National Congress, one of the most successful political parties anywhere in the world - the movement which achieved India's independence and has dominated post-independence politics - has cleaved to one family with an allegiance which feels intensely anti-meritocratic. If Rahul Gandhi makes it to the top job, he will be the fourth successive generation of that family to lead the country. The world's biggest democracy is also the most dynastic.

American politics is also more about family than makes political sense. Going as far back as 1989, the only incumbent of the White House other than a Bush or a Clinton is the current one, Barack Obama. And both a Bush and a Clinton are in contention to succeed Obama. There's a real prospect that the only choice American voters will face in next year's Presidential election will be between these rival dynasties.

It's not quite the same in Britain. You have to go back well over 200 years, to the era of the Pitts and the Grenvilles, to find families in which both father and son became prime minister. But of late, a different form of dynasty has resurfaced - not about surname but school tie. David Cameron is the nineteenth British prime minister to have attended the elite and hugely expensive Eton College - his great rival within the Conservative party, Boris Johnson, hopes to be the twentieth.

Part of the issue in Kashmir is the sad and troubling propensity for political violence. Two of Dulat's  four likely brokers of Kashmir's future have taken on the mantle of a murdered father - and as well as the profound personal tragedies here, the distorting of the political process through premature and violent death clearly puts enormous pressure on the next generation to carry forward the father's standard.

That has been evident across South Asia - in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh. When a leader dies violently, the political legacy is championed most keenly within the family. Often wives and daughters have taken on that role. Indeed, one seasoned political observer has suggested that political dynasties have served to give women greater space in public life: 'being part of a clan has helped women break through glass ceilings', says the Berlin-based writer Leonid Bershidsky. 

Across the region, it's difficult to think of women leaders who have achieved success without being related to a male political leader. Mayawati and Mamata Banerjee are the ones that spring to mind as breaking the dynastic mould and making their own way.

On balance, Bershidsky argues, the darker side of dynastic politics outweighs what might be seen as the positives of family rule. 'Wherever there are dynasties, there's less competition for votes. There's nothing wrong with members of prominent political figures wanting to serve the country. But there's nothing wrong, either, with voters rejecting self-perpetuating government.'

India's recent history is full of examples of voters rejecting dynastic leaders as well as embracing them. But the occasional assumption that parties and movements are family fiefdoms, and the confusing of the interests of dynasties and of those they claim to serve, chips away at confidence in the political system.

Democracy is not simply about elections. It is about the principle that those who are not born to position and privilege can aspire to lead and represent their communities as much as anyone else. 
(Andrew Whitehead is a distinguished journalist. He worked with the BBC as correspondent for 35 years and later as Editor of BBC World Service).


Saturday 26 September 2015

GILGIT BALTISTAN NEW MOVE ADDS TO CONFUSION OVER GB'S STATUS

GILGIT BALTISTAN NEW MOVE ADDS TO CONFUSION OVER GB'S STATUS
Published September 26, 2015 | By Mir
GIGLIT: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif the other day visited Attabad and inaugurated the realigned 24 kilometers portion of the Karakorum Highway (KKH), including three tunnels of seven kms and three bridges. The artificial lake at Attabad was formed during the 2010 flooding when a portion of the overlooking mountain slipped into a village killing 22 people and blocking the river.
About 30,000 people living upstream the Hunza river remained stranded and faced hardship incommunicating to and from other parts of the region. The lake submerged the portion of the KKH. Another aspect of the matter is that the promises to rehabilitate the displaced people from the artificial lake has not been fulfilled through the government of Pakistan in coordination with China rebuilt an alternative road to restore trade on the KKH at a cost of about 27 billion rupees and Nawaz Sharif termed the project a gift to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.
During the visit of the prime minister to Gilgit-Baltistan, he also met the members of the legislative assembly. Later after his departure, Chief Minister Gilgit-Baltistan Hafeez Hafizur Rehman in a briefing about the demands put forward to Mr Nawaz Sharif told local media persons that the prime minister announced Rs6 billion for the construction of the Hunzal powerhouse, Rs2 billion for Kargah and Naltar roads and Rs2 billion for the establishment of a special force for the security of passengers on the KKH. He also said that Rs450 million would also be provided to the Gilgit-Baltistan government for the construction of a tourist resort near Attabad. Besides, he added, the reconstruction of the Gilgit-Skardu road would be started in three months and till that time the NHA had been directed to carry out a repair and patchwork on the busy road to facilitate the commuters.
The prime minister also announced to provide Rs3.5 billion for the construction of a cardiac institute in the Gilgit city, besides hinting at the establishment of another university in Gilgit-Baltistan. Political observers are, however, of the view that for the last 67 years the federal government has been treating Gilgit-Baltistan as a stepmother. Let alone political or constitutional powers, Islamabad has always been hesitant in releasing the meager budget allocated to the region every year. The usual mindset of the PML-N has always been clear: it is never ready to give political or financial powers but as compared to other parties is always ready to allocate funds for the infrastructure development especially for the construction of roads and bridges and complete such projects on time.
This time around the ruling party has also promised to launch a number of projects to generate electricity in Gilgit-Baltistan and the local people should take advantage of this to resolve the perpetual power crisis in the region. The projects announced in the power and road infrastructure sector would be highly beneficial for Gilgit-Baltistan but the need of the hour is that chief minister Hafeez should himself supervise the projects and ensure their quality and timely completion. Besides, the contracts of the projects should not be given to those contractors who in the past embezzled the public funds and left the projects midway and disappeared.
The people of Gilgit-Baltistan welcome the initiatives to launch the project but it is also ironic that the prime minister did not mince a word for the basic rights of two million people which have been denied to them for over six decades. During one of his earlier visits to Gilgit-Baltistan, he had announced that a committee would be constituted under the chairmanship of Sartaj Aziz to present to the government proposals to give constitutionals rights to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. But it is strange that the committee was abolished even before its constitution. This shows that the people of Gilgit-Baltistan would not be getting their denied constitutional and political rights during the current tenure of the PML-N.
But Islamabad should understand the fact very well that due to lack of the political and constitutional powers, the sense of deprivation is increasing among the people of the region. If the prime minister is sincere in his claim that he loves the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, he should ensure that they got their due rights which have been denied to them so far. The people of the region have fed up with false promises and want a real turnaround in their life that should be emancipation from the yoke of slavery.__Bang-e-Sahar



Friday 25 September 2015

Pakistan’s attempt to raise Kashmir bogey at UN and OIC would be futile: Husain Haqqani

Pakistan’s attempt to raise Kashmir bogey at UN and OIC would be futile: Husain Haqqani
Naveen Kapoor
Washington D.C., Sept. 21 (ANI): Pakistan's former envoy to the United States, Husain Haqqani, on Monday said that Islamabad's attempt to raise the Kashmir bogey at meetings of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and at the United Nations in New York would be an exercise in futility.
He said that both New Delhi and Islamabad should first try to become good neighbours before discussing issues of dispute.
Speaking to ANI, Haqqani also said that hardline Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani's presence at the OIC meeting would be inconsequential in terms of the Kashmir issue.
"OIC is not a substantive body in any sense, people will talk there. Mr. Geelani is welcome to talk there, but I don't think that will internationalise the Kashmir issue. I think it is best for Pakistan and India build good relations and go ahead with trade, go ahead with travel and become good neighbours, and then, start discussing the disputed issues," Haqqani told ANI.
"Bringing Mr. Geelani to the OIC is not going to really change much, it will only become headline in Pakistani media, and maybe, in the Indian media," he added.
The former Pakistani envoy further said that Islamabad's attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue has not served his country well. He said that Pakistan should instead focus on its internal development.
"I think that the attempt to try and make Kashmir an international issue, just as it was in the 1950s is definitely an integral part of the policy in my country, and I think, it has not served my country well. Pakistan will do much better by focusing on developing its economy, ensuring internal security, not becoming a nation that is criticised by so many countries led by India, but not only by India," he said.


Pakistan support to Kashmir militancy 'un-Islamic', says Tahir ul Qadri

Pakistan support to Kashmir militancy 'un-Islamic', says Tahir ul Qadri
“Speaking in an interview with journalist Saleem Safi on Geo TV, the Minhaj-ul-Quran leader said one country has no right to launch an armed struggle in another country,” Arab News reported.
Pakistani cleric and politician Tahir-ul-Qadri has said that it was “wrong” on part of Pakistanis to take part in militant struggle in Kashmir, a media report said.
“Speaking in an interview with journalist Saleem Safi on Geo TV, the Minhaj-ul-Quran leader said one country has no right to launch an armed struggle in another country,” Arab News reported.
Qadri also said that Islam doesn’t approve of any such campaign. 
“Asked if the Pakistanis who are taking part in Kashmir’s “freedom struggle” are wrong, Qadri said it is wrong to take part in attacks in a foreign territory,” it added. 
He cited the example of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who, he said, never gave permission to his companions to exact revenge from Islam’s enemies in that manner.
“There should be efforts at the diplomatic level to highlight Kashmiris’ rights and aspirations,” he said.


Wednesday 23 September 2015

Kashmiri politics of balance, presentation made by Dr Shabir Choudhry in a Seminar in Geneva on 22 September 2015

Kashmiri politics of balance, presentation made by Dr Shabir Choudhry in a Seminar in Geneva on 22 September 2015
The seminar was arranged by African Development Association during the UN Human Rights 30th session in room 27 at 5pm.

In name of Almighty I begin.
Mr Chairman, friends and colleagues, aslamo alaikam and very good afternoon to all of you.

The former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly occupied by three nuclear powers, namely India, Pakistan and China. Unlike India and Pakistan, China does not claim the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir; but has economic and strategic ambitions to occupy more of Kashmiri territories in Ladakh and in Gilgit Baltistan.

Some experts of the region think China Pakistan Economic Corridor is designed to massively increase the influence of China in South Asia; and especially on issues related to Kashmir dispute. If CPEC is completed as planned, then it will strengthen role of China, and they will have a strong foothold in Gilgit Baltistan making China the fourth party to the Kashmir dispute, which will further complicate the Kashmir dispute and will surely make any solution extremely difficult.

I know some people won’t like what I am going to say, but I believe I have to say what truth is, rather than say what is liked by people. I believe people of Jammu and Kashmir are a divided lot. They were divided when important decisions regarding future of Jammu and Kashmir were being discussed in 1947; and they are deeply divided now on religious, ethnic and regional lines.

I want to add that they are confused as well. They are good at shouting slogans and making allegations, but they still don’t know what they want. They are not sure if they want independence, preserve their own identity and culture, and be masters of their own homeland. It is disappointing to note that some are more loyal to Kashmir’s neighbours without realising that Our neighbours have imperial designs on our homeland.

Some Kashmiris are so confused or have misplaced loyalty that they wave flags of India or Pakistan, and express loyalty to them rather than expressing loyalty to their motherland. Some go further and wave flags of ISIS, a terrorist group which kill people in name of Islam. These unwise acts of people of Jammu and Kashmir give wrong signals to the international community and further complicate the Kashmir dispute.

Mr Chairman
Kashmiri politics of balance
As soon as one exposes wrong doings of Pakistan on Kashmir dispute, some Kashmiris get disturbed and they protest why don’t you balance your argument by stating what India is doing in ‘occupied Kashmir’? To them only that part of Jammu and Kashmir is occupied which is under Indian control; however, to true nationalists the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is occupied, and people suffer on all side of the divided State.

When you tell them that Indian position on Kashmir dispute is known to the world; and human rights abuses are also very well documented by local media, human rights organisation, Indian media and Indian human rights organisation. Apart from that Pakistan has many political groups, human rights groups, propaganda groups and official departments to monitor and compile every wrong doing in Jammu and Kashmir, and broadcast it with their own spin. These pro Pakistan activists assert that still more needs to be done to expose India and make them defensive.

If you say we also need to expose Pakistani wrong doings in Gilgit Baltistan and in so called Azad Kashmir. They say, Pakistanis are Muslim brothers and we can resolve issues with Pakistan once we expel India from Jammu and Kashmir. To us Kashmir dispute is not a religious in nature. It is a political and dispute which requires a political solution. Use of gun and use of religion to resolve the Kashmir dispute will only exacerbate situation; and will result in more violence and extremism.

Aim of these pro Pakistan people and their sponsors is to divert attention away from wrong doings of Pakistan; and give the Kashmiri independence struggle a religious flavour to confuse the world community.

Even if the topic under discussion is upraising of the Mangla Dam, these people expect the speakers use foul language against India; and after some India bashing, apologetically complain about wrong doings of Pakistan.

Furthermore, if Syed Ali Gilani and other Valley based leaders only speak about the problems of the Valley of Kashmir, and totally ignore problems of Ladakh, Jammu, Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir, they are promoted as patriotic leaders of Jammu and Kashmir State. If we talk about fundamental rights of all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir State, questions are asked about our loyalty and commitment. Why this double standard? Stop treating us like a second class Kashmiris. We are also citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir with equal rights, and our own dignity and honour.

Mr Chairman
Now let me briefly balance by giving facts, as to which country has done what to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Yes, I agree India is also guilty of human violations in Kashmir. Where India is guilty, do criticise and oppose India and condemn human rights abuses; however, where Pakistan is wrong, don’t she away, be brave and sincere to your struggle and country, and oppose, criticise and condemn Pakistani wrong doings in State of Jammu and Kashmir.

After lapse of the British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir regained its independence on 15 August 1947. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir concluded a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. Pakistani love and care for the people of Jammu and Kashmir could be established from the following bitter facts:

1. Pakistan was the first country to violate a written agreement with Jammu and Kashmir;

2. Pakistan was the first country to attack Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October 1947 in name of Jihad, which continues to date;

3. Pakistanis were the first to kill innocent unarmed citizens of Jammu and Kashmir after their unprovoked aggression on Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October 1947;

4. Pakistanis were the first to rape innocent Kashmiri women after 22 October 1947;

5. Pakistanis were the first to kidnap innocent Kashmiri women and sell them in various cities of Pakistan;

6. India was the second country to send troops in Jammu and Kashmir, but only after the Provisional Accession. India had obligation to save Jammu and Kashmir, save lives of people and their liberty. It is sad to note that India failed on all three accounts;

7. Pakistan was the first country to take initiative to deprive people of Jammu and Kashmir of their inherent right to independence; and to make the Kashmir a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan;

8. After the forced division of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan was the first country to start the second phase of aggression against people of so called Azad Kashmir in Poonch in early 1950s, and which is known as the Poonch rebellion; and killed Azad Kashmiri people who opposed the Pakistani occupation;

9. Pakistan was the first country to forcibly separate people of so called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan and ruled them with iron fist;

10. Pakistan was the first country to gift around 2000 square miles of Jammu and Kashmir territory from Gilgit Baltistan to China in 1963;

11. Pakistan was the first country to initiate another attack on Jammu and Kashmir in 1965 which resulted in death and destruction; and India Pakistan war;
12. Pakistan was the first country to start another round of Jihad in Jammu and Kashmir by sending fully trained militants in 1989, and which continues to date with disastrous results for the people of Jammu and Kashmir;

13. True, India reacted too harshly to combat this phase of imposed Jihad or a proxy war, and tens of thousands of innocent people lost their lives.

14. It is also true that many people were killed as a result of intra group fighting, cross firings, continued LOC shelling, fighting between extremist groups and secular groups and personal revenge.

15. Pakistan is the first country to arrest people of Jammu and Kashmir State with sedition charges, fully knowing that they are not Pakistanis; and article 257 of Constitution of Pakistan also recognises this fact.

I hope this ‘balance sheet’, using the accounts terminology, has explained which country has done what to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Also I hope that it will provide a different perspective on Kashmir dispute; and will help people to understand the real culprit on the Kashmir dispute.

Mr Chairman, if there are any questions from the audience I am willing to take them.
Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com






Tuesday 22 September 2015

Kashmir Reeling Under a Terrorist Initiated Gang War

NEW DELHI: A pall of fear and gloom has enveloped the Kashmir Valley due to the spate of killings of local terrorists under mysterious circumstances. The blame is, invariably, being placed on the security forces but the facts, as they are emerging, point towards the killing being an offshoot of a violent gang war that has erupted between the Hizbul Mujahedeen (HM) and its splinter group the Lashkar-e-Islam (LeI). 
The uncertainty is eating into the people since it is their kith and kin who are being killed. The people are now desperate since the very organisations that were responsible for taking their sons on to the misconceived path of terrorism have now become their killers. The hapless boys who were, in any case, facing grave danger from the security forces are now being targeted from within also. Due to this twin threat there is palpable fear that the boys are now marked for elimination more so than ever before.
The bullet-ridden body of a Kashmir youth, Fayaz Ahmed Bhat, has been retrieved in the Tangmarg area of North Kashmir on Saturday, 19, September. Syed Sallahuddin the Pakistan based Chief of Hizbul Mujahedeen (HM) has not wasted a moment in acknowledging that the terrorist belongs to his cadre and has been killed by the security forces. The security forces have, however, not claimed to have killed the terrorist.
The security forces have no reason to not acknowledge killing of terrorists. Here is every reason to believe that there is more to the incidents then meets the eye. All indications point directly towards the gang war.
On Friday, 18 September, a former terrorist, Bashir Ahmed Bhat and his three-year-old son were shot by unidentified terrorist at their residence in Sopore, Kashmir. Bhat had been a part of the Jamait-ul- Mujahedeen, a splinter group of the HM. He had quit militancy after serving a prison. He died on the spot while his son died in hospital.
Such is the level of the prevailing uncertainty that even the police is unsure about the identity of the assailants. They cannot say for sure whether the attack was carried out by the HM or the LeI.
It may be recalled that in the beginning of September, a few weeks from now, bullet ridden bodies of three terrorists were discovered under similar conditions at Pattan. At that time also the HM claimed the dead persons as its cadre and the killing was attributed to the security forces.
Quite mysteriously, the separatist protests took some time to get going. Later, it so emerged, that the terrorist were a part of the breakaway group of LeI, whose existence the HM is refusing to acknowledge. It was also inferred strongly that the killing was done by the HM in order to teach a lesson to the LeI.
The situation among the locals at that stage took a very unusual turn. The people, even after getting to know that the killing was a handiwork of the HM did not stop protesting. They did not say it out loudly due to  fear of their lives, but by continuing to protest, they collectively implied the fear and frustration that the internecine gang war between the two factions is causing to them and in which the blood of Kashmiri youth is being spilled.
The obvious reason behind the unusual turn of events is the break away from HM of Abdul Qayoom Najar, Sallahudin’s oldest and most trusted commander in Kashmir. Najar was expelled from the HM for “the murdering of innocent persons; indulgence in character assassination of Hurriyat leaders (Geelani) and attacks on the telecommunication set-up in the Valley.”
The fact of the matter is that Najar had, for long, aspired to be the top commander on ground, a position that is invariably held by a terrorist of Pakistani origin. He also demanded more money, weapons and most importantly ammunition to run his operations which the United Jihad Council (UJC) was unable to provide. It is also being said that he had sent to the UJC a list of separatist leader who, he felt, had sold out the cause and recommended their elimination. Since his demands went unheeded he broke away and created his own establishment with a minimum of twenty terrorists, all from the HM.
Sallahuddin, who is already on a shaky wicket due to depleted strength in the valley and not much coming as aid within Pakistan, is now desperate. He knows that he has to eliminate the challenge being posed by Najar but he cannot do so without inviting the ire of the Kashmiri people for getting the locals killed. By putting the blame on the security forces he is trying to spread a veil of misinformation while going about his evil designs.
Najar is an experienced commander who has survived this long due to his intelligence and tenacity. He will not allow Sallahuddin to ride roughshod over him. By killing Fayaz Ahmed Bhat, he has sent a message that the Lei I continues to be a potent force that will retaliated with all the force and brutality in its power.
The local populace is now reeling under the uncertainty that the situation is unfolding. There is fear that even innocents and family members may be targeted as the gang war attains higher levels of violence.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir has to take firm action to assuage the fears of the people. It has to expose to the people the self centered attitude of the terrorist leadership as is evident from the manner in which it is using the junior cadre as cannon fodder to maintain their own dominant positions and ambition. The security threshold needs to be enhanced to ensure that innocents are not harmed by this wicked business. More than anything else it is time to initiate a strong campaign to ensure no more youth are drawn on to this evil and self destructive path of terrorism.


Friday 18 September 2015

Presentation made by Dr Shabir Choudhry in a Seminar during the UN Human Rights 30th session in Geneva

Presentation made by Dr Shabir Choudhry in a Seminar during the UN Human Rights 30th session in Geneva
The seminar was arranged by Association Dunenyo ECOSOC on 17 September 2015, Room 27 at 3pm

In name of Almighty I begin. Mr Chairman, friends and colleagues, aslamo alaikam and very afternoon to all of you.

Before I make my presentation, I would like to make brief comments on the speeches made before me.

I agree with honourable guests that territories of Jammu and Kashmir under the Pakistani occupation are not legally part of Pakistan; and that no Pakistani laws, be it Anti Terrorism Act, Pakistan Protection Ordinance, National Action Plan or any other laws are applicable to Pakistani Occupied Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.

I further agree that the Pakistani establishment still has policy of a good Taliban and a bad Taliban; or a good terrorist and a bad terrorist. Those militants who are willing to fight India or do ‘Pakistani sponsored jihad’ in Jammu and Kashmir are respectfully cared and generously rewarded. However, those militants who have developed religious or ideological differences with Pakistan; and have started their ‘jihad’ against Pakistan are targeted, and killed by use of jet fighters, artillery and torture.

I agree with honourable speaker from Gilgit Baltistan, Mr Senge Hasnan Sering that people of Gilgit Baltistan are facing injustice and oppression; and it is sad to hear about alarming incidents of rapes in Gilgit Baltistan. However, I would like to add that many of problems are there because Gilgit Baltistan is occupied by Islamabad; and their imperialist policies are hurting people. Pakistani government violated State Subject Law and allowed tens of thousands of Pakistanis to settle in Gilgit Baltistan.

These Pakistani migrants have not only changed demography of Gilgit Baltistan and control the local economy; but they also have brought their bad habits of hatred, intolerance and sectarianism, which has resulted in violence and alarming increase in the crime rate in the region. My family members have served in this area and they witnessed that these areas were very peaceful, and in some areas had completely no law and order issues and crime rate virtually none existent.
Mr Chairman
Pakistan can only give us what they have; and what they have is not what we want. It is unfortunate to note that the Pakistani society is a rotten society plagued with all sorts of ills. You can call me what you like, but I for one don’t want to be part of this society, which promotes hatred, intolerance, regionalism, sectarianism, xenophobia, injustice, oppression, systematic killing of ethnic and religious minorities.

Just look at what happened in a city called Kasoor in Pakistan, where hundreds of innocent children were systematically raped and videos of their ordeal were made to blackmail them and their families. If they can do this to their own kids, it should not surprise us if rapes have taken place in Gilgit Baltistan and videos were made of suffering women.

Before I talk of territory where I live, known as Azad Kashmir, I want to give you example of Pakistani democracy. Pakistan was established in 1947, but first elections on basis of one man one vote took place in 1970. The military dictator of the time, General Yahya Khan promulgated a Legal Framework Order after receiving intelligence reports from Inter Services Intelligence, Militancy Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau that no political party was in a position to win a majority and that it will be a hung parliament.

According to the LFO the new elected National Assembly had to prepare a new constitution for Pakistan within 120 days. The Military dictator was assured that no party will have a majority; and as a result there was no possibility of them agreeing on a constitution. The LFO said: ‘The Constitution was to be framed within 120 days otherwise the National Assembly would stand dissolved.’ 1

What that meant was a new elections and the military rule would continue. In order to ensure that his rule continues, General Yahya added in the LFO that if the elected Parliament agreed on a Constitution within 120 days, still he had the power ‘to authenticate, amend, or reject the Constitution promulgated by the National Assembly’. 2

This shows that in Pakistani democracy the men in uniform are law in their own right, and they have a power to amend or reject law and constitution which is passed by the elected parliament. This is the attitude of men in power in Pakistan to democracy, rule of law and human rights.
Mr Chairman
Right of expression is a fundamental human right, and no human society can progress or flourish without these essential rights. In Azad Kashmir, a territory of Jammu and Kashmir State occupied by Pakistan, right of expression is suffocated by puppets of Islamabad. They have banned many books which promote Kashmiri identity and explain true history of Jammu and Kashmir that has been very seriously distorted by those who occupy us.

Among these banned books include my book, ‘Why Arif Shahid was killed’? The man who composed my book, Mr Talat Mahmood Ansari was arrested by police under draconian laws like Anti Terrorism Act and Pakistan Protection Ordinance. Because of the police actions environment of fear and intimidation was prevailing, and some lawyers refused to take up the cases of Talat Ansari and the publisher Muhamamd Rafiq Khawaja who was running around to get a pre arrest bail.

After a lot of effort Talat Ansari got a bail against FIR of Thothal Police Station ( Mirpur), but before he could get out he was arrested by the City Police Station under the same charge that he has committed an offence of ‘terrorism’ by composing this book. The poor guy was an employee of Kashar Publishers and was paid only £50 per month.

If the authorities could do this to the man who composed my book, just imagine what they would have done to me if I was arrested there.

Apart from that, three shops of the Publisher Muhammad Rafiq Khawaja were illegally closed. Book sellers in Azad Kashmir are directed not to store or sell any book written by Dr Shabir Choudhry. I am author of more than 50 books and booklets on Kashmir and India Pakistan relations; and have consistently opposed and fought against violence, terrorism, extremism, hatred and religious intolerance.

How sad that my books have become target of Pakistani establishment on the allegations that I was promoting hatred and terrorism. How sad that people of so called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are charged with anti state and sedition. All our activities and efforts are pro Kashmir and pro peace. We are not Pakistanis and Pakistani laws are not applicable to us. We don’t have to be loyal to those who occupy us and oppress us.
Mr Chairman
What Pakistan and their puppets are doing in Azad Kashmir is against the Pakistan constitution. It is also against obligations Pakistan has under the UN Resolutions on Kashmir. It is against International law. It is against Human Rights covenants. Moreover, it is against Islamic law; and Pakistan claims to be an Islamic country.

Mr Chairman and friends and colleagues, an appropriate action is necessary to help and support fundamental rights for people of Jammu and Kashmir State.
References:
1/ East Pakistan - The Endgame, by Brigadier Abdul Rehman Siddiqi Page 36
2/ ibid
Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com