Jihad only solution to Kashmir issue: Nizami

[aabe-hayat]

Don't worry Jihad is bearing fruits in Kashmir.Just one more push and kashmir will attain its freedom from Indian colonial rule.

J&K: India's complete surrender?

By Maj Gen G D Bakshi | 2011-03-02 14:54:14

The recent spate of scams has so exhausted the fund of public outrage that the die-hard votaries of peace with Pakistan have found this the opportune moment to shamelessly back away from our post-Mumbai stand and restart dialogue with Pakistan - in all but name.

The public in India is so preoccupied with local issues of corruption that this Peace-At-Any-Cost lobby has decided to exploit that sense of emotional ennui and exhaustion to push their pet agenda through surreptitiously.

Such an earlier attempt at Sharm-el-Sheikh had come too soon after the Mumbai massacre and caused such public outrage that the government was forced to backtrack.

This perplexing urge to resile from a principled stand goes against our national interest and global image as an emerging global power. The worst part is the callous lack of concern it betrays for the lives of ordinary Indians.


163 innocent Indians were massacred in Mumbai. What steps has Pakistan taken to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism? What has it done to bring the perpetrators to justice?

Why, then, this overarching compulsion on the part of India to resume dialogue and in fact, grovel before the perpetrators of terror? What really has changed except the Bleeding Hearts Brigade's perception that now is the opportune time to get away with it?

It is disturbing to note this cynical lack of concern for the lives of ordinary Indians that seem to matter so little to this Bleeding Hearts Brigade.

There is however a second aspect that is of equal, if not greater concern. Are we compromising on our national interests under pressure from America?

Bruce Reidel - who wields considerable influence over America's Policy, recently wrote a book called Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of Global Jihad. In this, he emphasised that the cancer of jihadism has spread deep into the vitals of Pakistan.

He lamented that "Nothing could be done unless the Kashmir dispute is resolved to Pakistan's entire satisfaction. That alone will make it a normal state not preoccupied with India. It would also remove the rationale for the Pakistan Army's disproportionate role in Pakistan's Security Affairs."

The construct is very disturbing. It is Pakistan that has the Jihadi cancer but it is India that is required to undergo the surgical operation of giving up Kashmir simply because the Jihadis want it and to get peace, we must tamely surrender the province.

Besides, Bruce Reidel's argument is seriously flawed. The surrender of Kashmir will only whet the Jihadi brigade's appetite to dismember India.

There is the issue of River Waters which is likely to be blown up next and maps of Mughalistan are rife in the Urdu Press in Pakistan. The Pakistani Army gains its prima donna status from the centrality of the disputes with India. Will it tamely relinquish its overarching role and power?

The J&K settlement, supposedly arrived at in Musharraf's tenure, was derailed by his conclave of Corps Commanders and the ISI. Mumbai blew up in our faces.

We can therefore, expect the next terrorist strike anytime now that we are going down the Munich lane again.

So the central premise of Bruce Reidel is seriously flawed. It has, however, apparently resulted in backdoor pressure on India to compromise and we seemed to have caved in suddenly and completely.

An article by Juan C Zarate, a former American National Security Advisor, in the Washington Post reinforces this thesis and calls for" pressure on both parties to pave the way for a constructive dialogue on Kashmir".

The Americans, of course, are solely interested in safeguarding their own citizenry. Even a single CIA operative's life is precious.

The contrast with the attitude of the India state to the safety of its own citizens could not be more stark. It is the Indian state's callous lack of concern for its slain citizenry that is cause for concern.

The Indian state is hardly six decades old. It cannot afford to dilute its sovereignty or give in so supinely to the demands of separatism. J&K is a major test case for the core Indian constitutional principle of secularism.

If we let the five million Kashmiri Muslims of the valley secede purely on the basis of a religious/communal agenda, we revive the two-nation theory.

Worse, what right will we then have to the continual loyalty of 150 million loyal India Muslims who voted with their feet at the time of partition to stay in a secular India and not migrate to a theocratic Pakistan?

A retreat from our sovereignty in Kashmir could set up dangerous precedents and models for other insurgents in the North East. How can we deny similar dilutions of sovereignty then to the Nagas or Manipuris or Assamese?

The back-channel diplomacy has proposed solutions that are dangerous. How can we demilitarise a state that has been attacked five times in the past by the Pakistanis and Chinese militaries?

Massive deployments of Pakistani and Chinese troops are still arrayed against the state. It is the presence of the Indian Army that is the check against Jihadi Is infiltration. Remove the Army and you might as well hand over the state on a platter to Pakistan.

Is the resumption of the dialogue the thin edge of the wedge of complete capitulation on the issue of Jammu & Kashmir?

Link

 

[ares]

Nope. That again was the Dollars provided by Uncle Sam , for services rendered in throwing out the Russians. While you are correct that Zia took a shortcut to arm his forces.

You know, what those dollars were used for ..not on Pakistan's health and Education prog ..but on acquiring F-16s to match Indian militarily.

We can avoid on "who started the war " thing. But lets accept, that we played a major role in dismembering state of Pakistan in 71. They have every right to return the favor, isnt it?

Well it not like they haven't been trying they tried it in 65, failed ..then supported insurgency in Punjab 80s and failed, now trying it in Kashmir again.

But important point to note is before 65.. India - Pakistan had cordial relations..people to people contacts were at there highest, signed the monumental Indus water treaty..even armed forces use to have frequent exchange prog..but 65 war changed all that..Now India and Pakistan were declared enemies.

But whats your point? Before the Hamid Gul - Kashmir era, the Jihad mindset was already set in the people of Pakistan.

Yes but they joine American camp hoping ,American assistance will help neutralize Indian threat, but instead got involved in a American war itself.

yes, but nothing to do with Kashmir. But because of the perception that the current GoP is a US lackey.

No they, attacked Musharraf, because he apparently cut their funding in 2004.
But it also important, on how quickly militant organisations nurtured as strategic assets become strategic liabilities.

 

[President Camacho]

I would rather go by the popular use of jihad by muslims themselves. Not some ideal meaning which is discussed in theology session.
Here are some more which you will like to tell us.

They are not real muslims, they are terrorists.
Islam is a peaceful religion, some nutcases abuse it for their own benefits.

I mentioned the improper usage of the term Jihad because I have read some about it. Not much. And you are very right when you say a larger proportion of vocal Muslims portray Jihad with only one meaning - Pick up the sword, and get it done your way.

About your last two sentences (underlined), lol no yar, I won't talk about that. It touches the core of the problems Muslims are facing today. Every other group comes up with its own version of Islam, and outsiders are left confused whom to believe.

Either you can believe those who give up their lives, but kill others in the process and say they follow the real Islam - Minority.

Or you can believe those who do not do anything to spread awareness of their version of Islam, but are completely not violent - Majority.

Now, as non-Mulsims, we can either go with the minority that is highly motivated violent Muslims, or the majority that is not so motivated but non-violent Muslims.

I would go with the latter. And I choose to believe that that is real Islam, and the ones like Talibans and Lashkars are no more than a bunch of terrorists hijacking the religion to fulfill their personal agendas.

About Jihad - it is part of Islam, and how many Indian Muslims have you seen misusing it?

 

[Stumper]

You know, what those dollars were used for ..not on Pakistan's health and Education prog ..but on acquiring F-16s to match Indian militarily.

I did agree that the Afg-Soviet bridged the parity between the two armies. But this again was not India centric policy.

But important point to note is before 65.. India - Pakistan had cordial relations..people to people contacts were at there highest, signed the monumental Indus water treaty..even armed forces use to have frequent exchange prog..but 65 war changed all that..Now India and Pakistan were declared enemies.

Yes but they joine American camp hoping ,American assistance will help neutralize Indian threat, but instead got involved in a American war itself.

Oh Ok. Got your point. But again, have the context correct. Many reasons cited for Zia's participation.

1)Zia agreed to participate as he feared Russians entering Pak soil (this is widely accepted reason)
2)To extend his political life.
3)American Weapons and Dollars.

So again, it was not India centric policy that made him jump the ship.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Yes, Pakistan for good or worse has allowed its armed forces to create its foreign and certain domestic policy. And make a distinction between Creating and Influencing foreign policy (as in INDIA's case where Inputs from armed forces are taken as Influences while formulating the Policies). I consider this as sad thing for a democracy where the armed forces meant to protect your borders, create your governing policies.

atleast we are in agreement with this part!!

Now the part where i digress ....

It would be very simplistic to view degeneration of the Pak society fabric as simply a outcome of its India centric policies. Do you think Zia propagated the Mullah culture as part of his India centric plans? State Islamization was India centric? ...

No Sir. He simply wanted to extend his political life. Same is the case with almost all Individuals who have governed this state. Everybody has simply raped it under the nationalism garb.

So my point is, it would be too simplistic to say that Pakistans current suffering are simply a matter of being offshoot of its India centric policies. You will need a depth of understanding of its history to understand how did the rot creep in.

you are not that far from reality when you say it's during zia's tenure fundamentalism & radicalism started flurishing, which is now the cause of all evils in pakistan. my quetsion to you is why the army gained such an importance in pakistan's existance in the first place, right from the start of their existance? army became so powerful that subsequent civilian governments were always subservient to its needs! why is it so? if you manage to find an answer for this, you will know where i'm coming from! it's not that complicated!!

 

[desiman]

As a matter of last resort yes !

sure try it, but have you ever heard of tit for tat ?

 

[Hulk]

I think Pakistan should go for Jihad in Kashmir. It is a very good idea.

 

[desioptimist]

I mentioned the improper usage of the term Jihad because I have read some about it. Not much. And you are very right when you say a larger proportion of vocal Muslims portray Jihad with only one meaning - Pick up the sword, and get it done your way.

About your last two sentences (underlined), lol no yar, I won't talk about that. It touches the core of the problems Muslims are facing today. Every other group comes up with its own version of Islam, and outsiders are left confused whom to believe.

Either you can believe those who give up their lives, but kill others in the process and say they follow the real Islam - Minority.

Or you can believe those who do not do anything to spread awareness of their version of Islam, but are completely not violent - Majority.

Now, as non-Mulsims, we can either go with the minority that is highly motivated violent Muslims, or the majority that is not so motivated but non-violent Muslims.

I would go with the latter. And I choose to believe that that is real Islam, and the ones like Talibans and Lashkars are no more than a bunch of terrorists hijacking the religion to fulfill their personal agendas.

About Jihad - it is part of Islam, and how many Indian Muslims have you seen misusing it?

I am not denying vast majority of muslims have nothing to do with violence. I was just trying tell that the prevalent meaning of word is different from what some theologists want us to believe.
Most of muslims are non violent because they are human first. We are social animals, it is natural that we prefer to be nice to each other.
However, if your claim is that majority of them are peaceful because they "know" the real islam and real jihad, I would disagree.

 

[desioptimist]

I mentioned the improper usage of the term Jihad because I have read some about it. Not much. And you are very right when you say a larger proportion of vocal Muslims portray Jihad with only one meaning - Pick up the sword, and get it done your way.

About your last two sentences (underlined), lol no yar, I won't talk about that. It touches the core of the problems Muslims are facing today. Every other group comes up with its own version of Islam, and outsiders are left confused whom to believe.

Either you can believe those who give up their lives, but kill others in the process and say they follow the real Islam - Minority.

Or you can believe those who do not do anything to spread awareness of their version of Islam, but are completely not violent - Majority.

Now, as non-Mulsims, we can either go with the minority that is highly motivated violent Muslims, or the majority that is not so motivated but non-violent Muslims.

I would go with the latter. And I choose to believe that that is real Islam, and the ones like Talibans and Lashkars are no more than a bunch of terrorists hijacking the religion to fulfill their personal agendas.

About Jihad - it is part of Islam, and how many Indian Muslims have you seen misusing it?

I am not denying vast majority of muslims have nothing to do with violence. I was just trying tell that the prevalent meaning of word is different from what some theologists want us to believe.
Most of muslims are non violent because they are human first. We are social animals, it is natural that we prefer to be nice to each other.
However, if your claim is that majority of them are peaceful because they "know" the real islam and real jihad, I would disagree.
On second thought, is it wrong to use force to attend your goal, if you believe that you are wronged by others.
Example libya, is it wrong to start a jihad against Gaddafi?

 

[Stumper]

atleast we are in agreement with this part!!



you are not that far from reality when you say it's during zia's tenure fundamentalism & radicalism started flurishing, which is now the cause of all evils in pakistan. my quetsion to you is why the army gained such an importance in pakistan's existance in the first place, right from the start of their existance? army became so powerful that subsequent civilian governments were always subservient to its needs! why is it so? if you manage to find an answer for this, you will know where i'm coming from! it's not that complicated!!

But we are not debating on Army'd role in governance of Pakistan, are we?. We all do accept that Pak Army is India centric. And they have governed it for half a life of this country. So should we absolve the civilian governments of its responsibilities ? And simply lay the blame on Pak army and its policies?

Our point of contention was : Has Pakistan suffered because of its India centric policy?. I say, it is one of the factor. But the picture is complete if you view pan islamic ambition's of Zia and Bhutto, supplemented by subsequent government's. You would be surprised to know that the state islamization was actually Bhutto's idea .

 

[American Eagle]

JKLF has not been a militant organization for many years now...and Mr. Malik likewise swore off violence years ago.

 

[KS]

JKLF has not been a militant organization for many years now...and Mr. Malik likewise swore off violence years ago.

His past actions are enough to put him off for his life.

 

[American Eagle]

Can you provide a dated timeline with specifics as you and a few others seem to be providing glittering generality negative remarks and a foundation of your remarks step by step would be helpful for open evaluation. Thanks, and by the way, about five years ago Mr. Malik gave a speaking at US colleges and universities tour here in the US which I admit did not get the media and big name university attention I would have liked to see. But, Mr. Malick peacefully gave it "the old college try" which is always worthwhile. Malick's over 2 million signature petition was a noble effort and your specific comments to and on it would be helpful here in the open. Thanks.

 

[American Eagle]

Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (Yasin Malik)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (Yasin Malik) is a break away faction of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, led by Yasin Malik. It is a secular separatist movement, demanding a united Kashmir independent from both Pakistan and India. Although previously a militant organization, since 1995 it has renounced all violence and called for strictly peaceful methods to achieve its aims.[1] Yasin Malik is also strong advocate for the right of return of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits.[2]

Although it is a breakaway faction, it enjoys more popularity in Kashmir than the original JKLF faction led by Amanullah Khan more active in Pakistani Kashmir. Meanwhile, elections were held in Indian Jammu & Kashmir, which brought up the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah, who with his party National Conference, by and large supported India. The elected Constituent Assembly met for the first time in Srinagar on October 31, 1951.[3] Then The State Constituent Assembly ratified the accession of the State to the Union of India on February 6, 1954 and the President of India subsequently issued the Constitution (Application to J&K) Order under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution extending the Union Constitution to the State with some exceptions and modifications. The State’s own Constitution came into force on January 26, 1957 under which the elections to the State Legislative Assembly were held for the first time on the basis of adult franchise the same year. This Constitution further reiterated the ratification of the State’s accession to Union of India.[3] However, these tidings were not recognized by Pakistan, which has continued to press for a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the people. Pakistan set up its own Kashmir, called Azad Kashmir in a tiny Western chunk that it controls. The much larger region of Pakistani Kashmir in the North-West, which was a province named Northern Areas in the erstwhile state, by and large bore no mention in Pakistani laws and Constitution as being of any status, until in 1982 the Pakistani President General Zia ul Haq proclaimed that the people of the Northern Areas were Pakistanis and had nothing to do with the State of Jammu and Kashmir.[4] The insurgency was, inter alia, targeting the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit minority like Jihad by Muslims on indigenous people of Serbia, Iran & Egypt.[5][6][7] They had to, therefore, leave the valley in a hurry, without taking all their belongings, hoping to return soon to their homes after things had 'settled down'; things never settled down & entire state Islamised like Arabia[8] where Islam first flourished, and the Kashmiri Hindu community is not feeling confident enough to return to settle down in the valley being targeted always. The violent Islamic insurgency has specifically targeted this minority and 300,000 have been murdered and 4,00,000 displaced along with gang rapes of 35,000 Kashmiri Hindu women like Islamic invasion of Iran[9] by the Muslims.[10] This has been condemned and labeled as ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress.[11] Also in 2009 Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognize 14 September 2007, as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities of Jammu and Kashmir by militants seeking to establish an Islamic state.[12] However according to CIA About 300,000 Kashmir Hindus (Pundits) in Indian Administered Kashmir valley are internally displaced in Kashmir specially in Udhampur & Jammu refugee camps and rest 1,00,000 in Delhi camps hoisted by Indian Government and UNO.[13] The ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits continues, with anti-Hindu threats made to them by militants as recently as 2009[14]

Yasin Malik is the chairman of one of the two faction of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, the chairman for other faction is Farooq Siddiqi (Farooq Papa). The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), founded by Amanullah Khan and Maqbool Bhat, is a Kashmiri Muslim Terrorist organization founded in Birmingham, UK on May 29, 1977. Within a couple of years branches were established in several cities and towns of the UK; and also in several countries of Europe, USA and Middle East. In 1982 branches of this Islamic Militant organisation were established in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Pakistan and in 1987 in Indian-administered Kashmir (Jammu & Kashmir) which shows it essential foreign origin. He started his movement for separation of Jammu & Kashmir from secular India as an Islamic Nation of Darul Islam while silent on freedom of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In public he supports the return of Kashmiri Hindus back to the valley[15] but, 7,00,000 lakh minority Hindus ousted by his earlier genocidal pogrom don't believe his sincerity.[16]

He now lives in his new Bungalow in Maisuma, Srinagar and provide support to Kashmiri Separatism.[17]

In 2007 Yasin Malik and his party launched a peaceful campaign known as Safar-i-Azadi (Journey to Freedom)[18]. This journey was to create an atmosphere for anti-Indian agitations among public which lasted for one year and during it, Yasin Malik and his colleagues visited about 3500 towns and villages of Kashmir[19]. Stone pelting and sporadic attacks by Muslim majority of Kashmir of security forces have increased hence forth.[20]
In January 2010, Yasin asked Kashmiri Pandit migrants to return to their homes in the Kashmir valley[21] but situation as created by his politics is otherwise[22].

However in 2005 the JKLF led by Yasin Malik received a major setback when its senior leaders differed [4] from Yasin Malik's meeting [5] with the prime minister of India and parted ways and announced Farooq Siddiqi, (Farooq Papa)[6] as its new chairman. Since then the popularity of JKLF headed by Yasin Malik has declined.

[edit]Notes

^ "Interview: "I have never been on Pakistan's 'favoured guests' list"". Newsline. 2005-01-01. Archived from the original on 2006-07-01. Retrieved 2006-07-27.
^ "Come back, Yasin Malik tells Kashmiri Pandits". The Hindu. 2004-01-24. Retrieved 2006-07-27.
^ a b "Major Events". Jammu and Kashmir Government, India. Retrieved 2007-01-09.
^ "A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir: The Northern Areas". Embassy of India, Washington D.C.. Retrieved 2007-01-09.
^ http://www.historyofjihad.com/serbia.html
^ http://www.historyofjihad.com/egypt.html
^ http://www.historyofjihad.com/iran.html
^ http://www.historyofjihad.org/arab.html
^ http://www.historyofjihad.org/persia.html
^ Pallone introduces resolution condemning Human rights violation against Kashmiri Pandits, United States House of Representatives, 2006-02-15
^ Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the Republic of India and the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir should take immediate steps to remedy the situation of Kashmiri Pandits and should act to ensure the physical, political, and economic security of this embattled community. HR Resolution 344, United States House of Representatives, 2006-02-15
^ Senate Joint Resolution 23, 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session
^ [1]
^ [2]
^ Board 14
^ VIGIL Online - India-Pakistan Road Map to Peace: Insult to Indian Patriots
^ Meet Mrs Malik | OPEN Magazine
^ KOSHUR MUSIC: A Collection of Kashmiri Music, Devotional Songs and Prayers for Kashmiri Pandit Festivals
^ Yasin Malik heckled by protestors during India-Pakistan Peace Conference
^ http://www.panunkashmir.org/kashmirsentinel/pdf/2007/june2007.pdf
^ [3]
^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/Under...s-may-flee-the-Valley/H1-Article1-477268.aspx
[edit]See also

History of the Kashmir conflict
[edit]External links

Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (Yasin Malik)
Categories: South Asia | Kashmir | Na

 

[JanjaWeed]

But we are not debating on Army'd role in governance of Pakistan, are we?. We all do accept that Pak Army is India centric. And they have governed it for half a life of this country. So should we absolve the civilian governments of its responsibilities ? And simply lay the blame on Pak army and its policies?

Our point of contention was : Has Pakistan suffered because of its India centric policy?. I say, it is one of the factor. But the picture is complete if you view pan islamic ambition's of Zia and Bhutto, supplemented by subsequent government's. You would be surprised to know that the state islamization was actually Bhutto's idea .

i think we are going in circles for the sake of argument. If you read my previous posts no where i mentioned that India centric policies are the only reason for pak's shortcomings.. but it is one of the major factor, which one can not deny. Army has always been active in pak's politics from the time of their existance upto this point. At times they lead from the front like yahya khan, ayub khan, zia & musharraf. rest of the time they influence the governance from the back ground. For the army to have this power, they need to keep india on the boil. otherwise their importance will be undermined by the rest. Do you think if it wasn't for the kargil debacle, musharraf would be taking over pak's control? you might try going in different lanes.. but they all merge at one point!! that is india!!