Commies will remain Commie traitors.
Kashmir The Freedom of Struggle
- Thread starter A.Rahman
- Start date
Kashmiri Students In India Face Discrimination
By Rama Lakshmi
MUZAFFARNAGAR, India -- Three months ago, Ejaz Husain Jaan was just another Kashmiri student living away from home, nervously studying for his finals and taking short breaks to catch the World Cup cricket scores on television.
Now, he is in jail, facing terrorism charges for allegedly aiding a
plan to blow up important government buildings, an accusation he
vehemently denies.
"I came out of Kashmir to study, not to be a terrorist," said Jaan,
23, looking tired and bewildered as he stepped out of a crowded
courtroom in Uttar Pradesh state recently. "In Kashmir, there is
always a threat of the gun -- the army's or the militants'. I wanted
to escape the climate of fear and violence.
"But now all my career hopes are destroyed. I could not even finish my tests," he said, starting to cry.
According to human rights groups in New Delhi, scores of Muslim
students, traders and professionals who quit violence-wracked Kashmir for other parts of India in search of education and job opportunities have faced increased harassment and discrimination in the past three years.
A report by the People's Union for Democratic Rights said Kashmiri Muslims in New Delhi suffer from "a deep sense of insecurity and vulnerability" and are victims of police harassment, humiliating searches, intimidation, arbitrary detentions and demands for bribes by local policemen under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
The climate of suspicion, many said, has sharpened since December 2001, when gunmen suspected of being Islamic rebels fighting for Kashmir's secession from India attacked the Parliament complex in New Delhi. Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, has been ravaged since 1989 by a separatist revolt that has claimed more than 35,000 lives, according to official estimates.
"The last 14 years have been a dark period for the people of Kashmir. Many people have tried to escape the violence and come out to study and work, but they face suspicion wherever they go," said Mehbooba Mufti, the chief of Kashmir's ruling People's Democratic Party. "The stereotype is that every Kashmiri holds a gun. Do Kashmiris have to rip open their hearts each time to prove they are not militants?"
Indian officials said there is no campaign to harass Kashmiris
because of their religion or their roots.
"We have to be vigilant," said a senior police officer who asked not to be named. "We don't pick up Kashmiris at random, we follow our intelligence inputs and phone tapping. We cannot always wait for the attack to take place; we have to prevent it also."
But human rights activists argued that the police often act on the
basis of flimsy evidence and that the process lacks accountability.
"We are not saying India should be soft on terrorism, but the state's coercive powers must act like a surgeon's scalpel rather than come down like a hammer," said Ravi Nair, who heads the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center. "With every case of harassment of an innocent, the gulf between Kashmiris and the rest of India widens."
Discrimination and harassment are a simple fact of daily life for
many Kashmiris living outside their home state, said Afshan Gul, 23, a film student in New Delhi, who complained of innumerable searches and questioning by police.
"The searches and questions do not stop when you show your identity card," she said. "For a Kashmiri Muslim, it usually begins after you show it. They don't just search you, they rip off your dignity, too."
More than a decade of violence by Islamic militants has hardened
perceptions about Kashmiri Muslims among some Indians as well as the police. The bias, Kashmiris said, permeates everyday activities from finding an apartment to finding a job.
"The moment the landlords got to know I was a Kashmiri Muslim, they would make excuses to say no," said Khursheed Ahmed Qazi, 38, a businessman who spent several months looking for an apartment in the capital last year. "The bias against us was clear."
Abrar Ahmad Dewani, 24, a computer student from Kashmir, said that when he interviewed two years ago for a job as a Web site designer for a New Delhi company that makes bathroom fixtures, the questions had nothing to do with his skills.
"The man looked at my [résumé] and said, 'Are you a Kashmiri?
Kashmiris are terrorists,' " recalled Dewani. "I said . . . 'I don't
want to work for you.' I felt humiliated."
At another job interview, a prospective employer told him he was
"very scared of Kashmiris."
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Jaan and three other
students in March shook the small group of Kashmiri undergraduates studying in Uttar Pradesh, who said they came under increased surveillance from the police and became the target of public suspicion and scorn.
"The police searched all the rooms of the students. My professor told me not to call him or visit him. Everybody in college looked at us with suspicion," said Abdul Rashid, 26, a graduate student who lived in the room next to Jaan's. "The neighbors would look at us and say, 'Look, the terrorists are coming' or 'What are you bombing next?' "
Jaan said he was interrogated in dark rooms for nine days without a lawyer. He said the police forced him to sign several blank pages that he feared could be used as confessions.
Police said they found maps of India's "vital installations" in
Jaan's possession and that phone records show he received calls from a leader of the banned militant group Jaish-i-Muhammad.
Despite the perils, young Kashmiris say they will continue to leave
home because of the lack of jobs in their state.
"I have no choice but to leave Kashmir," said Tanweer Sadiq, 25, a recent computer science graduate who is applying for jobs in New Delhi. "There are no jobs in Kashmir. I knew I would have to battle a stereotype when I [went] there, but it is still worth taking a
chance. It's a question of my career."
The Washington Post18 June,2003
By Rama Lakshmi
MUZAFFARNAGAR, India -- Three months ago, Ejaz Husain Jaan was just another Kashmiri student living away from home, nervously studying for his finals and taking short breaks to catch the World Cup cricket scores on television.
Now, he is in jail, facing terrorism charges for allegedly aiding a
plan to blow up important government buildings, an accusation he
vehemently denies.
"I came out of Kashmir to study, not to be a terrorist," said Jaan,
23, looking tired and bewildered as he stepped out of a crowded
courtroom in Uttar Pradesh state recently. "In Kashmir, there is
always a threat of the gun -- the army's or the militants'. I wanted
to escape the climate of fear and violence.
"But now all my career hopes are destroyed. I could not even finish my tests," he said, starting to cry.
According to human rights groups in New Delhi, scores of Muslim
students, traders and professionals who quit violence-wracked Kashmir for other parts of India in search of education and job opportunities have faced increased harassment and discrimination in the past three years.
A report by the People's Union for Democratic Rights said Kashmiri Muslims in New Delhi suffer from "a deep sense of insecurity and vulnerability" and are victims of police harassment, humiliating searches, intimidation, arbitrary detentions and demands for bribes by local policemen under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
The climate of suspicion, many said, has sharpened since December 2001, when gunmen suspected of being Islamic rebels fighting for Kashmir's secession from India attacked the Parliament complex in New Delhi. Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, has been ravaged since 1989 by a separatist revolt that has claimed more than 35,000 lives, according to official estimates.
"The last 14 years have been a dark period for the people of Kashmir. Many people have tried to escape the violence and come out to study and work, but they face suspicion wherever they go," said Mehbooba Mufti, the chief of Kashmir's ruling People's Democratic Party. "The stereotype is that every Kashmiri holds a gun. Do Kashmiris have to rip open their hearts each time to prove they are not militants?"
Indian officials said there is no campaign to harass Kashmiris
because of their religion or their roots.
"We have to be vigilant," said a senior police officer who asked not to be named. "We don't pick up Kashmiris at random, we follow our intelligence inputs and phone tapping. We cannot always wait for the attack to take place; we have to prevent it also."
But human rights activists argued that the police often act on the
basis of flimsy evidence and that the process lacks accountability.
"We are not saying India should be soft on terrorism, but the state's coercive powers must act like a surgeon's scalpel rather than come down like a hammer," said Ravi Nair, who heads the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center. "With every case of harassment of an innocent, the gulf between Kashmiris and the rest of India widens."
Discrimination and harassment are a simple fact of daily life for
many Kashmiris living outside their home state, said Afshan Gul, 23, a film student in New Delhi, who complained of innumerable searches and questioning by police.
"The searches and questions do not stop when you show your identity card," she said. "For a Kashmiri Muslim, it usually begins after you show it. They don't just search you, they rip off your dignity, too."
More than a decade of violence by Islamic militants has hardened
perceptions about Kashmiri Muslims among some Indians as well as the police. The bias, Kashmiris said, permeates everyday activities from finding an apartment to finding a job.
"The moment the landlords got to know I was a Kashmiri Muslim, they would make excuses to say no," said Khursheed Ahmed Qazi, 38, a businessman who spent several months looking for an apartment in the capital last year. "The bias against us was clear."
Abrar Ahmad Dewani, 24, a computer student from Kashmir, said that when he interviewed two years ago for a job as a Web site designer for a New Delhi company that makes bathroom fixtures, the questions had nothing to do with his skills.
"The man looked at my [résumé] and said, 'Are you a Kashmiri?
Kashmiris are terrorists,' " recalled Dewani. "I said . . . 'I don't
want to work for you.' I felt humiliated."
At another job interview, a prospective employer told him he was
"very scared of Kashmiris."
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Jaan and three other
students in March shook the small group of Kashmiri undergraduates studying in Uttar Pradesh, who said they came under increased surveillance from the police and became the target of public suspicion and scorn.
"The police searched all the rooms of the students. My professor told me not to call him or visit him. Everybody in college looked at us with suspicion," said Abdul Rashid, 26, a graduate student who lived in the room next to Jaan's. "The neighbors would look at us and say, 'Look, the terrorists are coming' or 'What are you bombing next?' "
Jaan said he was interrogated in dark rooms for nine days without a lawyer. He said the police forced him to sign several blank pages that he feared could be used as confessions.
Police said they found maps of India's "vital installations" in
Jaan's possession and that phone records show he received calls from a leader of the banned militant group Jaish-i-Muhammad.
Despite the perils, young Kashmiris say they will continue to leave
home because of the lack of jobs in their state.
"I have no choice but to leave Kashmir," said Tanweer Sadiq, 25, a recent computer science graduate who is applying for jobs in New Delhi. "There are no jobs in Kashmir. I knew I would have to battle a stereotype when I [went] there, but it is still worth taking a
chance. It's a question of my career."
The Washington Post18 June,2003
Marathaman
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 567
- Reaction score
- 0
The article is simply saying that the Indian police need to be a more professional organization. Point taken.
Disappearances' In Kashmir
By A G Noorani
It is hardly surprising that the disappearance of large number of persons in Kashmir evokes little sympathy in our country, least of all from the ones who loudly proclaim that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Even from some professional civil libertarians nothing more has been forthcoming than occasional expressions of lip sympathy. The cause does not fetch as much publicity as lighting candles on the Wagah border - only thereafter to plug the hard line on relations with Pakistan.
But those disappearances should evoke national concern. The state chief minister has a difficult task. His coalition partner the Congress is not bothered; least of all its Kashmiri 'leader' Ghulam Nabi Azad who has never contested a single election from his own state in the last two decades. The PDP came to power on the plank of providing the 'healing touch'. On disappearances, Mufti's performance has been utterly disappointing even allowing for his concerns about the BJP regime at the centre and its rival the Congress which is his coalition partner. Before long he will be faced with the same dilemma that faced his predecessors - how to retain his people's confidence as well as that of the centre. He has a tight rope to walk on. Especially since the union home minister L K Advani has no love for Kashmiris. His interest centres on the Indians with all that implies. None shared the grief of mourners of Goukadal and Bijbehara. Muzamil Jaleel pointed out courageously Advani's discrimination even in offering condolences to the bereaved. He and G N Azad offered
condolences to the families of the Pundits who lost their dear ones in the Nadimarg massacre. The villagers of Panihad mourned alone (The Indian Express, April 9, 2003).
The civil liberties situation is a disgrace. In March the police foiled two attempts by the Anjuman-e-Shari Shian to move in the traditional procession of mourners during the month of Moharram. The chief minister promises repeatedly to release all innocent persons languishing in jails.
This is the backdrop to the situation in regard to disappearances. Shoukat A Motta and Hilal Ahmed's report in Greater Kashmir, a respected Srinagar daily, in the issue of April 18, 2003 is shocking. One wonders why similar exposes do not appear in the national press. They report that "going by unofficial figures, more than 6,000 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances (EID) have taken place in Kashmir since the eruption of armed insurgency in 1989". Even the former National Conference government put the figure at 3,184 on July 18, 2002. Adding insult to injury it added that the men had gone over across the LoC for training. Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's figures are even more shocking. He told the state assembly that 3,741 persons had
gone missing since 2000, Asian Age reported (April 18, 2003). But its New Delhi correspondent added that he remains impervious to the pleas of parents and wives who have been pleading for an independent Commission of Inquiry.
The Associaton of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) was formed in 1994. Its moving spirit and patron is a senior lawyer and activist Parvez Imroz. Its chairperson is Praveena Ahangeer. Her 16-year old son Javed Ahmed disappeared in August 1991. The state high court ordered the prosecution of three army officers. They were transferred out of the state. The correspondent remarked that "Mr Mufti Sayeed has not proved particularly sensitive to their [disappeared persons'] plight and is unwilling to put the onus on the security forces lest it bring him into direct conflict with the centre. He has admitted, however, that 1,553 persons disappeared in 2000, 1,586 went missing in 2001 and 602 in 2002". The APDP estimates 8,000 disappearances
since 1989.
Asian Age of April 24, 2003 reported from Srinagar that the Mufti's statement that not more than 60 persons have actually gone missing following their arrest by security forces in the last 13 years came as a rude shock to the people. It contradicted his own statement less than a week earlier. He said it at a press conference in the company of prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on April 18 in Srinagar. During the visit activists of the APDP staged a hunger strike in the city. Zahir-ud-Din of Greater Kashmir said that even in the high court 500 cases had been proved (The Hindu, April 24, report by Shujaat Bukhari).
It is all right for the PDP's president Mehbooba Mufti to say as she did on May 10, "I fight with my father almost every day on this issue [excesses by the security forces] and have been impressing upon the government to put an end to excesses while combating militancy" (The Hindu, May 11). Her father owes his office to her. It is her credibility which is at stake now. Lament is no substitute for action.
On May 14 at long last the National Human Rights Commission, headed by a former chief justice of India, A S Anand, who belongs to that unfortunate state, sought within six weeks information from the state government on the steps taken so far and the system it has established to address the problem. It also drew pointed attention to the contradictory figures of disappeared persons. It has sought clarification from the APDP also. All this three long years after the NHRC took cognisance of the matter (Kashmir Times, May 15, 2003; also Anjali Mody's report in The Hindu of May 15, 2003).
However, Showkat A Molla reported in Greater Kashmir of May 25 that the state's Human Rights Commission has received complaints of 55 cases in this year alone, judging by its annual report for 2001-02. It records the fear of authority which deters the lodging of complaints against people "who commit atrocities". On May 25 was published a report by seven activists, headed by K Balagopal, belonging to three NGOs. On June 11 came a U-turn by Mufti Mohammed Sayeed: "thousands have gone missing" in the last 14 years he now admitted in the assembly. He added that his government was "in the process of collecting evidence for future course of action" (The Indian Express, June 13).
Against this background Zahir-ud-Din's book makes a very timely
appearance.* His estimate is 4,000 disappearances ranging from age group eight to 70 years. His book documents in authentic detail 139 cases districtwise, citing the high court's intervention in some cases. This is spread from pages 24 to 199 with a photograph in each case.
Preceding this is an analysis of the law. The text of the UN
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearances (1992) is set out. Articles 1, 2 and 3 are relevant. They read thus:
Article 1
1. Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field.
2. Such act of enforced disappearance places the person subjected thereto outside the protection of the law and inflicts severe suffering on them and their families. It constitutes a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing inter alia, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life.
Article 2
1. No state shall practice, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances.
2. States shall act at the national and regional levels and in cooperation with the United Nations to contribute by all means to the prevention and eradication of enforced disappearances.
Article 3
Each state shall take effective, legislative, administrative,
judicial or other measures to prevent and terminate acts of enforced disappearance in any territory under its jurisdiction.
In his Foreword, Parvez Imroz recalls that Zahir-ud-Din took up this cause before the APDP was formed and puts the crime in its
international context:
The phenomenon of enforced disappearance which was a barbaric global phenomenon has ceased now in many parts of the world particularly in Latin American countries, i e, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, and south-east Asian countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines where governments are holding commissions and probing the enforced disappearances and are punishing the perpetrators and indemnifying them. Even in Sri Lanka four Presidential Commissions have been appointed to probe into the disappearances there. AFAD (Asian
Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances) recently in Indonesia, during a lawyers' conference, have called for establishing an Asian Regional Tribunal that will have jurisdiction over all state parties to eliminate the violation.In India disappearances still continue in north east states reeling under armed conflict. In Punjab disappearances continued since 1984
to1994 and the clandestine cremation of hundreds of youth by the
security forces shocked the human right groups all over.
Why can Kashmir not have a Commission of Inquiry modelled on the Sri Lanka Commission? It falls within the power of the state government.
* Did They Vanish in Thin Air? by Zahir-ud-Din; revised edition,
Volume I, Owaisi Publications, Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar, Kashmir; pp
197, Rs 100.
Economic and Political Weekly (India)13 July, 2003
By A G Noorani
It is hardly surprising that the disappearance of large number of persons in Kashmir evokes little sympathy in our country, least of all from the ones who loudly proclaim that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Even from some professional civil libertarians nothing more has been forthcoming than occasional expressions of lip sympathy. The cause does not fetch as much publicity as lighting candles on the Wagah border - only thereafter to plug the hard line on relations with Pakistan.
But those disappearances should evoke national concern. The state chief minister has a difficult task. His coalition partner the Congress is not bothered; least of all its Kashmiri 'leader' Ghulam Nabi Azad who has never contested a single election from his own state in the last two decades. The PDP came to power on the plank of providing the 'healing touch'. On disappearances, Mufti's performance has been utterly disappointing even allowing for his concerns about the BJP regime at the centre and its rival the Congress which is his coalition partner. Before long he will be faced with the same dilemma that faced his predecessors - how to retain his people's confidence as well as that of the centre. He has a tight rope to walk on. Especially since the union home minister L K Advani has no love for Kashmiris. His interest centres on the Indians with all that implies. None shared the grief of mourners of Goukadal and Bijbehara. Muzamil Jaleel pointed out courageously Advani's discrimination even in offering condolences to the bereaved. He and G N Azad offered
condolences to the families of the Pundits who lost their dear ones in the Nadimarg massacre. The villagers of Panihad mourned alone (The Indian Express, April 9, 2003).
The civil liberties situation is a disgrace. In March the police foiled two attempts by the Anjuman-e-Shari Shian to move in the traditional procession of mourners during the month of Moharram. The chief minister promises repeatedly to release all innocent persons languishing in jails.
This is the backdrop to the situation in regard to disappearances. Shoukat A Motta and Hilal Ahmed's report in Greater Kashmir, a respected Srinagar daily, in the issue of April 18, 2003 is shocking. One wonders why similar exposes do not appear in the national press. They report that "going by unofficial figures, more than 6,000 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances (EID) have taken place in Kashmir since the eruption of armed insurgency in 1989". Even the former National Conference government put the figure at 3,184 on July 18, 2002. Adding insult to injury it added that the men had gone over across the LoC for training. Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's figures are even more shocking. He told the state assembly that 3,741 persons had
gone missing since 2000, Asian Age reported (April 18, 2003). But its New Delhi correspondent added that he remains impervious to the pleas of parents and wives who have been pleading for an independent Commission of Inquiry.
The Associaton of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) was formed in 1994. Its moving spirit and patron is a senior lawyer and activist Parvez Imroz. Its chairperson is Praveena Ahangeer. Her 16-year old son Javed Ahmed disappeared in August 1991. The state high court ordered the prosecution of three army officers. They were transferred out of the state. The correspondent remarked that "Mr Mufti Sayeed has not proved particularly sensitive to their [disappeared persons'] plight and is unwilling to put the onus on the security forces lest it bring him into direct conflict with the centre. He has admitted, however, that 1,553 persons disappeared in 2000, 1,586 went missing in 2001 and 602 in 2002". The APDP estimates 8,000 disappearances
since 1989.
Asian Age of April 24, 2003 reported from Srinagar that the Mufti's statement that not more than 60 persons have actually gone missing following their arrest by security forces in the last 13 years came as a rude shock to the people. It contradicted his own statement less than a week earlier. He said it at a press conference in the company of prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on April 18 in Srinagar. During the visit activists of the APDP staged a hunger strike in the city. Zahir-ud-Din of Greater Kashmir said that even in the high court 500 cases had been proved (The Hindu, April 24, report by Shujaat Bukhari).
It is all right for the PDP's president Mehbooba Mufti to say as she did on May 10, "I fight with my father almost every day on this issue [excesses by the security forces] and have been impressing upon the government to put an end to excesses while combating militancy" (The Hindu, May 11). Her father owes his office to her. It is her credibility which is at stake now. Lament is no substitute for action.
On May 14 at long last the National Human Rights Commission, headed by a former chief justice of India, A S Anand, who belongs to that unfortunate state, sought within six weeks information from the state government on the steps taken so far and the system it has established to address the problem. It also drew pointed attention to the contradictory figures of disappeared persons. It has sought clarification from the APDP also. All this three long years after the NHRC took cognisance of the matter (Kashmir Times, May 15, 2003; also Anjali Mody's report in The Hindu of May 15, 2003).
However, Showkat A Molla reported in Greater Kashmir of May 25 that the state's Human Rights Commission has received complaints of 55 cases in this year alone, judging by its annual report for 2001-02. It records the fear of authority which deters the lodging of complaints against people "who commit atrocities". On May 25 was published a report by seven activists, headed by K Balagopal, belonging to three NGOs. On June 11 came a U-turn by Mufti Mohammed Sayeed: "thousands have gone missing" in the last 14 years he now admitted in the assembly. He added that his government was "in the process of collecting evidence for future course of action" (The Indian Express, June 13).
Against this background Zahir-ud-Din's book makes a very timely
appearance.* His estimate is 4,000 disappearances ranging from age group eight to 70 years. His book documents in authentic detail 139 cases districtwise, citing the high court's intervention in some cases. This is spread from pages 24 to 199 with a photograph in each case.
Preceding this is an analysis of the law. The text of the UN
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearances (1992) is set out. Articles 1, 2 and 3 are relevant. They read thus:
Article 1
1. Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field.
2. Such act of enforced disappearance places the person subjected thereto outside the protection of the law and inflicts severe suffering on them and their families. It constitutes a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing inter alia, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life.
Article 2
1. No state shall practice, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances.
2. States shall act at the national and regional levels and in cooperation with the United Nations to contribute by all means to the prevention and eradication of enforced disappearances.
Article 3
Each state shall take effective, legislative, administrative,
judicial or other measures to prevent and terminate acts of enforced disappearance in any territory under its jurisdiction.
In his Foreword, Parvez Imroz recalls that Zahir-ud-Din took up this cause before the APDP was formed and puts the crime in its
international context:
The phenomenon of enforced disappearance which was a barbaric global phenomenon has ceased now in many parts of the world particularly in Latin American countries, i e, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, and south-east Asian countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines where governments are holding commissions and probing the enforced disappearances and are punishing the perpetrators and indemnifying them. Even in Sri Lanka four Presidential Commissions have been appointed to probe into the disappearances there. AFAD (Asian
Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances) recently in Indonesia, during a lawyers' conference, have called for establishing an Asian Regional Tribunal that will have jurisdiction over all state parties to eliminate the violation.In India disappearances still continue in north east states reeling under armed conflict. In Punjab disappearances continued since 1984
to1994 and the clandestine cremation of hundreds of youth by the
security forces shocked the human right groups all over.
Why can Kashmir not have a Commission of Inquiry modelled on the Sri Lanka Commission? It falls within the power of the state government.
* Did They Vanish in Thin Air? by Zahir-ud-Din; revised edition,
Volume I, Owaisi Publications, Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar, Kashmir; pp
197, Rs 100.
Economic and Political Weekly (India)13 July, 2003
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you want to discuss something or work a bot?
No its not at all revealing or self explanatory.
Co-joined With Kashmir
By F. S. Aijazuddin
One would have to possess a heart of granite not to have been moved
by the plight of the Iranian twin-sisters Ladan and Laleh Bajani.
Co-joined at the head for all the twentynine years of their common
life, they showed unbelievable determination in wanting to be
separated.
They disregarded an insensitive fatwa denouncing such an operation,
they defied their foster parents, they consciously took the risk of
undergoing a lengthy, complicated operation knowing that it could
result in their simultaneous deaths. And in the end, it did. What
nature had fused together, the painstaking diligence of medical
science could not rend asunder.
Their brief, brave lives though have not been a waste, for in their
act of self-sacrifice, Ladan and Laleh have provided a parable for
others to consider. The Pakistan government for one could learn from
their example. For the past fifty-six years (coincidentally nearly
the sum of the twins' lives), Pakistan has chosen deliberately to
remain co-joined at its head with Kashmir. To some observers, this
diplomatic deformity is a case history in itself, but not unique in
world history, no more than the Bajani sisters were the only
co-joined twins in medical history.
A squabble for political custody similar to the argument over Kashmir
occurred in northern Europe during the nineteenth century. It was
known as the Schleswig-Holstein question, and consisted of a tussle
between the small kingdom of Denmark and its larger and more powerful
neighbour Prussia over the two contiguous Duchies of Schleswig and
Holstein that lay in between.
From 1844 onwards, control of these inconsequential territories
oscillated between Denmark and Prussia with such confusing frequency
that Lord Palmerston (then the British foreign secretary) confessed
that there were only three people who had ever understood the
Schleswig-Holstein question: one was dead, the other had gone mad,
and he the third had forgotten what the original issue was.
Eventually, after almost eighty years of argument, in 1920, a
plebiscite was held. The north part of Schleswig voted to join
Denmark, and the southern opted for union with Germany.
Today, most of Schleswig-Holstein which has a population roughly half that of
Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir is a part of the present Federal
Republic of Germany, and no one except historians can be bothered to
remember why it was ever such an inflammable casus belli.By that
measure, the argument between India and Pakistan over Kashmir would
appear to have many more years to go before a comparable solution can
be found. During the past fiftysix years, though, ever since the
Maharaja of Kashmir's signature on the fateful instrument of
accession on August 25, 1947, almost as much ink has been spilt over
Kashmir as human bloodshed over it. Shelves of books have been
published on it, reams of articles written on it, yards of speeches
delivered on it, millions of grey cells have turned white over it,
and yet it remains a bone of contention between two neighbours, a
bone that is slowly petrifying into a fossil.
Is Kashmir such an intractable problem? Is it really the core issue
preventing a modus vivendi between the two countries? This is a
question that needs to be asked. It is a question that countless
young men and women on both sides of the border, in the dying moments
of their unnecessary martyrdom, have asked. It is the question that
every surviving mourner - every grieving mother, widow or orphaned
child - continues to ask every day that they are forced to live
without their loved ones. It is a question that one billion Indians
and 150 million Pakistanis are entitled to ask, of themselves and
their governments, today and every day, until a definitive answer is
forthcoming. Is Kashmir really the core issue?
To some, if it is indeed a core issue, it is the core that has been
left after the surrounding body flesh has been eaten away by Time.
Today, when the United Nations, half a century after its first
intervention in the dispute, finds itself emasculated, its aged
discoloured resolutions cannot be expected to have retained any of
their relevance. In any case, the outside world beyond the
subcontinent is suffering from Kashmir fatigue. It has heard the same
refrain sung too often, it is over-familiar with the repetitive
rhetoric, the same circular argument. Neither Pakistan nor India
needs to play to the international gallery anymore. They have lost
their audience; the gallery has emptied. Now, they have an audience
of only one - each other.
If Kashmir was essentially a political problem, then three
generations of politicians since 1947 should have been able to
resolve it by now. They have met often enough over the years - Ayub
Khan/Nehru in Murree, Ayub Khan/Shastri at Tashkent, Z.A. Bhutto/Mrs
Indira Gandhi at Simla, Benazir Bhutto/Rajiv Gandhi in Islamabad,
Nawaz Sharif/Vajpayee at Lahore, and the last time at Agra when
Musharraf interacted with Vajpayee. On each occasion, though,
something always prevented consummation.
Was it the force of public opinion on both sides? Definitely not. The
Kashmir question has never been put to the litmus test of a public
poll or a referendum by either side. What masquerades as 'public
opinion' in Pakistan is, in all honesty, nothing more than the
prejudices of right-wing editors of high circulation Urdu dailies.
Because they believe they mould public opinion, periodically they
take plaster casts from that mould and present them as fresh
impressions of the public's mind on any particular issue.
Why does Kashmir remain an issue then? Is there any other inhibiting
factor? Perhaps the answer lies in the question itself. It may need
to be re-framed: Is Kashmir a core issue, or simply a corps
commanders' issue?
One is aware that such a daring statement could be read in some
barracks as a sinister play on words bandied by an uninformed,
ununiformed civilian. It is not being proffered as a provocation. It
is intended as a genuine, earnest attempt to use a pen to cauterize,
even if only at the edges, and to let ink disinfect a wound that
should not be allowed to suppurate for another generation.
Whatever the solution to the Kashmir question may be - a plebiscite,
union with India, merger with Pakistan, independence, autonomy,
acceptance of the Line of Control, continuation of the status quo -
whatever may be the framework of a political or constitutional
settlement, it can only be signed, sealed, and delivered for
implementation after it has also been duly witnessed by the nine
Pakistani corps commanders.
Had President Musharraf enjoyed the unequivocal mandate to decide
Kashmir on his own, he would have done so when he was alone with
Prime Minister Vajpayee at Agra. It is because as the Chief of Army
Staff, he needs to take his corps commanders into this battle with
him, he needs their unanimous support. He cannot afford to rely on a
reluctant comrade, or lean on an impatient successor.
Is any government in Pakistan ever likely to fall should there be an
agreement over Kashmir? One doubts it. Whenever governments have
fallen as a result of public agitation as opposed to when they have
been removed by the military, they have invariably been sent home
over mundane issues like the price of sugar or the blatant rigging of
elections. If the public has choked, it is over such gnats; it has
swallowed elephants like the nuclear programme or constitutional
violations without a hiccup.
There will be one school of thought that will advocate letting the
sleeping dog of Kashmir lie. It has its uses, especially when
awakened. There is a much larger number on both sides of the border
which would want to see this ageing animal put to sleep. It would be
an act of mercy, a merciful end to far too many merciless killings.
Pakistan, unlike the co-joined twins Ladan and Laleh Bajani, has a
choice because its attachment to Kashmir is a deliberate, voluntary
act of political co-junction. The solution is simple. It requires
Bajani-like courage. Who knows? Both Pakistan and Kashmir may well
survive the trauma, and actually thrive as a result. If asked their
opinion, one billion Indians and 150 million Pakistanis would
consider the risk worth taking.
Dawn, Pakistan31 July, 2003
By F. S. Aijazuddin
One would have to possess a heart of granite not to have been moved
by the plight of the Iranian twin-sisters Ladan and Laleh Bajani.
Co-joined at the head for all the twentynine years of their common
life, they showed unbelievable determination in wanting to be
separated.
They disregarded an insensitive fatwa denouncing such an operation,
they defied their foster parents, they consciously took the risk of
undergoing a lengthy, complicated operation knowing that it could
result in their simultaneous deaths. And in the end, it did. What
nature had fused together, the painstaking diligence of medical
science could not rend asunder.
Their brief, brave lives though have not been a waste, for in their
act of self-sacrifice, Ladan and Laleh have provided a parable for
others to consider. The Pakistan government for one could learn from
their example. For the past fifty-six years (coincidentally nearly
the sum of the twins' lives), Pakistan has chosen deliberately to
remain co-joined at its head with Kashmir. To some observers, this
diplomatic deformity is a case history in itself, but not unique in
world history, no more than the Bajani sisters were the only
co-joined twins in medical history.
A squabble for political custody similar to the argument over Kashmir
occurred in northern Europe during the nineteenth century. It was
known as the Schleswig-Holstein question, and consisted of a tussle
between the small kingdom of Denmark and its larger and more powerful
neighbour Prussia over the two contiguous Duchies of Schleswig and
Holstein that lay in between.
From 1844 onwards, control of these inconsequential territories
oscillated between Denmark and Prussia with such confusing frequency
that Lord Palmerston (then the British foreign secretary) confessed
that there were only three people who had ever understood the
Schleswig-Holstein question: one was dead, the other had gone mad,
and he the third had forgotten what the original issue was.
Eventually, after almost eighty years of argument, in 1920, a
plebiscite was held. The north part of Schleswig voted to join
Denmark, and the southern opted for union with Germany.
Today, most of Schleswig-Holstein which has a population roughly half that of
Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir is a part of the present Federal
Republic of Germany, and no one except historians can be bothered to
remember why it was ever such an inflammable casus belli.By that
measure, the argument between India and Pakistan over Kashmir would
appear to have many more years to go before a comparable solution can
be found. During the past fiftysix years, though, ever since the
Maharaja of Kashmir's signature on the fateful instrument of
accession on August 25, 1947, almost as much ink has been spilt over
Kashmir as human bloodshed over it. Shelves of books have been
published on it, reams of articles written on it, yards of speeches
delivered on it, millions of grey cells have turned white over it,
and yet it remains a bone of contention between two neighbours, a
bone that is slowly petrifying into a fossil.
Is Kashmir such an intractable problem? Is it really the core issue
preventing a modus vivendi between the two countries? This is a
question that needs to be asked. It is a question that countless
young men and women on both sides of the border, in the dying moments
of their unnecessary martyrdom, have asked. It is the question that
every surviving mourner - every grieving mother, widow or orphaned
child - continues to ask every day that they are forced to live
without their loved ones. It is a question that one billion Indians
and 150 million Pakistanis are entitled to ask, of themselves and
their governments, today and every day, until a definitive answer is
forthcoming. Is Kashmir really the core issue?
To some, if it is indeed a core issue, it is the core that has been
left after the surrounding body flesh has been eaten away by Time.
Today, when the United Nations, half a century after its first
intervention in the dispute, finds itself emasculated, its aged
discoloured resolutions cannot be expected to have retained any of
their relevance. In any case, the outside world beyond the
subcontinent is suffering from Kashmir fatigue. It has heard the same
refrain sung too often, it is over-familiar with the repetitive
rhetoric, the same circular argument. Neither Pakistan nor India
needs to play to the international gallery anymore. They have lost
their audience; the gallery has emptied. Now, they have an audience
of only one - each other.
If Kashmir was essentially a political problem, then three
generations of politicians since 1947 should have been able to
resolve it by now. They have met often enough over the years - Ayub
Khan/Nehru in Murree, Ayub Khan/Shastri at Tashkent, Z.A. Bhutto/Mrs
Indira Gandhi at Simla, Benazir Bhutto/Rajiv Gandhi in Islamabad,
Nawaz Sharif/Vajpayee at Lahore, and the last time at Agra when
Musharraf interacted with Vajpayee. On each occasion, though,
something always prevented consummation.
Was it the force of public opinion on both sides? Definitely not. The
Kashmir question has never been put to the litmus test of a public
poll or a referendum by either side. What masquerades as 'public
opinion' in Pakistan is, in all honesty, nothing more than the
prejudices of right-wing editors of high circulation Urdu dailies.
Because they believe they mould public opinion, periodically they
take plaster casts from that mould and present them as fresh
impressions of the public's mind on any particular issue.
Why does Kashmir remain an issue then? Is there any other inhibiting
factor? Perhaps the answer lies in the question itself. It may need
to be re-framed: Is Kashmir a core issue, or simply a corps
commanders' issue?
One is aware that such a daring statement could be read in some
barracks as a sinister play on words bandied by an uninformed,
ununiformed civilian. It is not being proffered as a provocation. It
is intended as a genuine, earnest attempt to use a pen to cauterize,
even if only at the edges, and to let ink disinfect a wound that
should not be allowed to suppurate for another generation.
Whatever the solution to the Kashmir question may be - a plebiscite,
union with India, merger with Pakistan, independence, autonomy,
acceptance of the Line of Control, continuation of the status quo -
whatever may be the framework of a political or constitutional
settlement, it can only be signed, sealed, and delivered for
implementation after it has also been duly witnessed by the nine
Pakistani corps commanders.
Had President Musharraf enjoyed the unequivocal mandate to decide
Kashmir on his own, he would have done so when he was alone with
Prime Minister Vajpayee at Agra. It is because as the Chief of Army
Staff, he needs to take his corps commanders into this battle with
him, he needs their unanimous support. He cannot afford to rely on a
reluctant comrade, or lean on an impatient successor.
Is any government in Pakistan ever likely to fall should there be an
agreement over Kashmir? One doubts it. Whenever governments have
fallen as a result of public agitation as opposed to when they have
been removed by the military, they have invariably been sent home
over mundane issues like the price of sugar or the blatant rigging of
elections. If the public has choked, it is over such gnats; it has
swallowed elephants like the nuclear programme or constitutional
violations without a hiccup.
There will be one school of thought that will advocate letting the
sleeping dog of Kashmir lie. It has its uses, especially when
awakened. There is a much larger number on both sides of the border
which would want to see this ageing animal put to sleep. It would be
an act of mercy, a merciful end to far too many merciless killings.
Pakistan, unlike the co-joined twins Ladan and Laleh Bajani, has a
choice because its attachment to Kashmir is a deliberate, voluntary
act of political co-junction. The solution is simple. It requires
Bajani-like courage. Who knows? Both Pakistan and Kashmir may well
survive the trauma, and actually thrive as a result. If asked their
opinion, one billion Indians and 150 million Pakistanis would
consider the risk worth taking.
Dawn, Pakistan31 July, 2003
Detroying Human Rights,Desecrating Kashmir
By David Devadas
Muzaffar (name changed) is a handsome 22-year old who lives in a middle class Srinagar locality. Over the past couple of years, he has developed a close friendship with a married woman of the neighbourhood who is separated from her husband. Her little children are very fond of Muzaffar and enjoy outings with him, but it is of course the sort of relationship that is frowned upon in a conservative society.
Having known the young man's family for several years, I can vouch for the fact that he is not involved in any way with the secessionist movement. Indeed, he holds the view - common enough, incidentally, among the generation that grew up amid the staccato rattle of gunfire - that economic development is what Kashmiris need rather than a changed political status. Nonetheless, Muzaffar has been picked up by the security forces several times and tortured.
Each time, it turns out, his lady friend's husband has reported him as a terrorist. For although the couple are separated, the man shares the male mentality so common across the subcontinent, that she is his property and that it is his right and duty to beat up any other male friends that she might have.
The difference is that, in the peculiar circumstances of Kashmir, such a man finds it easier to get the security forces to do his dirty work for him. Any security force set to combat a guerrilla war thrives on information about who is covertly involved with one or other guerrilla group and so they lap up such tips and act on them expeditiously.
Torture being the favoured method of security forces in not just Iraq, the typical reaction to such a tip about a young man like Muzaffar is that he is picked up and bundled into a closed security force vehicle and driven straight to a torture chamber. The forces' logic is that they must extract information about the whereabouts of other members of the group and of weapons dumps before the group realises their fellow has been caught and changes hideouts. The result is that the torture victim's family is left searching high and low for him for perhaps a couple of days - or, at times, forever. Muzaffar has been treated to electric shocks and the application of chilly paste to wounds and other exposed areas of a naked body, apart from thrashing and humiliation.
When the Border Security Force has picked up Muzaffar - twice so far over the past couple of years - he has been released after the first round of torture. It does not take long for them to figure out that the fellow is innocent - at least of the sort of crime they are trying to stop. The local police, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. The police picked up Muzaffar on his little nephew's birthday a few weeks ago and, although they too knew the fellow was innocent, they wanted money and other favours to let him go. Given the pattern of police forces in many parts of the subcontinent, the man who had reported him had also no doubt paid them.
Muzaffar's is not an isolated case. Unfortunately, this sort of thing has been almost a pattern through the traumatic 15 years that Kashmir has spent in the grip of turmoil. Property disputes and rivalry of one sort or another have all too frequently led to such malicious reports.
The forces cannot know which complaints are genuine and which are motivated, unless they investigate. But such action only creates fresh bitterness and alienation among people who have nothing to do with secessionist politics or militancy.
One must remain constantly alert to the fact that the extraordinary powers that have been given to the security forces in Kashmir can and do lead to abuse. The powers that be should never become complacent about these extraordinary powers.
Although Dr Manmohan Singh's government intends to repeal the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the answer finally is to repeal all the special powers acts in Kashmir. The best road towards that is the peace process. It must not be allowed to lose momentum. The talks between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan over the next few days should push forward the process.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/
By David Devadas
Muzaffar (name changed) is a handsome 22-year old who lives in a middle class Srinagar locality. Over the past couple of years, he has developed a close friendship with a married woman of the neighbourhood who is separated from her husband. Her little children are very fond of Muzaffar and enjoy outings with him, but it is of course the sort of relationship that is frowned upon in a conservative society.
Having known the young man's family for several years, I can vouch for the fact that he is not involved in any way with the secessionist movement. Indeed, he holds the view - common enough, incidentally, among the generation that grew up amid the staccato rattle of gunfire - that economic development is what Kashmiris need rather than a changed political status. Nonetheless, Muzaffar has been picked up by the security forces several times and tortured.
Each time, it turns out, his lady friend's husband has reported him as a terrorist. For although the couple are separated, the man shares the male mentality so common across the subcontinent, that she is his property and that it is his right and duty to beat up any other male friends that she might have.
The difference is that, in the peculiar circumstances of Kashmir, such a man finds it easier to get the security forces to do his dirty work for him. Any security force set to combat a guerrilla war thrives on information about who is covertly involved with one or other guerrilla group and so they lap up such tips and act on them expeditiously.
Torture being the favoured method of security forces in not just Iraq, the typical reaction to such a tip about a young man like Muzaffar is that he is picked up and bundled into a closed security force vehicle and driven straight to a torture chamber. The forces' logic is that they must extract information about the whereabouts of other members of the group and of weapons dumps before the group realises their fellow has been caught and changes hideouts. The result is that the torture victim's family is left searching high and low for him for perhaps a couple of days - or, at times, forever. Muzaffar has been treated to electric shocks and the application of chilly paste to wounds and other exposed areas of a naked body, apart from thrashing and humiliation.
When the Border Security Force has picked up Muzaffar - twice so far over the past couple of years - he has been released after the first round of torture. It does not take long for them to figure out that the fellow is innocent - at least of the sort of crime they are trying to stop. The local police, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. The police picked up Muzaffar on his little nephew's birthday a few weeks ago and, although they too knew the fellow was innocent, they wanted money and other favours to let him go. Given the pattern of police forces in many parts of the subcontinent, the man who had reported him had also no doubt paid them.
Muzaffar's is not an isolated case. Unfortunately, this sort of thing has been almost a pattern through the traumatic 15 years that Kashmir has spent in the grip of turmoil. Property disputes and rivalry of one sort or another have all too frequently led to such malicious reports.
The forces cannot know which complaints are genuine and which are motivated, unless they investigate. But such action only creates fresh bitterness and alienation among people who have nothing to do with secessionist politics or militancy.
One must remain constantly alert to the fact that the extraordinary powers that have been given to the security forces in Kashmir can and do lead to abuse. The powers that be should never become complacent about these extraordinary powers.
Although Dr Manmohan Singh's government intends to repeal the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the answer finally is to repeal all the special powers acts in Kashmir. The best road towards that is the peace process. It must not be allowed to lose momentum. The talks between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan over the next few days should push forward the process.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/
Army And The Peace Process In Kashmir
By Ram Puniyani
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed of People's Democratic Party, the party ruling in alliance with Congress in Kashmir, recently called for demilitarization of the state and withdrawal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (April 2007). This demand was looked at with great amount of skepticism on the ground that how can we control the armed militancy in the state without the army presence and the special act to back that up.
It is noteworthy that since the last elections when the electoral process was more democratic than the earlier one's, there is reduction in the overall militant actions in the state. It is also worth noticing that the atmosphere for dialogue and the amity within communities is better than before. Surely it is comparatively more representative character of this government, which has improved the situation. The question is, is it army, which can end the militancy, or is it the democratic character of the government and the keenness for dialogue with the disgruntled elements, which can further improve the situation. To begin with let's realize that army is trained to deal with 'enemy armies', enemies only , its functioning is totally authoritarian and it has its own methods very different from the civic norms of a democratic society. It is all right that an army is deployed in some area for a short while, but a prolonged deployment of the army creates further problems and civilian life suffers a set back which tantamount to loss of trust in the ruling government, alienation of people and further boost to the phenomenon which bring in militancy in the first place.
As such Kashmir has been in the news most of the times for last few decades but unfortunately for the wrong reasons. On one hand we have the militancy, military's heavy handed actions, fake encounters, missing young men, half widows and streaks of blood on the greens of the valley, on the other there are efforts to bring in peace through dialogues and still on the other we have
the gross misrepresentation of the events of Kashmir to communalize the mass consciousness'. Communal elements have presented it as a Hindu-Muslim problem and have propagated that events in Kashmir are one more example of 'Muslim separatism', while the real issue relates to the historical roots, the regional power equations and the ethnic identity of Kashmir. The debate on the efforts to bring in amity in the valley needs to be seen in the historical genesis of the issue and complexities of the present, the changing tilt of US with the aim to bring peace in the bullet torn edifice of the society. Also mistakes of the past need to be shunned if we aspire for the harmony and justice.
With India's independence the Princely states were given three options, one to merge with India, two to merge with Pakistan and three to remain independent. While most of the princely states merged with India or Pakistan, the king of Kashmir, Hari Singh decided to remain independent on the ground that his 'Hindu' Kingdom cannot merge with secular India. While the king was Hindu, majority of populating of Kashmir was Muslim. Pundit Perm Nath Dogra, of Praja Parishad, the precursor of BJP, Bharatiya Jansangh, endorsed his stand. Later Hari Singh offered standstill agreement to both India and Pakistan. As per this some state functions were to be shared with Pakistan and India. India rejected the offer; Pakistan accepted it and its postal department started serving Jammu and Kashmir.
When Pakistan army, dressed as tribal attacked Kashmir, the people of Kashmir did not want to merge with Pakistan and accordingly the President of National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah and representative of Maharaja Harisingh went to Delhi to urge upon the Indian Government to send the army to Kashmir to quell the Pakistani aggression. As at that time, Kashmir was not part of India, Indian Government did not accept this request. The negotiations to help Kashmir resulted in the treaty of accession according to which Kashmir was to have total autonomy barring in the matters of defense, external affairs, communication and currency. Kashmir was to have its
own Constitution, with Sadr-e-Riyasat and Prime Minster. It is on these terms that Indian army went to Kashmir to quell the Pakistani aggression. Indian army stalled the Pakistani army, but by that time Pakistani army had occupied nearly one third of Kashmir. The matter was taken to United Nations, where it was resolved that plebiscite will be held, to ascertain the wishes of Kashmiri people, after Pakistani and Indian armies withdraw from Kashmir. Neither of the armies withdrew and no plebiscite took place.
The elections held in Kashmir led to the victory of National Conference and Sheikh Abdullah was chosen the Prime Minister of Kashmir. The major achievement of Sheikh Abdullah was land reforms without any compensation to the landlords. As such Kashmir was a society, which stood on the foundation of Sufi Islam, values of Vedant and Buddhism. These are the ingredients of Kashmiriyat. After the Kashmiri assembly came to take charge of things, the ultra nationalists and Hindu communalists in India started the campaign for abolition of the clauses of autonomy
of Kashmir, demanding its total merger with India. The pressure of this 'forcible integration of Kashmir' led to a discomfort amongst the people of Kashmir, and Sheikh Abdullah voiced his concern that Indian Government is going back from its earlier promise. With his statement calling for respect of treaty of accession, he was dubbed as anti Nationalist and was put behind the bars. His imprisonment may be amongst one of the few cases of imprisonment of an elected chief of the state.
His imprisonment was the first act due to which the process of alienation began in Kashmir. This alienation was aggravated further by the political parties in power in Center trying to impose their agenda of power sharing with the National Conference. The rigging of elections was a regular phenomenon in Kashmir. With this the alienation of Kashmiri youth turned in to militancy, duly supported by Pakistan, which in turn was backed by the US. The local militants were joined in by the one's trained in Pakistan and later joined by the Al Qaeda elements.
The militancy in Kashmir initially was not based on communal ground and Kashmiriyat remained the overarching goal. In the decades of 80s the militancy did assume communal color, targeting the Kashmiri Pundits. Jag Mohan intensified the problem by encouraging the Pundits to leave the valley on the plea that every Kashmiri Muslim is a terrorist and Pundits face the physical threat.
Hanging of Maqbool Butt and rigging of elections worsened the problem giving a further boost to separatist tendencies in the valley. The issue was communalized in the country by presenting it as a Hindu India versus Muslims of Kashmir. The communal elements in the country made a heavy use of this issue to polarize the society. The response of Indian government was to go on increasing the presence of army in the valley. Today the number of military personnel is so heavy that the air is thick with intimidation of the army guns. The local Kashmiris are the victims of the acts of the militants and that of Indian army. Army treats most of the civilians as suspects.
This alienation of local people and gross violation of human rights needs to be redressed. The restoration of part of democratic process during last elections has been a welcome sign. Any area under military presence cannot breath freely. Too many disappearances, senseless killings and the orphaned children tell the story of state of affairs in Kashmir. The confidence of local people has been shattered by this approach, which looks at Kashmir as the real estate to be acquired at any cost. Kashmir as the inseparable part of India on one hand and Kashmir a Muslim majority state cannot be part of India, these contrasting positions need to be countered to respect the autonomy and aspirations of Kashmiri people. That is the only way to restore the human rights and amity in the valley, which is being wounded by the guns of dissatisfaction and weapons trying to control the aspirations of people.
Today the thinking on the Kashmir issue has to begin with the idea of respecting the wishes and well being of Kashmiri people, and to apply the soothing balm to the wounded psyche of average person in Kashmir. While dialogue with the dissident factions goes on we need to reduce the heavy-handed presence of army in the area. We also should register the fact that a long stay of army will affect the way of thinking of army itself. We have heard about the incidents like Chittsinghpura massacre of innocents at the hands of our own army, many an army personnel have tried to bake their own bread under the guise of their uniform. By winning over the trust of the people we can definitely reduce the intensity of militants' actions, and in due course bring in a more hospitable atmosphere. A long-term view of the matter is equally important. To begin with we need a social audit of the actions of army and to devise a mechanism where by armies actions are not arbitrary but are subject to civic scrutiny, and involvement of civilians and political representatives in the process of planning the actions of army.
The over all improvement in the situation needs to be welcomed and path for further improvement sought in a proactive way.
Pluralindia.com 03 May, 2007
By Ram Puniyani
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed of People's Democratic Party, the party ruling in alliance with Congress in Kashmir, recently called for demilitarization of the state and withdrawal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (April 2007). This demand was looked at with great amount of skepticism on the ground that how can we control the armed militancy in the state without the army presence and the special act to back that up.
It is noteworthy that since the last elections when the electoral process was more democratic than the earlier one's, there is reduction in the overall militant actions in the state. It is also worth noticing that the atmosphere for dialogue and the amity within communities is better than before. Surely it is comparatively more representative character of this government, which has improved the situation. The question is, is it army, which can end the militancy, or is it the democratic character of the government and the keenness for dialogue with the disgruntled elements, which can further improve the situation. To begin with let's realize that army is trained to deal with 'enemy armies', enemies only , its functioning is totally authoritarian and it has its own methods very different from the civic norms of a democratic society. It is all right that an army is deployed in some area for a short while, but a prolonged deployment of the army creates further problems and civilian life suffers a set back which tantamount to loss of trust in the ruling government, alienation of people and further boost to the phenomenon which bring in militancy in the first place.
As such Kashmir has been in the news most of the times for last few decades but unfortunately for the wrong reasons. On one hand we have the militancy, military's heavy handed actions, fake encounters, missing young men, half widows and streaks of blood on the greens of the valley, on the other there are efforts to bring in peace through dialogues and still on the other we have
the gross misrepresentation of the events of Kashmir to communalize the mass consciousness'. Communal elements have presented it as a Hindu-Muslim problem and have propagated that events in Kashmir are one more example of 'Muslim separatism', while the real issue relates to the historical roots, the regional power equations and the ethnic identity of Kashmir. The debate on the efforts to bring in amity in the valley needs to be seen in the historical genesis of the issue and complexities of the present, the changing tilt of US with the aim to bring peace in the bullet torn edifice of the society. Also mistakes of the past need to be shunned if we aspire for the harmony and justice.
With India's independence the Princely states were given three options, one to merge with India, two to merge with Pakistan and three to remain independent. While most of the princely states merged with India or Pakistan, the king of Kashmir, Hari Singh decided to remain independent on the ground that his 'Hindu' Kingdom cannot merge with secular India. While the king was Hindu, majority of populating of Kashmir was Muslim. Pundit Perm Nath Dogra, of Praja Parishad, the precursor of BJP, Bharatiya Jansangh, endorsed his stand. Later Hari Singh offered standstill agreement to both India and Pakistan. As per this some state functions were to be shared with Pakistan and India. India rejected the offer; Pakistan accepted it and its postal department started serving Jammu and Kashmir.
When Pakistan army, dressed as tribal attacked Kashmir, the people of Kashmir did not want to merge with Pakistan and accordingly the President of National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah and representative of Maharaja Harisingh went to Delhi to urge upon the Indian Government to send the army to Kashmir to quell the Pakistani aggression. As at that time, Kashmir was not part of India, Indian Government did not accept this request. The negotiations to help Kashmir resulted in the treaty of accession according to which Kashmir was to have total autonomy barring in the matters of defense, external affairs, communication and currency. Kashmir was to have its
own Constitution, with Sadr-e-Riyasat and Prime Minster. It is on these terms that Indian army went to Kashmir to quell the Pakistani aggression. Indian army stalled the Pakistani army, but by that time Pakistani army had occupied nearly one third of Kashmir. The matter was taken to United Nations, where it was resolved that plebiscite will be held, to ascertain the wishes of Kashmiri people, after Pakistani and Indian armies withdraw from Kashmir. Neither of the armies withdrew and no plebiscite took place.
The elections held in Kashmir led to the victory of National Conference and Sheikh Abdullah was chosen the Prime Minister of Kashmir. The major achievement of Sheikh Abdullah was land reforms without any compensation to the landlords. As such Kashmir was a society, which stood on the foundation of Sufi Islam, values of Vedant and Buddhism. These are the ingredients of Kashmiriyat. After the Kashmiri assembly came to take charge of things, the ultra nationalists and Hindu communalists in India started the campaign for abolition of the clauses of autonomy
of Kashmir, demanding its total merger with India. The pressure of this 'forcible integration of Kashmir' led to a discomfort amongst the people of Kashmir, and Sheikh Abdullah voiced his concern that Indian Government is going back from its earlier promise. With his statement calling for respect of treaty of accession, he was dubbed as anti Nationalist and was put behind the bars. His imprisonment may be amongst one of the few cases of imprisonment of an elected chief of the state.
His imprisonment was the first act due to which the process of alienation began in Kashmir. This alienation was aggravated further by the political parties in power in Center trying to impose their agenda of power sharing with the National Conference. The rigging of elections was a regular phenomenon in Kashmir. With this the alienation of Kashmiri youth turned in to militancy, duly supported by Pakistan, which in turn was backed by the US. The local militants were joined in by the one's trained in Pakistan and later joined by the Al Qaeda elements.
The militancy in Kashmir initially was not based on communal ground and Kashmiriyat remained the overarching goal. In the decades of 80s the militancy did assume communal color, targeting the Kashmiri Pundits. Jag Mohan intensified the problem by encouraging the Pundits to leave the valley on the plea that every Kashmiri Muslim is a terrorist and Pundits face the physical threat.
Hanging of Maqbool Butt and rigging of elections worsened the problem giving a further boost to separatist tendencies in the valley. The issue was communalized in the country by presenting it as a Hindu India versus Muslims of Kashmir. The communal elements in the country made a heavy use of this issue to polarize the society. The response of Indian government was to go on increasing the presence of army in the valley. Today the number of military personnel is so heavy that the air is thick with intimidation of the army guns. The local Kashmiris are the victims of the acts of the militants and that of Indian army. Army treats most of the civilians as suspects.
This alienation of local people and gross violation of human rights needs to be redressed. The restoration of part of democratic process during last elections has been a welcome sign. Any area under military presence cannot breath freely. Too many disappearances, senseless killings and the orphaned children tell the story of state of affairs in Kashmir. The confidence of local people has been shattered by this approach, which looks at Kashmir as the real estate to be acquired at any cost. Kashmir as the inseparable part of India on one hand and Kashmir a Muslim majority state cannot be part of India, these contrasting positions need to be countered to respect the autonomy and aspirations of Kashmiri people. That is the only way to restore the human rights and amity in the valley, which is being wounded by the guns of dissatisfaction and weapons trying to control the aspirations of people.
Today the thinking on the Kashmir issue has to begin with the idea of respecting the wishes and well being of Kashmiri people, and to apply the soothing balm to the wounded psyche of average person in Kashmir. While dialogue with the dissident factions goes on we need to reduce the heavy-handed presence of army in the area. We also should register the fact that a long stay of army will affect the way of thinking of army itself. We have heard about the incidents like Chittsinghpura massacre of innocents at the hands of our own army, many an army personnel have tried to bake their own bread under the guise of their uniform. By winning over the trust of the people we can definitely reduce the intensity of militants' actions, and in due course bring in a more hospitable atmosphere. A long-term view of the matter is equally important. To begin with we need a social audit of the actions of army and to devise a mechanism where by armies actions are not arbitrary but are subject to civic scrutiny, and involvement of civilians and political representatives in the process of planning the actions of army.
The over all improvement in the situation needs to be welcomed and path for further improvement sought in a proactive way.
Pluralindia.com 03 May, 2007
Hearing New Voices In Kashmir
By Mariana Baabar
Mariana Baabar is the diplomatic editor of the Islamabad-based newspaper, The News. She was one of a group of Pakistani journalists who recently visited Indian-administered Kashmir - the first time either country has invited journalists from the other to visit its portion of the divided territory.
"We have been waiting for you for nearly 10 hours," said impatient Kashmiri journalists as we entered Jammu. "We have been waiting for more than 50 years," the Pakistanis replied. Strained relations between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory continue to this day, with both laying claim to Kashmir.
Nothing could have prepared us for the love-hate relationship the people of Jammu and Kashmir have for Pakistanis - from sipping saffron tea and being garlanded with brilliant marigolds to hearing abuse and allegations that we were the agents of the Pakistan government.
All our lives, writers and journalists had been basing their analyses on "briefs" handed out by the governments in Delhi and Islamabad, together with second-hand reports coming over the Line of Control that divides the two sides of Kashmir. Never a first-hand report. We heard new voices in Jammu and Kashmir - voices critical of Pakistan's Kashmir policies.
Unknown to our readers back in Pakistan there are hundreds of Hindu Pandit migrants in Jammu who say they had to flee for their lives from Muslim separatists in Srinagar. They said they had been displaced for the past 15 years because of "Pakistan-sponsored terrorism". Go back home, they said, and tell General Pervez Musharraf about our plight. "What has happened to Kashmir is because of your gunpowder," were the accusations we heard.
Suddenly the cold statistics we were used to hearing from international human right groups, Indian NGOs and the Indian media had a face. We met mothers whose sons had fallen prey to bullets from the Indian state security, other sons who were missing or in prison and, saddest of all, women who had been raped and abused.
Back home, there were threats that had our families worried. Asiya Andrabi, chairwoman of the Kashmir separatist women's group, the Dukhteran-e-Millat, railed against us in a press conference the day before we arrived.
The visit was part of a "larger conspiracy" and separatist leaders should not meet us, she said. Another Kashmiri separatist, Yasin Malik, accused the Pakistanis of trying to sell out on Kashmir. In many places we were a handy punch bag for anger directed at the Pakistan government.
Srinagar gave us a feel of what a conflict zone is. There was security at every step. Inside our bus we had the Jammu and Kashmir police and we were escorted by two jeeps in front and two behind.
At a breakfast stop in Jhagarkoli, an hour from Jammu, a hasty trip to a toilet sparked a pursuit by a police escort who thought this must be the "great escape" by a Pakistani. The message we took from the people of Jammu and Kashmir was that they all wanted peace and desperately wanted the talks between India and Pakistan to succeed.
Nearly all of them wanted to be independent from the clutches of India and Pakistan - both had been treating this beautiful valley as if it were a piece of "real estate". The slogan of "freedom" we heard in the University of Kashmir was freedom from state oppression.
Images of conflict are ever-present here. During the Soviet occupation, Afghan refugees in Peshawar started to weave missiles, planes and bombs into their carpets instead of the traditional designs.
On the streets of Srinagar, I saw a youngster with a white shirt and a picture of a bullet wound with red paint oozing out. In bold letters it sported the word "encounter" - the perceived summary executions by security forces that are passed off as regular military casualties.
The leaders of the main Kashmir separatist group, the All Party Hurriyat Conference, have to get their act together quickly. They blame Pakistan and India for not including them in talks. But then who represents the people of Kashmir? Those that won the 2002 elections or those that boycotted them? It seems there is no way out but to ensure fair and free elections under the UN to determine who would join the dialogue.
Meanwhile, a few of us managed to sneak along, with minimum security, to see the graveyard where freedom fighters are put to rest in Srinagar. It was a stark reminder of the continued struggle. "Come out quickly please," said a Jammu and Kashmir police chief.
"If word gets around that Pakistanis are here we would have a law and order situation on our hands. Thousands would gather quickly to vent their feelings."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/14 October, 2004
By Mariana Baabar
Mariana Baabar is the diplomatic editor of the Islamabad-based newspaper, The News. She was one of a group of Pakistani journalists who recently visited Indian-administered Kashmir - the first time either country has invited journalists from the other to visit its portion of the divided territory.
"We have been waiting for you for nearly 10 hours," said impatient Kashmiri journalists as we entered Jammu. "We have been waiting for more than 50 years," the Pakistanis replied. Strained relations between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory continue to this day, with both laying claim to Kashmir.
Nothing could have prepared us for the love-hate relationship the people of Jammu and Kashmir have for Pakistanis - from sipping saffron tea and being garlanded with brilliant marigolds to hearing abuse and allegations that we were the agents of the Pakistan government.
All our lives, writers and journalists had been basing their analyses on "briefs" handed out by the governments in Delhi and Islamabad, together with second-hand reports coming over the Line of Control that divides the two sides of Kashmir. Never a first-hand report. We heard new voices in Jammu and Kashmir - voices critical of Pakistan's Kashmir policies.
Unknown to our readers back in Pakistan there are hundreds of Hindu Pandit migrants in Jammu who say they had to flee for their lives from Muslim separatists in Srinagar. They said they had been displaced for the past 15 years because of "Pakistan-sponsored terrorism". Go back home, they said, and tell General Pervez Musharraf about our plight. "What has happened to Kashmir is because of your gunpowder," were the accusations we heard.
Suddenly the cold statistics we were used to hearing from international human right groups, Indian NGOs and the Indian media had a face. We met mothers whose sons had fallen prey to bullets from the Indian state security, other sons who were missing or in prison and, saddest of all, women who had been raped and abused.
Back home, there were threats that had our families worried. Asiya Andrabi, chairwoman of the Kashmir separatist women's group, the Dukhteran-e-Millat, railed against us in a press conference the day before we arrived.
The visit was part of a "larger conspiracy" and separatist leaders should not meet us, she said. Another Kashmiri separatist, Yasin Malik, accused the Pakistanis of trying to sell out on Kashmir. In many places we were a handy punch bag for anger directed at the Pakistan government.
Srinagar gave us a feel of what a conflict zone is. There was security at every step. Inside our bus we had the Jammu and Kashmir police and we were escorted by two jeeps in front and two behind.
At a breakfast stop in Jhagarkoli, an hour from Jammu, a hasty trip to a toilet sparked a pursuit by a police escort who thought this must be the "great escape" by a Pakistani. The message we took from the people of Jammu and Kashmir was that they all wanted peace and desperately wanted the talks between India and Pakistan to succeed.
Nearly all of them wanted to be independent from the clutches of India and Pakistan - both had been treating this beautiful valley as if it were a piece of "real estate". The slogan of "freedom" we heard in the University of Kashmir was freedom from state oppression.
Images of conflict are ever-present here. During the Soviet occupation, Afghan refugees in Peshawar started to weave missiles, planes and bombs into their carpets instead of the traditional designs.
On the streets of Srinagar, I saw a youngster with a white shirt and a picture of a bullet wound with red paint oozing out. In bold letters it sported the word "encounter" - the perceived summary executions by security forces that are passed off as regular military casualties.
The leaders of the main Kashmir separatist group, the All Party Hurriyat Conference, have to get their act together quickly. They blame Pakistan and India for not including them in talks. But then who represents the people of Kashmir? Those that won the 2002 elections or those that boycotted them? It seems there is no way out but to ensure fair and free elections under the UN to determine who would join the dialogue.
Meanwhile, a few of us managed to sneak along, with minimum security, to see the graveyard where freedom fighters are put to rest in Srinagar. It was a stark reminder of the continued struggle. "Come out quickly please," said a Jammu and Kashmir police chief.
"If word gets around that Pakistanis are here we would have a law and order situation on our hands. Thousands would gather quickly to vent their feelings."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/14 October, 2004
Marathaman
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 567
- Reaction score
- 0
That is a very good development. It is time that more people of kashmir are offered a modern secular education.
Similar threads
