It was exactly 60 years ago,
on the 26th October, the princely State of Kashmir was invaded.
On the 27th, the ruler Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession.
By the 28th, Indian troops had landed to stop the invadors and the indiscriminate
looting, rape and plunder.

As is obvious that some Indians are STILL under ILLUSION
that Kashmir may indeed become independent one day.
And lend their “weak voice” in support.
There are some Kashmiris,
who may believe that Pakistan will help them become independent.
The world has been led to believe, Pakistan “morally” supports the Kashmiri
violence in the name of a fight for freedom.

The reality, unfortunately for Kashmiris, is very different,
For there is only ONE reality set out in the UNCIP Resolution of January 5, 1949.

India, at the time of accession had promised that the future of Kashmir,
as set out in the UNCIP Resolution of August 13, 1948,
would be determined by the will of the Kashmiris.
Even if that meant complete independence.

But by January next year,
Pakistan had that amended to UNCIP Resolution of January 5, 1949
By which, there never was a third option; no choice for complete independence.

There was only ONE choice for the Kashmiris.
To exercise their “democratic” rights to,
EITHER lose those right in an ISLAMIC and MILITARY DICTATORSHIP
OR retain those rights in a SECULAR and DEMOCRATIC republic
for it was always a myth there would ever be an INDEPENDANT Kashmir

For the Kashmiri HINDUS and BUDDHISTS the choice was even more chilling,
EITHER spend THE rest of their lives
in an ISLAMIC STATE under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.
OR be ETHNICALLY CLEANSED out of their homeland Kashmir.

It has been sixty long years.
And nothing has changed. There is no third option.

KashmirIndiaPakistanpropagandademocracydictatorship

To be continued

]]> http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/10/28/kashmir-myths-therell-be-an-independant-kashmir/feed/ 5 http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/09/22/kashmir-myths-india-refuses-a-plebiscite-2/ http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/09/22/kashmir-myths-india-refuses-a-plebiscite-2/#comments Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:20:03 +0000 littleindian http://awmyth.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/kashmir-myths-india-refuses-a-plebiscite-2/ continuing from kashmir myths: india refuses a plebiscite – 1

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

On Jan. 1, 1948, India, an infant country facing armed aggression, complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter.

The UN, regarded as the guardian of world order was itself a fledgling organization, and took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled on August 13, 1948.

The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan’s aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession. The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN on 13 August 1948.

Relevent excerpts: (Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:

PART I: CEASE-FIRE ORDER

[E] The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.

PART II: TRUCE AGREEMENT

A. (1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

B.(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

PART III:
The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.
Members of the Commission: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

India sought a series of clarifications from the UNCIP.

After the UNCIP received final communication from the Governments of India and of Pakistan dated respectively December 23 and 25, 1948, the UNCIP passed another resolution on Jan. 5th, 1949, declaring certain provisions supplementary to the UNCIP resolution of Aug. 13th, 1948.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN on 5 January, 1949.

(Relevent excerpts: Document No. 5/1196 para. 15, dated the 10th January, 1949).

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December 23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are supplementary to the Commission’s Resolution of August 13, 1948;

1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

2. A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed;

3. (a) The Secretary-General of the United Nations will, in agreement with the Commission, nominate a Plebiscite Administrator who shall be a personality of high international standing and commanding general confidence. He will be formally appointed to office by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

4.(a) After implementation of Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, and when the Commission is satisfied that peaceful conditions have been restored in the State, the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator will determine, in consultation with the Government of India, the final disposal of Indian and State armed forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite.

The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 5-1-1949.
Members of the Commission: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Amongst these supplements was a provision for a Plebiscite Administrator to be nominated by the Secretary General of the UN in consultation with the UNCIP.

More importantly,
also unambiguous was the fact that the consideration of the plebiscite would come into effect ONLY AFTER the UNCIP would find that the cease fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of August 13, 1948, have been carried out.

The UN resolution further required that all persons who on or since August 15, 1947, have entered the state (of Jammu and Kashmir) for other than lawful purposes, shall be required to leave the state.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the UNCIP resolution of August 13th, 1948 provided for the future status of the State of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people, and thereby included the possibility of Jammu and Kashmir becoming independent of both India and Pakistan.

Pakistan had this provision reduced, in the UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949 to the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan, thereby excluding the possibility of an independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Yet, the Indian media has allowed the Pakistan to carry on the propaganda that Pakistan champions the cause of freedom of the people of J&K!

THE REALITY OF THE CHOICE for the Kashmiris is stark:

An independant Kashmir, is only a myth

The powerful proganda does find ready sympathisers in India who believe,
there will truly be an independant Kashmir and lends their voices in support,
and “do not believe there is one reality for anything”; even in these UN resolutions.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

As of today, Parts I and II of the UNCIP resolution of August 13th 1948 have never been put into operation. Instead, Pakistan consolidated its aggression.

India, instead of evicting the intruders on the spot, kept protesting to the Security Council, (who an Indian diplomat for obvious reasons refers to as an impotent international body), that Pakistan vacate its aggression.

So far as the cease-fire agreements have been concerned, as is well known, notwithstanding Part I of the said Aug.13, 1948 UNCIP resolution, Pakistan has signed some, and broken them all, subsequent to several military defeats (most notably in 1965, 1968, 1971 and the latest in 1999).

THE PLEBISCITE: HOW AND WHY PAKISTAN AVOIDED IT
TERMINATION OF UN FRAMEWORK

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Pakistan NEVER was in favor of self-determination of the Kashmiris.

Pakistan’s claim to have supported Kashmiris self- rule is manifestly refuted by the stand it has taken. All evidence is essentially to the contrary. Pakistan wanted, following the outdated tactics of the Moguls, to coerce the Kashmiris to accede to it. Every time the UN came close to organizing a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan raised difficulties and actually avoided the plebiscite.

Pakistan had to avoid the plebiscite because it realized that Kashmiris, had suffered an enormous loss of human dignity at the hands of Pakistan, and would not vote to accede to it. Pakistan hoped that it could put off the plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir till there was sufficient illegal Pakistani infiltration, which would offset the popular choice in the state.

Pakistan’s policy was manifestly simple and malicious:
First and foremost – disregard democracy.
Further, coerce people into saying what it wants to be stated as popular people’s mandate.

Pakistan employed the strategy of accepting and consolidating what they get, and go on to ask for more and more – much on the lines of Jinnah.

The instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir accepted by the Government of India was the very same as for all other princely states. The accession was thus complete in law and in fact, and made the State of Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India.

There was simply no popular support to Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir: how could the very same people against whom Pakistan committed atrocities actually want to join it?

Philip Talbott wrote in World Politics, No.3, April 1949, of the tenacious resistance against Jinnah and Pakistan by Kashmir’s largest political party, the Kashmir National Conference, which was Muslim led (by Sheikh Abdullah) and largely Muslim supported.

Pakistan’s strategy was therefore to avoid plebiscite till it manipulated the demography of the region. This would be done over ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, years as many as it would take, till the demography of the region is maneuvered by forcing Indians out of the state, through terror and malice, and replace them by illegal infiltration.

This would be done till the result of a plebiscite would be in Pakistan’s favor.

Pakistan repeatedly raised problems regarding demilitarization of the region required as a pre-condition to the plebiscite by the UN resolution, so that it could actually stall the plebiscite even as it kept demanding it!

Pakistan is still continuing to play this very game plan,
and India and world leaders let it!

Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition.

In May 1951, Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation convoking a CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY on the basis of free adult franchise, elections to which were held in October 1951. Correspondents and observers who came personally to witness the elections reported upon these elections across the world.

On April 30, 1951 the UN appointed Dr. Frank D. Graham as an arbitrator. Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition.

MEMORANDUM TO Dr. Frank P. Graham, UN REPRESENTATIVE
on 14 August, 1951
Excerpts from the Memorandum

It is a remarkable fact that, while the Security Council and its various agencies have devoted so much time to the study of the Kashmir dispute and made various suggestions for its resolution, none of them has tried to ascertain the views of the Indian Muslims nor the possible effect of any hasty step in Kashmir, however well-intentioned, on the interests and well- being of the Indian Muslims. We are convinced that no lasting solution for the problem can be found unless the position of Muslims in Indian society is clearly understood.

If we are living honorably in India today, it is certainly not due to Pakistan which, if anything, has by her policy and action weakened our pooition. The credit goes to the broadminded leadership of India, to Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to the traditions of tolerance in this country and to the Constitution which ensures equal rights to all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion caste, creed, colour or sex…

It is, therefore, clear that our interest and welfare do not coincide with Pakistan’s conception of the welfare and interests of Muslims in Pakistan…

This is clear from Pakistan’s attitude towards Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir, first, on the ground of the majority of the State’s people being Muslims and, secondly, on the ground, of the state being essential to its economy and defence. To achieve its objective it has been threatening to launch “Jehad” against Kashmir in India.

It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who like the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the interest of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State.

In its oft-proclaimed anxiety to rescue the 3 million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus in the State, Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of 40 million Muslims in India – a strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow- Muslims. Our misguided brothers in Pakistan do not realise that if Muslims in Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus in Kashmir why should not Hindus, sooner or later, retaliate against Muslims in India.

We should, therefore, like to impress upon you with all the emphasis at our command that Pakistan’s policy towards Kashmir is fraught with the gravest peril to the 40 million Muslims of India. If the Security Council is really interested in peace human brotherhood, and international understanding, it should heed this warning while there is still time.

Dr. Zakir Hussain (Vice Chancellor Aligarh University)
Sir Sultan Ahmed (Former Member of Governor General’s Executive Council)
Sir Mohd. Ahmed Syed Khan (Nawab of Chhatari, former acting Governor of United Provinces and Prime Minister of Hyderabad)
Sir Mohd. Usman (Former member of Governor General’s Executive council and
acting Governor of Madras)
Sir Iqbal Ahmed (Former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court)
Sir Fazal Rahimtoola (Former Sheriff of Bombay)
Maulana Hafz-ur-Rehman M.P. (Col. B.H. Zaidi M.P.)
Nawab Zain Yar Jung (Minister Gcvernment of Hyderabad)
A.K. Kawaja (Former President of Muslim Majlis)
T.M. Zarif (General Secretary West Bengal Bohra Community)

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Several Muslim leaders supported Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India.
In a Memorandum submitted on August 14, 1951, by fourteen prominent Indian Muslim leaders to the UN, the petitioners clearly spelt out how Pakistan did not consider the well being of the Muslim community at large (as later atrocities on East Pakistan, for example, clearly proved).

This memorandum deplored Pakistan’s attitude toward the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and expressed confidence in India’s will and ability to safeguard Muslim interests. This memorandum is one of the countless expressions of solidarity of the Muslim community to the interests of India, and has been in consonance with the rich secular traditions of modern India. Sheikh Abdullah and Maulana Azad were not the only Muslims who understood the fact that India was not automatically a Hindu state in imbalance just because Jinnah declared Pakistan to be a Muslim State.

Disgusted with Pakistan’s continued evasion and non-cooperation on the plebiscite, Dr. Graham asked for extra time on Oct.15th, 1951, and then on January 17th, 1952, he admitted failure!

On August 7th, 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, declared in the parliament of India: Jammu and Kashmir’s accession was complete in law and in fact It is patent and no argument is required because the accession of every (princely) state in India was complete on these very terms. When the United Nations Commission accompanied by legal advisors and others came here, it was open to them to challenge it. But they did not.

On February 6th 1954, the constituent assembly unanimously confirmed the Instrument of Accession. The will of the people was ascertained in the highest of democratic traditions. What more is required to establish popular mandate?

Pakistan continued to take the issue to the UN and kept pressing for a plebiscite even while evading it.

Finally in 1964, at the UN Security Council meeting, India’s brilliant representative, Mahomadali Currim Chagla declared:
Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India… You cannot make more complete what is already complete… The two basic UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 were conditional and contingent on Pakistan vacating its aggression and the condition has not been complied with…. The basis having disappeared, these resolutions are no longer binding on us… The only people who continued to suffer were the people of Kashmir for whom Pakistan felt no care…the resolutions of the UNCIP had lapsed, and under no circumstances would India agree to a plebiscite which Pakistan repeatedly avoided.

Finally, the UN Security Council debate ended, with the President of the Security Council stating, on May 18, 1964, that the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be complicated by any outside intervention. USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union asked for a bilateral settlement instead of a UN involvement.

The US representative to the UN, Adlai Stevenson said: the Kashmir question should be peacefully resolved…. We urged bilateral talks between the parties last year. An agreement cannot be imposed from the outside. This was reported by the President of the USA, while reporting to the U.S. Congress on events in 1964 on Our participation in the UN (US State Dept. Publication 7943, released Feb. 1966, pp.63-70).

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

continued as kashmir myths: there will be an independent kashmir

KASHMIR, a princely state, was never a subject of the Mountbatten Plan.
Yet the name PAKISTAN was based on the first letters of the regions demanded.
Since 1933

It has ALWAYS BEEN a matter of what Pakistan wants.
for them it has NEVER BEEN what the People of Kashmir wants.

And since January 5, 1949,
it is clearly documented, Pakistan has excluded a “free Kashmir” as an option.

PAKISTAN DECLARATION 1933:
NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?

Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan Declaration issued on January 28, 1933 from Cambridge.

At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan – for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.

October 26, 1947
LETTER FROM HARI SINGH TO MOUNTBATTEN

Excerpts from the letter: written on the day of Pakistani invasion of Jammu & Kashmir

My dear Lord Mountbatten,
I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government…

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes wnh modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sia1kot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side…

The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State.

An unnecessary war was sent into Kashmir in 1947

October 26, 1947
INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION

Excerpts from the document:

Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935, shall with such…

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes…

October 26, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO BRITISH PM CLEMENT ATTLEE

Excerpts from the telegram:

“I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view. It is quite clear, however, that no free expression of will of people of Kashmir is possible if external aggression succeeds in imperilling integrity of its territory.

I have thought it desirable to inform you of situation because of its threat of international complications.”

October 27, 1947
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF ACCESSION:

“My dear Maharaja Sahib,
Your Highness’ letter dated 26 October has been delivered to me by Mr. V. P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by your Highness my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India…”.

Yours sincerely, October 27, 1947. Mountbatten of Burma.”

October 27, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

The day the Indian army officially intervened in Kashmir: excerpts from the telegram:

I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people and we adhere to this view.

October 31, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

Sent four days later, excerpts from the telegram:

” …. our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”

November 1, 1947
A DISCUSSION BETWEEN Mr. Jinnah and Governor General Mountbatten
IN THE PRESENCE of Lord Ismay at GOVERNMENT HOUSE, LAHORE
Excerpts from Governor General Mountbatten’s own notes

Part I: India’s Policy towards States whose Accession Was in Dispute:
I pointed out the similarity between the cases of Junagadh and Kashmir and suggested that plebiscites should be held under UNO as soon as conditions permitted. I told Mr. Jinnah that I had drafted out in the aeroplane a formula which I had not yet shown to my Government but to which I thought they might agree.

This was the formula:’
“The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that, where the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as the State’s, the question of whether the State should finally accede to one or the other of the Dominions should in all cases be decided by an impartial reference to the will of the people.”

Mr. Jinnah’s first observation was that it was redundant and undesirable to have a plebiscite when it was quite clear that States should go according to their majority population, and if we would give him the accession of Kashmir he would offer to urge the accession of Junagadh direct to India.

I told him that my Government would never agree to changing the accession of a State against the wishes of the ruler or the Government that made the accession unless a plebiscite showed that the particular accession was not favoured by the people.

Mr. Jinnah then went on to say that he could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad, since he pointed out that Hyderabad did not wish to accede to either Dominion and he could not be a party to coercing them to accession. I offered to put in some reference to. States whose accession was in dispute “to try and get round the Hyderabad difficulty” and he said that he would give that his careful consideration if it was put to him.

I then pointed out that he really could not expect a principle to be applied in the case of Kashmir if it was not applied in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad, but that we naturally would not expect him to be a party to compulsory accession against the wishes of the Nizam.

I asked Mr. Jinnah why he objected so strongly to a plebiscite, and he said he did so because with the troops of the Indian Dominion in military occupation of Kashmir and with the National Conference under Sheikh Abdullah in power, such propaganda and pressure could be brought to bear that the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan.

I suggested that we might invite UNO to undertake the plebiscite and send observers and organisers in advance to ensure that the necessary atmosphere was created for a free and impartial plebiscite. I reiterated that the last thing my Government wished was to obtain a false result by a fraudulent plebiscite.

Part II. Kashmir:
I handed Mr. Jinnah a copy of the statement of events signed by the Indian Chiefs of Staff, which I had shown to Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan.

Continuing he said that the accession was not a bona fide one since it rested on “fraud and violence” and would never be accepted by Pakistan.

I asked him to explain why he used the term “fraud,” since the Maharaja was fully entitled, in accordance with Pakistan’s own official statement, which I had just read over to him, to make such accession: It was therefore perfectly legal and valid.

Mr. Jinnah said that this accession was the end of a long intrigue and that it had been brought about by violence. I countered this by saying that I entirely agreed that the accession had been brought about by violence; I knew the Maharaja was most anxious to remain independent, and nothing but the terror of violence could have made him accede to either Dominion; since the violence had come from tribes for whom Pakistan was responsible, it was clear that he would have to accede to India to obtain help against the invader.

Mr. Jinnah repeatedly made it clear that in his opinion it was India who had committed this violence by sending her troops into Srinagar; I countered as often with the above argument, thereby greatly enraging Mr. Jinnah at my apparent denseness.

Lord Ismay suggested that the main thing was to stop the fighting; and he asked Mr. Jinnah how he proposed that this should be done. Mr. Jinnah said that both sides should withdraw at once. He emphasised that the withdrawal must be simultaneous.

When I asked him how the tribesmen were to be called off, he said that all he had to do was to give them an order to come out and to warn them that if they did not comply, he would send large forces along their lines of communication. In fact, if I was prepared to fly to Srinagar with him, he would guarantee that the business would be settled within 24 hours. I expressed mild astonishment at the degree of control that he appeared to exercise over the raiders.

I asked him how he proposed that we should withdraw our forces, observing that India’s forces were on the outskirts of Srinagar in a defensive role; all the tribes had to do was to stop attacking.

November 2, 1947
Extracts from Nehru’s Broadcast

“We have decided to accept this accession and to send troops by air, but we made a ‘condition that the accession would have to be considered by the people of Kashmir later when peace and order were established. We were anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis, and without the fullest opportunity to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It was for them ultimately to decide.

“And here let me make clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the decision must be made by the people of the State. It was in accordance with this policy that we added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it not only to the people of Kashmir but the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.”

November 3, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

Nehru’s reiteration of plebiscite pledge: excerts from the telegram:

“I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which l made last evening. have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. l further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nation’, supervising any referendum.”

November 25, 1947
Mr Nehru’s address to the Constituent Assembly of India, stated:

“Further we made it clear that as soon as law and order had been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by reference to the people.”
He added: “In order to establish our bonafides we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation.“

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

On Jan. 1, 1948, India, an infant country facing armed aggression, complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter.

The UN, regarded as the guardian of world order was itself a fledgling organization, and took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled on August 13, 1948.

The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan’s aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession.
The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

January 1, 1948
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S LETTER TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

Excerpts from the letter:

“6. The grave threat to the life and property of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and to the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that had developed as a result of the invasion of the Valley demanded immediate decision by the Government of India on both the requests. It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a Government capable of discharging it.
But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State’s immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic methods of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.

“7. The Government of Indian felt it their duty to respond to the appeal for armed assistance because:

“(1) They could not allow a neighbouring and friendly State to be compelled by force to determine either its internal affairs or its external relations;

“(2) The accession of Jammu and Kashmir State to the Dominion of India made India really responsible for the defence of the State.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

continued as kashmir myths: india refuses a plebiscite – 2

INDIAN INDEPENDANCE ACT 1947

The Indian Independence Act 1947 was the legislation passed by the British Parliament that officially approved the independence of India and the partition of India.
The legislation was designed by the administration of Prime Minister Clement Attlee, after Indian political parties came to an agreement on the transfer of power and the Partition of India with Viceroy Lord Mountbatten according to what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan.

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions.

The Jammu and Kashmir Maharaja dwelt deeply on the possibility that his monarchial control over Jammu and Kashmir would continue as it did under the British, with India instead of the British at whose mercy he would rule. He therefore sought a standstill agreement with both Pakistan and India.

The Khan of Kalat, now in Pakistan, wanted to accede to India, but India refused Kalat’s proposal. Likewise, India rejected the overtures of Bahawalpur, since they were not fully in accordance with the guidelines laid down for the principle of accession. (The Khan of Kalat later revolted against its accession to Pakistan and was arrested by the Government of Pakistan in 1958).

There is evidence that Kalat was forcibly annexed.

EASTERN OCCUPIED (PAKISTANI) BALOCHISTAN
By Dr. Wahid Baloch

Balochistan, rich in oil and Gas with a 900 miles of warm water strategically located costline was very important for the survival Pakistan. Before the Partition of India and creation of Pakistan in 1947, Balochistan was a free sovereign independent state with it own parliament, the Dar-ul Awaam (the House of Commons) and Dar-ul Umraa (House of Lords).

Soon after the creation of Pakistan, it invaded Balochistan and forcefully annexed it into Pakistan. The Baloch people didn’t have a strong big army compare to Pakistani army, but still they resisted the Pakistani Occupation of their Baloch land.

The Khan of Kalat, did not have the mandate of his parliament to sign the accessation.
Evidence also confirms the claim of a failed revolt and the arrest of the Khan of Kalat.

PAKISTAN OPPRESSION AGAINST THE BALOCH PEOPLE
Speech by: Balach Marri

…In 1958 President of Pakistan Sikandar Mirza, encouraged Khan of Kalat to demand restoration of Kalat State. When Khan of Kalat did it Sikandar Mirza declared Khan as traitor of Pakistan. On 8th of October 1958 Sikandar Mirza sent Pakistan troops to arrest Khan of Kalat with rest of family, suppressed the supporter and declared martial law in the hole of the country and Khan of Kalat was sent to Jail in Punjab.

The story of Kalat and Balochistan does not fall under this topic, but I hope to in future, write about my interesting findings of the event leading to its accession.
It certainly was not a case of “do unto Kalat what Pakistan says they have done unto Kashmir”. There has been and still is two distinctly different principles used by Pakistan in its dealing with these two princely states that were never part of the partition of India.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Sardar Patel sent a message to Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, through no less a person than Mountbatten himself, that if he were to accede to Pakistan, India would not take it amiss.

It is clear that had the Maharaja wanted to betray his subjects and accede to India, he would have done so when he had an opportunity in August 1947 itself. Similarly, if there was any reason to suspect that his subjects interests would be best served by acceding to Pakistan, this too could have been done in August 1947.

The public opinion in Jammu and Kashmir at that time provided no reason for the latter, while the Maharaja was not interested in the former, in his fond hope being to keep power with himself.

Foreseeing that a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir would not guarantee a majority view in favor of accession to Pakistan, Pakistan resorted to the medieval ways of the Moguls, whose victims were their own ancestors.

On October 22, 1947, Pakistan launched a full- scale invasion of Jammu and Kashmir, though intrusions had begun almost immediately following the partition of India on August 15th.

KASHMIR CRISIS: STORY OF PAKISTAN

In 1947-1958: The Teething Years, it is alleged:

“Kashmir, the last of the defiant states, was the reverse of Hyderabad. It had a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, but his subjects were mostly Muslims, accounting to 78 percent of the total population. The Maharaja was reluctant to join either India or Pakistan.

But Lord Mountbatten urged him to take a decision to join either of the states before August 15, 1947. The Maharaja asked for more time to consider his decision. In the meantime he asked the Indian and the Pakistani government to sign a “standstill agreement” with him. Pakistan consented but India refused.

The local population of Poonch began to press the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. In August 1947, they held a massive demonstration to protest against the Maharaja’s indecisiveness. The Maharaja panicked. He asked his Hindu paratroopers to open fire, and within a matter of seconds, several hundred Muslims were killed. Rising up against this brutal action, a local barrister called Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim immediately set up the Azad Kashmir government and began to wage guerrilla warfare against the Maharaja.

By October 1947, the war of Kashmir had begun in earnest. The Pathan tribesmen from the North West Frontier Province, wanting to avenge the deaths of their brothers, invaded the valley. On reaching the valley of Kashmir, they defeated the Maharaja’s troops and reached the gates of Srinagar, the capital.”

Even if this account is true, there are three important points to note:
1.) it calls the Maharaja’s soldiers hindu “paratroopers” and not indian soldiers; why they have called these soldiers “paratroopers”, I haven’t found a reason.
2.) Neither the Indian military nor any paratroopers were in Kashmir, so why Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim’s Azad Kashmir “government” resort to wage “a guerrilla warfare” against the Maharaja, is not clear.
3.) it does not deny the invasion into the kingdom of tribesmen from the NWF province. However honourable was their motive, the invasion into an independent kingdom is always illegal.

Pakistani tribal soldiers surrendering in the War of 1947

India argues this based on the content of this book written by a Pakistani General.

“RAIDERS IN KASHMIR”
Major General Akbar Khan“…We had assumed that Kashmir would naturally join Pakistan”

“… That the Maharajah, a non-Muslim, wished to avoid accession to Pakistan had been obvious, but now the fear was that his hands were likely to be strengthened also by Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim Leader of Kashmir, hero of the Indian National Freedom Movement, who had previously opposed the conception of Pakistan. Our own safety and welfare also demanded that the State should not go over to India .. Pakistan’s military security would be seriously jeopardised if Indian troops came to be stationed along Kashmir’s western border.

“…The authorities needed a lot of assistance from the Army in the shape of plans, advice, weapons, ammunition, communications and volunteers. They did not ask for it, because the whole thing had to be kept secret from the Commander-in-Chief and other senior officers who were British. There were, however, also senior Pakistani officers in the Army who could have been taken into confidence – and these were in a position to help a great deal…

“…Ultimately, I wrote out a plan under the title of “Armed Revolt inside Kashmir”. As open interference or aggression by Pakistan was obviously undesirable, it was proposed that our efforts should be concentrated upon strengthening the Kashmiris themselves internally—and at the same time taking steps to prevent the arrival of armed civilian or military assistance from India into Kashmir…

“…Lieutenant Colonel Masud (latter Brigadier Tommy Masud) of the Cavalry, offered to help with collecting and storing the condemned ammunition…

“…The Prime Minister also promised to obtain some light machine guns (Brens) from a war dump in Italy or somewhere abroad…”

If we are to believe in the truth of General Akbar’s narration, it leaves no doubt that the invasion in October 1947 was planned and executed by Pakistan military.

THE ROOTS OF THE CRISIS:
KASHMIR HUMAN RIGHTS site; Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Demobilised Muslim soldiers returned to Poonch and Mirpur in Jammu and Kashmir to find that the maharaja was refusing to accept them into his army.

In the post-war period, the maharaja increased taxes, leading to widespread poverty. This provoked massive protests, particularly in Poonch where, in October 1947, an uprising was led by demobilised soldiers, armed by tribes in the North-West Frontier Province region of Pakistan.

On 4 October this uprising gave rise to a provisional government of the Democratic Republic of Kashmir. None of the bourgeois historians mention this development but it undoubtedly represented an attempt to move towards a struggle for an independent future for the Kashmiri people. The uprising lit the fires of rebellion against Dogra rule in other areas. At the end of October, soldiers of the Gilgit Scouts – British imperialism’s fighting force in the Gilgit Agency – rose up. There were less well-developed protests in Ladakh.

The provisional government only lasted until 24 October. It was shunted aside by one of the pro-Pakistani leaders of the Muslim Conference, supported by sections of the Pakistani military and backed up by armed fighters from North-West Frontier who entered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October. Sections of Muslims in the maharaja’s army began to desert, going over to the side of armed fighters and putting his rule under increasing threat.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

All Sikhs killed. All women raped. This was the military signal transmitted by the Pakistani commander who attacked Skardu on September 6th to his headquarters.
Ample evidence based on the diaries of Pakistani army officers and political leaders, in addition to incriminating reports in a news-paper none other than Dawn, proves that the money, food, arms, petrol, ammunition, uniforms, trained personnel, soldiers and military officers of the army, were provided by Pakistan for this invasion.

The invaders were driven by a lust for loot, murder and rape, much as Pakistan did later to East Pakistan before it broke out into independent Bangladesh. The victims were Hindus, Sikhs and also Muslims, again, much like what happened later in East Pakistan.

That atrocities had been perpetrated was confirmed by an independant eye witness.

HALFWAY TO FREEDOM: A REPORT ON THE NEW INDIA.
a book written by American photo-journalist Margaret Bourke-White.

She describes the plunder by the raiders:

“Their buses and trucks, loaded with booty, arrived every other day and took more Pathans to Kashmir.
Ostensibly they want to liberate their Kashmiri Muslim brothers, but their primary objective was riot and loot. In this they made no distinction between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims....The raiders advanced into Baramulla, the biggest commercial centre of the region with a population then of 11,000, until they were only an hour away from Srinagar. For the next three days they were engaged in massive plunder, rioting and rape. No one was spared. Even members of the St. Joseph’s Mission Hospital were brutally massacred.”

The evidence shows, the first acts of human rights atrocities were by muslims on muslims, and hindus and sikhs. And this in all probabilities was ordered by the Pakistan military.
Almost as if the fuse to a chain of explosives had been lit by a few who craved to occupy Kashmir at all costs; what we are now witnessing is the after effect of that awful incident in Kashmir’s unfortunate history.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Muslim scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan’s inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of religion. In fact, since the majority of the population was Muslim, it was the Muslim community that suffered the most.

There was public outcry against Pakistan’s atrocious misconduct. Muslim scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan’s inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of religion.

The shameful atrocities cannot, of course, be imagined in a civilized society, but can, of course be repeated by the perpetrators of the genocide, as they have done several times since.

Eminent Muslim leaders, who witnessed those unfortunate events, spoke of the aggression by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir in the following words:

“It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who want the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the name of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State”.

On October 26th 1947, vested by the authority in him as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh abandoned his standstill policy and acceded to India. Repeated scrutiny by the UN demonstrated that the accession was legal and complete.

THE INSTRUMENT OF JAMMU and KASHMIR’S ACCESSION TO INDIA

REPLY FROM Lord Mountbatten to Maharajah Sir Hari Singh DATED 27 October 1947
My dear Maharajah Sahib,

Your Highness’s letter, dated the 26th Octobers has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India…
Meanwhile, in response to your Highness’s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.
My Government and I note with satisfaction that your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an Interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely, (Sd/-) Mountbatten of Burma

KASHMIR CRISIS: STORY OF PAKISTAN
In 1947-1958: The Teething Years, it acknowledges

The Maharaja sensing his defeat took refuge in Jammu whence he appealed to India to send troops to halt the onslaught of the tribesmen. India agreed on the condition that Kashmir would accede to India. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja acceded to India. Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession on behalf of India.

It is clear the “Story of Pakistan” does accept here:
1.) The Maharaja did sign the accessation, which was accepted by Viceroy Mountbatten.
2.) The Maharaja was under no duress from India to sign the Instrument of Accession.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

The Government of India sent its troops under Lt.Col.D.R.Rai to Kashmir on October 27, 1947 to save Kashmir from Pakistan’s invasion, and there was widespread jubilation among the citizens of Shrinagar and the inhabitants of neighboring towns and villages. Their morale was high.

They organized bands of volunteers to maintain law and orderthey collected all motor vehicles (for use by the Indian army…local drivers were at the wheels ready to risk their lives in defending their motherland.

Reacting sharply to the Pakistan’s invasion, Sheikh Abdullah said: The invasion of Kashmir is meant to coerce and compel the Kashmiris to act in a particular way, namely, to accede to Pakistan. Every Kashmiri resents this compulsion on his will (Times of India, Oct. 28th, 1947).

Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference was anti-British, and also anti- Maharaja. On behalf of the National Conference, Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq was deputed to explain to Pakistan the right of Kashmiris to self- determination. Sadiq made two visits to Pakistan for this purpose, but Pakistan would not support a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir unless the National Conference guaranteed that the verdict would be in favor of accession to Pakistan. In fact, Jinnah told Sadiq: Sheikh Abdullah and his party must close their shop as they have no role.

Pakistan revealed right from 1947 its bogus support to Kashmiri right to self-determination. These are telling events of history which lets loose Pakistan’s continued ill designs on Jammu and Kashmir and exposes its bogus support to Kashmiris right to self-determination.

The National Conference rejected Pakistan’s expectations (Dawn, Karachi, Nov.17, 1947). Yet, the National Conference recently suggested Pakistan’s involvement in resolving the Jammu and Kashmir situation (The Deccan Chronicle, November 12, 2000). Obviously, current politicians seem ignorant of historical developments!

ACCESSION LEGAL
The Kashmir Story

The State’s accession to India has never been challenged by the UN Commission for India and Pakistan or the Security Council.

As early as 4 February, 1948, the US Representative in the Security Council declared: “External sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir is no longer under the control of the Maharaja. With the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India and that is how India happens to be here as a petitioner.”

Similarly, the representative of the USSR said at the 765th meeting of the Security Council: “The question of Kashmir has been settled by the people of Kashmir themselves. They decided that Kashmir is an integral part of the Republic of India.”
The legal adviser to the UN Commission came to the conclusion that the State’s accession was legal and could not be questioned. This fact was further recognized by the UN Commission in its report submitted to the UN in defining its resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949. Both these resolutions were accepted by India and Pakistan.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

To be continued

THE LAHORE RESOLUTION:

March 1940, Nawab Sir Shah Nawaz Mamdot

The Resolution declared:

“No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign”.

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Deshmukh

We pick up the threads from the events after the Quit India movement, i.e. after August 1942.

By 1944, the Muslim League had become quite weak. Jinnah faced considerable opposition even within the Muslim League. The Sind leader, Allah Baksh was a formidable rival to Jinnah, for whose public speeches only a few hundred would turn up now, as opposed to a hundred thousand in previous years. Jinnah retired from politics, a second time, and this was just three years before August 15, 1947!

On February 19, 1946, when the Labor party was in power in Britain, Prime Minister Atlee sent a delegation comprising of
Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India,
Stafford Cripps, then President of the Board of Trade, and
A.V.Alexander, the first Lord of Admiralty.

On May 16, 1946, the British Cabinet Mission published its plan that had for its parts, a long-term plan toward India’s independence, and a short-term plan for governance of the region till the British completely surrendered power.

Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the long- term plan, but had differences over the short-term plan.

The long-term plan rejected the division of India into two separate sovereign states. Further, it did not provide for the princely states to secede from the union of India.

Statement by the Cabinet Delegation and His Excellency the Viceroy
(as issued in New Delhi on 16 May 1946).
[L/P&J/10/42: ff 53-5]

(Para) 4. It is not intended in this statement to review the voluminous evidence that has been submitted to the Mission; but it is right that we should state that it has shown an almost universal desire, outside the supporters of the Muslim League, for the unity of India.

(Para) 15. We now indicate the nature of a solution which in our view would be just to the essential claims of all parties, and would at the same time be most likely to bring about a stable and practicable form of constitution for All-India.

We recommend that the constitution should take the following basic firm:

(1) There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States, which should deal with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications: and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects.

(2) The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all the members present and voting.

(3) All subjects other than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.

(4) The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.

(5) Provinces should be free to form Groups with executives and legislatures, and each Group could determine the Provincial subjects to be taken in common.

(6) The constitutions of the Union and of the Groups should contain a provision whereby any Province could, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for a reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an initial period of 10 years and at 10 yearly intervals thereafter.

Professor Deshmukh contd:

The cabinet mission returned to England on June 29, 1946, happy that both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted the long-term plan.

We now narrate one of the most tragic instances in Indian history and see how ostensibly very minor events can change course of history. In May 1946, the Congress held elections for its next president, at the end of Moulana Azan’s term and Jawaharlal Nehru became the new President. Nehru addressed a press conference on July 10, 1946, in Mumbai, following a meeting of the Congress.

Right until that day, the amputation of India was not on the cards.
The unity of India was not threatened.

To satisfy some congressmen over some of their concerns regarding the cabinet mission’s long term plan, Nehru announced at the press conference that certain aspects of the long-term plan were not resolved. This gave Jinnah the opportunity to claim that the Congress was pettifogging and haggling and could not be trusted.

Jinnah called upon the Muslim League to demand for Pakistan, rejected the cabinet mission plan, and called for a civil war against the British and against the Congress on August 16, 1946, which he declared as the Direct Action Day. A large number of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were killed in the! violence following Jinnah’s call for direct action.

A copy of a secret report written on 22 August 1946 to the Viceroy Lord Wavell,
from Sir Frederick John Burrows, concerning the Calcutta riots.
[IOR: L/P&J/8/655 f.f. 95, 96-107]

After the Muslim League had retracted its acceptance of the Cabinet Mission’s Plan and called for a ‘Direct Action Day’, communal violence broke out.
16-18 August saw the first wave with the ‘Great Calcutta Killing’. Around 4,000 people were killed in Calcutta and many more injured, with around 100,000 made homeless.

This report was written after the event, from the viewpoint of the British Governor of Bengal. There was criticism of Suhrawardy, Chief Minister in charge of the Home Portfolio in Calcutta, for being partisan and of Burrows for not having taken control of the situation.

The troubles then spread to the Noakhali district in East Bengal and to Bihar where approximately 7,000 Muslims were killed. There were also troubles in Bombay and the United Provinces, but little elsewhere. The original report by sir John Burrow was lengthy and laborious containing 10 pages of narratives. The following is an extract…

(Para) 2. The setting. Omitting the more remote causes of the riots – the long struggle for power between Hindus and Muslims, in which Calcutta is a focal point, the weakening of our authority which is an inevitable consequence of our impending departure, the dislocation of the normal life of Calcutta by war and famine, and the presence of a Muslim Ministry in a predominantly Hindu city – the proximate cause was the resolution of the Council of the All-India Muslim League passed at Bombay on July 29th, calling on ‘the Muslim nation to resort to direct action to achieve Pakistan’, and the consequent fixing of August 15th as ‘Direct Action Day’.

Professor Deshmukh contd:<

Viceroy Wavell was left with no choice, with the Muslim League having declared defiance, but to invite the Congress alone to form the interim government that would govern till the already approved long-term plan of India’s independence could be implemented. Realizing however that an interim Government without the Muslim League would cause only more bloodshed, and out of sheer exasperation, Nehru invited Jinnah and some other Muslim League members to join the short-term interim Government.

The Muslim League members would not cooperate with the Congress on the simplest of things, and both Patel and Nehru helplessly out of frustration reconciled with the eventual formation of Pakistan.

 

TERMS OF DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA

Prime Minister Atlee declared, on February 20, 1947, that Britain would transfer power by June 1948, by which time the Congress and the Muslim League were supposed to resolve their differences and accept some plan.

Atlee declared that if no comprehensive plan were put forth, then power would be transferred to one or more governments in different regions (as per their divide and quit policy).

Churchill, who had always remained contemptuous of India and Indian people, and had never agreed to surrender power to India, condemned the Atlee government for its resolution to transfer power to India’s politicians who were men of straw, of whom in a few years no trace would remain. The same day, the British Government recalled Wavell, since he was committed to surrendering power to a united India, and replaced him by Mountbatten as India’s last Viceroy.

Viceroy Wavell (center)

Viceroy Wavell was indeed reluctant to dividing India.
Wavell is generally considered the best Viceroy and Governor General of India, for not only he had done all his homework before he became viceroy, but he is also considered one of those British personalities who touched Indian souls and understood them.

His understanding of the Indian situation and the ignoring of his requests and proposals by Winston Churchill had made him quite frustrated. He was relieved to see Clement Attlee replace Churchill as Prime Minister in July 1945; however, he was unhappy with Attlee’s slowness to make decisions.

He had himself requested several times to be removed from his post, but his requests were turned down by London. However, had Wavell not been there, the communal tension and civic strife could have been prolonged and more bloody. Wavell was against the Partition of India, as he knew this would lead to bloodshed which neither Indians nor the British would be able to control.

Professor Deshmukh contd.

Wavell has reported in his diary that Churchill wanted him to divide India between Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestan; hence Churchill’s brief to Mountbatten: If the British could not hold India, it was best to divide her.

Communal riots broke out in February-March, 1947, and the Congress demanded the partition of Punjab and Bengal on communal lines in the hope that this would stop violence. Patel and Nehru were advised by V.P.Menon, the Reforms Commissioner and Constitutional Advisor to the last three viceroys (Linlithgow, Wavell, Mountbatten), that the Cabinet Mission plan would not work and that it would therefore be better to concede to the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.

 

THE MENON MOUNTBATTEN PLAN:

It had now become clear that India would be disintegrated and that the British would withdraw soon. Several small regions sought sovereignty.

It was decided that Atlee’s deadline of June 1948 be advanced to August 15, 1947. V.P. Menon proposed the TWO-DOMINION of INDIA and PAKISTAN plan that was accepted by Mountbatten and by Nehru on May 11, 1947.

On June 2, 1947, the Menon-Mountbatten plan was accepted by Nehru, Kripalani and Patel on behalf of the Congress, by Baldeo Singh on behalf of the Sikhs, and by Jinnah (with a nod!) on behalf of the Muslim League.

Indian Empire 1901: 565 Princely States

Professor Deshmukh contd.

The STATUS OF THE PRINCELY STATES

The British had divided what makes up for the present Bangladesh, India and Pakistan into several segments.
About 40% of this territory came under ‘British India’ over which alone the British Parliament could legislate.
The British Parliament did NOT legislate for the remaining 60% of the territory that was ruled by the princes, the maharajas, and the nizams, and they reported to the Viceroy.
There were nearly six hundred of these princely states. The Indian princely states were left free to decide if they would stay independent or join one of the two countries.

The British Government’s ruling, contained in His Majesty’s Government’s statement of June 3, 1947 was clear: the decision announced about the partition relates only to British India (seven provinces) and that their policy towards the Indian (princely) states remains unchanged .

There was no provision to influence the destiny of the princely states with regard to any communal factor, which was the governing factor for the partition only of British India over which alone did the British Parliament legislate. The future of the nearly six hundred princely states was thus completely, exclusively and irrevocably to be determined by their monarchs.

PAKISTAN DECLARATION 1933:
NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?

Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan Declaration issued on January 28, 1933 from Cambridge.

At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan – for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.

This is more especially ture when there is just and reasonable alternative to the proposed settlement, which will lay the foundations of a peaceful future for this great continent; and should certainly allow of the highest development of each of these two peoples without one being subject to another. This alternative is a separate Federation of these five predominantly (sic) Muslim units – Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan.

The States of Kalat (Balochistan) and Kashmir, were princely states and never under the legislate of the British Parliament. Their future was not going to be decided by the Partitioning of India. Yet the future rulers of Pakistan, by proclaiming the name “Pakistan” proves that as early as in 1933, they had decided on the future of these states.

Professor Deshmukh contd.

PAKISTAN WAS CONCEIVED AND FORMED AS A MUSLIM STATE
INDIA WAS NOT, BY DEFAULT, FORMED AS A HINDU STATE.

Sardar Patel led a marathon and magnificent campaign that can be compared perhaps only with the unification of India by the Mouryas or the Guptas and got most of the princely states to take suitable decisions.

These princely states were encouraged to accede to either Pakistan or to India as per the wishes of their rulers. It was expected, naturally, that the rulers would keep in mind the interests of their subjects. Given the treatment handed to the Muslims from India who went to Pakistan, any Government of Jammu and Kashmir, it was obvious, would opt only for accession with India.

Pakistan was conceived and formed as a Muslim state. India was not, by default, formed as a Hindu state. Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions…

Viceroy Wavell’s had concluded his presentation with:

(Para) 24. To the leaders and people of India who now have the opportunity of complete independence we would finally say this. We and our Government and countrymen hoped that it would be possible for the Indian people themselves to agree upon the method of framing the new constitution under which they will live.

Despite the labours which we have shared with the Indian Parties, and the exercise of much patience and goodwill by all, this has not been possible. therefore now lay before you proposals which, after listening to all sides and after much earliest thought, we trust will enable you to attain your independence in the shortest time and with the least danger of internal disturbance and conflict.

These proposals may not, of course, completely satisfy all parties, but you will recognise with us that at this supreme moment in Indian history statesmanship demands mutual accommodation. We ask you to consider the alternative to acceptance of these proposals. After all the efforts which we and the Indian Parties have made together for agreement, we must state that in our view there is small hope of peaceful settlement by agreement of the Indian Parties alone.

The alternative would therefore be a grave danger of violence, chaos, and even civil war. The result and duration of such a disturbance cannot be foreseen; but it is certain that it would be a terrible disaster for many millions of men, women and children. This is a possibility which must be regarded with equal abhorrence by the Indian people, our own countrymen, and the world as a whole.

We therefore lay these proposals before you in the profound hope that they will be accepted and operated by you in the spirit of accommodation and goodwill in which they are offered. We appeal to all who have the future good of India at heart to extend their vision beyond their own community or interest to the interests of the whole four hundred millions of the Indian people.

We certainly got that one historically wrong.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

To be continued

I have explored the threat to regional peace and safety brought on by Pakistan.
I have been exploring myths about Kashmir that are subject of biased propaganda.
The price paid by the millions of hindus and muslims to achieve our independance.

This week, there is a call for a “one state solution” for the Indian subcontinent.
When better the time to start to bring these issues together, than this week.

This document by Professor Pranawa Deshmukh does that …

WHY ANYONE INTERESTED IN WORLD PEACE MUST STUDY
THE STORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR ?

The nuclear arsenal in Pakistan’s possession today threatens to be used against India, and also against Israel and the USA through international terrorist organizations, that Pakistan colludes with.

Anybody interested in world peace must understand the Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio and assess the real motives behind Pakistan’s savage designs against humanity.

Often, the western media and their Indian clones discuss the drama and the controversies, which took place before the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, rather than the completeness and irrevocability of the accession itself.

The pre-accession confusion was fuelled more by the Maharaja’s hopes of retaining post-independence control as he did under the British, than by anything else.

When the accession took place however, it was through the same instrument through which hundreds of other princely states acceded to India - complete and irrevocable in every respect!

…so I intend to explore all aspects of the Kashmir issue through his documentation.

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

Abstract -
A historical tour d’horizon is presented showing that Jammu & Kashmir’s incorporation within India is buttressed by cultural, historical and legal facts.
Pakistan’s savage designs against humanity in Jammu and Kashmir are treated not just as of India’s concern but that of every lover of world peace.

The United Nations resolutions of 1948-9 are also elaborated upon and Pakistan’s deceitful scuttling of these is exposed.

Finally the status of POK and of Article 370, which Nehru himself considered a temporary arrangement which will vanish ultimately, are broached and policy options for India and the free world recommended.

The nationhood that defines BHARAT is a unique phenomenon in world affairs.

Western nations and Indians who learn about India through western authors often remain illiterate about the Indian stance on Kashmir. The soul of this issue has such exceptional dimensions peculiar to itself that it simply cannot be analyzed in any terms other than its very own.

We all recognize that the present situation in the country is a turning point in India’s evolution. This is a crucial stage as history unfolds itself by the day. As India became free on August 15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru said:

“Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.”

Indeed, a part of India – Jammu and Kashmir – remained to be assimilated in free India on that day. We are very troubled that even today this assimilation is not in full measure even if the State of Jammu and Kashmir has wholly and irrevocably acceded to India soon after, which was on October 26, 1947.

It is important to know that the foundations of India’s claim to Jammu and Kashmir are solidly entrenched in hard facts from the history of the region going back to over five thousand years.

The history of Kashmir is well and clearly recorded.

RAJTARANGINI
Rajtarangini (River of Kings), a book written in Sanskrit by Kalhana, contains an account of the life and history of Kashmir.
Kalhana (कल्हण) (c. 12th century) is regarded to be Kashmir’s first historian. His father Champaka was the minister in the King’s court. It is believed that he wrote his book during 1147-1149.
The recorded history of Kashmir, as retold by Kalhan begins from the period of the Mauryas. Kalhan’s account also states that the city of Srinagar was founded by the Mauryan emperor, Ashoka, and that Buddhism reached the Kashmir valley during this period. From there, Buddhism spread to several other adjoining regions including Central Asia, Tibet and China.
The Rajatarangini is the first of a series of four histories that record the annals of Kashmir. Commencing with a rendition of traditional history of very early times, the Rajatarangini comes down to the reign of Sangrama Deva, (c.1006 AD).
The second work, by Jonaraja, continues the history from where Kalhana left off, and, entering the Muslim period, gives an account of the reigns down to that of Zain-ul-ab-ad-din, 1412. P. Srivara carried on the record to the accession of Fah Shah in 1486.
The fourth work, called Rajavalipataka, by Prajnia Bhatta, completes the history to the time of the incorporation of Kashmir in the dominions of the Mogul emperor Akbar, 1588.

In the 13th century, Islam first became the dominant religion in Kashmir.
Some Kashmiri rulers, such as Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin, were tolerant of all religions in a manner comparable to Akbar.
However, several Muslim rulers of Kashmir were intolerant to other religions. Sultãn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) is often considered the worst of these. Historians have recorded many of his atrocities.
The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sikandar persecuted the Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residence of any other than Muslims in Kashmir. He also ordered the breaking of all “golden and silver images”.

Prof. Deshmukh contd:

In the modern context, democratic principles and international tenets of contemporary world order dictate it. The constitutional elements that dictated the vexatious partition of the sub-continent in August 1947 provide firm evidence pertaining to the integral status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the union of India.

Pakistan continues to internationalize the issue of Jammu and Kashmir through its counterfeit technique of fanning religious fundamentalism, enabled by a dormant Indian media, which has failed to expose the hypocrisy of this rogue state.

Despite assaulting fellow-Muslims in erstwhile East-Pakistan and the continual exploitations of all other regions of Pakistan by the Punjabi Muslims who wield local power through corrupt means, it is only due to sustained propaganda that Pakistan can still proclaim itself as a champion of Muslims.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

The Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is geographically and politically
distinct and different from the Azad Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan has direct control of the “Pakistan Occupied Kashmir” or POK.
Pakistan has indirect but overwhelming control in “Azad (Independant) Kashmir.

Click to enlarge image

The Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is secular and a democracy.
The regions under Pakistan control is Islamic, and under a military dictatorship.

The Indian State of Kashmir has no restriction of freedom of expression,
any new of atrocities are hence quickly highlighted to the world.
The Pakistan controlled regions have no freedom of expression
the human rights abuses and atrocities never get to reach the outside world.

Most anti-India propaganda
will ONLY speak about the sufferings of Kashmiris in the Indian state,
but cleverly avoid talking of the fate of the Kashmiris in areas under Pakistan’s control.

They will deliberately blur the distinction between the different areas of control to give
the impression that atrocities are being committed ONLY in the Indian state.

This document will break that myth.
To keep the information clear and objective,
this is has been quoted word for word from a Human Rights Watch Publication.

For those of who may question the neutrality of the source,
this is about the Human Rights Watch.

“With Friends Like These…”

Summary:

Pakistan says they are our friends and India is our enemy.
I agree India is our enemy,
but with friends like these, who needs enemies?

—Mir Afzal Suleri, Muzaffarabad resident

The massive earthquake that struck on October 8, 2005, wreaking death and destruction on Kashmir, instantly conflated Kashmir’s long-running man-made crisis with a natural one. The poor response of the Pakistani government and military to the earthquake, and the attendant further loss of life, served to highlight that even natural disasters in Kashmir have a strong human component.

 

 

Major cities and thousands of villages in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK, Azad Kashmir), including the capital Muzaffarabad, were reduced to rubble. The devastation was immense—at least eighty-eight thousand people died, more than one hundred thousand were injured, and more than two million were left homeless. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that seventeen thousand children were among the dead.

Kashmir is one of the most heavily militarized regions of the world, and those buried under the rubble and their relatives who tried frantically to dig them out with their bare hands would have been justified in thinking that help would arrive rapidly. It was fair to hope that the armies massed on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) separating Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir state, ostensibly to protect the Kashmiri population, would move quickly to save Kashmiri lives from a natural threat. But as time passed and the sound of life beneath the rubble began to grow silent, it became painfully and brutally clear that the hope was misplaced. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Indian and Pakistani militaries simply did not make the saving of Kashmiri lives a top priority. As India and Pakistan engaged in diplomatic one-upmanship—making and refusing offers of help based on political opportunism rather than humanitarian concerns—the death toll mounted.

In the first seventy-two hours after the earthquake, thousands of Pakistani troops stationed in Azad Kashmir prioritized the evacuation of their own personnel over providing relief to desperate civilians. The international media began converging on Muzaffarabad within twenty-four hours of the earthquake and fanned out to other towns in Azad Kashmir shortly thereafter. They filmed Pakistani troops standing by and refusing to help because they had “no orders” to do so as locals attempted to dig out those still alive, sending a chilling message of indifference from Islamabad. Having filmed the refusal, journalists switched off their cameras and joined the rescue effort themselves; in one instance they shamed the soldiers into helping. But unlike the death and destruction, the media were not everywhere. The death toll continued to mount.

Many Kashmiris told Human Rights Watch that prior to the earthquake, the Pakistani military kept a close watch on the population to ensure political compliance and control; this was facilitated by the placement of military installations frequently in close proximity to populated areas. In the context of a military presence that was more abuser than protector, and domineering Pakistani political control, the failure of the authorities to respond quickly and more humanely to the aftereffects of the earthquake in Azad Kashmir came as little surprise. That failure generated massive public resentment against the Pakistani state, and it highlighted the need for an examination of the conduct of Pakistani authority in Azad Kashmir. This report on the state of human rights in Azad Kashmir shows longstanding restrictions on fundamental freedoms, as well as politically motivated mistreatment of persons supporting an independent Kashmir.

The earthquake put the international spotlight on Azad Kashmir for the first time. Previously, attention had been almost wholly on Jammu and Kashmir state in India, which since 1989 has endured a brutal insurgency and counterinsurgency. Human rights abuses by the Indian security forces and separatist forces in Jammu and Kashmir have been relatively well documented and often condemned. But the world knows little about Azad Kashmir, other than that the territory has been used by Pakistan-backed militant groups as a staging ground for attacks in Jammu and Kashmir.1

Aid organizations and donors that wanted to learn about Azad Kashmir after the earthquake so that they could respond in a useful and informed manner quickly discovered that there was virtually no published information. This is because prior to the earthquake, Azad Kashmir was one of the most closed territories in the world. While Jammu and Kashmir state had known considerable tourist traffic prior to the beginning of the insurgency there, the areas of Kashmir on the other side of the LoC had seen little external interest or presence after the end of the British colonial era in 1947—a situation used by Pakistan to exercise absolute control over the territory.

Information, particularly about the human rights situation, governance, the rule of law, and the institutions that hold real power in Azad Kashmir is more important than ever as the territory rebuilds and, by necessity, opens up to the international community in the aftermath of the earthquake. In the coming years, international engagement with the territory is likely to be intense. For that engagement to be effective and beneficial to the people of Azad Kashmir, it is essential that international actors approach the territory with an awareness of its particular history and its fraught, often tense and unhappy relationship with the Pakistani state in general and the Pakistani military in particular.

Azad Kashmir is a legal anomaly. According to United Nations (U.N.) resolutions dating back to 1948, Azad Kashmir is neither a sovereign state nor a province of Pakistan, but rather a “local authority” with responsibility over the area assigned to it under a 1949 ceasefire agreement with India. It has remained in this state of legal limbo since that time. In practice, the Pakistani government in Islamabad, the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence services (Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI) control all aspects of political life in Azad Kashmir—though “Azad” means “free,” the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but. Azad Kashmir is a land of strict curbs on political pluralism, freedom of expression, and freedom of association; a muzzled press; banned books; arbitrary arrest and detention and torture at the hands of the Pakistani military and the police; and discrimination against refugees from Jammu and Kashmir state. Singled out are Kashmiri nationalists who do not support the idea of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. Anyone who wants to take part in public life has to sign a pledge of loyalty to Pakistan, while anyone who publicly supports or works for an independent Kashmir is persecuted. For those expressing independent or unpopular political views, there is a pervasive fear of Pakistani military and intelligence services—and of militant organizations acting at their behest or independently.

Human Rights Watch has previously reported that torture is routinely used in Pakistan, and that acts of torture by military agencies primarily serve the purpose of “punishing” errant politicians, political activists and journalists. Azad Kashmir is no exception. Though torture is not commonplace, it is threatened often, and—when perpetrated by the military—is carried out with impunity. Human Rights Watch knows of no cases in which members of military and paramilitary security and intelligence agencies have been prosecuted or even disciplined for acts of torture or mistreatment. This report documents incidents of torture by the ISI, and by Azad Kashmir police acting at the ISI’s and the army’s behest.

Tight controls on freedom of expression have been a hallmark of the Pakistani government’s policy in Azad Kashmir and are also documented in this report. This control is highly selective. Pakistani-backed militant organizations promoting the incorporation of Jammu and Kashmir state into Pakistan have had free rein— particularly from 1989 when the insurgency began to 2001—to propagate views and disseminate literature; by contrast, groups promoting an independent Kashmir find promoting their views sharply curtailed. But frequent official repression of freedom of expression and assembly is not limited to controls and censorship specific to Kashmiri nationalists, journalists and election cycles. This repression can also be violent and very publicly so. For example, Pakistani police used lahtis (canes) and rifle butts to break up a peaceful demonstration in Muzaffarabad on November 11, 2005, by approximately two hundred earthquake survivors protesting eviction from their makeshift camp. Several protestors, including children, were injured as a result of police efforts to break up the demonstration.

Since 1994, when the ISI organized thirteen militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir state into the Muttahida [United] Jihad Council, army-backed militant organizations have shared, with the Pakistani military through the ISI, real decision-making authority and the management of the “Kashmir struggle.” Even mainstream political parties allowed representation by Pakistan in the Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly are largely sidelined. As the government-backed militant groups gained strength and dominance, Kashmiri nationalist militants left the movement or were sidelined and eventually began to be persecuted by the authorities and their proxies. Soon after Pakistan began supporting the U.S.-led “global war on terror” in 2001, the United Jihad Council ceased to operate publicly. Several groups simply changed their names and now operate independently or through clandestine underground networks. The Pakistani intelligence apparatus retains close associations with these groups.

Virtually all independent commentators, journalists, as well as former and serving militants, Pakistani military officers and Pakistan-backed Azad Kashmir politicians speaking off-the-record told Human Rights Watch that there was continuing militant infiltration from Azad Kashmir into Jammu and Kashmir state, but were not willing to be quoted for fear of reprisal from the ISI. Most of those interviewed were of the view that though the level of infiltration had decreased substantially since 2004 (a brief spike in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake notwithstanding), there have been no indications that the Pakistani military or militant groups had decided to abandon infiltration as policy.

It was thus no accident that militant groups were the first on the scene dispensing relief goods and other aid after the earthquake. Nor was it a sign of their great organizational prowess. As the Pakistani military prioritized the rescue of its own personnel, it probably sought the assistance of its closest allies in Azad Kashmir, the militant groups. These groups, which had undoubtedly suffered the loss of personnel and infrastructure themselves in the earthquake, won much local appreciation for their rescue and relief efforts. This public relations coup could not have been possible without logistical support from sections of the Pakistani military’s intelligence apparatus. For example, one of the first groups to set up operations was the Jamaat-ud-Dawa —the Lashkar-e-Toiba group operating under a new name. In January 2002 the Pakistani government had banned the LT as a terrorist group. However, in the aftermath of the earthquake, President Pervez Musharraf went out of his way to praise its relief work and brushed off calls to restrict its operations. The Pakistani military apparently saw the earthquake as an opportunity to craft a new image for the militant groups rather than as an opportunity to disband them.

This report also documents discrimination against Kashmiri refugees and former militants from India, most of whom are secular nationalists and culturally and linguistically distinct from the peoples of Azad Kashmir. The last major episode involving these former militants took place on April 7, 2005, when Pakistani security forces prevented them from greeting the inaugural bus service between Srinagar (the Jammu and Kashmir state capital) and Muzaffarabad and arrested, jailed and beat them. A primary motive for the discrimination would appear to be that many of these people DO NOT SHARE the vision of a UNIFIED KASHMIR under PAKISTANI CONTROL.

Successive Pakistani governments have asserted that Kashmir’s political future must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people. But the reality of Azad Kashmir prior to the earthquake was life dominated by governmental restrictions on fundamental freedoms. As the international community supports the task of reconstruction, it must insist on a new respect by Pakistan for the human rights of the people of Azad Kashmir. No viable solution to the Kashmir issue can exclude the exercise of fundamental civil and political rights for the people of Azad Kashmir in an environment free of coercion and fear.

Key recommendations:

The October 2005 earthquake brought into focus the dominant role of the Pakistani army in the governance of Azad Kashmir and the almost complete absence of any independent civil society in the territory. While Pakistani civil society’s immediate, rapid mobilization in the aftermath of the earthquake is commendable, the Pakistani military’s blundering and ineffective response to the humanitarian disaster was indicative of more than just the military’s different priorities in the region. It also highlighted its inability to assume the role of civil society that, as a matter of security policy, it has prevented from taking root. The army must greatly reduce its political role in Azad Kashmir in order to make way for genuinely civilian governmental institutions that respect basic rights.

The post-earthquake situation provides the international community with a unique opportunity to engage with Azad Kashmir’s population, government officials, civil society, and the Pakistani military to improve the state of civil and political rights in the territory. Reconstruction in Azad Kashmir, for which the international community has pledged U.S.$6.5 billion, can only be successful if central to the process is the creation of an open, empowered, rights-respecting society.
Specifically, Human Rights Watch makes the following key recommendations (a full set of recommendations is given at the end of this report):

To the Pakistani government

* Release all individuals imprisoned or detained and withdraw immediately all criminal cases against anyone, including Kashmiri nationalists, for the peaceful expression of their political views, including that Azad Kashmir should be independent.

* End the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention, other forms of harassment, and torture and other ill-treatment of persons exercising their right to freedom of expression, including those who peacefully oppose Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan or demand greater autonomy for the territory.

* Repeal constitutional curbs on freedom of association, expression and assembly in Azad Kashmir so that the constitution and Azad Kashmir law are consistent with international human rights standards.

* Prosecute to the full extent of the law and in accordance with international standards those members of the armed forces, its intelligence agencies, government officials and police personnel implicated in serious violations of human rights, including arbitrary arrests and torture.

* Respect press freedom and allow full independent coverage of both past and ongoing events in Azad Kashmir. Remove formal and informal prohibitions on news gathering and reporting by the Azad Kashmir and Pakistani media, and accord all journalists full freedom of movement. End the practice of banning books and literature.

* Ensure that human rights organizations have freedom of movement throughout Azad Kashmir and allow them to carry out investigations and fact-finding missions free from intimidation and interference by military authorities.

To Azad Kashmir-based militant groups

* Cease threatening civilians who do not cooperate with or support the activities of militant groups.

* Publicly denounce abuses committed by any militant group in Jammu and Kashmir state and call for accountability for such abuses on both sides of the Line of Control.

To donors and other international actors

* Ensure greater civilian oversight of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. Aid should be handled through a process that involves the Azad Kashmir government, as well as local, national and international NGOs, civil society groups (particularly those working in the field), and the affected population.

* Ensure the continuing distribution of reconstruction aid without regard to political affiliation. In particular, there should be no discrimination against Kashmiri nationalists who do not support Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan or refugees who have entered Azad Kashmir from Jammu and Kashmir state since 1991.

* Use every available opportunity to press for an end to impunity for perpetrators of serious human rights abuses, including members of the military, intelligence agencies, police and militant groups. Urge respect for international due process and fair trial standards and press for impartial inquiries into, and accountability for, cases of arbitrary detention and torture and other ill-treatment in detention.

Link: To read the full documant.

If the future of Kashmir is to be decided by the choice of the the Kashmiris,
people in Pakistan occupied areas have no fundamental freedom to make a free choice.

Since 1989,
the Indian security forces have been
the persistent victim of a (Pakistani masterminded) Islamic Jihad.

(Without condoning the abuses committed by the Indian forces),
is it not possible that none of these abuses would have ever taken place if
there had not been any killings and atrocities by Islamic militants in the first place?

You decide.

historyKashmirIndiainsurgencyhuman rightspropaganda

It is said, Indians are blind to the “bitter truth” in Kashmir.

It has been alleged
by some students of an Indian University
(described as “a group of ‘adventure junkies,’
who traveled across Kashmir and interacted with students and people”.)
that almost all Indians are casually ignorant about the Kashmir conflict
and about the realities of issuess of violations of the Human Rights in Kashmir.

This has been picked up and utilised by propagandists who claims
Indian media is biased and has been persistently “feeding lies” to the Indian public.

In my earlier articles I have been exploring the myths of the situation
and have been trying to bring out the truth and nothing but the whole truth.
I am not surprised at the response of some, who I believe are from the group of students.

These comments are on the blog – kashmir myths – indians in illusion,
comment 3 by Karan Pradhan, and
comments 4 and 7 by Riya Kartha.

I was told that

There are more important things than researching about facts and figures and conducting interviews with different people. When you feel as strongly as some of us felt on that trip to Kashmir, you will realize that feeling is what matters more.

I do not agree,
on issues of importance of such severe magnitude,
where thousands have been killed, or raped or ethnically cleansed,
I cannot let emotions cloud my judgement.

So, to avoid being accused of misconstruing and or misrepresenting,
I copy and paste the entire chapter (IV) on Kashmir,
from this report released by the Human Rights Watch in 1994
and covers the period from 1989, the year from which the militancy escalated.

For those who are interested,
I would request you to read the whole report
or atleast the Chapter II Sources of Weapons for Militias in Punjab and Kashmir
as background information to the article below.

I give you the “bitter truth” about Kashmir.

India: Arms and Abuses in Indian Punjab and Kashmir

September 1994, Vol. 6, No. 10

CHAPTER IV : Arms and Abuses in Kashmir

Abuses by Indian Government Forces ⁽¹⁵⁴⁾

Throughout the conflict, Indian security forces–particularly the Army, the Central Reserve Police Force (crpf) and the Border Security Force (bsf) – have committed regular and deliberate violations of human rights and humanitarian laws in Kashmir. It is clear that in recent months, the level of abuses by Indian government forces has risen significantly, with large numbers of summary executions of suspected militants and increased killings of civilians in reprisal attacks.

In addition to summary executions and reprisal killings of civilians, abuses by Indian forces include disappearances, unprovoked shootings of unarmed noncombatants, rape, and other attacks on civilians and captured combatants. Legislation authorizing the security forces to shoot to kill and protecting them from prosecution has facilitated such abuses. The security forces have also engaged in wanton destruction and looting of civilian property, and have burned down residential neighborhoods in retaliation for militant attacks.

Government forces have also systematically violated international law by using lethal force against peaceful demonstrators, and engaging in widespread and arbitrary arrests of persons suspected of sympathizing with the militants, and detaining them for extended periods without charge or trial. Torture of detainees is widespread, and includes methods such as prolonged beatings, electric shock, and sexual abuse.

The incidence of rape is also high. Women are often raped in the course of house searches by the security forces, and in retaliation for militant attacks on government patrols.

In complete violation of international law, Indian forces often go on rampages in civilian areas after militant attacks. These rampages commonly include arbitrary beatings and shootings of civilians, sacking of their houses, rape, and arson. In a January 1993 incident, Indian police admitted that paramilitary security forces killed at least forty-three civilians, wounded more than a dozen others, and torched scores of buildings in Sopore in revenge for an attack by armed members of Hezb-ul Mujahidin.⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ The severity of these attacks and their regularity have not only traumatized the local population, but have also alienated the local police forces. The torture and death in custody of a constable sparked a local police revolt in May 1993.

The government’s efforts to justify these abuses as legitimate responses to militant action completely fly in the face of international law.

Abuses by Militants

Members of militant organizations have committed grave violations of humanitarian laws. Several major militant groups operate in Kashmir, and perhaps dozens of smaller ones, some supporting independence and others accession to Pakistan.⁽¹⁵⁶⁾

The most prominent are the JKLF, a pro-independence group which is the oldest and reportedly one of the most popular organizations, and the Hezb-ul Mujahidin, which supports confederation with Pakistan, and is reportedly the best armed. Another insurgent group which supports independence is the Jammu and Kashmir Student Liberation Front.

Numerous new militant organizations have emerged in recent years, many of which support accession to Pakistan. In addition to Hezb-ul-Mujahadin, pro-Pakistani groups include the Islami-Jamiat-Tulba and the Muslim Students Federation, all of which are affiliated with the Jamaat-e-Islami political party.

Other pro-Pakistan militant organizations include the Hezb-e Ullah, the Hezb-e-Islami, the Muslim Janabaz Force, the Al Umar Mujahidin, Operation Balakote, the Tehreik-e-Jehadi-Islami, the Islamic Tehrik-e-Tulba, the Allah Tigers, the Zia Tiger Force, the Islamic Students’ League, and the Jammu and Kashmir People’s League, Al-Jehad, Al-Barq, Hizbollah, Ikhwan-ul-Muslimin, Jamait-ul Mujahidin, Al-Umar Mujahidin, Tekriqu-ul Mujahidin, Allah Tigers, Ul-Umar Commandos, and the Harakatul Ansar.

Although all the militant groups are violent in their drive for independence from India, and some periodically work in coalition,⁽¹⁵⁷⁾ most of the groups do not necessarily coordinate actions or support one another’s tactics.

None of the groups, individually or collectively, control territory in Kashmir, although certain areas in the Kashmir valley are reputed to be strongholds of particular groups, especially certain towns along the border with Pakistan, some of which are along supply routes for weapons brought in from Pakistan.

Militant military operations are generally characterized by ambushes of government forces and hit-and-run attacks for which they rely on weapons such as AK47s, grenades, landmines, rockets, and other light weapons and small arms. Acquisition of unprecedented levels of firepower has not only helped militants achieve greater military successes, but has also contributed to the proliferation of lethal attacks by militants on civilians since 1989.

Violations of humanitarian law committed by militants include: execution-style killings of civil servants, notably Muslim political leaders associated with the National Conference party, which is allied with New Delhi, prominent Hindus, and civilians suspected of being government informers; attacks in which militants fail to distinguish between military targets and civilians; rape; threatening and attacking members of the minority Hindu community; violations of medical neutrality; and the use of religious sites for military purposes.

Targeted Killings of Civilians

Militant organizations operating in Kashmir have repeatedly violated international prohibitions against the murder of individuals taking no part in armed hostilities.⁽¹⁵⁸⁾ They have killed prominent members of the National Conference party, leading members of the Hindu community and persons suspected of collaborating with the Indian government.

The following accounts typify the kinds of targeted murders of civilians carried out by militants in Kashmir.

On March 2, 1993, Ghulam Nabi Baba, a retired assistant commissioner, was shot dead after being abducted by militants on February 28. Ghulam Nabi Baba was a relative of the state Congress-I party leader, Ghulam Rasul Kar. On March 1, Ghulam Rasul Kar’s brother-in-law, Habibullah Mirshah, was also killed by militants.⁽¹⁵⁹⁾

On November 7, 1992, militants hurled a grenade into Shaheedi Chowk, Srinagar, killing a shopkeeper, Rajesh Jain, and causing minor injuries to Hamidullah Khan, an advisor to the state governor. Khan was believed to have been the target of the attack.⁽¹⁶⁰⁾

Photograph: Wandhama massacre

On December 13, 1990, Hezb-e Ullah militants gunned down Maulana Mohammad Sayeed Masoodi, the former general secretary of the National Conference party and a leading moderate politician in Kashmir. According to a public statement issued by Hezb-e Ullah, Masoodi was killed for his involvement with the National Conference and for supporting Kashmir’s union with India.⁽¹⁶¹⁾

After being threatened with death on several occasions if he did not leave the Kashmir valley, Gopi Nath Raina, the co-director of the textiles department of the Jammu and Kashmir government, was shot dead by members of the jkslf using automatic rifles on June 26, 1990.⁽¹⁶²⁾

In April 1990, jkslf militants murdered Mushir-ul Haq, the vice chancellor of Kashmir University in Srinagar, and his personal secretary Abdul Ghani. Haq was apparently well-known as a proponent of progressive Muslim views. The two were kidnapped by armed agents of the jklf and Hezb-ul Mujahidin immediately prior to a scheduled meeting between Haq and the state Governor Jagmohan, who had been appointed by the central Indian government. Militants demanded a three-hour relaxation of the curfew which had been in force around-the-clock, and the release of three detainees in government custody. Haq and Ghani were found shot to death several days later.⁽¹⁶³⁾

Lassa Koul, the director of the state-run television station for Jammu and Kashmir, was shot dead by jklf gunmen on February 13, 1990, apparently as part of an attempt to obtain programming more favorable to the militants. Koul received numerous threats prior to his death from both the jklf and Hezb-ul Mujahidin, as well as from other militant groups. His murder prompted other newscasters to begin accommodating their programs to the militants’ demands out of fear of similar attacks.⁽¹⁶⁴⁾

Extrajudicial Punishment

Militant organizations have ordered summary punishment, including execution, of individuals believed to be government operatives and informers. The following two accounts are typical:

In March 1990, the Hezb-ul Mujahidin militant group shot to death two Muslim religious leaders near Shopian, south of Srinagar, reportedly claiming that they had been tried and executed under Islamic law for spying for an intelligence agency.⁽¹⁶⁵⁾

A group of armed militants belonging to the Hezb-ul Mujahidin kidnapped Mir Ghulam Mustafa, a former member of the dissolved Kashmir state legislative assembly, who had helped arrange the release of the kidnapped daughter of Home Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed in December 1989. He was hung after Hezb-ul Mujahidin pronounced him guilty of “indulging in anti-Islamic activities and spying for Indian government intelligence.”⁽¹⁶⁶⁾

Militants have also executed captured government security force personnel. In 1993, a spokesman for the groups claimed that this policy was adopted because the Indian government summarily executed captured militants.⁽¹⁶⁷⁾

Attacks on Civilian Government Targets

While militants in Kashmir tend to avoid the kind of random shootings at crowds of civilians or passenger vehicles that have characterized Sikh militant tactics, they have engaged in attacks on government targets that are not military in nature. In particular, militants have launched bomb and grenade attacks on government buildings and transport vehicles. Such attacks violate humanitarian law if the buildings and vehicles are not being used in ways that contribute significantly to the war effort.⁽¹⁶⁸⁾ The following accounts are representative:

Hezb-ul Mujahadin claimed responsibility for a May 11, 1993 attack on the government secretariat, which houses the offices of the civil administration in Srinagar. Rocket-propelled grenade launchers were used. One employee reportedly was killed and three injured during the attack.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾

On October 17, 1992, a car bomb planted by militants of the Hezb-ul Mujahidin exploded outside the State Bank of India on Residency Road in Srinagar, a popular shopping and business district. Asia Watch interviewed witnesses who reported that at least two civilians were killed and others injured; several members of the Indo-Tibetan Police, on guard outside the bank, were also injured.⁽¹⁷⁰⁾

Al Jihad Mujahidin took responsibility for the December 8, 1990 explosions in the office of the chief of agricultural reforms of the state government, which caused extensive damage. Offices of the state civil administration have been a frequent target of attack.⁽¹⁷¹⁾

On November 16, 1989, at least twenty-four persons were injured when a bomb planted inside a government passenger bus exploded south of Srinagar. The jklf claimed responsibility for the incident. The same afternoon, the jklf set off a bomb which caused extensive damage to a building in Srinagar which housed the office of a division of the public works department. The local press reported that a caller explained that the explosions were designed to reinforce the militants’ call to boycott the fall 1989 elections to the lower house of the Indian Parliament.⁽¹⁷²⁾

Rape⁽¹⁷³⁾

Rape by members of militant organizations was rare in the conflict’s early years, although threats and attacks against women by groups seeking to enforce their interpretation of Islamic culture were not uncommon. Since 1991, however, rape has been committed with increasing frequency by members of certain militant organizations.

In some cases, women have been raped and then killed after being kidnapped by rival militant groups and held as hostages. In other cases, members of armed militant groups have abducted women after threatening to shoot the rest of the family unless the woman was handed over to a particular militant leader. Some incidents of rape by militants appear to have been intended as punishment because the victims or their families were believed to be government informers, opposed to the militants, or supporters of rival groups.

Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights reported that one of the earliest rape cases involved a staff nurse kidnapped from the Saura Medical Institute on April 14, 1990. Her body was found with a note nearby stating that the jklf took responsibility for the killing and accused the victim of informing the security forces about the presence of a number of wounded militants in the hospital. A post-mortem report concluded that she had been raped before being shot dead.⁽¹⁷⁴⁾

Kidnapping
The December 1989 kidnapping by the jklf of Dr. Rubia Mufti, the daughter of the Union home minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, is often seen as marking the beginning of increased militant activity in Kashmir. In exchange for her freedom, the jklf demanded the release of five of their colleagues from detention. She was freed several days after the abduction, following the government’s compliance with the jklf demand. Since then, members of various militant organizations have engaged in kidnapping as a way to pressure the government to release militant detainees or make other changes. The following are examples of kidnappings:

On March 31, 1991, the Moslem Janbaz Force abducted two Swedish engineers employed at a hydroelectric project in Kashmir, and threatened to kill them if the government did not permit Amnesty International and the United Nations to investigate human rights abuses in Kashmir. They managed to escape after several months.⁽¹⁷⁵⁾

On June 8, 1993, militants kidnapped Sharifuddin Shariq, a well-known National Conference leader and former member of the state assembly. Shariq reportedly was considered to have close ties with former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah.⁽¹⁷⁶⁾

On June 6, 1994, the Harakatul Ansar militant group kidnapped two British tourists, aged 16 and 36, who were on holiday near Pahalgam. Motive for the kidnapping was unclear. An initial Ansar statement indicated the hostages would be released in exchange for three jailed militants, a subsequent statement said they were being held only to highlight human rights abuse in Kashmir by Indian troops, while a third said they strayed too near a militant camp. The two were released unharmed on June 23, 1994.⁽¹⁷⁷⁾

Inducing Terror in the Civilian Population

International law prohibits not only acts, but also “threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”⁽¹⁷⁸⁾ In contravention of this rule, some militant groups have employed threats to compel suspected opponents, government informers, and others to leave the Kashmir valley, or to conform their behavior to desired Islamic standards. A jklf statement in June 1990, for example, claimed responsibility for bombings in the town of Pulwama, and warned that “all Indian agents and spies” should recant or risk being killed. In November 1989, a number of militant groups issued threats against liquor store owners that those who did not shut down their businesses would have to “face the consequences.”⁽¹⁷⁹⁾ A March 26, 1991 statement issued by Hezb-ul Mujahidin warned that action would be taken against women who failed to cover their faces and bodies.⁽¹⁸⁰⁾

Many Hindus have also been made the targets of militant threats, especially in 1989-1990, and these threats combined with acts of violence and harassment by militants against the Hindu population, caused many to flee.⁽¹⁸¹⁾ For example, in March 1990, the jkslf issued a statement warning all non-Kashmiri traders and officials living in the valley “after acquiring citizenship rights through false declaration” to leave by the end of the month. The statement also announced that those who did not leave would be targeted for attack. Hezb-ul Mujahidin issued a directive the same month in Srinagar, ordering non-Kashmiris working as civil servants for various branches of the Indian government to leave by month’s end, or face death.⁽¹⁸²⁾ A 1992 press report noted that, when one militant group, the Ikhwan-ul Muslimin, broadcast an appeal urging Hindus to return, Al-Umar and Al-Jehad issued press releases warning them not to come back.⁽¹⁸³⁾

Militant groups have also issued threats to journalists whom they believe publish reports biased against the militant cause. They have imposed bans on particular newspapers and enforce those bans through the abduction of distributors and other attacks.⁽¹⁸⁴⁾

Violations of Medical Neutrality

Doctors in Kashmir claim that militants abduct medical workers to force them to provide treatment to injured militants. Militants have also reportedly abducted patients from hospitals. Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights interviewed a doctor in October 1992 who described the sense of fear pervading the hospital where he worked: “I can’t even ask the floor sweeper to do his job because you never know who’s carrying a gun or who someone may be.”⁽¹⁸⁵⁾

Use of Religious Sites as Military Strongholds

Press accounts described the October 1993 occupation of the Hazratbal Mosque on the shore of Dal Lake in Srinagar. The mosque is held sacred by Kashmir’s Muslim population because it enshrines a hair of the Prophet Mohammed. According to a number of reports, the mosque was taken over by militants armed with sophisticated weapons. Religious pilgrims were said to be inside at the time of the take-over, but none were killed.⁽¹⁸⁶⁾ These reports suggest that militants violated the international proscription against the use of religious sites as military strongholds. ⁽¹⁸⁷⁾

Role of Weapons in Abuses by Militants

Militant forces in Kashmir have engaged in the commission of serious abuses of humanitarian law since at least 1989. Easy access by militants to large caches of more advanced weapons–made possible by the proliferation of small arms and light weapons throughout the region during the 1980s–has contributed to the deterioration of the human rights situation in Kashmir.

More sophisticated weapons such as automatic rifles, rockets, and grenades have been used in direct attacks on civilians and civilian property, although they have not been used by Kashmiri militants to commit human rights abuses with the same frequency that they were used by Sikh militants in Punjab. These weapons have also enhanced the ability of the militants to induce fear in the civilian population; threats of force backed up by a vast arsenal of weapons have contributed to the flight of many civilians from Kashmir.

In light of this record of abuse, the Arms Project believes that any future supplies of weapons to Kashmiri militants should be tied to respect for humanitarian law and human rights.⁽¹⁸⁸⁾

historyKashmirIndiainsurgencyhuman rightspropaganda

State of Azad Kashmir Jammu and Kashmir usually shortened to Azad Kashmir (literally ‘free Kashmir’), is part of the Pakistani-administered section of the Kashmir region, along with the Northern Areas; its official name is Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It covers an area of 13,297 km² (5,134 mi²), with its capital at Muzaffarabad, and has an estimated population of almost 4 million.

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch
is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly. As far as impartiality goes, nothing comes more fair than this group.

This is a report from HRW, dated September 2006.

‘Free Kashmir’ Far From Free

Government Opponents Face Torture, Censorship and Political Repression

(Islamabad, September 21, 2006) –
In Azad Kashmir, a region largely closed to international scrutiny until a devastating earthquake hit last year, the Pakistani government represses democratic freedoms, muzzles the press and practices routine torture, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

Based on research in Azad Kashmir (which means “free Kashmir”) and Pakistan, the 71-page report,

“‘With Friends Like These …’: Human Rights Violations in Azad Kashmir,” uncovers abuses by the Pakistani military, intelligence services and militant organizations.

“Although ‘azad’ means ‘free,’ the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms.”

Before a massive earthquake struck in October, Azad Kashmir was one of the most closed territories in the world.

Tight controls on freedom of expression have been a hallmark of government policy in Azad Kashmir. Pakistan has prevented the creation of independent media in the territory through bureaucratic restrictions and coercion. Publications and literature favoring independence is banned. While militant organizations promoting the incorporation of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir state into Pakistan have had free rein to propagate their views, groups promoting an independent Kashmir find their speech sharply, sometimes violently curtailed.

Under Azad Kashmir’s constitution, which Pakistan imposed in 1974, election candidates are prescreened to ensure that only those who support Kashmir’s union with Pakistan can contest elections. Anyone who wants to take part in public life in Azad Kashmir has to sign a pledge of loyalty to Pakistan, while anyone who publicly supports or peacefully works for an independent Kashmir faces persecution.

“There is a façade of an elected local government, but the federal government in Islamabad, the army and the intelligence agencies control all aspects of political life in Azad Kashmir,” said Adams. “The military shows no tolerance for dissent and practically runs the region as a fiefdom.”

Torture is routinely used in Pakistan, and this practice is also routine in Azad Kashmir. Human Rights Watch has documented incidents of torture by the intelligence services and others acting at the army’s behest but knows of no cases in which members of military and paramilitary security and intelligence agencies have been prosecuted or even disciplined for acts of torture or mistreatment.

Despite the Pakistani government’s criticism of human rights violations in neighbouring Jammu and Kashmir state in India, refugees from Jammu and Kashmir are discriminated against and mistreated by the authorities. Kashmiri refugees and former militants from India, most of whom are secular nationalists and culturally and linguistically distinct from the peoples of Azad Kashmir, are particularly harassed through constant surveillance, curbs on political expression, arbitrary arrest and beatings.

“The Pakistani government often pretends that the only problems faced by Kashmiris are in India,” said Adams. “It should start looking into ways of ending human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir.”

Human Rights Watch urged international donors, which have poured billions of dollars of urgently needed relief and reconstruction aid into Azad Kashmir since the earthquake, to insist on structural changes in governance and the promotion of both human rights and the rule of law. Recent corruption allegations against senior government officials highlight serious weaknesses in the rule of law and governmental accountability.

“As it supports reconstruction efforts, the international community must insist that Pakistan respect the human rights of the people of Azad Kashmir,” said Adams. “The Pakistani government must ensure that the people of Azad Kashmir can exercise their fundamental civil and political rights in an environment free of coercion and fear.”

Kashmir News Network.

Kasmiri Pandits-the original inhabitants of the Valley of Kashmir, are Kashmiris too. Their voice is NO less important than voices of any other ethnic or religious groups. This is one such voice Kashmir: Distortions and Reality and should be equally heard.

The Punjabi speaking districts of Mirpur, parts of Poonch and Muzaffarabad form the fifth distinct region. This corridor type belt is culturally, linguistically and socially part of Punjab. It is this small area which is called Azad Kashmir.

As apolitical and diplomatic strategy and to have a distinct base for harassing India, Pakistan has provided a symbolic administrative set-up here. There is a President, the Prime Minister, Assembly and other propaganda stuff but actual strings are pulled by the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs of the Pakistan government.

To call this area Azad Kashmir is scandalous. Its correct description would be Pakistan occupied Punjabi speaking areas of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir state. A large number of people from this area especially from Mirpur have settled in U.K., U.S.A. and other foreign countries. These people mislead the world by calling themselves Kashmiris and with huge oil funds (from Saudi Arabia) at their disposal, disinform the West by claiming to be fighting for self-determination of Kashmir. In this regard they talk of North and South Korea, North and South Yemen and even mention the Berlin wall. Some Westerners do take this patently wrong assertion on its face value.

This Human Rights Watch report (quoted above) confirms what is written here.

historyKashmirIndiainsurgencyhuman rightspropaganda

I found this on a blog this morning.

“After Maharaja signed Instrument of Accession under duress, he was charged for treason by the Indian Government and immensely humiliated during his court hearings and sent to jail for several years.”

On October 26th 1947
the day the said Instrument of Accession was signed “under duress”
the Maharaja also wrote a letter to Lord Mountbatten.
Many documents from that time, like this letter never gets mentioned.

From Hari Singh,
The Maharaja Of Jammu & Kashmir
to Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India.

Dated: 26 October 1947

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request immediate assistance of your Government.

As your Excellency is aware the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to the Dominion of India or to Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous to both the Dominions. It has jvital economical and cultural llinks with both of them. Besides my State has a common boundary with the Soviet Republic and China. In their external relations the Dominions of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact.

I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede, or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both.

I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into Standstill Agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this Agreement. The Dominion of India desired further discussions with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. In fact the Pakistan Government are operating Post and Telegraph system inside the State.

Though we have got a Standstill Agreement with the Pakistan Government that Government permitted steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State.

Afridis, solidiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infilter into the State at first in Poonch and then in Sialkot and finally in mass area adjoining Hazara District on the Ramkot side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at the several points simultaneously, that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and looting. The Mahora powerhouse which supplies the electric current to the whole of Srinagar has been burnt. The numer of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer Capital of my Government, as first step to over-running the whole State.

The mass infiltration of tribesmen drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier coming regularly in motor trucks using Mansehra-Muzaffarabad Road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provisional Government of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. In spite of repeated requests made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or stop them from coming into my State. The Pakistan Radio even put out a story that a Provinsional Government had been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State both the Muslims and non-Muslims generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and the grreat emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so and I attach the Instrument of Accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my State and my people to free-booters. On this basis no civilized Government can exist or be maintained. This alternative I will never allow to happen as long as I am Ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country.

I am also to inform your Excellency’s Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim Government and ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State has to be saved immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. Menon is fully aware of the situation and he will explain to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kind regards,

The Palace, Jammu 26th October, 1947

Your sincerely, Hari Singh

Source: Government Of India Publication, October 26, 1947

What was this duress? and where did it really come from? … you decide.

historyKashmirIndiainsurgencyhuman rightspropaganda