Education Dept yet to learn from Wular tragedy

Shikaras ferry children to submerged Bandipora school


ACADEMIC Indifference

In this small hamlet in north Kashmir’s Bandipora district, Kashmir’s School Education Department is risking the lives of about 150 school children, who are left with no option but to visit the school by Shikaras.

This is notwithstanding the gruesome Wular Tragedy in which 20 children of a Handwara school were drowned in the Wular Lake following a boat capsize due to negligence by Navy personnel and the school Principal, both indicted of “criminal negligence” by a judicial commission.

The rising water level in Wular often leads to submergence of the Government Middle School in Kulhama village. The water submerges the school, forcing the authorities to close down some of the classes temporarily besides putting a halt on other activities like the Mid Day Meals. “We face the problem of school closure time and again,” said a group of students, who were seen roaming outside.

The school, established in 2004 after its up-gradation under the Sarva Shiksa Abyan, is situated on the banks of Wular Lake, and has about 150 students on rolls besides six teachers including a headmaster.

Due to recent rainfall in the Valley, the school lawns, kitchen and the staff and student bathrooms have been submerged.

For the past five days, authorities have closed down the lower primary classes. For rest of the classes, shikaras are used to ferry students and teachers. “We had to close down the KG classes because of the fear that the little children may drown in Wular while coming to school by shikaras,” said the school headmaster, Abdur Rehman. “We have asked the Zonal Education Office to look into the issue and see what can be done in the best interest of the students.”

According to locals, the problem persists ever since the school was established six years back. “The school has been established at a wrong location. Whenever the water level in Wular increases, the school gets submerged. With the result, the teachers have to suspend some of the classes,” said Ghulam Rasool, a local.

Worse, the fear of shikara capsize has gripped the parents of school children, who demand immediate shifting of the school to a safer location. “The Wular tragedy is still fresh in our minds. School children have to travel half a kilometer by a shikara to reach the school and then back home. It is a great risk. The frequent strong winds in Wular can, God forbid, lead to drowning of children. The Education department must do something to end this perpetual problem,” demanded the locals.

On May 30, 2006, 20 children of Burning Candle Public School, Handwara, were drowned in Wular Lake due to the negligence of Marcos, an elite operation unit of Indian Navy. The inquiry commission had indicted Navy and the school Principal for “criminal negligence.”

Education Dept yet to learn from Wular tragedy

Statement of Maqbool Bhat before a special court in Pakistan

Call it a coincidence or tyranny of the conditions, I have to stand today in this special court under a special order to defend the charges which are baseless and false. More appropriately these charges are the creation of a mind that is enemy of the freedom of my country and a cruel joke with the people of Jammu and Kashmir who are fighting for liberation. History has given the verdict against those conditions and self-acclaimed rulers of Pakistan who have made me stand in this witness box. This verdict of history is so clear that no further explanation is needed. It has drawn a clear line between us and our hypocrite opponents. I take this proceeding as a compliment for myself and my comrades as future generations will have no confusion about our identity.


Thus this command of Quran has proven true about this group of hypocrites: "And when they meet Muslims they say we have become believers and when they are alone with their Satans then say no doubt we are with you. We are just taking the fun. Allah takes the fun of them and develops their imprudence. Fact is that they have no vision."

By the crime this group is committing against the oppressed people, it was inevitable that they should trap themselves in a situation where they are unable to escape.
I have neither prepared any conspiracy nor been a part of any such group. My role is clear all the way through. However it is true that I have rebelled against obscurantism, slavery, capitalism, exploitation, corruption, cruelty, and hypocricy. If the ruling class of Pakistan, which is a product of imperialist system and is represented by the civil and military bureaucracy, call it conspiracy then I have no hesitation to accept it.

For me this case against us is not unusual at all. During human history whenever exploitation and slavery are challenged the ruling classes have always relied on the word 'conspiracy'. But the history proves that in the fight of oppressed against oppressors, eventually the former won and the oppressive structure is crushed by the revolutionary struggle of the people. I have disliked self-praise but now when my role is being distorted, deliberately, I am forced to claim that at every stage of my life, I have not only supported the peoples strugggle against exploitation and oppression but always actively participated in it.

I have consciously chosen this role for myself because I see it as sunnah of prophets and is a way of revolutionaries. I have no doubt about the success of this role and the welfare it brings for the people. I can not refrain from bringing this fact in the notice of this court that apparently only six persons are made involved, but the actual motive of this case is to crush our linberation movement.

Pakistani bureaucracy should know that no matter what turns our fate takes as a result of this case, they will achieve nothing but disgrace and failure, as for as their actual motive is concerned. If the struggle for freedom was to be stopped by the court rulings there would have been hardly any free nation on earth today. If the evolution of civilization, democracy and freedom was to be prevented by the existing judicial or administrative system no revolution would have taken place from the beginning of history.

Decisions about the movements for welfare and freedom of people are not made in the existing courts, but the evolutionary process of human history gives the verdict of these govemnts. For the courts themselves are the product of that system that these movements are aimed to change.

It is for this reason that in some cases verdict given by these courts as present are proven meaningless and relinuished. It is not possible here to give details of all those conspiracies made against my country and my people. However it is imperative to highlight those aspects of these conspiracies that are exploited to construct this case.

This is not done by the unmistakable enemies of our people but by the imprudent and wicked 'friends' who have despicably occupied the power in this unfortunate country and have subjugated not only a hundred million of her people but also put its existence at stake by their malicious actions for keeping power in their hands. It is obvious that a leadership which has no sympathy for its own people cannot be hoped that it will extend any friendship to a nation which is still fighting against foreign occupation.

No one can stop men from claiming that every ruling power in Pakistan has exploited the Kashmir issue for last 25 years for its lust for power and abused this issue to mislead the people of Pakistan who have and still do support the freedom of Kashmir. When power came into the hands of military dictatorship this conspiracy has become even more dreadful. Division of Pakistan is only a logical result of this conspiracy.
This is said that a conflict was started from the day NLF was formed; between our struggle and the bureaucracy and military dictatorship of this country. The roots of this conflict are in the disagreement on aims and strategy. Military rulers of this country never liked our concept of armed struggle. Not only they did not like it, they always tried to crush any such struggle.

The story of such conspicuous incidents is too long to cover here in detail but it was never come to a stage of branding us as enemies of this country This time chosen by the military dictators to declare us enemy of the country was that when they were giving the final touches to their conspiracy.

It was last week of February 1971. In the President's house in Rawalpindi, the dictators were planning to prevent the transfer of power to the elected members of 130 million people. From its formation to 24 February 1971, no faction of rulers ever suspected it or its activities, including Ganga Hijacking. However, as part of their conspiracy, the rulers decided to use NLF and Ganga Hijacking on false grounds to justify their anti-people and anti-democracy designs.

The initial instructions were issued from President's House Rawalpindi. Inter Services Intelligence Bureau was ordered to investigate the hjacking case and keep the freedom fighters away from public and press. They should be transferred to a distant location. Responding to our enquiry we were told that country is in a crises. To solve the conflict with Mujeebu'r- Rehman on constitutional matters we need the nation to be calmed on Kashmir issue.

We were also told that Shiekh Mujeeb is for friendly relations with India and does not like to promote any confrontation for we did not want political crisis of Pakistan to be exacerbated. We co-operated and agreed on freedom fitghters' transfer to Tanda Dam, district Kohat. Only a few days later the proposed meeting of national assembly was postponed. Hence the crisis was intensified. What happened in East Pakistan after the declaration of former military dictator was pre-planned. Sheikh Mujeeb was invited for negotiations with former President in Rawalpindi.

When he refused, another declaration was released in March 71 from Presient's House that former President was going to Dhaka for negotiations. Just one day before, Yahya Khan's departaure for Dhaka, it was announced by the foreign office that hijacking case will be investigated. Replying to our explanation we were told that this is to decrease the bitterness during Yahya -- Mujeeb negotiatins where it is inevitable that Mujeeb , who has already demanded an enquiry into hijacking, will raise this issue.

We were also told that international pressure on Pakistan is also increasing and to prove that Pakistn is not involved in the hijacking we need such measures. We were assured that if neceessary, a commission will be formed but it is likely that this stage will not come.

The commission was appointed at the time when Yahya -Mujeeb negotiations entered into concluding stage. The impression was given that the commission is nothing more than an eye-wash. Actual motives were to come out only on 27 March 1971 when military operation was started in East Pakistan.

Only two days after this commission has started its proceedings as well. Among the three members of the commission, two were from the intelligence depatment and the third Mr. Rahat Chhattari was the one whose services were terminated from by the first elected government of this country under the allegation of corruption.

This chain of events shows that this case had special motive which can be nothing but the search for the justification for civil war situation in which the country is bourght by the military dictators. The report compiled by the commission according to the wishes of the rulers has fulfilled their need. We were arrested on 14 April, six days before the report was presented to the President.

And to crush our struggle mass arrests were made, memories of which are terrifying. But these rulers who were overwhelmed by the lust of power could not understand that lie is bound to be defeated. The 'nature' did not take long to give its verdict. The rulers reached their logical end before making us escape goats.

It is easy to talk about freedom. But it needs a lot more courage and patience to fight for freedom. This is the path where every turn is full of tests. You go through such stages where your own friends on whom you relied, don't want to know you for their vested interests. They, even, leave you and make alliances with enemies.

Struggle is the best criteria to judge not only who is for and against truth, but also to expose the hypocrites. It is not for freedom fighters to complain about the difficulties they face but in our defence personally

I have gone through three stages of state torture; first in occupied Kashmir, then in "Azad Kashmir" and finally in Royal Fort ( Shahi Qillah) Lahore, which is the remains of colonial era. As time is not sufficient to go into the details, I would give a brief account. At all three places the purpose of torture was completely different. In Indian occupied Kashmir, occupying officers were looking for facts about our movement and about myself. In Muzaffarabad, "Azad Kashmir" the FIU (Federal Intelligence Unit) was not looking for facts, but they wanted me to confirm their assumptions and Gestapos in Lahore Fort were torturing me to tell utter lie and to give a false statement as part of their conspiracy.

Only the administrative machinery of the oppressive rulers of this country could have done what was done to us to distort the facts and to construct the stories and characaters. Some details of the torture, of which we were subjected in Lahore fort, are given by my comrades in their written statements. But there was a lot more done in the Fort. The fact is that some details are so shameful that it is not possible to bring them in writing*. I leave the decision about what happened in Shahi Qillah (Royal Fort) for the day of judgement.

Whatever ruling is made by this court, I can clearly see that it cannot do justice in this case. It is not that I do not trust this court, but it is the self-constructed nature of the allegations made against us, for they can't be defended in existing conditions. The false nature of these allegations cannot be proved until my country is divided.
However, it is my faith that the dawn of freedom will fall in my country and the line of division will be trodden. This will be the time when facts about my life will come out. Only then I will get justice and this will be done in the court of history. That day my people will know the reality of the allegations, by both the Indian and Pakistani rulers against me, of being an agent of India or Pakistan.

During the examination this court has enquired about the suspicion shown by FIU Major. Naseer Gul in his report about my escape from Srinagar prison. Having read this report in full, I maintain that it is totally against the facts and nothing more than a biased view of a military officer.

All contradictions, which this 'expert' intelligence officer has pointed out are rooted not in my account of escape, but in his views about peoples' armed struggle. Product of colonialism, Generals hate the concept of peoples' army because it challenges the monopoly of General 's on military resources. It is a historical fact that military dictators never supported any organisation engaged in liberation war.

On the contrary, they made contacats with the enemies of freedom fighters. During martial regimes, the armed struggles of Palestine, Algeria .Vietnam and other African countries were presented as negative. The military rulers of Pakistan never supported a peoples' amed struggle in Kashmir. They hated it as much as the Muslims of early period hated pig meat. It is this hate of military rulers towards peoples' armed struggle, which has made me and my comrades the target of brutal torture and humiliatiaon.

Finishing here, I would like the court to fulfil its duty which has been given to it under a special order. At present I have no other choice but to give myslef in the merciless hands of time and to wait for the day when the darkness of discrimination and malice, cruelty and exploitation will be replaced by the light of justice. That day I will ask for justice.**

Note: By Hashim Qureshi

* We were subjected to brutal torture in Shahi Qillah. If I disclose the details of the shameful treatment to which Bhat Sahib has alluded, then these will become cause for virtuous and sincere Pakistanis to hang their heads in shame. Therefore, following in the footprints of my leader, I maintain silence in this matter.

** For conscientious political workers and patriotic Kashmiris as well as impartial observers and rationalists, Bhat Sahib's above statement brings out the following indisputable conclusions:

1. Ganga hijacking case was framed against us by Pakistani military junta and bureaucracy because they needed sacrificial goats for the separation of East Pakistan.

2. Pakistani military junta and rulers have never been sincere to the freedom of the people of Kashmir.

3. Ganga hijacking case was a conspiracy against the rising national liberation movement in Kashmir.

4. After this statement the story given by Alastair Lamb in his police reports - based work Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy is proved nothing but a heap of falsehoods and concoctions. The rest of demolition exercise is done by the statements of late K.H. Khurshid and Major Rahim Shah together with what transpired in Ashraf Queshi's meeting with Alastair Lamb and his wife in

Steps Towards Peace: Putting Kashmiris First

Even if India and Pakistan appear willing to allow more interaction across the Line of Control (LOC) that separates the parts of Kashmir they administer, any Kashmir-based dialogue will fail if they do not put its inhabitants first.

Steps Towards Peace: Putting Kashmiris First , the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, identifies the key political, social and economic needs of Kashmiris that should be addressed on both sides of the divided state.

“Since the Mumbai attacks by Pakistan-based militants in November 2008, tensions between the two neighbours have eclipsed Kashmiri hopes for political liberalisation and economic opportunity”, says Samina Ahmed, Crisis Group’s South Asia Project Director. “This atmosphere of hostility is undermining the progress that had been made in softening the borders that divide the Kashmiri people”.

Suspended by India after the Mumbai attacks, bilateral normalisation talks known as the “composite dialogue”, which began in 2004, led to a number of steps to normalise relations, including Kashmir-specific confidence-building measures (CBMs) to restore communications routes and promote cross-LOC trade and travel. But without Kashmiri ownership of the CBMs and control in implementing them, any gains will easily be reversed whenever India-Pakistan relations take a turn for the worse.

Despite the recent rise in militancy, clashes between separatists and security personnel and other violence, Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is not the battlefield it was in the 1990s. India has pledged to reduce its military presence and has made some overtures to moderate factions of the separatist All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC). The roots of Kashmiri alienation, however, still run deep, and outbreaks of violence occur regularly. J&K remains heavily militarised, and laws that encourage human rights abuses by security forces remain, fuelling public resentment that the militants could once again exploit.

India should revive the “special status” guaranteed by the constitution and repeal all draconian laws. Replacing military-led counter-insurgency with accountable policing and reviving an economy devastated by violence and conflict would instil greater confidence among Kashmiris.

On the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) side of the LOC, Pakistan must prioritise reforms that open political debate to all shades of Kashmiri opinion, stimulate the local economy and end AJK’s over-dependence on the centre. While Pakistan’s elected civilian leadership has expressed a desire for improved bilateral relations and for resuming the composite dialogue, it must ensure that jihadis, still backed by the military, can no longer disrupt the regional peace. Another Mumbai-like attack would have a devastating impact on bilateral relations and could conceivably bring the nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink of war.

“Even if India is persuaded to resume the composite dialogue, it is unrealistic to expect a solution to the Kashmir dispute in the near future”, says Robert Templer, Crisis Group’s Asia Program Director. “Both India and Pakistan should focus on creating a favourable environment for cooperation”.

Steps Towards Peace: Putting Kashmiris First

A Challenge: Follow the path of Shaheed Maqbool Bhat by Manzoor Dar

"Freedom and independence is the fate and destination of Kashmiris. Indian rulers or Pakistani generals and bureaucrats cannot enslave Kashmir for a long time. I am convinced that my motherland will see the dawn of independence, and that dreaded line that divides our hearts (Line-of-control) will disappear one day." - Shaheed Maqbool Bhat

Whereas peoples of the free world celebrate their independence days, the people of Kashmir have important days to remember the lives of its countless martyrs who gave complete sacrifice for the struggle to further the justice and freedom of their divided and occupied nation. First and foremost, Shaheed Maqbool Bhat is remembered and cherished as the pioneer of the people’s struggle for independence and re-unification of Jammu & Kashmir. And his death anniversary on February 11, the day upon which the government of India executed Maqbool Bhat despite serious judicial irregularities and a last minute mercy plea from the then President of India, is perhaps the single most important day on the Kashmiri political calender. February 11 might be the day upon which India put to death Maqbool Bhat the man, but it is also the day the dream and struggle of Maqbool Bhat became eternally embedded in the hearts and souls of the people of Jammu & Kashmir. On this day the dream, the struggle, and the sacrifice of Maqbool Bhat is eulogized by the masses with great fervor and public outpouring of pure dedication and determination.

An onlooker may ask why is it that the life and example of Shaheed Maqbool Bhat has assumed such  central position in the ideology and methodology of the struggle for freedom and justice in Jammu & Kashmir? The reason why is simple yet powerful. It is said that a person does not truly live unless he advances the condition of humanity. In the case of Shaheed Maqbool Bhat and his struggle to awaken his nation towards the fight against oppression and injustice it would not be an exaggeration to say that he lived a thousand lives. Not only did he take up the political independence of Jammu & Kashmir as a goal but he paid deep attention to the overall condition of the common man and humanity at large. His was a complete struggle that encompassed reform of society, promotion of tolerance, and push for economic justice. His oft-repeated saying indicates that he possessed great depth in his vision: "It's far better to die in the field in struggle against illiteracy, poverty and oppression and to achieve the glory of humanity while fighting against evil forces than to die in bed." Simply put, it is his ideology of justice and the sacrifice he gave for that which has won him eternal love from his people and respect the world over. It is safe to say that the allegiance of the common people to the path of Maqbool Bhat is unquestionable.

However, 15 years after the death of Maqbool Bhat it pains me know that this great Shaheed right no would definitely be turning in his grave and deeply hurt to see what has become of his beloved country. Violence and chaos appears to have taken over in such a way that there appears to be no sense or strategy to it and somehow the people’s struggle for independence has been by-passed. The course being followed by certain leaders and groupings of leaders has virtually no chance of achieving what Maqbool Bhat’s and the thousands of other Kashmiris’ sacrifice was for. As the recent spectacle of "bus diplomacy" rings true, the dynamics of the Kashmir problem has become slowly confined to the very bilateralism between India and Pakistan over Kashmir that Maqbool Bhat loathed. Furthermore, the ignoring of Kashmiris at the table can be attributed directly to the position which many of those who presently claim leadership took as willing benefactors to Pakistan’s territorial approach in Kashmir.

In addition to knowing about the suffering of his people, Maqbool Bhat would feel deep pain by observing the lack of direction and mistaken leadership that has befallen the present movement. For this reason alone, there is a pain and sorrow that many admirers of Maqbool Bhat feel weighing heavily upon their souls. This is a pain in knowing that the present struggle and particularly the present condition of leadership is far from being on the true path and example of Shaheed Maqbool Bhat and as such there exists a deep black cloud of uncertainty hovering over the fate of the people of Jammu & Kashmir - the very nation which Shaheed Bhat loved so very much. Maqbool Bhat said that even in captivity a freedom fighter is liberated as long as he remains conscious of his goal and principles. For this reason, the uncertainty and confusion existing in the present political atmosphere in Jammu & Kashmir can be called a warning sign that things are not on the right track and that in order for this movement to succeed, the people of Jammu & Kashmir must reform the present shape of the movement and return its course directly and solely on the path that Shaheed Maqbool Bhat paved for his nation.

One thing remains very clear: this movement is not lacking in the area of sacrifice and dedication of the people. After all, more than 50,000 Kashmiris have given their very lives for this cherished goals of freedom. Shaheed Bhat anticipated that terrible obstacles would be pushed in front of the people of Jammu & Kashmir if they were to demand their freedom. Indeed, his own lonely struggle was a taste of this hardship to come and it is a known fact that he faced terrible police-state oppression from the authorities of Pakistan and then later was actually murdered by India. Maqbool Bhat described his struggle: "It is easy to talk about freedom. But it needs a lot more courage and patience to fight for freedom. It is a path where every turn is full of tests. You go through such stages where your own friends on whom you relied, don't want to know you for their vested interests. They, even, leave you and make alliances with enemies."

It would be no exaggeration that Shaheed Maqbool Bhat would be proud of the common people who have demonstrated such patience. But with the same certainty, I am sure that Maqbool Bhat would be angered and ashamed of the way in which the leadership has behaved, specifically how it has bartered away the ideology and goal of independence by entering strange alliances or adopting ambiguous demands. To be more specific, I would like to discuss the way in which those claiming exclusive leadership have confused the struggle for independence and have reduced the Kashmir struggle to a squabble between India and Pakistan - as it is wrongly seen by the outside world now - because of the way it has been subservient to dictates of the occupiers.

Though these leaders criticize Pakistan and India’s mutual overtures and bilateral talks it is absolutely true that these leaders who have played the role of Pakistan and have confused the Kashmiri struggle by holding it hostage to their communal approaches and demand for UN resolution implementation. The very "help" they took from "friends" allowed the hijacking of this struggle. And above all, these leaders - some of whom were Indian politicians while Maqbool Bhat was struggling and when he was hung and some of whom have in the past labeled the Shaheed as an agent and his ideology as "kufr" - have conspired against Independent Kashmir thought. Namely, the present APHC Chairman has recently given statements only two-option self-determination and has ruled out what he called the "third option" of independence.

Interestingly, some of these same leaders are endorsing a strike for February 11. One can only guess that they want to exploit the genuine sentiments in order to fool the outside world that they command the sole leadership. Even Pakistan this year has had to make some vague recognition of Feb. 11: a sign that independent Kashmir is strong in the hearts of Kashmiris. To these individuals Maqbool Bhat is honored for only the fact that he was killed by India. But Maqbool Bhat’s contribution was not only going to the Indian gallows. So to these people it must be said that if they wish to honour the memory of a person they must honour the ideology and strategy of the person. Otherwise, it is just a publicity stunt exploiting the sacrifice of a great martyr they still have failed to truly understand.

So for the sake of the generations to come and for those who are currently carrying on the real struggle for the real goal of independence it is of the utmost importance that they endeavor to understand and heed the ideology and approach of Shaheed Maqbool Bhat. Indeed, a re-dedication to the path of Maqbool Bhat will serve to solve many of the problems currently facing the movement. In particular, two things must be emphasized: 1) his exactly defined goal of achieving a re-united and independent Jammu & Kashmir with a strong democratic and tolerant framework and 2) his strong belief that the struggle must remain in essence a struggle for the people and by the people.

On the first aspect, Maqbool Bhat’s goal of the re-unification and independence of Jammu & Kashmir, most people are quite clear what this implies and this is well understood by the masses. Above all many are aware that the solution of independence is perhaps the only way in which both India and Pakistan can make a just peace in Kashmir.

Regarding this, Maqbool Bhat was very determined that the struggle must be a truly egalitarian and unified struggle for national independence. He was also worried about the possibility that the struggle could be "hijacked" should the struggle’s goals be made ambiguous. In his own struggle, Maqbool Bhat refused Pakistani dictates and decided to struggle alone rather than allow his group to be used as a tool for a proxy war for different ends.

He emphasized the importance of the goal of independence: "Any fight without an ideology and without a clear goal can be hijacked by anyone with bigger power- we want to fight our own war, we will accept help but not interference". When asked about the need for Kashmiris to receive recognition, help, and sympathy from the outside world, Maqbool Bhat emphasized that this could not be at the cost of loosing the reigns of the movement: "We have to first prove that we are capable of running such a movement. Once we organise our nation help will come to us without any strings".

Maqbool Bhat was particularly worried that this conflict would become communalized by foreign conspiracy. Instead he insisted that the struggle for freedom be based upon the principles of universal justice. Indeed the following warning of Maqbool Bhat has come true in a prophetic way: "Any organisation or individual attempted to carry out independence movement in Kashmir on the basis of sect and religion will be deemed as an arch enemy of the nation, because it will lead to the division of the Motherland - where ethnic, linguistic and sectarian disputes and clashes will undermine the national unity and character - ultimate output of which is constant turmoil and infighting and an ideal situation for foreign subjugators to continue their direct and indirect rule and oppression. Kashmiris freedom movement based on sectarianism and religion can't muster international support whether it is launched at the behest of "secular India" or Islamic Pakistan. The only way to achieve national freedom for Kashmir is to demonstrate as United Kashmir Nation."

Regarding the rest, I would like to conclude with a strong request that the present intellectuals as well as the common people of Jammu & Kashmir contemplate the following advice of Shaheed Maqbool Bhat- I am sure that its implications are obvious regarding certain leaders’ erroneous belief that Kashmiris can look to the outside world as a saviour: "I can't be unjust to history, I would like to make it clear to you that regarding our problems which include wheat or educational problems to national political independence, until and unless Kashmiris themselves command and lead it - They will not succeed. It is the verdict of nature and history even. I'm here to give up this struggle if anybody from you comes up with a single example from nation's history, that any other nation of the world had fought, or lead freedom movement of another. No, never. But unfortunately, Kashmiri leadership always looked forward to others to organise and lead their movement (contrary to the wishes and aspirations of common Kashmiri people). Hence, loosing the image and status of a nation interested to be recognised as united under indigenous leadership and command. "

Since the departure of Maqbool Bhat, leadership has become in many ways a hated word in the minds of the common Kashmiri who has time and again given sacrifice for the just cause of freedom but has seen their goal become more and more elusive. Why is this? Perhaps it is because while the sacrifice of Bhat has been honored, his ideology and methodology has not been held as the standard for leadership. Maqbool Bhat believed that the Kashmiri leadership’s role was to serve the people and to live by example. He would never ask his people to do something he himself was not prepared to do. Is there a leader or any leaders today that can come close to this great person when all one observes is a group of individuals spending most of their energies in politicking, ego, and exaggerating their importance?

With my critical and even harsh analysis above, a reader may accuse me of being too cynical and demanding of the leadership. But with the level of supreme sacrifice that the people of Jammu & Kashmir have offered in the last 50 years, we should all expect impeccable leadership despite the conspiracies hatched by New Delhi and Islamabad. Some may say that such a servant of the people like Maqbool Bhat can never emerge again in Jammu & Kashmir. To this I conclude with a hopeful challenge to every political activist and every free-thinking Kashmiri who hopes for the freedom of his nation. People have matched the sacrifice of Maqbool Bhat, but have they endeavored to emulate the strategy of Maqbool Bhat?

I propose that such a leadership can emerge if they dedicate themselves to upholding true justice and understanding the complete picture that this father of the nation painted with his own blood. And it is for the purpose of keeping the dream alive that February 11th is so very important.

Perhaps we will have to wait for the children of today to grow but the struggle is far from being over. I conclude with a prayer that the following words of the visionary, Shaheed Maqbool Bhat, will come true: "Political and economic liberation of our nation demands incessant struggle and commitment, even lives be sacrificed so that next generation could follow our steps and could live an honourable life with a dignified way - and after death we would re-appear with different names and characters to continue the just struggle."

A Challenge: Follow the path of Shaheed Maqbool Bhat by Manzoor Dar

Kashmir: consensus proposal?

Kashmir: consensus proposal?

written by Shams Rehman

While the process of exploring various “solutions” to Kashmir Issue was initiated soon after the birth of Kashmir “problem” out of the barrels of the Indian and Pakistani guns in October 1947, till recently the process was confined to a bilateral Indian and Pakistan official framework or to the UN and US circles.

Over the past few decades, especially after the explosion of a massive uprising in the Indian occupied Kashmir following the rigged elections of 1987, the process seems to have expanded and proposals are being mushroomed from a wide range of individuals and agencies including Yousaf Bach a veteran Kashmiri from Valley settled in US after working with UN since the birth of Kashmir Problem; Bava Krishan Dev Setti from Jammu who fought hand in hand with other Kashmiris against maharaja system and migrated from Mirpur when Pakistani tribes and troops invaded the State. The Kashmiri organisations that proposed different solutions include National Conference, JKLF, Hurriyat, Peoples League, PDP, APNA (All Parties National Alliance), International Kashmir Alliance, Association of British Kashmiris, Balawirstan (Gilgit-Baltistan) Front etc. Some Western Think Tanks, BBC and South Asia based NGOs have also forwarded various proposals for peaceful resolution of the issue.

The proposals presented so far have some distinguishing features in terms of their implementation and outcome as some presume Autonomy, others the division on ethnic and/or communal lines and still others independence of the state. However, a close reading of all the suggestions seemingly challenges the general and wide spread perception that there is no common ground on which Kashmiris of diverse viewpoints and India and Pakistan can agree to find a mechanism of solving Kashmir question with a space and potential to be acceptable to all the contesting parties.

Drawing on various proposals this article tends to highlight the grounds for consensus and proposes a mechanism through which possibly a most inclusive, democratic, just and peaceful solution can be achieved for the issue of Kashmir that is used as one of the major excuses by the rulers of India-Pakistan and their subordinates in divided state of Kashmir for keeping people apart and building destructive war machines rather than houses, schools, hospitals, roads, factories, in short – lives.

Consensus indicators

1. Almost all proposals recognise the distinct identity and entity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by accepting that the problem of Kashmir is a problem of the entire state and not of any particular region of Kashmir.

2. That the problem is to determine the future of this state which implies that the future is not determined as yet. Indian official position is that the entire state belongs to her while Pakistan claims it is hers and Kashmiris are generally divided between the accession to either India or Pakistan and independence.

3. There also seems a general agreement, at least, amongst Kashmiris that for any solution oriented exercise to be meaningful the involvement of Kashmiri peoples is indispensable.

3. Almost all external and internal proposals recognise the ethnic diversity of the State and suggest for the diversity to be incorporated in the processes to develop any mechanisms for a solution.

4. The view that Kashmir is primarily a political problem that has to be addressed through a political mechanism also seems shared by various forces involved in efforts to resolve the issue.

5. It is largely recognised in India, Pakistan and internationally that the movement in Kashmir Valley has not been instigated from outside. However, it is also widely perceived that foreign involvement had been there for various interests that not necessarily have been compatible with the interests of the peoples of the State.

6. It is well documented and acknowledged fact that the Human Rights are widely violated by the Indian armed forces in the Indian Administered Kashmir and that the first and foremost priority for engaging the peoples of Kashmir in any peace process is to end all human rights violations in the Indian Occupied Kashmir.

7. The fact that a large number of political activists and civilians are kept in Indian prisons without substantial grounds or in some cases without any charges is also acknowledged. Some who were charged and tried are kept in even after they have spent their tariffs .

8. Human Rights are also violated by some of the militant activities carried out by several groups fighting the Indian occupation.

9. Human Rights of the Kashmiris under Pakistani occupied Kashmir including Gilgit Baltistan are also not respected by the Pakistani governments in these parts of the State. Pro-independence politics is suppressed in AJK and Gilgit Baltistan. Open violation of State Subject, restrictions on the participation in politics and employment of pro-independence Kashmiris are also the other most identifiable and quantifiable examples.

10. There is also an expressed desire that peoples of Kashmir State must have right to free movement, socio-economic, cultural and political interaction and rights of free speech and association that have to be assured in all parts of the state.

11. At present the right of the peoples of the State to participate freely without any restrictions in the existing administrations in Gilgit, Muzaffarabad and Srinagar-Jammu is not fully recognised and respected.

12. The wishes repeatedly expressed by the people of Jammu and Ladakh for their regional assemblies similar to those in Valley, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan carry significant support amongst the Kashmiris across the division line as well as amongst Indians and Pakistanis.

13. It is also very obvious that none of the existing political parties, alliances or assemblies can claim as true representatives of the state in its entirety.

14. An estimated three million strong Kashmiri Diaspora in India, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, Britain, USA and Canada has multiple links and attachments with, and stakes in, the affairs of their “homeland” and can play positive and constructive role in finding the solution as well as in the development of the State.

This list of course is not exhaustive and more possibilities for a broader consensus can be traced in the proposals. However, the most significant task facing the peoples of the divided State of Kashmir at present is whether a mechanism can be developed through which a wider consensus and state wide representation can be achieved? For India and Pakistan are internationally recognised states with relatively established systems of electing representative governments but no such system is currently available to the peoples of Kashmir for the entire state.

The State is currently divided, since 1947, into three administrative structures namely

a) Gilgit-Baltistan Council;

b) “Jammu and Kashmir” Assembly and

c) “Azad” Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. There is also ‘Hill Council’ in Ladakh. While these assemblies are elected with varying degrees of people participation, none of these is representative of the people who they claim to represent even in the modest sense. Similarly, while none of the dozens of political groups operating outside of the “official political institutions” of the State represents the entire state, they actually are not allowed to operate in the entire state.

Only those parties have access to mainstream politics and employment that have developed under, or are product of, the Indian and Pakistani States’ civil and military machineries operating in the State or those who accept the status quo and state’s accession to India / Pakistan on their respective side of the division line.

Suggestions to Resolve Kashmir question

Against this background some preliminary suggestions are outlined below for consideration of the people of Kashmir and beyond who are interested in and striving for enhancing peace, progress, development, justice, democracy and equality across the globe.

1. the first and foremost requirement for moving towards any meaningful solution to the problem, as suggested in several proposals, is to open the traditional travel routes between all regions of the divided state namely Gilgit, Hunza, Yasin,Baltistan, Ladakh, ‘Azad’ Kashmir, Jammu, and Kashmir Valley. In terms of travelling documents, the State Subject to be issued in a card form by the regional or district officers seems the best option available. Alternatively, the regional or district offices perhaps could be authorised to issue other agreed documents.

2. The next step should be the release of all political prisoners in all parts of the State.

3. India and Pakistan should mutually withdraw their armies away from the populated areas across the division line and in case of India from the towns and cities of the Indian occupied Kashmir (IOK) or as it is called by the Indian officials “The Jammu and Kashmir”.

4. All restrictions currently imposed on the freedom of press and association in the

Indian and Pakistani administered Kashmir, should be lifted at once followed by necessary constitutional amendments in all three existing political setups in Gilgit, Muzzafarabad and Srinagar-Jammu to make these assemblies fully inclusive and democratic by lifting restrictions on Pro independence parties.

5. Steps should be taken to recognise the demands by Jammu and Ladakhi people for regional assemblies.

6. All personnel deputed or appointed by the Indian and Pakistani governments (also commonly called lent officers) in Kashmiri administration should be replaced with locals.

7. All restrictions on Human Rights organisations and media should be lifted in all parts of the state.

8. Elections for local municipalities should be announced spontaneously across the state.

9. The local municipalities should carry out a comprehensive survey and analysis of local needs;

10. International observers and media should be requested to monitor the process of forthcoming election of regional and State assemblies.
11. Date for the elections of all regional assemblies should be announced simultaneously with inclusive right of all peoples of the State to participate in elections. The regional assemblies should have mandate for policies and strategies on regional affairs including local resources, development, trade and investment etc.

12. If any of the regional assemblies wish to join with neighbouring regional assembly of the state they should have right to do so.

13. After an agreed period an inclusive, democratic, fair and free elections should be held for the Interim Government for the entire state. In order to make this assembly to reflect the diversity of the state, representation should be allocated to all five regions according to the population of each region. One way of electing the representations from Kashmir diaspora in India and Pakistan and in USA, Europe, Britain and Middle East can be to allocate certain percentage of representation for diaspora according to their population.

14. All armies of India and Pakistan should be withdrawn from the territory of Kashmir State.

15. This interim government should be recognised by the international community including India, Pakistan and China as the representative government of the State with the mandate to represent Kashmiris in all negotiations regarding the future status of Kashmir.

16. After an agreed period all state subjects should be given an opportunity to decide the future status of the entire Kashmir state through a fair and free referendum.

While there is certainly a room for improvisation in the plan, it seemingly incorporates almost all of the proposals presented so far, internally and externally, to move forward towards a peaceful, democratic, just and inclusive mechanism of resolving Kashmir question. This proposal while does not rule out any outcome, it gives locally elected assemblies to all regions with the potential to stay beyond the final determination of the future status of the state whatever that might be.

The proposal primarily speaks to the interested individuals and groups in Kashmir – Valley, Ladakh, Jammu, “Azad” Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and the diaspora. For after all it is the peoples of Kashmir who although form the primary party in Kashmir “dispute” are not represented in the ongoing process of negotiating Kashmir and are also deprived of any mechanism to elect the representative voice of Kashmir State. Critical feedback from wider viewers and readers would also be of great value for the proposal to be developed or improvised further. It is however clearly understood that without the support of peoples in and from all parts of the divided state of Kashmir this proposal is going to become just another addition in the growing long list of such documents.

About author: Originally from Mirpur (‘Azad’) Kashmir settled in UK since 1980s trying to actually write up PhD on ‘transnationalism from below and British Kashmiris’. Can be reached through email: shamakashmiri@yahoo.co.uk

Kashmiri capital Srinagar listed as dirty town: Indian survey

by Peerzada Arshad Hamid

SRINAGAR, India-controlled Kashmir, May 13 (Xinhua) -- Known as one of the most beautiful tourist resorts in the Himalayan region, India-controlled Kashmir is facing the risk of high pollution.

A survey by India's Urban Development Ministry has ranked Srinagar city, the summer capital of India-controlled Kashmir as the fourth dirtiest city among Indian cities.

The survey based on sanitation ratings, released Tuesday in New Delhi, said Srinagar figures in the "red zone" of pollution, as the city has scored a mere 19.1 on a scale of 100 in the National Rating and Award Scheme for Sanitationfor Indian Cities.
"The listing of Srinagar city as the fourth dirtiest city puts a question mark on the local government for its claims of spending money in sanitation and development sector. It should serve as an eye opener for our officials," said Burhan Majid, a lawyer at the City Court.

Srinagar is a picturesque city founded around the year 10 BC. It is an important tourist destination, for the city is famous for its lakes and gardens.

The city has a full-fledged Municipal Corporation that is entrusted with the job to keep city clean.


Of 423 cities ranked in the survey, Srinagar figures at 420 just above three lesser known cities -- Pilbit and Lakhanpur in Uttar Pradesh, and Churu in Rajasthan.

Environmentalists in the region for past two decades have been pointing to the poor sanitation and deterioration of water bodies in rinagar. However, their calls have long fallen on deaf ears.

Last year the region's High Court held the house-boats on the waters of Dal Lake responsible for polluting the lake.

It took cognizance of a report submitted by region's Pollution Control Board saying the open lavatories and refuse from kitchens of the house-boats are a major source of pollution in the lake.

Earlier, the board said water quality of the lake has deteriorated for the influx of pollutants in the lake is six to eight times more than the permissible limit.

At many places the drains carrying sewerage from the Srinagar habitations have been routed either to Dal Lake or to the river Jehlumthat passes through the city.

The latest sanitation survey categorized cities and towns on parameters like complete elimination of open defecation, elimination of open scavenging, safe collection and disposal of human excreta.

"Various expert agencies were involved to assess the status of sanitation on the spot in Class I cities. Data collected and assessment made by these agencies were further analyzed by technical experts and rating was done by awarding points for various parameters. On the basis of their performance, cities have been kept in four categories that are green, blue, black and red," a government statement said.


Ironically no Indian city could qualify in the green category while only four cities figured in blue category.

The Chandigarh city a Union Territory and capital of Punjab and Haryana sates was found to be the cleanest city in India.

Churu in Rajasthan was ranked the dirtiest. The rating according to a government statement have been listed to sensitize the administration and citizens of the cities about the current state of sanitation and to raise awareness regarding their improvement.

Kashmiri capital Srinagar listed as dirty town: Indian survey

All is not lost

Picture taken in Kashmir just after the 2005 eartquake when over 200,000 people died and entire generations were lost. the moon in the back ground and a hawk hovering over when u see the image, but the sadness on the childs face says it all...

JKLF-London meets with Prospective Parliamentary Candidate of labour party Gavin Shuker

Translated fro Urdu to English by Shabana Bashir

The meeting was headed by Professor Zafar Khan head of JKLF’s Diplomatic Committee

The panel of JKLF London had a formal meeting with Prospective Parliamentary Candidate of labour party Gavin Shuker which was headed by Professor Zafar Khan head of JKLF’s Diplomatic Committee and was attended by other senior members of JKLF including Raja Raouf Khan, Professor Muhammed Riaz, Haji Kaman Afsar, Syed Tehseen Gilani and others.

The panel updated Mr Shuker about latest issues in disputed kashmir and Prof Zafar Khan said that Britain and Labour party has to use their influence internationally in order to settle the issue of Kashmir by giving the Kashmiris their right of self-determination. He further said that it is Britain’s responsibility to sort this issue and hence suggested that Britain should take part in common wealth and pressurise India and Pakistan to give Kashmiris their birth right, right to self-determinate which is acceptable internationally. Mr Gavin Shker, reassured the panel that he will use his influence and raise the voice in British parliament to solve the issue of Kashmir peacefully and permanently.

JKLF-London meets with Prospective Parliamentary Candidate of labour party Gavin Shuker

Challenges, options and role of Kashmiri Diaspora

Challenges, options and role of Kashmiri Diaspora

Text of speech of Dr Shabir Choudhry in a seminar arranged by United Kashmir Peoples National Party in London on 25 April 2010.


Dr Shabir Choudhry is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir

Some previous speakers have said Pakistan is an advocate or wakeel of people of Jammu and Kashmir; and that Pakistan has suffered because of the support rendered to the people of Kashmir. They further said Pakistan has done many favours to people of Kashmir; and have kept the Kashmir dispute alive.

That is one way of looking at things, but there is, of course, an alternative view. I want to present that alternative view that people could understand facts about Pakistan’s support for Kashmir; and ‘favour’ Pakistan has done to people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Advocate or wakeel is always appointed or dismissed by a client. People of Jammu and Kashmir did not appoint Pakistan as their advocate, wakeel or representative. Pakistan is self appointed advocate and we have no faith in Pakistan’s sincerity or skills to promote our cause or protect our interests.

Furthermore, when the Kashmir dispute was taken to the UN Security Council by India it was registered there as the Kashmir Problem. It clearly indicated that the issue related to a separate territory other than India or Pakistan; and to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. First ‘favour’ the government of Pakistan did to the people of Jammu and Kashmir was to change that to India and Pakistan problem.

What this showed was that the problem was related to India and Pakistan and not to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It also showed that Jammu and Kashmir was not a separate territory and people of that territory did not have separate identity and separate existence. It further showed that the dispute was a territorial one; and was not related to nation, its identity and future aspirations.

Let me now explain the second ‘favour’ the government of Pakistan did to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948 stated 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 phrase ‘future status’ could mean an accession to Pakistan, an accession to India or an independent Jammu and Kashmir; and when this was confirmed by the UN, it was the government of Pakistan which requested the UN Security Council to change this phrase and replace it with the following: ‘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.’

So it was Pakistan and not India, which limited Kashmiri peoples right of self determination to right of accession.

This self appointed advocate or wakeel thinks we people of Jammu and Kashmir do not deserve to be an independent nation. They think we do not deserve to use right of self determination. They think we do not deserve to benefit from fruits of independence and democracy. It was because of this thinking they did us another ‘favour’, and limited our right of self determination to right of accession. However they have ‘kindly’ allowed us - people of Jammu and Kashmir to choose our masters in the form of either acceding to India or Pakistan.

We, people of Jammu and Kashmir, are urged to join Pakistan – a country which has no system of accountability, no transparency, no democracy, no political stability, no rule of law, no concept of civil liberties, no economic stability, no electricity, no gas, no place for merit or honesty and which is at war with itself. A country which is in chaos, where terrorists are calling shots, where communal rivalry and violence is promoted, where government has no control in some parts of the country; and where some parts want to break away from the federation and future looks bleak.

People say there is no comparison between two sides of Kashmir because India has more than half million troops there. I agree there is no comparison. It is true there are more than half million troops. It is also true human rights abuse take place there, but despite 21 years of militancy, destruction and instability that area is far ahead of Pakistani Administered Kashmir.

They have what we cannot even dream of on this side of the LOC. They have medical colleges, technical colleges, engineering colleges, free education, high literacy rate, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, freedom to protest etc. They have human rights abuses but they have a system of recording those abuses and highlighting them.

Don’t be under any illusion, human rights abuse also takes place on this side of the LOC, but we have no system of recording that; in fact, no one dares to speak against that because of the repercussions. Leaders on that side of the LOC shout against India and yet they travel to all parts of Jammu and Kashmir, visit Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi and eat chicken tikkas.

Whereas on this side of the LOC, Azad Kashmiri Prime Minister and President cannot even travel to Gilgit Baltistan, and area part of the State. Azad Kashmiri leaders and political activists cannot even think of going to the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. They are not even allowed to have peaceful demonstrations and prime examples are the demonstrations of Mirpur and Rawalakot, where people demonstrated against electric load shedding and problems associated with that.

More electricity is produced in Mirpur and other parts of Azad Kashmir than our requirement, and that electricity is used in Pakistan and we don’t get enough to meet our needs. People of Mirpur and Rawalakot were demanding electricity and an end to more than 14 hours a day load shedding. They were peaceful and they had no guns, and yet they were mercilessly beaten up and guns were used against them injuring scores of innocent people.

Just imagine if these people were trained by India, guns were provided by them and these guns were used against Pakistani army in Azad Kashmir, then you would know what human rights abuse is. Everyone knows it was Pakistan who trained militants, gave them guns, and asked them to use them against the Indian army. India reacted and committed human rights abuses, and now they have more than half million army there. No one can defend that. But ask yourself if they had half million army there before the start of the militancy. Answer is no. So those who started militancy, trained men, sent guns and bombs provided a reason for India to station this large army there.

Many more examples could be given to explain the situation regarding two parts of Kashmir, but due to time I cannot go in to details. But I have to tell you some more facts, bitter as they are. Those leaders and parties who preach you to liberate the Valley of Kashmir or Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir first are not sincere with the cause of Kashmir.

In disguise these people are promoting someone else’s agenda. Their aim is not to liberate Kashmir, but to promote interests of those who want to keep India engaged in Jammu and Kashmir. They want to give this impression that problem is only on the Indian side of the divide, and on the Pakistani side of the divide everything is rosy. That is not true. This part is also occupied, but people are hoodwinked in name of religion and brotherhood. We should learn how Pakistan has practically annexed our motherland - area of Gilgit Baltistan.

On this side of the LOC, we are occupied by Pakistan. Our resources are exploited by them. Our struggle is on this side of the divide. My struggle starts from Bhimber. It starts from Mirpur and Kotli and other parts of Pakistani Administered Kashmir. People of the Indian side of Kashmir are struggling for independence on that side of the divide and they are making big sacrifices. I feel their suffering. I admire their spirit and sacrifices. I fully support that struggle; and want to help and advance the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

My words might appear harsh, and some might call this ‘anti Pakistan’. I am not anti Pakistan; in fact no Kashmiri is anti Pakistan. Examples I have given regarding Pakistani role are historical facts. I am not here to promote a Pakistani interest. My mission is to promote a Kashmiri interest and explain to people who have done what against us to harm us, and to enslave us. In discharging this duty if another country’s strategic or other interest are damaged it DOES NOT worry me. It DOES NOT worry me if people dislike or oppose me for promoting a Kashmiri interest.

In conclusion, we people are faced with challenges of extremism, violence and hatred. We are challenged by anti democratic anti liberal forces. We people of Jammu and Kashmir do not have many choices. We have only two choices: accept this intimidation and occupation and become collaborators, or stand up and oppose them. Come what may, we have decided to stand up and fight them back. END

JKLF in London CONDEMNED the Banishment of its leadership from Gilgit-Baltistan

JKLF in London CONDEMNED the Banishment of its leadership from Gilgit-Baltistan

Translated from Urdu to English by Shabana Bashir

JKLF London has condemned the exile of JKLF chairman Sardar Saghir Advocate, another political leader Sardar Raja Mazhar Iqbal and many others who were made exile from Gilgit on 28th Arpril. JKLF said that the exile of these leaders is part of Indo-Pak propaganda to divide kashmir into further parts. In a press release London, JKLF that historically, constitutionally and lawfully, the agreement of Karachi is clear evidence that Gilgit, Baltistan is a part of Jammu & Kashmir and if this was not the case, the Government of Pakistan did not need to make agreement with the free government of the region. It was further said in the press release, that if Pakistan wanted to give full right to Gilgit, Baltistan people, the simple resolution was to make Gilgit baltistan, a part of Azad Jammu and Kashmir where a combined Government could have been made which would have given more importance to the dispute of kashmir. On the other hand, it is also said that its clear now that Pakistan has same intrest in Kashmir as India and the both countries are equally responsible for the divide of Kashmir and that further attempts are being made to sub-divide Kashmir. J & K and Gilgit Baltistan, never accepted Karachi agreement and will never accept it in future too, said JKLF.


In a statement from London, JKLF said that the concept of Independent Kashmir is strengthening its roots amongst the people and youth of Gilgit Bltistan which has caused frustration amongst the conspirers. Recent successfull seminar organized by JKLF cleared the misunderstandings between Jammu & Kashmir people and Gilgit Baltistan people but it is not acceptable by the conspirers, therefore the exile of JKLF leadrs is a clear evidence that the conspiracy to further divide Jammu and Kashmir is on rise and the democratic govenrment of Gilgit Baltistan is just for name but has no democratic role in reality.

JKLF senior leaders strongly condemned Pakistan’s action to make Gilgit Baltistan a part of Pakistan and said that any part of Kashmir State (Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan, Jammu, Kashmir) is neither Jagular vein nor Integral part on any occupying country. Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris and any attempt by either country will be resisted by Kashmiri people.

Gilgit Baltistan Protest against the 28th April 1948 Karachi Agreement

On 28th April, the Nationalist groups in Gilgit Baltistan called for a protest against 28th April 1948 agreement between Pakistan and Gilgit. However, 11 leaders from Nationalist groups were made exiled for 90 days from their native cities over night. Local newspaper, daily muhasib, Gilgit Baltistan claimed that the local police raided the houses and hotels where the nationalsits were staying and arrested 11 of them in the midnight in order to prevent the demonstration. Many pro-freedom activists from Azad Kashmir also came to Gilgit Baltistan to take part in the demonstration.

However, today another emergency meeting was organized by Karakaram National Movement (KNM). In the meeting the main issue that was discussed was against the exile of KNM leaders including chairman Farzandan Karakaram, Wajahat Hussain, Nadir Hussain as well as some prominent leaders of Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Secretary General of KNM, Afsar Jan Watan Yar said that making the nationalist exile is a crack dawn against the nationalist groups and he further said that the people of Gilgit Baltistan sacrificed their lives for Pakistan and today the consequence of our sacrifices is only injustice, we don’t have the freedom of expression he said.

Secretary General of KNM, Afsar Jan Watan Yar rejected 28th April 1948 Karachi agreement and said that the agreement is not valid as the people of gilgit were not given the right of self determination and this agreement was not done according to their will. He said that exiled members should be allowed back to Baltistan immedialtely or else the government and the administrator will be responsible for the consequences.

Shabana Bashir
shabana@KashmirPage.com

Brutality still haunts peaceful demonstrators in Srinagar and more highlights from today

In occupied Kashmir today, at least 5 more persons were injured as a result of when Indian policemen and paramilitary CRPF troopers resorted to baton charge and fired tear smoke canisters to disperse pro-freedom demonstrations in different parts of Srinagar.


The demonstrations erupted after the APHC Chairman, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, left Reshi Masjid, Habba Kadal, where a Seerat Majlis was organized.

As soon as Mirwaiz left, massive demonstrations were staged by youth near Habba Kadal chowk. It was reported that the police and paramilitary troopers used force to quell them. The troopers charged towards a youth who jumped in the river to save himself. Onlooker said that he was later fished out by some local women from the river.

Moreover, the protests later spilled over to other localities including Kani Kadal, Kral Khud and Chinkra Mohalla.

Furthermore, veteran Kashmiri Hurriyet leader, Syed Ali Gilani, urged United Nations and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to impress upon India to stop human rights’ abuses in the territory.

Referring to the killings of innocent Kashmiris at Keller and Sopore, Gilani said, "Such incidents have become a routine in the territory. India has started war against the innocent people of Jammu and Kashmir."

On the other hand, a trooper of Indian Border Security Force (BSF) tried to commit suicide. The head constable Duli Chand who was in duty in Janbazpora area of Baramulla, shot himself with his service weapon. After hearing the firing, panic gripped the area when people started running for safety, but after some time, the BSF trooper was found lying in a pool of blood. He was immediately taken to district hospital Baramulla wherefrom he was referred to a Srinagar hospital in a critical condition.

Adding more to the story, Abdul Gani Goni, 47, an innocent Kashmiri who spent 14 years in prison and was accused of 1996 Nagar blast case by New Delhi court has been charged for another false case. He is now booked for the case for triggering an explosion in Rajasthan, at a time when he was behind bars.







Brutality still haunts peaceful demonstrators in Srinagar and more highlights from today

Troops kill father of 7 daughters

* Protests Rock Keller

* 2 Army Vehicles Torched

* 4 Protesters Wounded

* Police Register Murder Case

The army troopers on Saturday shot dead a civilian and critically injured another near Keller, nearly 60 kms south of Srinagar. The killing triggered violent anti-army protests with demonstrators setting ablaze two army vehicles. Troopers later opened fire on protesters injuring at least four civilians.


According to the residents of Chewan village, troopers of 53 Rashrtriya Rifles had laid an ambush in the area last night. “The army fired at labourers who had gone to forest to collect the firewood just before dawn. One of them, Ghulam Muhammad Kalas, died on the spot, another Manzoor Ahmad Lone sustained critical injuries while their another associate fled from the scene,” locals told Greater Kashmir.

“They almost emptied their guns on them,” they said. “Two horses they were riding were also hit by bullets and were lying dead on the spot.”

Police have claimed that the deceased and his associates were “timber smugglers,” but locals termed police version as a “blatant lie.”

“They were labourers who had gone to collect the firewood. Had army asked them to stop they would have definitely followed the instructions. It is a cold blooded murder,” they said. Locals also raised the point why police was not accompanying the army if it had laid an ambush for militants.

VIOLENT PROTESTS

As soon as the word about Kalas’ death in army firing spread in the area, youth took to streets and staged a massive anti-army protest. The angry protesters also set ablaze two army vehicles parked on the midst of the road leading to the village. The protesters were demanding action against the erring army personnel.

Troopers later fired on the protesters injuring four youth, two of them critically. The injured were identified as Yawar Maqbool Lone, Riyaz Ahmad Mir, Muhammad Ahsan Lone and Manzoor Ahmad Lone—all residents of Chewan.

MURDER CASE AGAINST ARMY

The Superintendent of Police, Shopian, Shahid Me’raj said, the deceased along with his two other associates was returning home after dumping the “smuggled timber” at some place.

“When they reached near Chewan, troopers who had laid ambush in the area, suspected them as militants and challenged them. They tried to run away following which troopers opened fire killing one of them on the spot and injuring his other associate”.

He said police have registered a murder case (FIR. No. 168/10) against Army under section 302 RPC.

Asked about the army firing on the protesters, he said: “Protesters set ablaze two army vehicles following which troopers had to fire in self-defence.”

Police have also registered an FIR No 169/2010 under section 148, 147, 435 RPC against the protesters for taking law into their hands.

ARMY VERSION

Army’s Srinagar-based spokesman, Lt Col J S Brar said, “As per our inputs we had information about the presence of militants in the area and we had laid an ambush at around 4:00 am in the area. On seeing some persons riding on the horses, our men got suspicious and asked them to stop but despite our repeated warnings they tried to run away, forcing us to suspect them as militants and open fire on them.”

However, he denied the allegations that the army men fired on the protesters. “Troops did not open fire despite mob torching two of our vehicles. We don’t know who fired on them. Police and the officials of the district administration were present on the spot.”

DC SPEAKS

The Deputy Commissioner, Shopian, Abdul Majid Khanday, admitted that the army was involved in the killings, “There is no need to order magisterial probe as the army has admitted that its men are involved. A murder case has been registered against the army and the law will take its own course.”

On the firing on the protesters he said, “Troopers were forced to open fire on as mob went on rampage and set ablaze some of their vehicles.”

PDP CONDEMNS

Strongly condemning killing of Ghulam Muhammad Kalas, in Chewan village in Keller followed by firing on unarmed protesters, president of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Mehbooba Mufti regretted that situation in Kashmir Valley has been deteriorating with every passing day due to “wrong policies” of the National Conference led coalition in the state.

“Incidents of human rights violation have been increasing but the government is not seriously stopping such incidents,” Mehbooba said in a statement.

She pointed out during the last 15 months incidents of HR violations have increased manifold as the government has failed to keep “security forces under control.”

She reiterated demand of her party that Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) should be revoked to avoid recurrence of such incidents. “Perpetrators of human right violation have been taking benefit of harsh laws like AFSPA and revocation of such acts was must to stop killing of innocent people.”
 
Troops kill father of 7 daughters

The countries that showed support for Kashmiri self-determination

Statements in support of Kashmiri self-determination

Argentina

“Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations lays down the following as one of the purposes of the United Nations: ‘To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures so strengthen universal peace.’ Now that the disputes between India and Pakistan have been submitted to the jurisdiction of the Security Council, the delegation of Argentina will not be able to vote in favour of any draft resolution which does not leave the solution of the problem to be decided by a plebiscite, freely prepared, freely conducted and freely scrutinized under the authority of the Security Council.”

José Arce, Representative of Argentina to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 240th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.240, p. 366), 4 February 1948.

“In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to make the following declarations: […] Kashmir is not a territory of India – no Power will either propose or accept a plebiscite to surrender a part of its territory, as India’s Government did; […] the cause of the present war is the rebellion of the Kashmir people against their Ruler, and the only remedy is to look to the will of these people….”

José Arce, Representative of Argentina to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 245th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.245, pp. 117-118), 11 February 1948.

Australia

“In an attempt to move towards a constructive solution, the Council has declared the rights of the people of Kashmir to determine their own political future and has placed faith in the recognized democratic method of a plebiscite, to be conducted in conditions that would ensure a free vote without any coercion.”

Ronald Walker, Representative of Australia to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, para. 23), 24 January 1957.

Brazil

“A plebiscite is a well-known and well-defined method of international law. By placing the plebiscite under the direction of the United Nations, the parties reinforced the guarantees of its fair and impartial implementation. The acceptance of the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission not only curtailed the discretion of the opposing sides, but also accrued a right to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, namely, the right to decide by vote, under pre-established conditions, their choice of sovereignty.”

João Muniz, Representative of Brazil to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 27), 29 March 1951.

“The Anglo-American draft resolution [S/2017/Rev.1] embodies certain principles of international law to which Brazil has unswervingly adhered and which fall within the spirit and letter of the Charter. I refer specifically to the spirit of self-determination of peoples which accounts for the provision for a United Nations-sponsored plebiscite whereby the people of Jammu and Kashmir may choose their political status.”

João Muniz, Representative of Brazil to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 33), 29 March 1951.

“As to the question of self-determination for Kashmir, the principle in itself is a cherished one which my Government recognizes as fundamental to the building of world peace. We have been faithful to this principle in all those circumstances in which its application was valid. We are told that a plebiscite would raise more problems than it would solve. We are not in a position to judge what the impact of the full implementation of the principle of self-determination in Kashmir would have throughout the Indian subcontinent. One thing, however, remains true and evident to us: no settlement of any territorial question will last if the will of the people who live and toil in these lands is not fully respected.”

Carlos Bernardes, Representative of Brazil to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1092nd Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1092, paras. 5-6), 15 February 1964.

China

“I should like to say that a plebiscite was not only agreed on before the two parties came to this Council; it was the unanimous belief of the members of the Council that a plebiscite was the solution. Furthermore, what is a plebiscite? A plebiscite, in terms of the Charter, would mean the self-determination of a people. Self-determination is expressed through a plebiscite. […] The setting of conditions should not be allowed to obstruct the main purpose, that is, to allow the people of Kashmir to have the right of self-determination.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, paras. 73-75), 24 January 1957.

“I think the Charter is a sufficient basis for an appropriate settlement of this [the Kashmir] dispute. The particular principle which would be applicable to this dispute would be the principle of self-determination of peoples.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 774th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.774, paras. 60-61), 21 February 1957.

“All colonial empires have the backing of law. All of them have been fortified with treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and what not. The British empire in India had ample legal foundation. In the face of India’s claim to self-determination, all British legal claims were swept aside. These claims were solidly based on treaties duly signed and ratified, and even sanctified by time and tradition. When the Indian people demanded self-determination, the legal documents in the hands of the United Kingdom seemed to have no moral or political relevance. What the Indian people demanded and won from the United Kingdom should, I hope, be granted to the people of Kashmir.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 51), 25 October 1957.

“The final word in this whole problem does not belong to any member of the Security Council, or to the Council as a whole, or to the representatives of India or Pakistan who are sitting at this table. The final word as to the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir belongs to the people of Kashmir. When that final word is given to the world through a free and fair plebiscite, the problem will be solved. Until that final word is given, I am afraid that the problem will remain with us.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 808th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.808, para. 30), 2 December 1957.

“It is only fair to all parties concerned to say that, in the eyes of the Security Council, nothing has happened in Kashmir that changes the legal status of that territory. The status of Kashmir remains what it was fourteen years ago. In the absence of an agreement between India and Pakistan, it cannot be determined without regard to the principle of self-determination. This has been the position consistently taken by the Security Council on the Kashmir question. I do not see how it is possible for the Council to take any other position. The plebiscite elaborately worked out by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, agreed to by the parties and approved by the Security Council, is the means by which the principle of self-determination is to be put into practice in Kashmir. It is the means by which the people of Kashmir are to express freely, under fair and equitable conditions, their will as to the future of the country.”

Y.C. Hsueh, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1012th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1012, paras. 23-24), 15 June 1962.

“The position taken by the Security Council on the Kashmir question is well known. All the relevant resolutions are in the books. The Council has been consistent in all these sixteen years in holding that, in the absence of an agreement between India and Pakistan, the question cannot be solved without regard to the principle of self-determination.”

Y.C. Hsueh, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1115th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1115, para. 102), 12 May 1964.

Cuba

“This statement by the Prime Minister of India [in a telegram dated 8 November 1947 to the Prime Minister of Pakistan; see p. 6 below], which does him very great honour and is fully in accordance with the principles of the Charter and with the right of peoples to self-determination, is exactly what we [the co-sponsors of draft resolution S/3778] propose in the first part of our draft resolution when we say that ‘the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations.’”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, para. 38), 24 January 1957.

“The delegation of Cuba therefore considers that the draft resolution [S/3778] is a reaffirmation of the Council’s position, of the clear and binding provisions of the Charter, and of the right of peoples to self-determination.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, para. 41), 24 January 1957.

“As far as the Cuban delegation is concerned, the fundamental element of this problem is that the sovereignty of Kashmir rests exclusively with the people of Kashmir. […] When the Nabob [ruler] of Junagadh decided by a resolution of his own to accede to Pakistan and did so, the Government of India declared that that was illegal because it violated the principle of the people’s self-determination. And when the Nizam [ruler] of Hyderabad also wanted to remain neutral, that is, not accede to either India or Pakistan, the Government of India similarly declared that the Nizam could not do so because he was violating the freely expressed will of the people of Hyderabad. These are recorded facts which in the opinion of the Cuban delegation, have been proven through documents, and we have no doubt whatsoever that the same principle should be applied to the case of Kashmir as a general basis for judging these problems.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 768th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.768, paras. 87-88), 15 February 1957.

“In the opinion of the Cuban delegation, this [statements by the representative of India] proves that the position of the delegation of India is that the offer made previously by the Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, will be carried out, namely that the people of Kashmir will decide upon their own future. That in short, is the same thesis that the representative of India brilliantly expressed on 12 February in the First Committee of the General Assembly when he vigorously and enthusiastically contended that Algeria also has a right to determine its own future. In other words, it would be unjustifiable, in the Cuban delegation’s view – and I say this with all due respect to the representative of India – that the Algerian people should have the right to exercise freely the principle of self-determination and that the Kashmiri people should not. This is all the more true since in the case of the people of Kashmir, there has been no discussion, as in the case of Algeria, whether it was in effect an integral part of another State, because both parties have recognized that Kashmir has existed as a State for ten centuries, though for many years under the rule of the United Kingdom.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 768th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.768, para. 90), 15 February 1957.

“[T]he resolutions of the Council exist; Kashmir exists; the people of Kashmir exist; the principle of self-determination exists in the Charter of the United Nations….”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 768th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.768, para. 93), 15 February 1957.

“We have given consideration and study to all the arguments advanced by the Indian Government; but, in our opinion, none of them is sufficiently weighty to prevent the people of Jammu and Kashmir from deciding their own destiny in the final instance.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 798th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.798, para. 19), 29 October 1957.

“These are two Governments worthy of our respect which have always fulfilled their obligations in the United Nations, and which have proclaimed and defended the principle of the self-determination of peoples; inasmuch as our goal is self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, we believe that the task of the Security Council becomes less difficult.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 798th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.798, para. 23), 29 October 1957.

East Timor

“I therefore urge everyone wishing to bring peace, democracy and social justice to this troubled region to join in supporting a free, fair and binding plebiscite for all the people of Kashmir, that the world may finally know and abide by their long deferred aspirations.”

José Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1996) and Prime Minister (2006-2007) and President (2008) of East Timor. “In Support of the Kashmiri People’s Right to True Self-Determination,” 14 July 1998.

Egypt

“The work of the Security Council and of the Security Council’s Commission for India and Pakistan, and the statesmen-like attitude of both the Governments of India and Pakistan are all to the credit of the structure of the United Nations and its aims of peace, and also to the credit of all concerned in this matter. This is particularly gratifying to my delegation and to the Egyptian Government, in view of the fact that we in a very clear and unequivocal manner, endorse and express the conceptions of democracy of the United Nations Charter, in particular the great principle of self-determination which is one of the main pillars of our Organization.”

Mahmoud Bey, Representative of Egypt to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 399th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.399, p. 8), 13 January 1949.

India

“The people of Kashmir should be asked whether they want to join Pakistan or India. Let them do as they want. The ruler is nothing. The people are everything.”

Mahatma Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of the Indian independence movement. Quoted in Stanley Wolpert. Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi (2001, p. 239), 29 July 1947.

“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 the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 46), 25 October 1947.

“[I]t is my Government’s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.”

Louis Mountbatten, Governor-General of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 47), 27 October 1947.

“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 is not merely a pledge to your Government [Pakistan] but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 51), 31 October 1947.

“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 to the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 53), 2 November 1947.

“It will thus be seen that our proposals which we have repeatedly stated are: […] (three) that the Governments of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir as the earliest possible date.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 62), 8 November 1947.

“In order to establish our bona fides we have suggested that when the people [of Kashmir] 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.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 71), 25 November 1947.

“In Kashmir, as in other similar cases, the view of the Government of India has been that in the matter of disputed accession the will of the people must prevail. […] The question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebiscite; on this point there is no dispute.”

Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 45), 1948.

“But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilized the State’s [Kashmir’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 method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.”

Government of India. Letter to the President of the Security Council (S/628, para. 6), 1 January 1948.

“The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbors and the world at large, and a further question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a Member of the United Nations – all this we have recognized to be a matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir, after normal life is restored to them.”

Gopalaswamy Ayanger, Representative of India to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 227th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.227, p. 29), 15 January 1948.

“India has repeatedly offered to work out with U.N. reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to express their will, and will always be ready to do so.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January 1951.

“So, similarly, the word ‘plebiscite’ embodies the great idea of self-determination and it simply is not to be misinterpreted.”

Krishna Menon, Representative of India to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 769th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.769, para. 110), 15 February 1957.

International Commission of Jurists

“Regarding the right of self-determination: (a) The peoples of the State of Jammu and Kashmir acquired a right of self-determination at the time of the partition of India. (b) That right has neither been exercised nor abandoned and therefore remains capable of exercise. (c) The right belongs to the peoples of the State and not to Pakistan, and is therefore not affected by acts of the Government of Pakistan.”

International Commission of Jurists. Human Rights in Kashmir: Report of a Mission (p. 98), 1995.

Iraq

“When the question was brought to the attention of the Security Council in 1948, the Kashmir situation was no doubt viewed in the framework of the circumstances which surrounded the whole process of the creation of the two Dominions on the one hand and, on the other, in conjunction with the principle of self-determination. […] The idea of a plebiscite no doubt had been in line, on the one hand, with the traditional struggle for liberation conducted by all the people of the Indian sub-continent and, on the other, with the principle of self-determination.”

Hashim Jawad, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 769th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.769, para. 15), 15 February 1957.

“This [a plebiscite] is, in our opinion, the solution to the problem, a solution which takes into consideration, and rightly so, the right of the people of Kashmir to self-determination.”

Kadhim Khalaf, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 71), 25 October 1957.

“We make a special appeal to the Governments of India and Pakistan to facilitate the solution of this dispute by bringing to bear more efforts and more co-operation, so that the right of the people of Kashmir to self-determination may be safeguarded and the

Charter of the United Nations upheld.”

Kadhim Khalaf, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 74), 25 October 1957.

“It would not do justice to the case before us or to the people of Kashmir if we or others were to create or entertain the impression that our judgement was in any way related to or based upon considerations other than the merits of the case, the resolutions of the Council and the principles of the United Nations Charter – the most important of which is the principle of self-determination.”

Kadhim Khalaf, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 80), 25 October 1957.

Ivory Coast

“However, before dealing with the [Kashmir] problem itself, my delegation would like to restate certain fundamental principles. First, we accept all the resolutions of the Security Council and we also recognize their dynamic nature; secondly, we reaffirm our devotion to the sacred principle of self-determination; thirdly, we also condemn racial and religious discrimination.”

Arsene Usher, Representative of the Ivory Coast to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1090th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1090, para. 74), 10 February 1964.

Jordan

“It is not open, at this stage, for either India or Pakistan to claim that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of its territory. This will be decided by the people of Kashmir themselves. They have the right to choose their destiny, and until such time as they do, both parties are stopped from making any claims of sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir. […] Needless to say, self-determination is a right we always support. But annexation which does not stem from the free will of the people is something we do not endorse. It does not convey a right. It imposes a duty – a duty on the people to oppose it, and a duty on us here to protect the legitimate right of the people to choose their own destiny.”

Muhammed El-Farra, Representative of Jordan to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1248th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1248, paras. 21-22), 27 October 1965.

Netherlands

“We are then, we may earnestly hope, in the presence of a common and uncontested desire that the future of the territory and the population which are involved in the dispute should be decided through the free exercise of the right of self-determination by the people most directly concerned. The Netherlands Government has always considered the principle of self-determination as being of primary importance for human happiness and the peace of the world. It continues to believe in that principle, now that the Council is again confronted with the Jammu and Kashmir case.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 54), 29 March 1951.

“In that way the truce agreement could and should finally be effected, that is to say, the demilitarization, which is indispensable to the free exercise of the right of self-determination of and by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 58), 29 March 1951.

“But once the right to self-determination for the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is – as it has been – recognized, once it is clearly accepted by the parties in dispute – as it has been – that they have no right to impose anything upon these people against their wishes and that therefore these wishes must prevail over the wishes and claims of the bordering States, it must be possible to find a procedure which will create the most favourable conditions for a fair expression of the will of the people, who want to make their choice free from any kind of fear or intimidation. The issue should, in the last analysis, be decided by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and not by the rulers heretofore placed over them.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, paras. 62-63), 29 March 1951.

“What he [the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan] in effect is expected to do is to bring into shape and being the indispensable prerequisite for a just, fair and free plebiscite by which the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be enabled to exercise their uncontested right to self-determination. […] The issue, I said, should in the 1ast analysis be decided by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir themselves. Their right of self-determination had been recognized by both the parties to this dispute and the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir must therefore prevail.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 543rd Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.543, paras. 27-28), 30 April 1951.

“The very serious issue before us, which has endangered the relations between two great nations of the Asiatic subcontinent for almost four years, has not yet found a just and reasonable solution acceptable to the parties. As a result of this absence of agreement it has remained impossible for the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole to exercise their fundamental right of self-determination, although this right is not contested by the parties. On the contrary, the right of self-determination for the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been clearly and formally recognized and accepted by all concerned. The lack of agreement therefore does not concern this right of self-determination.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 566th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.566, para. 32), 10 November 1951.

“But I submit that the issue before us should in the first place be determined by the need of self-determination of the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir themselves.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 571st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.571, para. 57), 30 January 1952.

“Our only interest in this matter is one of principle, namely, that the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be respected and implemented.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 571st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.571, para. 61), 30 January 1952.

“[O]ur final and essential aim, in the present approach to this problem, is to secure for the people of Jammu and Kashmir their right to self-determination, that is, their right to choose which way they want to go, a right which is not contested by anyone and which we must therefore, after all these years, find a means to implement.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 611th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.611, para. 1), 23 December 1952.

“As is well known, the attitude of my country has always been that the Kashmir question should be solved on the basis of the free self-determination of the people of Kashmir and Jammu and that the decisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and the Security Council on that subject offered a just means to achieve that aim. Therefore, we can sympathize with Pakistan’s apprehension on this aspect, namely that the basic political conflict might be left unsolved. If that were done, the Council would only be dealing with the symptoms of the disease and not with the disease itself, the underlying cause of all conflicts between India and Pakistan.”

J.G. de Beus, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1241st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1241, para. 74), 18 September 1965.

Philippines

“In the view of both the Council and the Commission, neither India nor Pakistan can bring into question the sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This position is crystal clear in the assurances given by the Commission to the Governments of India and Pakistan and which forms the basis of their resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. Under the circumstances and pending the holding of a plebiscite, neither India nor Pakistan can claim sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Carlos Romulo, Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 773rd Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.773, para. 46), 20 February 1957.

“All countries, great and small, have a stake in the principles involved in the [Kashmir] dispute: considerations of justice and equity, the honoring of international agreements, respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples, the integrity of decisions of the Security Council and its organs, and support of the Council’s efforts to comply with its primary responsibility under the Charter to maintain international peace and security.”

Carlos Romulo, Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 804th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.804, para. 17), 20 November 1957.

Soviet Union

“The right path towards settling the Kashmir question […] can only be found if the settlement is inspired by the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.”

Yakov Malik, Representative of the Soviet Union to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 570th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.570, para. 97), 17 January 1952.

Syria

“It is correct to say that the Maharajah of Junagadh, in declaring his accession to Pakistan, was not acting within the rules of our Charter, and that the people of Junagadh were not given the opportunity for self-determination, the chance to determine the fate of their future government. It was the same case in Kashmir.”

Faris El-Khouri, Representative of Syria to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 286th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.286, p. 4), 21 April 1948.

United Kingdom

“First, I wish to reiterate my Government’s position on the status of Kashmir and on the question of self-determination. This was made clear most recently by our sponsorship of the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 24 January 1957. According to that resolution, the Council ‘reminded the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948, 14 March 1950 and

30 March 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.’ My Government stands firmly by the principles enunciated in that resolution today.”

Patrick Dean, Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1090th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1090, para. 99), 10 February 1964.

United Nations

“[T]he final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations….”

United Nations Security Council. Resolution 91 (preambular para. 4), 30 March 1951.

“With respect to the value of a settlement to the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the first significant result which would proceed from an agreement would be the exercise by the people of Jammu and Kashmir of the promised right of self-determination for which they have been anxiously waiting for three years. […] As a practical matter, without fulfilment of the promised right of self-determination through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, the continuing dispute, as has been well said, would become a running sore, which would tend to drain away resources and energies to the damage of the State and the peoples of both nations.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 564th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.564, paras. 32-33), 18 October 1951.

“The plebiscite would keep the promise made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who are worthy of the right of their own self-determination through a free, secure, and impartial plebiscite. […] These people, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians, as farmers, craftsmen and artists, small shopkeepers, boatmen, bearers and other workers in areas now on both sides of the cease-fire line, have been, through the centuries, the victims of exploitation and conflict. The recognition of the rights and dignity, the security and the self-determination of these historic people, under the auspices of the United Nations, might well become a challenging example of the progressive values of self-determination to the dependant peoples of the earth.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 570th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.570, para. 60), 17 January 1952.

“The sub-continent is the place for a timely example of demilitarization and self-determination.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 570th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.570, para. 70), 17 January 1952.

“A settlement of this [the Kashmir] dispute would mean that the status of the people of the State would be finally determined not by the sovereignty of princes but by the sovereignty of the people, not by the might of armies but by the will of the people, not by bullets but by ballots, through the self-determination of peoples by the democratic method of an impartial plebiscite conducted with due regard for the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 605th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.605, para. 73), 10 October 1952.

“The co-operation of India and Pakistan in the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in the self-determination of the people of the State, and in the allocation of larger budgets for constructive programmes, might become one of the turning-points in the history of our times towards the co-operation of all nations for the larger self-determination of all peoples….”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 605th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.605, para. 77), 10 October 1952.

“The transformation in the situation which comes from the simple fact of his [the Plebiscite Administrator’s] induction into office is most important for the great objective of the self-determination of the people of the state [Kashmir] under the agreements between the two Governments.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Fifth Report to the Security Council (S/2967, para. 23), 27 March 1953.

“The peoples of the sub-continent have an unprecedented opportunity for providing the leadership, setting the example and mayhap turning the direction of human affairs, away from the tendencies to self-destruction, to the ways of self-determination, peace, and co-operation.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Fifth Report to the Security Council (S/2967, para. 56), 27 March 1953.

“[T]he final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations….”

United Nations Security Council. Resolution 122 (preambular para. 2), 24 January 1957.

United States

“Regardless of whether execution of the instrument of accession should be considered inconsistent with any of Kashmir’s obligations toward Pakistan, the contested instrument of accession was not effective to settle definitively the rights of the parties, in view of the circumstances under which the instrument was executed.”

Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State. “Accession of Kashmir to India” (p. 1), 30 January 1950.

“The Security Council has from the beginning held that the issue of [Kashmir’s] accession is one which is to be settled by a fair and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices, and both parties, in the language of their own commitments, have accepted this view.”

Ernest Gross, Representative of the United States to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 537th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.537, para. 30), 21 March 1951.

“Certainly there can be no misunderstanding of paragraph 1 of the UNCIP resolution of 5 January 1949 which reads as follows: ‘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.’ Furthermore, this is in full conformity with the principle of the self-determination of peoples which is enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter as one of the very purposes for which the United Nations exists.”

Adlai Stevenson, Representative of the United States to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1012th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1012, para. 10), 15 June 1962.

Uruguay

“[T]he Security Council is on the eve of facing other problems concerning the self-determination of peoples. Its legal, moral, and political authority depends on its subsequent acts and conduct. What the Council says and does now regarding this lamentable situation [the Kashmir dispute] will constitute a precedent for the situations with which the Council may have to deal tomorrow.”

Paysee Reyes, Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1251st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1251, para. 18), 5 November 1965.