KASHMIR DISPUTE A CONSPIRACY
BY GHULAM MOYUDDIN WANI
4.Bismillah colony,bagat.ig road,po santnagar,190005,SRINAGAR,Kashmir,India or POST BOX 461,GPO,SRINAGAR,KASHMIR 190001.
The sale of kashmir to a dogra raja by British was the first conspiracy executed by British,who were losing a war in Euope This deal was so shameless that people.land and innoscent peasants and animals were sold for a petty sum of 40 lac rupees collected by the dogra soldier by looting Lahore and nearby constituences . The maharaja used to offer annual omens’ to the British throne in cash and kind which included cashmere goats and shawls too. Many jewels and treasures of Kashmir were looted by the British soldiers and rulers. They ruled the country through proxy, employing agents of terror and continued in the reign of raja too, in a more ferocious manner. It is said a peasant was so oppressed that all his harvest was forcibly taken by these of numberdars,jagirdars,halkadars and checkdars.Most of them were minority hindus,kashmiri pundits and cruel pathans.The oppressed were the majority community of Muslims who laboured had to starve as at harvest all their produce was taken by the above named agents of Government. This repressive rule was refuted by the masses in the shape of QUITE KASHMIR. The movement was stared and nursed by the masses who were killed massacred and subjugated to all kinds of cruelity.Most of the leaders like Mulvi Abas and others were annulled through conspiracy and Muslim conferenece of kashmir converted into national conference .This was another conspiracy to subjugate kashmir through lust and greed. This time the real leaders were replaced by a self proclaimed leader named Abdullah sheik a converted Hindu, who was a postgraduate teacher from weaver’s family. His marriage to a guar grill of Tangmarg whose mother has accommodated with an English hotelier Nedeows.This English legacy still continues and haunts the freedom of Kashmir like an evil ghost. Genesis of 1947 On 15th August 1947, two independent countries ‘India and Pakistan’ were born in the subcontinent on the basis of ‘Two Nation Theory’. The State of Kashmir on the date was an independent state .It was inhabited by an absolute majority of the Muslims. The Hindu ruler Maharaja Harri Singh whose fore fathers have purchased the land and people of Kashmir for a sum of 40 lace rupees. This money was needed by British for their internal security in the Europe against their wars with Germans. Thus first sin against the Muslim nation of kashmir was born much earlier than the fateful day of 15th August 1947. Last British Governor General Lord Mountbatten having personality cult with the founder of Pakistan and under the influence of Pundit Jawahar Lal Nehru is stated to have acceded the State to India on the 26th October 1947.Many stories are aghast on this unholy conspiracy, The friendships of Nehru and lady Mountbatten,Sheik Abdullah and Mrs Gandhi ,and even Mutilal Nehru and Shiek family These relationships and egos resulted in the division of India as well as Kashmir. The British conspiracy in developing a political liberality between Hindu Nehru and Muslim Jonah came handy to this bifurcation. I call it a freedom at midnight was in fact a conspiracy to keep the divided subcontinent under British empire through proxy The division still pays them dividends. They have not returned Kohinoor but David Cameron made a trillion dollar weapon business with India by giving a press conference soothing to Indian mind and irritating to Pakistanis. The toy emperor of Pakistan rushed to London in spite of the humiliation and divesting floods at home. It is surprising that the only potent son of sheik of kashmir is wedded to Moley nurse of London and his grandson to a raw handler’s relative. The marriage of Indras son to an airhostess hat speaks a lot of conspiracy hatched. Kashmir is a boon for the lust and luxury of these people. Kashmir accession It is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that these rulers did not at all acceded the State to India, nor they could do so The Hindu Maharaja has fled kashmir under quite kashmir movement and was on his way from Srinagar to Jammu and he reached his destination much later. Thus the accession is wholly based on fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. This phenomenon of accession could not be better explained than by an English renowned author Alastair Lamb .He describes it in his book entitled Incomplete Partition as Incomplete Partition: The Genesis of the Kashmir Dispute (1947-1948) at page 178. At the same page of his book Alastair Lamb has also quoted and relied upon another. American author Stanley Wolpert from his book Nehru: a Tryst with Destiny. Both the quotations are as follows. ‘Whatever the difference of opinion between Nehru and Patel might have been, they did not surface to any significant degree at the morning meeting of the Defence Committee on 26 October. Here it was agreed that it would be best if the Maharaja of Kashmir’s signature to an Instrument of Accession be obtained before the Indian troops went in to Srinagar airfield. As such a signature had not been obtained, and was unlikely to be obtained, on 26 October; it would be expedient to create a set of circumstances, which made it look as if it had been obtained, a kind of document laundering…. Both the white paper and V. P. Menon’s narrative have served to back up this ruse’. Stanley Wolpert’s tale. In Nehru: a Tryst with Destiny, on pages 416 and 417 Wolpert relates the story of the signing of the Instrument of Accession. The Instrument of Accession, according to Wolpert, was only signed by Maharaja Sir Harri Singh after the Indian troops had assumed control of the Jammu and Kashmir State’s summer capital, Srinagar. On the basis of the above references it can safely be held that there has been no instrument of accession ever executed by the ruler of the State in favour of India. The document, on the face of it, is based on forgery and fraud. In other words, they said document does not exist in the eyes of International law. Also, the Security Council after thoroughly hearing India and Pakistan ruled unequivocally, on 13th August, 1948, that people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir were the true Sovereign and in that they had the inherent right to decide about the future of their State in a just and fair Plebiscite to be held under the supervision of UNO. India, despite its total failure before the world forum continued to strengthen its position on ground by holding bad elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. To stem the tide, Pakistan approached the world body with a compliant. The Security Council in a resolution held that the elections being held by India in Kashmir could not be a substitute to Plebiscite to be held by UNO. In this way, the result of the said elections was wholly nullified by the UNO. With this short back ground, now I proceed to give the following various options for a just solutions of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute: 1. The people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in a fair and just plebiscite under the supervision of UNO shall decide either to accede to India or Pakistan. Explanation: the Plebiscite shall be completed phase wise, of course, with the free consent and will of the people. I. In the first stage, people of Azad Kashmir, (ii) Gilgit and Baltistan (Northern Areas) shall participate in the referendum. iii. In the second stage, Plebiscite shall be arranged in Kashmir valley, Kargil, Poonch, Riasi, Rajori, Nowshera namely up to the areas of River Chenab. iv. In the last and the third phase, the plebiscite shall take place in Jammu, Kathua, Ladakh and other areas. In this way the Plebiscite. Shall be held in a peaceful atmosphere without any disturbance whatsoever. (Note: More than two million displaced persons from Jammu, Poonch, Riasi, Rajori and Nowshera shall have the right to poll their votes in the said Plebiscite.) 2. In case India decides not to take part in the Plebiscite, Pakistan shall be at liberty to conduct the referendum ex parte and, in that event, more than two million displaced persons from occupied part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, people of Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan will poll their votes to show whether they are ready to join India or Pakistan. If the opinion of the people is in favour of Pakistan then the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir shall automatically become a part of Pakistan. 3. The People of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir should make tremendous economic, democratic and constitutional progress so as to give positive incentives to the people of Occupied Kashmir to step up and enhance their efforts to liberate themselves from Indian yoke of enslavement for joining Pakistan. The state of Jammu and Kashmir shall be partitioned on the basis of Two Nation Theory as has already been done in case of Punjab, Bengal and Assam. Both India amid Pakistan shall withdraw their armed forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In this way, the people in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity shall themselves be responsible to find out a solution, which should be acceptable to all of them. 6. The State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be entrusted to UNO for 10 to 15 years, which shall run its affairs. After the expiry of the period, the opinion of the people shall be ascertained through fair and free elections. 7. Some people do hold a firm view that an equitable solution to the dispute lies only in declaring the State of Jammu and Kashmir as an Independent State. 8. There is yet another lobby that holds the opinion that there should be a confederation amongst India, Pakistan and free Jammu and Kashmir State. 9. Indian armed forces should be withdrawn from cities-towns-villages as another confidence building measure. 10. Local elections shall be held under the joint control of Muzaffarabad and Srinagar administration. In the result, a common government may be formed with a view to finding a just and sustainable solution to the dispute. 11. A joint reference may be sent to the joint sitting of Supreme Court of Pakistan and Supreme Court of India with a request to give their opinion or to find out a solution acceptable to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. 12. Big powers of the world should be requested jointly to act as facilitators between India and Pakistan for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. 13. The position, which existed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 15-08-1947, shall be restored and the result shall be that India and Pakistan both shall automatically step into the shoes of the British rulers. From this position, India and Pakistan shall proceed afresh to find out a just and fair solution to the lingering dispute of Jammu and Kashmir State. 14. India and Pakistan shall file a reference in the International Court of Justice for giving its opinion for the just and sustainable solution to the Kashmir dispute. 15. In any case Pakistan must institute a complaint against India in the International Court of Justice for erecting an iron fence in Occupied Kashmir. Reliance in this behalf may be placed on the recent ruling of the court having been given by it against similarly raised iron fence in Occupied Palestine. A unanimous resolution dated 24th January 1957 adopted by UNO may also be usefully relied upon. The writer is a former Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan. T Its surely is in vogue to talk or write about Indo-Pak peace process. A new twist or the latest insight to this process was brought forth by a newspaper report which stated that President Musharraf‘s four point formulae had its genesis from Galtung’s prescribed solution to the five decade old Kashmir problem. Johan Galtung, a pioneer of peace and conflict resolution studies, who currently heads the Sweden based transnational foundation for peace and research, envisaged a five point solution to the Kashmir conflict on the following ways: 1. Self-determination Principle: This means freedom of the people of the region to determine their own political status; independence. By this mechanism, Jammu and Ladakh will remain part of the Indian union, Azad Kashmir will remain part of Pakistan and the problem that will remain is of the Kashmir valley. 2. Condominium: means a joint management or as Musharraf puts it joint man ship, this would give both India and Pakistan a chance for creative co-management of the Kashmir valley. This would also mean that the valley would remain undivided. Civil society cooperation takes place across the border; meetings of families on either side of LOC, local economic cooperation, cultural cooperation, softening the Azad Kashmir border. 3. Confederation: A confederation is an association of sovereign states or communities usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution. They are established for dealing with critical issues such as defence, foreign affairs, common currency, and foreign trade. Here in the final supremacy resides with the state governments than the central government. This type of arrangement if followed between the four parts i.e. Ladakh, Jammu, Kashmir valley, Azad Kashmir, then the borders would be porous with free flow of persons and goods, residence and investments. 4. Dual Citizenship: Residents in all four parts of the region can have passports with dual identity if the citizen so wants. For example mention can be made of both republic of India and Pakistan. Both the Indian and the Pakistani government would need a constitutional reform to accommodate states within their unions with double identities of Delhi and Islamabad. Joint Projects like joint water management or exchange of scholars and students will also improve relations. 5. International Security Force: For security aspect an international force sanctioned both by the UN Security Council and organisation of Islamic conference (OIC) might be considered, since there must be Muslim participation in the security forces. Though these suggestions have caught the attention of the international community since the late 90’s, their workability aspect remained questionable? Some reservations highlighted by me are as follows: 1. First and foremost the question of self determination of the various regions is not feasible; it is simple said than done. The social and political realities are infinitely complicated. Some regions like Kargil, Rajouri and Poonch, Kishtwar, Bhaderwah all constitute a mix of Hindus, Muslims, Kashmiris, Rajputs, Gujjars, Bakerwals and Pathans, so self determination on the basis of identity or caste is not feasible self-determination would mean giving Ladakh to Ladhaki’s Jammu to Hindus and Kashmiri pundits, Kashmir valley to Muslims, Azad Kashmir to Pakistan. This would lead into a secessionist spree, fragmentation of the country and hence is not a feasible solution. Moreover there is no provision kept for self determination in the constitution of India and India has already exercised the right of self determination through a constituent assembly of elected representatives in which people of Jammu and Kashmir also participated. 2. Confederation type of arrangements has worked successfully only in European region. The Indian subcontinent is not yet comfortable to such an innovation. 3. Condominium or joint governmental control means control by two or more powers over a dispute territory on order to prevent a colonial rivalry. Such kind of control was exercised by Great Britain and Egypt over Nile waters in Sudan, by France and England over New Hebrides. This form of jurisdiction satisfies neither the foreign powers nor the native people over whom the control is exercised. International control of this type is almost always unsatisfactory and is usually unsuccessful in the long run. It means divided responsibility. That’s the reason it will not be successful in Kashmir context too. 4. Dual citizenship is a very theoretical solution. The practicalities of this are enormous. First of all it will be the citizen’s choice to choose his/her countries identity, secondly, if the dual citizenship is there problem of apprehending criminals will be there. 5. Another foreign player added to the region the UN and OIS, as the international force always gives the impression to the people that there’s a brewing conflict, since a monitoring agency is always required, so where is the normalcy situation? What have we achieved in resolution of conflict? Hence Galtung’s five point formulae is not the panacea of the Kashmir conflict nor is it acceptable, however his theoretical constructs on structural and cultural violence if addressed properly in the region, then perhaps a light at the end of the tunnel can be seen. His primary theoretical contributions to the field of Conflict resolution remains his concept of structural and cultural violence, which means that conflict and violence are created by the social structures or institutions of a society not by traditional weapons. The genesis of this is the systematic discrimination against a particular ethnic or racial group. The Kashmir conflict is linked to a wider world conflict. This is a conflict between the west vs. Islam and India is in squeeze. This conflict dates back to the crusades, wherein the Pan Islamic dimension of Islam was related to the deep mistrust in the West and western ideology and the Islamic nations wanted to liberate this region and always supported the Muslims in Kashmir. India is the only place in the orient which subscribes to the western concepts like liberalism, democracy, enlightenment etc. This causes a rift between the two civilizations giving room for adherence to Huntington’s thesis – the clash of civilization. Since the Kashmir problem is not that of direct violence but of structural and cultural violence, the way to handle it is not through negative peace which is .characterised by the absence of violence but by positive peace which means overcoming of structural and cultural violence. This is imperative for a holistic resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Furthermore, the gap between the democratic aspirations and a repressive reality remains wide in Kashmir. And until this gap is minimized no solution to this conflict is possible be it Musharraf’s four point formulae or Galtung’s five point formulae. The conflict in Kashmir seems to be unending and the way it is being handled by Indian armed forces, especially the CRPF, is further aggravating it. Unfortunately, it is still being addressed primarily as a law and order problem and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir and their problems hardly matter. Our armed forces go on violating human rights and they know only how to kill. This way instead of solving the problem, we will reduce Kashmir to a vast cemetery. More and more young protestors are dying and death hardly deters these young protestors from demonstrating. It is not that people of Kashmir are really anti-India and want to opt for Pakistan. A recent UK think tank survey concluded that not more than 4 per cent Kashmiris want to align with Pakistan. They have their own aspirations and problems which must be addressed but they are not being addressed and, to the contrary, bullets are fired at them. Now at the all-party meeting it was decided that lethal weapons will not be used and instead pepper gun will be used which does not kill but produces psychological impact similar to real bullets. Should it have taken so much time to take this decision after killing 15 young people resulting in angry protests? Even CRPF has suffered great casualties, more than 273 Jawans have been injured in last one month and 1980 over one year. This decision could have been taken earlier and young lives would have been saved and CRPF Jawans from injuries? Or was this technology of pepper gun invented only before the all-party meeting. Do we have to kill so many innocent civilians before using appropriate technology? Had this decision been taken in time it would have saved several lives and would not have pushed the valley on brink of such a serious crisis. I was in Kashmir in June for a workshop on peace and conflict resolution and talked to several people there as to what they thought could be the solution. I talked to a cross section of people, including intelligentsia, activists and even common people in the bazaar. One thing which emerges is that Omar Abdullah has failed to deliver on every front and sentiments are overwhelmingly in favour of Mufti Saeed. Mufti is considered more mature and capable of talking frankly with the Centre and could handle Kashmir problem more satisfactorily. Omar Abdullah has lost grip over the situation and, besides, lacks courage to talk boldly with the Centre. This is what I can conclude from my conversations with local residents. Also, the separatist sentiments are not as strong as it is thought to be from outside. They are very angry at the mess in which Kashmir finds itself today. The youth is interested in employment and an improvement in economic situation. Most of the young people I met bitterly complained about lack of economic opportunities in the valley. Even highly qualified persons do not find satisfactory jobs. They are either unemployed or underemployed. The separatists exploit this anger and frustration. However, neither the state government nor the centre is serious about it and keep on condemning separatists for creating this situation. Also, in case of Kashmir there is a serious political dimension that is of our constitutional commitment to ensure autonomy and Nehru-Abdullah pact of 1953 had further reinforced it but under political pressure from rightwing elements this promise of full autonomy to Kashmir was never fulfilled. Again after the militant movement in Kashmir during late eighties and nineties the then Prime Minister Mr Narsimha Rao promised Farooq Abdullah, whom I had met during my visit to valley in late nineties, that he would grant autonomy to Kashmir and when Abdullah asked him how much, he told him ‘sky is the limit’. These words ring in my ears even today. However, nothing happened and then the BJP led Government came to power whose agenda was to remove Article 370 from the constitution itself instead of giving even a small element of autonomy to the people of Kashmir. Also, the way the Centre had been conducting elections in Kashmir since independence never inspired confidence among the people. In fact the militancy in Kashmir began after 1988 elections were rigged and Salahuddein, a school teacher and now head of Hizbul Mujadidin, was declared defeated though, most of the Kashmiris think, he had won. It was only in 2004 that for the first time fair elections were held and when I visited the valley I found new confidence among a section of Kashmiri people and some of them told me that if fair elections were held in future too, things could qualitatively change in Kashmir and people there will align with India. The elections in 2009 too were more or less fair but unfortunately Omar Abdullah does not seem to be in control. After long years of militancy and violence people of Kashmir have realised one thing, and I am saying this after interacting with a large number of people in the valley that violence does not pay and that peaceful solution is the only way out. But they want peaceful solution with honour and dignity and one which addresses a host of their problems including Kashmiriyat, their regional autonomy and pride in their culture and institutions. We, in India, do have a problem with Pakistan; we do not want to internationalise the Kashmir problem and that we do not want to go for plebiscite. All this is fine but what is coming in the way of our winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri people? The way our forces indulge in fake encounters and seriously violate human rights is not the way to win their hearts and minds. With such actions we are greatly alienating ourselves from them. When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the valley in August 2006 for a roundtable conference with Kashmiri leaders he had asserted that there will be zero tolerance for violations of human rights. But then there were again fake encounters in the valley. Immediately thereafter I conducted a peace workshop and some participant’s taunted saying, is this zero intolerance to violations of human rights? Unfortunately, the situation is worsening in the valley rather than showing any signs of improvement. Day by day human rights violations are increasing. Few months ago two young women were raped but till today no suspect has been arrested. Even CBI did not hold proper inquiry, it is alleged and it is suspected that military and police officials are involved. Again, my interaction with people in the valley showed that except a small section of Kashmiris, as also referred to in the survey by the UK think tank, no one is for joining Pakistan. All they want is peace and honourable existence. The government of India and the state government have to do everything possible to ensure this. People feel that Mufti had succeeded in seeking some concessions from the Centre which Omar Abdullah is unable to do either because of his inexperience or lack of courage. Whatever the reason, opinion is swinging in favour of Mufti. Even Ghulam Nabi Azad is considered a better chief minister. The government of India, in order to stop bloodshed, will have to show political courage and determination to take bold steps and strictly discipline the army and not tolerate their violations on the pretext that any action could ‘demoralise’ them. Such an approach will play only in the hands of the terrorists and keep on aggravating the situation. Fake encounters have absolutely no place in democracy and it is nothing but serious failure of governance if innocent citizens are killed by the police or army. Such unscrupulous officers must be rigorously punished. Such killings can lead to serious trouble even when there is no separatist or terrorist movement, much less in sensitive areas like Kashmir where issues of regional culture and identity are politically extra-sensitive. Regional autonomy in many countries is a serious problem whether other countries are involved in it or not. For example, the question of Basque nationality in Spain is a serious question and only the other day the Basque nationalists organised a demonstration with 2.5 million people to press their demand. Basque nationalists also resorted to violence for long and exploded bombs. However, they too realised that violence will not enable them to achieve their goal. We have to sort out Kashmir problem on two fronts, our own internal front and Pakistan front. Here I do not want to comment as far as Pakistan front is concerned. Here my main concern is our own internal front and ensuring peace in the valley and people of Kashmir, in my opinion, are ready for non-violent and honourable peace. Firstly, development will play a very important role. The youth must be won over through ensuring employment. Faisal Shah’s case is an important example. All Kashmiris felt proud that one of their own has been selected and stood first in IAS examination. Indian Muslims too felt very proud and organised a series of receptions for him throughout India. Thus to solve Kashmir problem internally what is needed is a measure of negotiated autonomy, economic development, greater recruitment of Kashmiri youth in and outside Kashmir in the government sector which will give them greater sense of belonging to India, expeditious development of Railway network and ensuring non-violation of human rights and minimising presence of armed forces except in border areas can lead to internal peace.