Saturday, 2 April 2011

Israel and India: Brothers In Occupation of Kashmir

  by Jonathan Azaziah

Torture. Secret prisons. Rape. Incessant murder of civilians. Military-enforced curfew. Suppression of information. Kidnapings. Property destruction. Ethnic cleansing. Scorched earth policies. Protests. Mass graves. Humiliation. Beatings. Missing persons. Intimidation. Occupation. No, this is not a description of the life of Palestinians under the 62 year occupation of the Zionist entity. No, this is not a description of the life of civilians living under brutal US-UK military occupation in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a description of the life of civilians in Kashmir, under the despicable, savage and inhumane Indian occupation which has been in place for 63 years. Palestine has been politicized over and over by corrupt Arab and Muslim leaders. It has been used for propaganda by Western politicians vying for support from the Zionist lobby by bowing down to Israel, as well as the Zionist media to disseminate the ‘Israel is the victim’ theme and smear Palestinian Resistance. Kashmir however, isn’t even mentioned at all. It is disregarded by the dictators and monarchies of the Middle East. It is disregarded by the Zionist puppets and demagogues of the West. Kashmir has become a forgotten occupation (1).

Criminal Partition and The Armed Forces Special Powers Act

Kashmir has always been an independent nation with its own language, its own natural resources which provided self-sustainment and autonomy, and its own rich, ancient, and distinct culture, completely separate from India (2). Before the British Raj officially came into being in 1858, the British colonialists already had vast amounts of soldiers occupying several parts of the Southeastern Asia subcontinent including Kashmir, which they wanted to strip of its history and absorb into their growing Indian empire. Despite sincere, dedicated Resistance from the people, the British sold Kashmir into monarchical oppression in 1846, making the Dogra dynasty the undisputed rulers of the Valley. The Dogras committed a century of atrocities against the Kashmiris, culminating on August 26, 1947 when the dynasty, armed with British weaponry, opened fire on an enormous crowd of protesters in Poonch, murdering hundreds in cold blood. The fall of the dynasty opened the doors for Britain’s partition and India’s occupation (3).

Britain left India cracked in half, sectioning off a state predominantly comprised of Muslims in Pakistan, and a state predominantly comprised of Hindus in India. This left Kashmir stuck in the middle of a criminal partition process. The greater majority of Kashmir’s people wanted their autonomy returned to them, and they protested day and night, demanding their self-determination. Due to its relationship with the Dogras however, and its inherent distrust of Muslim leadership in what was to become Pakistan, Britain decided to award Kashmir to India. The dynasty was liquidated only in name, as the heirs to the Dogra throne exchanged kingship for the position of Kashmir Prime Minister. Britain’s Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, manipulated the Radcliffe Commission, which was in charge of allotting territory to India and Pakistan, so the (predominantly Muslim) Gurdaspur district of the Punjab region would be illogically assigned to India. Gurdaspur connected India to Kashmir via an easy-to-reach land route. Without Gurdaspur, India would have no access to Kashmir. Lord Mountbatten favored the Indian leadership which still maintained benevolence towards Britain, whereas Pakistan’s leadership was looking for complete independence. Kashmir became a casualty of Lord Mountbatten’s meddling. It was transformed into the property of the occupier (4). The worthless United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 47, guaranteeing the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination, but it has never been enforced. Kashmir has been occupied by no fewer than 500,000-700,000 Indian military terrorists at all times since 1947, making it the most militarized zone on the planet (5).

On August 18th, 1958, India’s government passed the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to completely absolve the military of any wrongdoing no matter what kind of crime it may commit. Essentially, it gave India’s military the authority to shoot and kill with impunity. It has led to more than 50 years of repulsive human rights violations, and it is a central contributing factor to the unrest in occupied Kashmir today. Several elite international organizations have demanded that the AFSPA be repealed, including the UN though it doesn’t enforce this request either. Activists across Kashmir and India as well have struggled to end the AFSPA to no avail. India’s government has stonewalled their efforts, arrested them, and in certain instances, illegally imprisoned them (6).

Indian Crimes Against Humanity and US Support

Since 1989 alone, 100,243 Kashmiri civilians have been murdered by India’s security forces. 107,351 children have been orphaned. 22,728 women have been widowed. 9,920 women have been gang raped or molested by India’s military. 118,060 Kashmiris were illegally arrested and incarcerated. 105,861 houses, places of business, mosques, and other architectural structures were razed, and countless people have gone missing (7). 2,900 mass graves were discovered at the end of 2009, containing the bodies of 2,943 civilians from 55 villages across Northern Kashmir. Indian military, paramilitary, and security forces were the culprits. Not a single complaint was made against them, and no committee or body was set up by the Indian regime to investigate the horrors (8).

Torture cells and interrogation centers are infused with Kashmir’s daily life; they’ve been around since the beginning days of British partition. Sexual abuse, electrocution, merciless beatings, soaking prisoners with freezing cold water, undressing the prisoners in front of each other and locking crowds together in the same cell are only some of the tactics used by India’s military (9). Over 6,000 Indian soldiers stationed in occupied Kashmir suffer from the AIDS virus, but haven’t been pulled from active duty. Their mysterious contraction of the disease has never been investigated. The sexual abuse against Kashmiris, especially women and children, is as rampant as ever. AIDS has now spread throughout Kashmir at an alarming rate, stemming directly from abusive sexual contact between security forces and civilians, in what most certainly appears to be another extension of collective punishment issued by the Indian regime (10).

Videos have recently emerged that expose the Indian occupier’s humiliation of Kashmir’s civilians. In one video, recorded in low-quality definition on a cell phone, four young Kashmiris were stripped naked by paramilitary troopers and forced to walk through the streets as they were taunted and hit with batons. In another video, an old man is beaten by the military with no justification whatsoever. In another video, young girls are harassed with the most putrid vulgarities. As expected, Youtube and Facebook, havens for Zionist censorship and data-mining (11), removed the videos, citing nonsensical nudity violations. Mainstream Indian papers and television media haven’t mentioned these human rights violations at all. Neither has the Zionist-owned Western media. It is disgraceful (12).

The US has directly funded India with hundreds of millions of dollars for decades, up until 2008 in which the foreign aid was reduced to $81 million per year (13). War criminal George W. Bush, in a meeting with war criminal Manmohan Singh in 2005, declared that a strategic, global partnership between the US and India including increased military, economic , scientific and technical ties was necessary to promote peace throughout the world (14). This of course, is Orwellian doublespeak for promoting war and chaos wherever the two powers would roam. The Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement, signed by Bush and Singh in the same year as their historic meeting, was nothing but a nuclear arms deal that included enrichment technology and equipment designed for weaponizing nuclear materials (15). Bush’s neo-con administration contrived this deal to prop up India as a regional superpower and keep Pakistan at bay through subversive destabilization.

Since Singh’s only objection to the deal was finding the necessary funds to keep India’s nuclear program flowing, it was none other than Zionist Paul Wolfowitz, the murderous architect of the illegal occupation of Iraq, that suggested loans to India from the World Bank, where he served as President at the time (16). By possessing US-designed nuclear technology, the Indian occupier has been emboldened even further in Kashmir, intimidating the people with threats of nuclear genocide with Pakistan (17). Though Zionist warmonger Obama has been completely silent on Kashmir since taking office (18), he has taken no issue with undermining Kashmir’s Resistance. Zionist Daniel Benjamin, who wrote a paper with Zionist Steven Simon entitled ‘Obama Is The Friend Israel Needs (19),’ was appointed by one of the Zionist entity’s favorite mouthpieces, Hillary Clinton, as Coordinator for Counter-terrorism at the Department of State. It was Benjamin that negotiated the transfer of $4.5 million to India’s regime for anti-terrorism programs, in addition to the aid already allocated each year (20), and it is Benjamin that has been instrumental in spreading propaganda regarding the Mumbai false flag, linking Kashmiri Resistance to bogus offshoots of ‘Al Qaeda’ with absolutely no evidence (21).

Israel: India’s Occupation Advisor

The Zionist entity and India have had deep-rooted, lucrative relations since India recognized Israel’s illegitimate statehood on September 17th, 1950. This relationship was always covert due to India taking precautionary measures to prevent its own Muslim population and financial allies in the Arab world from interfering through protest or other political means. The Tel Aviv regime provided India with arms, ammunition and military hardware during its wars with China in 1962, and its two wars with Pakistan in 1965 and 1971. In return, India secretly sent military equipment to Israel during the 1967 war. India’s security forces began receiving training in Israel as early as 1980, and throughout the decade, Israeli and Indian intelligence collaborated in the formulation of a plan to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. In 1986, architect of the first genocidal campaign against Iraq, Zionist Stephen Solarz, met with Prime Minister Gandhi and a high ranking Israeli lobby official from New York, Morris Abraham, to begin paving the way for overt relations. This lengthy process culminated in 1992 with the opening of an Indian embassy in Tel Aviv, and a Zionist embassy in New Delhi (22).

Since the establishment of open relations, Israel has transferred laser guided missiles, tanks, submarines and other naval craft, an anti-ballistic missile system, electronic warfare systems, and hi-tech surveillance equipment to the Indian regime. In July of 1997, mass murderer Benjamin Netanyahu boldly proclaimed, “Our ties with India don’t have any limits (23).” In 2002, India signed a deal with the Zionist entity to replace its out-of-date artillery, and contracted for more than 3,000 Israeli-designed Tavor rifles which its soldiers would use in occupied Kashmir to quell Resistance and tyrannize demonstrators (24).

War criminal and notorious butcher of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, Ariel Sharon, and war criminal of the Kargil conflict, Prime Minister of India at the time Atal Bihari Vajpayee, signed the ‘Delhi Statement on Friendship and Cooperation between India and Israel.’ Vajpayee couldn’t have carried out his policies in Kargil without Israel rushing military support to the Indian army at the height of the war (25). The Sharon-Vajpayee agreement led to Israel continuing its 1980s policy of training thousands upon thousands of Indian forces in counter-insurgency, but outwardly. Subsequently, in 2004, Mossad and Shin Bet officials arrived in India to train its army in gathering intelligence in areas with ‘high militancy activity.’ All of the training and technology that India acquired from Israel greatly assisted its genocidal occupation of Kashmir (26). Similar to the Zionist theft of water in occupied Palestine and the poisoning of aquifers to stricken Palestinians with disease (27), India is building dams in occupied Kashmir to damage its agriculture, and cut its people off from the agriculture imported from Pakistan (28). It is a classic form of slow drip genocide.

The Alliance Between Mossad and RAW

In 2007, Sayyed Ali Shah Geelani, one of the leading Resistance leaders in occupied Kashmir, publicly accused Israel’s Mossad of aiding and abetting India to obliterate the Kashmiri freedom struggle. He remarked that the tactics chosen by India’s military in the Valley were the same tactics used by Mossad against the Palestinians (29). The Sayyed’s accusations are fully supported by evidence. Israeli intelligence and India’s Research Analysis Wing (RAW) have been sharing information since the 1970s. 40,000 Israeli tourists have been visiting Jammu and Kashmir for decades, and it has recently been revealed that Mossad was given approval by RAW to conduct surveillance operations in the Valley by posing as tourists (30). An elite counter-terrorism unit, led by commander Eli Katzir, has been operating in Kashmir since 2000 to ‘reduce the incidence of terrorist incursions from Pakistan (31).’

Israeli companies with longstanding connections to Mossad and Shin Bet have been working in the Indian fields of research and development, nano-technology, biotech, high-end security software development, and non-conventional energy since open relations between the two oppressive entities began. The companies include Amdocs, the infamous company connected to Mossad’s 9/11 false flag founded by Zionist criminal Morris Kahn, Ness Technologies, headed by Sachi Gerlitz, a senior IOF official that formerly worked for Comverse, another firm connected to 9/11, Magic Software Enterprises, founded by David Assia and Yaki Dunietz, a firm that provides software to IOF, Check Point Software Technologies, founded by former IOF programming specialists Gil Shwed, Shlomo Kramer and Marius Nacht, RAD Data Communications, founded by former head of the Electronic Research Department of Israel’s Ministry of Defense Zohar Zisapel and his brother Yehuda, Veraz Networks, a subsidiary of ECI Telecom, headed by former senior official in Israeli Aircraft Industries, Rafi Maor, and NDS Group, a firm accused of hacking into the satellites of other companies and unraveling their encryption schemes, owned by Abe Peled, a former technical officer in IOF (32).

During the course of Sayyed Geelani’s aforementioned public comments, he also accused the Indian occupier of ‘trying to hoodwink Kashmir’s youth by forcing them to the path of drug addiction.’ Once again, the Resistance leader’s accusations proved to be entirely accurate. A recently declassified document from RAW has leaked critical information regarding the Indian intelligence agency, in partnership with Mossad, hiring Indian drug lords and mafia barons to transport opium across Indian and Pakistani borders into occupied Kashmir. The money raised from these illicit narcotics transactions would fund the establishment of 57 counter-terrorism training camps in and around Kashmir (33).

In 2001, RAW and Mossad created four new agencies to target high-ranking officials in the religious, political and intelligence sectors in Pakistan. The goal of these agencies was to destabilize Pakistan, divide it and conquer it by inciting sectarianism through bombings in highly-populated areas. Per the suggestion of Mossad officials in India, Tel Aviv also erected an electric barrier fence with thermal imaging devices on the border of the Punjab region and Jammu and Kashmir. RAW obsessively engaged in disinformation and propaganda campaigns against Pakistan, as well as sabotage, and espionage (34). The Zionist media and its expert propagandists along with RAW trained ‘investigative reporters’ disseminated a series of false reports regarding Pakistan’s army committing human rights violations in the Swat Valley in 2009. This operation was designed to cover up the disturbing ruthlessness that the Indian military had inflicted against Kashmiri adolescents in the summer of that year (35).

The latest act of RAW and Mossad collaboration came in January of 2008 when war criminal Singh’s regime launched an Israeli satellite into orbit. The operation wasn’t mentioned by India’s controlled media due to ‘sensitivities,’ but Israel’s media services boasted about the satellite substantially assisting the Zionist entity in monitoring Iran. The Tecsar satellite, a product of Mossad-dominated Israeli Aerospace Industries (36), is one of the most advanced of its kind, capable of transmitting high resolution images even in severe weather conditions. The technology was specifically designed to violate Iran’s sovereignty by penetrating its security networks to spy on its nuclear program. India would use the satellite to monitor Resistance activity in occupied Kashmir (37).

Conclusion: The Current Climate and The Future

After 63 years of arguably the most barbarous occupation in modern history and 21 years of armed struggle against its oppressors, Kashmir is nowhere closer to peace now than it was before Britain’s abject partitioning. The newest stage of unrest began in June, when a teenager was murdered by the military with a tear gas grenade. Since that crime was committed, the occupier has taken the lives of 109 innocent people, including women and children (38). The worst day of violence came on September 13th, when India’s trigger-happy military opened fire on a crowd of tens of thousands of demonstrators, massacring 18 innocents and injuring more than 100 others (39).

India’s controlled press blamed the protests on Press TV, an Iranian news agency, broadcasting coverage of the despicable burning of the Qur’an in the US. These reports however, were shoddy at best, the work of RAW propagandists at worst, and they were released to cover up what Kashmiris were really protesting about: Nonstop Indian military brutality (40). Press TV was kicked off of the air on the day of the massacre when India’s government placed a ban on the station through local cable operators (41). Due to India’s intelligence relationship with the Zionist entity, and the launching of the satellite to spy on the Islamic Republic, it is reasonable to infer that Press TV was eliminated from the airwaves due to its updated, detailed, unbiased reporting of the humanitarian crisis in occupied Kashmir.

Kashmir’s Resistance leaders, including the aforesaid Sayyed Ali Shah Geelani, have all been detained and placed on house arrest on numerous occasions. Newspapers have been removed from circulation for days at a time. Journalists are subjected to abductions, beatings, death threats, attempted murder and are hindered by severe movement restrictions (42). The most recent journalist assaulted was Farooq Ahmed Shah, a photographer who was beaten by India’s paramilitary forces with bamboo sticks (43). Chief Minister Omar Abdallah, a collaborationist puppet of Singh’s murderous regime, along with his cabinet stooges, have issued weak public statements regarding the right to freedom of the press in the Valley needing to be respected, but have done absolutely nothing to stop the suppression of information (44). Kashmiris are disgusted with Abdallah, the latest in a line of puppet politicians chosen through rigged elections by the Indian oppressor since the occupation’s inception (45). The Indian media reported on the police officers suspended after a shoe was thrown at Abdallah (46), but it didn’t expose the details as to why such an act would occur. Abdallah isn’t defending the rights of Kashmir’s people, he is watching them bleed for a little slice of power.

Kashmiris are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, especially children (47). Due to the efforts of RAW and Mossad, one third of Kashmiris in the age group of 15-40 suffer from substance abuse. Kashmiri students are denied accommodation in New Dehli universities (48). The violence against women in Kashmir by the occupier, hasn’t decreased; quite to the contrary. India’s military frequently uses rape as a weapon (49).

This oppression only worsens as India, and to a lesser extent, Pakistan, continue to occupy Kashmir. Indian lawmakers have launched a mission to end the unrest in the Valley (50). This is just as ridiculous as the peace talks farce taking place between Zionist war criminals Netanyahu, Obama, Mubarak, 'King' Abdullah and the Palestinian traitor, Mahmoud Abbas. The lawmakers have no intention of removing India’s military presence from Kashmir, and therefore, this is nothing more than another political publicity stunt. In a recent poll conducted by the Hindustan Times, 66% of Kashmiris said that they want complete freedom from all foreign powers, so Jammu and Kashmir can once again be restored as an independent nation state (51). Sayyed Geelani recently remarked that, “Kashmiris would prefer to die one by one than surrender before India (52).”

Kashmir is not a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. Kashmir is not a religious dispute between Muslims and Hindus. The conflict in occupied Kashmir is a matter of self-determination, which is the universal right of all indigenous peoples and their respective lands. The brutal Indian occupier kills with impunity. It enforces its reign of terror with Israeli weaponry and a military trained in the methods of Mossad torture. It has destroyed and taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people since 1947.

But Kashmiris have not weakened. They have not been broken. They still march defiantly through the streets despite curfew. They protest daily. They still sing, dance, pray, and meditate though the occupier awaits them outside of their homes and their mosques. Such a sincere, beautiful Resistance can never be defeated. Soon, the Indian occupier will admit it has been trounced and it will remove its troops from the Valley. Pakistan will honor the will of Kashmir’s people, and remove its forces as well. The people will determine who their government will be without the hidden hands of the occupier pulling the strings. And the chants will be heard from Srinagar to Poonch. Baramullah to Kishtwar. Uri to Kargil. Kupwara to Samba. Doda to Gaoran. AZADI! AZADI! AZADI!

~ The End ~

Sources:

(1) The World Wants To Think The Best About India. So We Turn Our Back On Kashmir by Dean Nelson

(2) Full Frame: Valley of Tears by Andy Spyra

(3) A Bloody Account of Mass Massacres by Kashmir Media Service

(4) The Rape of Kashmir by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

(5) Confusion Over Kashmir by Arundhati Roy

(6) India: Repeal Armed Forces Special Powers Act by Human Rights Watch

(7) The Bleeding Vale of Kashmir by Brig Asif Haroon Raja

(8) Mass Graves in Kashmir by Fatima Sultan Syed

(9) Shadows In Kashmir Torture Cells Longer Than Abu Ghraib by The Milli Gazette

(10) The Current Indian Policy In Kashmir by Abdul Ruff

(11) Anti-Defamation League Joins Youtube To Fight Online Hate by Haaretz Service; Israeli Prez: Use Facebook To Fight Hate by The Associated Press

(12) Kashmir’s Abu Ghraib? by Shuddhabrata Sengupta; Video Shows Cops Parading Youth Naked by Gowhar Bhat, Greater Kashmir

(13) US Slashes Aid To India by 35% by Press Trust of India

(14) US Woos India With Support In Becoming A World Power by Keith Jones

(15) The Truth Behind The US-Indo Nuclear Deal by Siddharth Varadarajan

(16) Wolfowitz May Make World Bank Loans Attractive To India by The Financial Express

(17) India and Pakistan: War In The Nuclear Shadow by Center for Defense Information

(18) America’s Role In The Kashmir Crisis: India And Pakistan Are Chained To Washington by James Gundun

(19) Obama Is The Friend Israel Needs by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon
(20) $4.5 Million US Aid To India To Fight Terrorism by Press Trust Of India

(21) The Mumbai Terrorists’ Other Target by Daniel Benjamin

(22) India and Israel: A Wrong Alliance Part 1 by Shahul Hameed; India and Israel: A Wrong Alliance Part 3 by Shaul Hameed

(23) Israel Actively Engaged In India by Dr. Farooq Adil

(24) Israeli Rifles Appear In Kashmir by Haroon Mirani

(25) Critics Slam India-Israel Arms Trade by Jeremy Kahn

(26) India Employing Israeli Oppression Tactics In Kashmir by Jimmy Johnson, Electronic Intifada

(27) Poisoning Of Gaza Water Puts Population At Risk by Palestinian Centre For Human Rights

(28) Impact of Indian Dams In Kashmir On Pakistani Rivers by Haseeb Jamal

(29) Mossad Helping India To Crush Kashmir Struggle: Geelani by Fayaz Wani

(30) India and Israel: A Wrong Alliance Part 2 by Shaul Hameed

(31) The Israeli Mossad False Flag Operation Strikes In Mumbai by N. Kapner, Daily Pakistan

(32) India and Israel: A Wrong Alliance Part 4 by Shaul Hameed

(33) Mossad-RAW Nexus by S.M. Hali, Pakistan Daily

(34) Mossad And India Spy Agency Team Up, Target Pakistan by Tariq Saeedi

(35) Indian Occupied Kashmir - An Open Prison by Brig Asif Haroon Raja

(36) Gideon’s Spies: Secret History of The Mossad by Gordan Thomas

(37) India Launches Israeli Satellite by BBC News

(38) Day 104: Humhama Youth Succumbs; Toll 109 by Gowhar Bhat, Greater Kashmir

(39) 18 Killed, 100 Injured in India Kashmir by Press TV

(40) US Koran Tensions Erupt In Kashmir by Jim Yardley and Hari Kumar, New York Times

(41) India Knocks Press TV Off Air In Kashmir by Press TV

(42) Media Gag In Occupied Kashmir by Khalid Awan

(43) Photojournalist Assaulted by Greater Kashmir

(44) Govt Silences Kashmir Press, Silently by Faheem Aslam

(45) Kashmir: A History Littered With Rigged Elections by Mushtaq A. Jeelani

(46) 15 Cops Suspended After Shoe Thrown At Omar Abdallah by The Hindustan Times

(47) Violence Touches ‘Each Family Living In Kashmir’ by Afsaana Rashid

(48) Kashmir: Let’s Blink by Dr. Shah Alam Khan

(49) Rape Of Kashmiri Women and The South Asia Peace Process by Farhat Jabeen

(50) Indian Lawmakers In Kashmir To Seek Ways To End Escalating Anti-India Unrest by Aijaz Hussain, Associated Press

(51) Poll: Kashmiris Want Independence by Press TV

(52) Kashmiris Prefer Death To Surrender: Geelani by Rising Kashmir News

A‘LAWLESS LAW’ DETENTIONS UNDER THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR PUBLIC SAFETY ACT (PSA)

LATEST REPORT ON JAMMU & KASHMIR BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


‘We have to keep some people out of circulation...’
Samuel Verghese, (then) Financial Commissioner - Home, Jammu and Kashmir in a meeting with Amnesty International, Srinagar 20 May 2010

Shabir Ahmad Shah has been kept “out of circulation” and in and out of prison for much of the time since 1989, when a popular movement and armed uprising for independence began in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). As the leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party he has been
amongst the most vocal and consistent voices demanding an independent Kashmir. As a result he has spent over 25 years in various prisons, much of it in “preventive” or administrative detention, that is, detention by executive order without charge or trial. His incarceration has been solely for peacefully expressing his political views. Shah was last released from prison on 3 November 2010 but since that time has been subject to periods of arbitrary house arrest.

At the time of Amnesty International’s visit to Srinagar, the capital of J&K, in May 2010, Shabir Shah was in prison. Amnesty International was denied permission by the state authorities to meet with him, but was able to meet his wife Dr. Bilqees who said, “His continuing detention is a tactic to break his resistance. The government think that if they keep him away from us and make us all suffer, he will agree to remaining silent. Even though he is concerned about our daughters who rarely see their father, he will not desert his principles.”

Shabir Shah is one of the most high profile of those detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) but he is only one among thousands who have been detained without charge or trial in this manner. Estimates of the number detained under the PSA over the past two decades range from 8,000-20,000.

Amnesty International’s report: A ‘Lawless Law’: Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act reveals how the PSA violates India’s international human rights legal obligations. It further provides evidence of the ways in which administrative detention under the PSA continues to be used in J&K to detain individuals for years at a time, without trial, depriving them of human rights protections otherwise applicable in Indian law.

The report is based on research conducted by an Amnesty International team during a visit to Srinagar in May 2010 and subsequent analysis of government and legal documents relating to over 600 individuals detained under the PSA between 2003 and 2010. The research shows that instead of using the institutions, procedures and human rights safeguards of ordinary criminal justice, the authorities are using the PSA to secure the long-term detention of political activists, suspected members or supporters of armed groups and a range of other individuals against whom there is insufficient evidence for a trial or conviction - to keep them “out of circulation.”

Photo 1: Shabir Shah being arrested by police while en-route to Sopore and
Baramulla (© J&K Freedom Democratic Party)

The region of Kashmir has been a source of dispute in South Asia for decades. But since 1989, J&K has witnessed an ongoing popular movement and armed uprising for independence. Armed groups regularly carry out attacks on security forces as well as civilians. Amnesty International acknowledges the right, indeed the duty of the state to defend and protect its population from violence. However, this must be done while respecting the human rights of all concerned.

Amnesty International takes no position on the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed human rights abuses or recognizably criminal offences. However,everyone must be able to enjoy the full range of human rights guaranteed under national and international law. By using the PSA to incarcerate suspects without adequate evidence, India has not only gravely violated their human rights but also failed in its duty to charge and try such individuals and to punish them if found guilty in a fair trial. Over the past decade there has been a marked decrease in the overall numbers of members of armed groups operating in J&K. By the J&K Police’s own estimates, only around 500 members of armed groups now operate in the Kashmir valley. But in the last five years, there has been a resurgence of street protests. Some of the protesters, most of them young, have resorted to throwing stones at security forces, which have on many occasions retaliated with gunfire using live rounds. Despite this apparent shift in the nature of opposition to the Indian state, there does not appear to be a change in the approach of the J&K authorities. They continue to rely on the extraordinary administrative detention powers of the PSA rather than attempting to charge and try those suspected of committing criminal acts. Between January and September 2010 alone, 322 people were reportedly detained under the PSA. Many of these individuals may have been detained after
being labelled as “anti-national” solely because they support the cause for Kashmiri independence or a
merger with Pakistan and because they are challenging the state through political action or peaceful dissent.
Some of the political activists detained under the PSA include lawyers and journalists. Besides Shabir Shah, a
number of prominent political leaders have been detained under the PSA; many including Masarat Alam
Bhat remain in detention.

Amnesty International opposes on principle all systems of administrative detention. The Indian Supreme Court
has also described the system of administrative detention as “lawless law”. The PSA has become precisely such a “lawless law”, largely supplanting the regular criminal justice system in J&K. Criminal justice systems have developed procedures, rules of evidence, and the burden and standard of proof in order to minimize the risk of punishing the innocent and to ensure punishment of the guilty. It is unacceptable for any government to circumvent these safeguards by use of “preventive” or any other form of administrative detention: punishing those suspected of committing offences without ever charging or trying them.

The rate of conviction for possession of unlawful weapons – one of the most common charges brought
against alleged supporters or members of armed groups – is 0.5 per 100 cases: over 130 times lower than the
national average in India. Similarly the conviction rate for attempt to murder in J&K is eight times lower than the national average, seven times lower for rioting and five times lower for arson (see graph below). In contrast, the number of persons in administrative detention without trial in J&K is 14 times higher than the national average – a possible result of the monthly / quarterly “targets” or quotas of detentions apparently followed by the J&K police.

Many of the people detained under the PSA without charge or trial for periods of two years or more may have committed no recognizably criminal offence at all. Under the PSA, detention can be justified for undefined acts “prejudicial to the security of the State” and for extremely broadly defined acts “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. The possibility of detention on such vague and broadly defined allegations
violates the principle of legality required by Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party.


NO WAY OUT
Police arrested Muneer Ahmad Sheikh on 29 July 2008 and charged him with possession of prohibited weapons. While in prison awaiting trial in this case, a PSA detention order was issued on 20 September 2008 (DMS/PSA/22/2008). At the same time he was also formally charged in three additional criminal cases of attacks on security forces carried out in 2001, 2004 and 2009 respectively. The PSA detention order was quashed by the High Court on 4 August 2009, which accepted his habeas corpus petition (HCP 240/09). Sheikh was granted bail in connection with the initial charge of possession of prohibited weapons in January 2010, but he remained in detention awaiting trial on the other charges. On 24 February 2010, the trial court dismissed two of the three outstanding charges against Sheikh noting that the only evidence against him was a confession made by him while in police custody which was inadmissible in court (in India, confessions made to the police are inadmissible as evidence because of fears that they may be coerced). Sheikh’s lawyers claim that he was indeed tortured by police during his interrogation. The court dismissed the third charge against Sheikh on 15 March 2010.Despite having no further criminal charges or PSA detention orders pending against him, the prison authorities handed Sheikh to the police on 16 March who detained him illegally at the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) at Humhuma, Srinagar. He was not brought before a magistrate within 24 hours as required by law. Finally, a second PSA detention order (DMS/PSA/95/2010) was issued against him on 31 March 2010. The grounds of detention claimed that Sheikh had been released from prison on 28 March (while he was in fact still in detention) but had been rearrested immediately afterwards because he was forcing shopkeepers to close their establishments and inciting the public to support a call for a general strike. A habeas corpus petition (No. 123/10) is currently pending in the J&K High Court challenging Sheikh’s detention under the PSA and seeking compensation for his illegal detention. His is just one of hundreds of such petitions heard by the High Court every year.



Photo 2 and 3. Left: 14-year old Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh, who was arrested in a criminal case of rioting and attempt to murder, allegedly as part of a stone-pelting mob. He was held in administrative detention for nearly 10 months from 21 April 2010 to 10 February 2011. Right: Family members of Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh who told Amnesty International they could not visit their brother in jail for many months as the distance and the limited visiting hours made it into an overnight visit – making it too expensive for them. (Both photos © SHOME Basu)

Detainees also cannot challenge the decision to detain them in any meaningful way; there is no provision for
judicial review of detention in the PSA; and detainees are not permitted legal representation before the Advisory Board, the executive detaining authority that confirms detention orders. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), in a November 2008 opinion on 10 PSA cases from J&K, found that the detentions did not conform to the international human rights legal obligations that the Government of India is bound by.

Furthermore, state officials often implement this law in an arbitrary and abusive manner, as numerous cases
cited in this report demonstrate. Detaining authorities fail to provide material on which the grounds of
detention are based to detainees or their lawyers. Detainees can approach (often successfully) to the High
Court to quash their order of detention, but Amnesty International’s research clearly shows that the J&K
authorities consistently thwart the High Court’s orders for release by re-detaining individuals under criminal
charges and / or issuing further detention orders, thereby securing their continued incarceration. The
ultimate decision as to whether PSA detainees are allowed to go free lies with an executive Screening
Committee made up of government officials, police and intelligence officials whose deliberations are not open to any public scrutiny.


Systems of administrative detention are notorious for facilitating human rights violations, including incommunicado and illegal detention and torture and other forms of ill-treatment in police and judicial custody. The PSA is no exception. Many of the PSA cases studied by Amnesty International for this report contained evidence of periods of illegal detention in violation of national and international law. Many alleged the use of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in coercing confessions. The PSA provides for immunity from prosecution for officials operating under it, thereby permitting impunity for human rights violations carried
out under the law.

Amnesty International has previously called on the Government of India to reform its administrative
detention system, as have other international human rights organisations and a number of UN human rights
mechanisms. India has so far chosen to ignore such calls. In a meeting with Amnesty International delegates
in Srinagar in May 2010, the then Additional Director General of Police (Criminal Investigation Department) of J&K asked, “What rights are you talking about? We are fighting a war – a cross border war.” Such opinions, and the practices that result (as documented in the current report), run directly counter to legal commitments made by India in ratifying international human rights treaties, and assertions regularly made by government officials at both the state and central level that the rule of law should prevail in J&K. The widespread and abusive use of the “lawless” PSA, far from building confidence amongst the Kashmiri
population, further risks undermining the rule of law and reinforcing deeply held perceptions that police and
security forces are “above the law.”


Photo 4: Chairman of J&K Muslim League, Masarat Alam Bhat, detained by policemen in Srinagar, 26 April 2007. 
(© AP/PA Photo/Mukhtar Khan)


RECOMMENDATIONS
Amnesty International calls upon the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to:
- Repeal the PSA and end the system of administrative detention in J&K, charging those suspected of committing criminal acts with recognizably criminal offences and trying them in a court of law with all safeguards for fair trial;
- As a means of demonstrating the government’s commitment to the rule of law, end practices of illegal and
incommunicado detention and immediately put in place safeguards to ensure that those detained are brought promptly before a magistrate, provided with access to relatives, legal counsel and medical examination, and held in recognized places of detention pending trial.


The Governments of India and Jammu and Kashmir must further:
- Carry out an independent, impartial and comprehensive investigation into all allegations of abuses against detainees and their families, including allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, denial of visits and adequate medical care, make its findings public and hold those responsible to account.


Amnesty International urges the Government of India to:
- Extend invitations and facilitate the visits of the UN special procedures including particularly the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 



DOWNLOAD : PDF

Non-violent Movement Infused Respect, Dignity Among Kashmiris


The world renowned Armenian-American radio broadcaster and writer, David Barsamian, who visited Kashmir in February 2011 said in an interview that the non-violent movement undertaken by Kashmiris has been extremely beneficial as it has infused consciousness, respect and dignity among the common Kashmiris.
“I observe that people especially the youth of Kashmir are more confident and politically conscious as compared to my past visits in 1996 and 2007. They are now using the non-violent means to press for their political demands. It’s the most effective form to fight for your rights,” Barsamian, who is also director of Alternative Radio, the Boulder, Colorado-based syndicated weekly talk program heard on some 125 radio stations in various countries.
He said the gains in 2010 should be sustained by concerted efforts in the future. “There has to be historical understanding, sustained process, dedication and organization among people who are at work,” Barsamian said. “There have been instances where struggles have been defused by weakening the different sections of the society. Like the infighting among the groups. This ultimately benefits the power”.

Armenian-American radio broadcaster and writer, David Barsamian
Asked that people were impatient since they felt they achieved nothing in during 2010 unrest, the noted broadcaster disagreed and said “Action has to be build slowly”.
“Only then the dam breaks at some time,” Barsamian said. “People need to be patient. The impatience has to be thought out intellectually”.
Barsamian, who has authored several books is best known for his series of interviews with Noam Chomsky. Besides, he has also penned interviewed worlds famous intellectuals and writers like Edward Said, Howard Zinn, Eqbal Ahmad,and Arundhati Roy. All of the interviews have been published in the book forms.
He said the people in the America were not aware about the realties in Kashmir, and neither about the unrest of 2010.
“The US elites have followed largely the line from New Delhi. Indian is a strategic partner of the US now. They US army conducts joint exercises with Indian army. Delhi has been successful in assuring that its Muslim fundamentalist struggle and not a political one”.
However, he was quick to add that the non violent means followed by Kashmir apart from denting the opinion makers in New Delhi, could effectively change the perception of the world towards their struggle.
Asked why millions of Kashmiris who took to roads before Egypt, Tunisia and other middle east countries could not attract a response from the West, particularly from America, Barsamian said, “The political considerations from America are different. They consider Delhi as a strategic partner”.
He said there is a need for Kashmiris to produce counter narrative and means and ways to break what he described as “information monoply”.
“Even in India people are unaware about the happenings. I was in Jharkhand. There people have no information about what is happening in Kashmir,” Barsamian said. “Hence this information blockade has to be broken. People should use alternate media, cameras and other aids to disseminate the happenings here to the outside world. They need to create their own media”.
*Kashmiri youth are more confident, politically conscious now
*Non-violent means most effective way to fight for rights
*Action has to be build slowly
*People need to be patient

The world renowned Armenian-American radio broadcaster and writer, David Barsamian, who is currently in the valley on Wednesday said the non-violent movement undertaken by Kashmiris has been extremely beneficial as it has infused consciousness, respect and dignity among the common Kashmiris.“I observe that people especially the youth of Kashmir are more confident and politically conscious as compared to my past visits in 1996 and 2007. They are now using the non-violent means to press for their political demands. It’s the most effective form to fight for your rights,” Barsamian, who is also director of Alternative Radio, the Boulder, Colorado-based syndicated weekly talk program heard on some 125 radio stations in various countries. He said the gains in 2010 should be sustained by concerted efforts in the future. “There has to be historical understanding, sustained process, dedication and organization among people who are at work,” Barsamian said. “There have been instances where struggles have been defused by weakening the different sections of the society. Like the infighting among the groups. This ultimately benefits the power”. Asked that people were impatient since they felt they achieved nothing in during 2010 unrest, the noted broadcaster disagreed and said “Action has to be build slowly”. “Only then the dam breaks at some time,” Barsamian said. “People need to be patient. The impatience has to be thought out intellectually”. Barsamian, who has authored several books is best known for his series of interviews with Noam Chomsky. Besides, he has also penned interviewed worlds famous intellectuals and writers like Edward Said, Howard Zinn, Eqbal Ahmad,and Arundhati Roy. All of the interviews have been published in the book forms. He said the people in the America were not aware about the realties in Kashmir, and neither about the unrest of 2010. “The US elites have followed largely the line from New Delhi. Indian is a strategic partner of the US now. They US army conducts joint exercises with Indian army. Delhi has been successful in assuring that its Muslim fundamentalist struggle and not a political one”. However, he was quick to add that the non violent means followed by Kashmir apart from denting the opinion makers in New Delhi, could effectively change the perception of the world towards their struggle. Asked why millions of Kashmiris who took to roads before Egypt, Tunisia and other middle east countries could not attract a response from the West, particularly from America, Barsamian said, “The political considerations from America are different. They consider Delhi as a strategic partner”. He said there is a need for Kashmiris to produce counter narrative and means and ways to break what he described as “information monoply”. “Even in India people are unaware about the happenings. I was in Jharkhand. There people have no information about what is happening in Kashmir,” Barsamian said. “Hence this information blockade has to be broken. People should use alternate media, cameras and other aids to disseminate the happenings here to the outside world. They need to create their own media”.
*Kashmiri youth are more confident, politically conscious now
*Non-violent means most effective way to fight for rights
*Action has to be build slowly
*People need to be patient

Written-up by : Irfan S. Kashmiri

Friday, 1 April 2011

Faultline in Kashmir makes people root for Afridi and vote in polls

SRINAGAR: Like rest of the subcontinent, Srinagar shut down for the semifinal clash between India and Pakistan. But, the team they cheered for wasn't the Men in Blue(Indian Cricket Team). In hotels and homes, at roadside stalls and in Srinagar's downtown sprawl, in villages and small mohallas, Kashmir was rooting for Shahid Afridi and his team.

This support for Pakistan appeared to cut across caste and class, united mainstream politicians and separatists, and brought together prosperous businessmen who live half the year in Delhi and the shikarawalas who ceaselessly circle the Dal Lake.

On the day of the semifinal, children took a day off from school. India batted first and every Indian wicket prompted a blaze of firecrackers. When Pakistan started batting, every run was cheered. What does this tell us? Widespread support for Pakistan in the Valley? Not quite.

Most people who cheered for Afridi's team have no love lost for Pakistan with its failing economy and daily violence. The reality of Pakistan has done what the Indian state could not for years: made "Kashmir banega Pakistan" vanish from all protests. All that the Kashmiris have done is separate the reality of Pakistan from the idea of Pakistan.

Thus, the murder and mayhem in Lahore and Karachi represent the reality of Pakistan; Shahid Afridi's team in Mohali represent the idea of Pakistan. It is the best example of the mix of history, emotion, resentment and pragmatism that Kashmir is today. The generation applauding Pakistan today grew up fixated on the idea of Pakistan before the spiral of insurgency in the 90s.

"There is a connectedness, in the emotional sense, in the hearts of Kashmiris. We don't bleed blue, we bleed green," said Abid Hussein, a young professional.

It was at battleground Sharjah that India was humiliated. A young man spoke about how a television remote was hurled at him for cheering India in a match. And it was his grandfather who did so. The generation today is older. They have become politicians and businessmen firm in their knowledge that India is the way forward for Kashmir. They shake their heads at every blast in Pakistan. But once it comes to anything that represents the idea of Pakistan, like the Pakistani cricket team, they remember their love for it.

"In spite of my saying I'll never support Pakistan after they lose, I end up watching them play. Ath wanan (it means) true love. We curse them, we abuse them, we hate them but also always love them. Kashmiris have a deep emotion with Pakistan, and not only because of religion," said Farhan Faisal, a businessman.

Kashmiris are provincial in their actions, but Kashmiri nationalists in their mindset. This faultline makes them turn out and vote for bijli, sadak, pani in elections, scrutinise the increase in Central grants in the state budget, makes thousands vie for posts in the police. It also makes them throw stones and spray "Go Back India" on the walls. It makes them kit out in Pakistani colours and also makes them compliment the administration for imposing section 144 to prevent violence that would hurt business.

It makes them admire India, its plurality, its progress and its strength; and resent it for these very reasons. As Naveed Tariq described it, "I think today two matches were telecast. One which the whole world saw was played between Indian cricket team and Pakistan cricket team and was played in the spirit of the game. The other which some Kashmiris saw was played between the Indian Army team and Kashmiris."

India's Rape of own Commitments


Reporting Nehru's statement on holding plebiscite in Kashmir, The Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, in its January 2, 1952 issue quoted him saying: As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.
The drama of so-called accession of Kashmir to India by Maharaja Hari Singh was staged by the Congress leaders in connivance with British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, who was made the first Governor- General of India by Hindus to over see completion of partition plan to damage Pakistan. The mere fact that no document of accession is available with India or on UN record is proof of a combined plot that was hatched by Hindu leadership with their British well-wisher.
India is continuously harping on the blatant lie that Kashmir is an integral part of India. How has a disputed territory suddenly become part of India when the commitments made by her to allow people of Kashmir to express their choice have not been honoured. No plebiscite has been held. The Kashmiris have not opted to accede to India in any plebiscite. The UN had already ruled in 1951 and again in 1957 that any elected assembly in Indian occupied Kashmir shall have no right to decide the future of the state as to the question of accession to India or Pakistan.
The honourable Prime Minister and other prominent leaders of that 'great nation' had made solid solemn pledges and commitments that people of Kashmir shall be given the right to decide their future. These commitments made by India to the world, Pakistan and the Kashmiris are reproduced from the book, 1 " The Undying Spirit".

Part-I

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s Telegram to British and Pakistan Prime Ministers, October 27, 1947.
"I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people, and we adhere to this view".
Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, replies to Maharaja's (alleged) request for accession to India, October 27, 1947.
"In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it 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 State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
October 28,1947.
"In regard to accession also, it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's broadcast to nation from All India Radio, November 2, 1947.
"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given (and the Maharajah has supported it) not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have referendum held under international auspices like the UN We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer".
" We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their way. It is for them ultimately to decide".
" And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of the State. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added to proviso to the instrument of accession of Kashmir".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
November 4, 1947.
"I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to the people of Kashmir.
I further stated that we have agreed on impartial International agency like UN supervising any referendum".
"This principle we are prepared to apply to any state where there is a dispute about accession. If these principles are accepted by your Government there should be no difficulty in giving effect to them".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 8, 1947.
".... where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as State’s, the question whether State has finally acceded to one or other Dominion should be ascertained by reference to the will of people".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 21, 1947.
"Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Constituent Assembly, November 25, 1947.
"In order to establish our bonafides, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
December 12, 1947.
"We have given further thought, in the light of our discussion in Lahore, to the question of inviting UN to advise us in this matter. While we are prepared to invite UNO observers to come here and advise us as to proposed plebiscite, it is not clear in what other capacity the UN help can be sought...
"... I confess, however, that I find myself unable to suggest anything beyond what I have offered already, namely, to ask UNO to send impartial observers to advise us regarding the plebiscite."
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India, March 5, 1948.
"Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a plebiscite, with every protection for fair voting, and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India,
March 5, 1948.
"... Ultimately there is no doubt in my mind that, in Kashmir as elsewhere, the people of Kashmir will decide finally, and all that we wish is that they should have freedom of decision without any external compulsion".
White Paper on Kashmir issued by Government of India, 1948.
"The question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebiscite, on this there is no dispute. There will be no victimisation of any native of the State, whatever his political view may be, and no Kashmiri will be deprived of the right to vote".
Gopalaswami Ayyangar's address in Constituent Assembly May 27, 1949.
"No doubt we have offered to have a plebiscite taken when the conditions are created for the holding of a proper, fair and impartial plebiscite. But if the plebiscite produces a verdict which is against the continuance of accession to India of the Kashmir State, then what we are committed to is simply that we shall not stand in the way of Kashmir separating itself from India".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement at press conference in London, January 16, 1951 (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi January 18, 1951)
"... We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that, even without our agreement, no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's statement in Indian Parliament, February 12, 1951.
"We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s address at public meeting in Srinagar, June 4, 1951 (reported in The Hindu, Madras, June 5, 1951).
"First of all, I would like to remind you of the fateful days of 1947 when I came to Srinagar and gave the solemn assurance that the people of India would stand by Kashmir in her struggle. On that assurance, I shook Sheikh Abdullah’s hand before the vast multitude that had gathered there. I want to repeat that the Government of India will stand by that pledge, whatever happens. That pledge itself stated that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their fate without external interference. That assurance also remains and will continue".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s report to All- India Congress Committee (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi, July 9, 1951)
"Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future. It is here today that a struggle is being fought, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men".
Krishna Menon's Press statement in London
(The Statesman, New Delhi, August 2, 1951)
"It is not the intention of the Government of India to go back on any commitment it has made. We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir - a pledge made to the people of Kashmir because they believe in democratic Government... We do not regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement, as reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, January 2, 1952.
"Kashmir is not the property of either India or Pakistan, it belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmir people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir..."
We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution... As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision."
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, June 26, 1952.
"If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘we do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept it though it might pain us. We will not send an army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.
"India is a great country and Kashmir is almost in the heart of Asia. There is an enormous difference not only geographically but in all kinds of facts there. Do you think (in dealing a with Kashmir) you are dealing with a part of UP or Bihar or Gujrat ?"
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech at public meeting in New Delhi, as reported in The Times of India, Bombay, July 7 1952.
"In any event, from the start India was committed to the principle of letting the final word regarding accession rest with the people of the princely states and there could be no getting away from that commitment. In fact, that was why India had accepted Kashmir’s accession only provisionally in 1947, pending the expression of the will of the people".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, August 7, 1952.
"... With all deference to this Parliament, I would like to say that the ultimate decision will be made in the minds and hearts of the men of Kashmir and not in this Parliament or at the UN.... First of all, let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of our people. The good will and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principle that this Parliament holds.... If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means; we will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions...
"I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense, and in spite of all we have done we would willingly leave Kashmir if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving, we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them at the point of the bayonet.
"I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign."
Joint Communiqué by Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, August 20, 1953.
"The Kashmir dispute was specially discussed at some length. It was their firm opinion that this should be settled in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State with a view to promoting their well-being and causing the least disturbances to the life of the State. The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite. Such a plebiscite had been proposed and agreed to some years ago. Progress, however, could not be made because of lack of agreement in regard to certain preliminary issues. The Prime Ministers agreed that these preliminary issues should be considered by them directly in order to arrive at agreements in regard to this. These agreements would have to be given effect to and the next step would be appointment of a Plebiscite Administrator".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
September 3, 1953.
"... We suggested the salutary rule that the Plebiscite Administrator should be chosen from some small and more or less neutral country of Asia or Europe. There are many such countries and there should be no difficulty in finding an eminent and impartial person from among them.
"As a result of the plebiscite over the entire state, we would be in a position to consider the matter, so that the final decision should cause the least disturbance and should take into consideration geographical, economic and other important factors.
"I should like to make it clear that there is no intention on my part to exclude the UN from this question of Kashmir. The Plebiscite Administrator would function under UN supervision but it seems to me quite obvious that while the UN can be helpful, any settlement must depend upon the consent and co-operation of India and Pakistan. Therefore, it is for us to agree and not to look to the UN to produce some settlement, without our agreement.
"... If we aim, as we must, at closer and co-operative relationship between India and Pakistan, we must find a solution of the Kashmir problem which is not only satisfactory to the people as a whole there but is also achieved without bitterness and sense of continuing wrong to India or Pakistan.
"... Obviously, the Kashmir problem is of high importance; in some way the most important problem before us, and we must tackle it".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Pakistan’s Prime Minister,
November 10, 1953.
"You refer to the question of regional plebiscite. I can only repeat what I endeavoured to put before you when we met. Our object is to give freedom to the people of Kashmir to decide their future in a peaceful way so as to create no upset, as we said in our joint statement...
"Therefore, I had suggested that the plebiscite should be for the State as a whole and the detailed result of the plebiscite would then be the major factor for the decision to be taken. The detailed result will give us a fairly clear indication of the wishes of the people not only in the state as whole but in different areas."
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, February 22, 1954.
"[The Constituent Assembly of Kashmir] did not come - it cannot come - in the way of our observing our international commitments in regard to a plebiscite, in regard to anything".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech, as reported in The Times of India, May 16, 1954.
"India will stand by her international commitments on the Kashmir issue and implement them at the appropriate time.
" The repudiation of international commitments would lower India’s prestige abroad".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in India Council of States, May 18, 1954.
"Every assurance we have given, every international commitment we have made in regard to Kashmir holds good and stands. Difficulties have come in the way and may come in its fulfilment, but the difficulties are not of our seeking but of others. But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands".
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, March 31, 1955.
"... Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir".

Part-II

Letter from Government of India to UN, December 31, 1947.
"... The people of Kashmir would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of plebiscite or referendum, which in order to ensure complete impartiality may be held under international auspices.
" This was also in accordance with Mahatma Gandhi's view, since he had stated that the India Government sent troops by air to Kashmir telling the Maharaja that the accession was provisional upon an impartial plebiscite being taken of Kashmir irrespective of religion".
Gopalaswami Ayyangar at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
"In accepting the accession they [the Government of India] refused to take advantage of the immediate peril in which the State found itself and informed the Ruler that the accession should finally be settled by plebiscite as soon as peace had been restored. They have subsequently made it quite clear that they are agreeable to the plebiscite being conducted if necessary under international auspices".
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
"On the question of accession, the Government of India has always enunciated the policy that in all cases of dispute the people of the State concerned should make the decision."
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
"... We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established".
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
"... Whether she [Kashmir] should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to India or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a member of the UN - all this we have recognised to be matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored there.
"We desire only to see peace restored in Kashmir and to ensure that the people of Kashmir are left free to decide in an orderly and peaceful manner the future of their State. We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established".
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January, 1948.
"The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbour 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 recognised to be a matter of unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored to them".
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 3, 1948.
"... As the Security Council is aware, the Government of India is fully committed to the view that , after peace is restored and all people belonging to the State have returned there, a free plebiscite should be taken and the people should decide whether they wish to remain with India, to go over to Pakistan, or to remain independent, if they choose to do so".
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 6, 1948.
"... When the emergency has passed and normal conditions are restored, she will be free, by means of a plebiscite, either to ratify her accession to India, or to change her mind and accede to Pakistan, or remain independent. We shall not stand in the way if she elects to change her mind. That, I think, is the proper description of India’s attitude."
Sir Benegal Rau, at Security Council, February 7, 1950.
" It is therefore clear that the admission of representatives from any particular State into the Indian Constituent Assembly did not necessarily imply accession. As I have said, Kashmir had this right to representation ever since April 1947; it acceded tentatively, in October 1947 so that the accession came after the grant of the right and not the other way round".
Telegram from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, August 16, 1950.
"We have not opposed at any time an overall plebiscite for the State as a whole but you made some alternative suggestions because you came to the conclusion that there were no prospects of an agreement as to conditions preliminary to such a plebiscite....
"We have always recognised that any plan for a plebiscite should be such that the people concerned would be enabled to express their feelings freely and without fear....
"It has always been our view that, in the event of a plebiscite, the people of Kashmir should decide their future for themselves. Kashmiris who have gone out of the State should, of course, be entitled to return for this purpose. But I do not think that others have any claim to participate in a plebiscite campaign."
B. N. Rao in Security Council, March 29, 1951.
"The Constituent Assembly* cannot be physically prevented from expressing an opinion on this question if it so chooses. But this opinion will not bind my Government or prejudice the position of this Council."
* Which was to be convened by the Kashmir National Conference for deciding the accession issue - ED.
Krishna Menon, Indian Representative at UN General Assembly, referring to Congo Problem, April 5, 1951.
"Irrespective of the voting of this resolution, an abstention or two, the fact is that is the law of the United Nations at the present time.... My government has always taken the view that resolutions, if they are passed, must be implemented."
Letter of September 11, 1951 addressed to the UN Representative for
India and Pakistan.
"As regards paragraph 4, the Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible."
Letter from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, September 11, 1951.
"... The Government of India agree that the Plebiscite Administrator should be appointed as soon as conditions in the State, on both sides of the cease-fire line, permit of a start being made with the arrangements for carrying out the plebiscite. To appoint the Plebiscite Administrator before would be premature.
"The Government of India would, therefore, prefer such a proposal to be omitted from the present document; it would be more appropriately included in proposals that deal specifically and in detail with the holding of the plebiscite and connected matters."
Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, at Security Council, December 8, 1952.
"We do not seek to go behind the UNCIP resolutions, or to ignore the vital elements of principle contained in them... We have always adhered to the UNCIP resolutions.... We cannot be a party to the reversal of previous decisions taken by the United Nations Commission with the agreement of the parties."
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, January 24, 1957.
"... I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken."
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 8, 1957.
"It is possible, for any sovereign state to cede territory. If, as a result of a plebiscite, the people decided that they did not want to stay with India, then our duty at that time would be to adopt those constitutional procedures which would enable us to separate that territory."
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 20, 1957.
"The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNCIP, the assurance given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight - that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not."
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, October 9, 1957.
"...These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it."
Krishna Menon, referring to Goa, The Statesman, Delhi, January 19, 1962.
" India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them."

Part-III

UN Commission for India and Pakistan, January, 1949.
"As a result of these conversations the Commission on December 11, 1948, communicated its proposals to the two Governments. The main points of those proposals were: that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by way of a free and impartial plebiscite, that the Secretary General of the UN would nominate in agreement with the commission a plebiscite Administrator who would be a person of high international standing and who would derive from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir the powers which he considers necessary to organise and conduct a free and impartial plebiscite....
"Both Governments... accepted the proposals and declared the cessation of hostilities in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as from January 1, 1949."
UN Mediator Dr. E. Graham’s proposals to UN September 7, 1951.
"The Governments of India and Pakistan:
"4. Reaffirm their acceptance of the principle that 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 under the auspices of the UN"
Proceedings of Security Council, January - February, 1957.
"On February 21, the Security Council requested its President (Gunnar Jarring of Sweden) to examine with the two Governments any proposal likely to promote settlement of the Kashmir issue having regard to the earlier resolutions of the Council and the UNCIP. By an earlier resolution of January 24, 1957, the Council had affirmed its old stand to determine Kashmir’s future by plebiscite and declared that any action by the Kashmir assembly and its support by the parties would not constitute disposition of the State in keeping with that principle."
Resolution adopted by Security Council on January 24, 1957.
"The Security Council:
"Having heard statements from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
"Reminding 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 1950, 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;
"Reaffirms the affirmation in its Resolution of March 30, 1951 and declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle;
"Decides to continue its consideration of the dispute."

CONCLUSION

Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, pursued a policy of deception, a rape of his own pious commitments and remained a perfect disciple of Hindu Political Statecraft i.e. Chanakiya. Dr. Ayyub Thukar makes an interesting comment:
" Sir Owen Dixon was once forced to affirm that, the fellow (Nehru) is lying. Others have said of him that in and out of office, he was fond of riding a high moral horse. He thereby not only threw dust in the eyes of the world, he also succeeded in deceiving himself. He finally arrived like a Humpty Dumpty, at the stage where words did not mean what they connoted, but what he said they meant".
The deception by the prominent successive Indian Leadership has been blasted off for good by the Nuclear Blasts in the sub-continent. The scenario in South Asia has changed. The entire world community now accepts that Kashmir is the root cause of bad blood between India and Pakistan. The carefully worked out strategy by India to put the Issue in the cold forever has failed. Kashmir has come into the limelight, despite all efforts by India to the contrary. It is time that India realises the gravity of the situation and tries honestly to end the sufferings of Kashmiris forever; who are fighting to gain liberty from Indian occupation. »

Source : KMS