Struggle Struggling To Be Acknowledged As A Struggle

By : Abu Moatism

Every now and then, we raise alarm, hue and cry that our demographics are either distorted, or tried to be distorted. Not only separatist camp, but even pro-Indian Kashmiri groups are very much serious about defending article-370 and thus its implications and the purpose. By all means, Kashmir is a Muslim region, its ethos, culture, traditions, values and psyche, whether in the form of echoing prayer calls from the minarets of Masajid, Ramadan festivities, Eid celebrations, Marriage ceremonies, burial processions, slogans or any other thing, Islam, our religion, does have a prominent and observable influence. What then happens to us, when somebody from among us, demands solution to Kashmir dispute on Islamic grounds? Why in this case, do we get confounded? Who, how and why has our psyche been modified to feel restless on this proposition? Why is this genuinely religious struggle, struggling to be acknowledged as a religious struggle.

In this regard, it will be our pleasure to share with you, our answers to a series of questions, asked to us in the capacity of the administrators of a face book forum “Kashmir – Integral Part of Global Islamic Khilafa state”.


Question: Kashmir is a pluralistic society and how can we ignore minority rights by imposing an Islamic solution? Do you, yet again want to kill and drive out minorities?

Admin Answer: Who said that Islam is hell bent to kill or drive out minorities? We Muslims cherish our ideals, which incorporate universal brotherhood, humanity, peace, love and mutual respect. Our religion is not devoid of such things, neither have we resigned to the allegations that pursuing an Islamic cause is preaching terrorism. If there is, or there was any atrocity committed, against Kashmiri pundits, it was not committed, by any religious organization, but by adherents of un-Islamic, secular and nationalistic ideologies. These perpetrators being Muslims do not provide any justification to blame Islam and doubt our sincere intentions to seek Islamic solution to our shared problems.

Question: We have UN resolutions and there is no mention of religion as far as solution to Kashmir dispute is concerned, why then should we seek anything on religious lines.
Admin Answer: UN resolutions came into being in the scenario of partition of Indian sub continent in 1947, which in turn was driven by religion. Then how is our struggle, not linked with the religion? Besides, when UN itself discriminates on the basis of religion, like in the case of Christian East Timor, where they played an active role, to get it liberated from Muslim Indonesia, then why should we abandon Islamic intercession in the matters of dispute and conflict?

Question: We should propagate and give more emphasis on Kashmiriyat than to religion. What is wrong, if we advocate our freedom struggle on the basis of kashmiriyat?

Admin Answer: If we adhere to kashmiriyat in principle, what about Ladakhiyat, Jammuiyat, Anantnagiyat, Soporiyat, Gilatiyat, Baltistaniyat, Srinagriyat and so many other local and regional sentiments. These sentiments are divisive in nature and have intrinsic flaw to bind people. Further loyalty to land is a western concept, and it not being divine, does not endorse any moral, ethical or religious constraints to commit atrocities, by people of one region against the people of other region. Kashmiriyat is Kashmir centric, it cannot be more than that and if it tries to widen its scope internally or externally, it will cease to be called as Kashmiriyat. Religion is universal and its message of love and peace incorporates even a distant non-state subject.

Question: We should be secular as far as seeking solution to Kashmir dispute is concerned, what wrong is there in secular solution, when secularism guaranties respect to all religions?
Admin Answer: This is a misconception that secularism means respecting all religions. Secularism actually disrespects all religions, nevertheless in equal proportion. It negates the concept of Ram Rajya, as well as the concept of Islamic system of governance, along with all the allied rules and regulations. It hates religion all together and advocates replacing divine systems with manmade, tailored doctrines. The fact is that, it is only religion that teaches to respect other religions.

Further, Islam’s dynamics allows for incorporating genuinely good things? We believe in taking care of our faith, which in itself means taking care of everything else, be it a good trait from democracy, socialism or even communism.

Question: Why cannot we seek solution on the basic of other religion than Islam?

Admin Answer: In Kashmir, Muslims are in majority and, is it rational to put into practice minority religion over majority. If it is, then why shouldn’t we attempt to have an Islamic system of governance in the entire India?

Question: What will be your stand, if India implements Hindu system of governance within its domain?
Admin Answer: Muslims never ever demanded that the church and the affairs of state should be segregated. Muslims never ever compelled India to embrace secularism. Muslims never ever compelled US or UK to enforce democratic set up. They either, themselves found discrepancies in their religious doctrines and abandoned them or else they wanted to get rid of moral code of conduct, based on divine principles. Personally, I believe, if Vedic rules and regulations are implemented in true spirit in India, Muslims inhabiting in there will be more safe and sound than now.

Question: Will UN and US acknowledge our religion based struggle? Will India concur to a solution based on Islam?
Admin Answer: India, UN and US already perceive and acknowledge us as Muslims and Muslims only, irrespective of the labels we try to put on. The good thing with them is that, they don’t discriminate among us, on the basis of our divide, be it sectarian, ethnic or jurisprudential. Further, post 9/11, it has become impossible even for secularists to bluff with them, by trying to wrap us in a secular cloak. Besides, disingenuous mudslinging against Muslims, genuine worry of rising extremism and subsequent bad-image has rendered this so called strategy obsolete. In either case, they won’t trust our secular credentials, even if we have some of them. Better present and promulgate our case honestly, openly, boldly and dexterously in the capacity of a Muslim. One must not forget that the hypocritical approach, at the outset is an unfair way of achieving any sacred objective. Besides trying to baffle them has a serious side-effect of baffling our own self, system and society.

Question: Religion will create trouble in seeking solution to Kashmir dispute?
Admin Answer: Can anybody prove it with reason and logic, that seeking freedom from India on secular grounds is easier than on religious grounds. So far, nobody has proved it to me. As a matter of fact, ground reality won’t change for India, for it, Azad-e-Kashmir is one and the same thing; pull-out from the occupied territory. If religious freedom for Kashmir has a potential to create religious hysteria in India, secular freedom too has a potential to incite regional sentiments like that of Tilangana sentiment, Marathi regionalism, sentiment of Dravidastan, Mangalorean regionalism, ULFA etc etc. However, for us, religious struggle, for its intrinsic potential to infuse sense of unity, religious fervor and consciousness among us, will be for sure advantageous and result oriented. Inshallah!

Kashmir: The Essence of the UNCIP Resolutions

When it comes to Kashmir or any other Muslim territory like Gaza etc. human rights, right to self determination and democratic principles become irrelevant. How hypocrite the west is. Raja Mujtaba

By Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

There exist a misperception that Pakistan has not implemented the UNCIP resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949. Indeed, this is an allegation, taken as an excuse by Indian authorities for the non-implementation of these two famous resolutions as well as many others.  India indeed, knew that, implementations of these resolutions would expose her act of aggression on Kashmir on October 27, 1947, against whom; Kashmiri were fighting a war of their national liberation from India. The fact of the matter is that, as a result of UNSC Resolution number S.726 of April 21, 1948, United Nations constituted a   five-member commission in June 1948 and named it as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). Its first meeting was held in Geneva on June 15, 1948.

To consult the Pakistani authorities, the Commission reached Karachi on July 7, 1948. During its meeting with Foreign Minister, the Commission was informed that for her own defence, Pakistan had sent some troops in Jammu and Kashmir.  Following the consultation with Pakistan, the Commission reached New Delhi on July 9, 1948 and carried out its discussion with the Indian leadership. It is on the record that, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, categorically told the members of the commission that, Pakistan must be forced to pullout its troops and its nationals from the state’s territory. India also compels the Commission to declare Pakistan as an aggressor state.

Sequel to consultation process with both countries, the members of the Commission drafted the first UNCIP resolution, which was adopted by UN on August 13, 1948. The resolution (S.995) asked both countries for the cessation of fighting in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The resolution had three parts. In the first part, both countries were asked to implement the ceasefire by issuing necessary ceasefire orders to the forces under the respective command of each country by an earliest possible date. In the second part, both countries were to accept certain principles for a Truce Agreement. In the third and the final part, the resolution made clear the decision for the future of the state would be through Plebiscite, where the people of the state would determine their right of self-determination. This indeed was the most alarming part for the India, as she knew that, Kashmiri would never opt for the India.

As demanded by this resolution, Pakistan government despite its security reservations, agreed to withdraw its troops and tribes men from the state’s territory. As regards India, it too accepted the contents of the resolution, but practically created many hurdles, in the implementation of the resolution, by raising many ifs and buts in the agreement. India agreed to withdraw bulk of its forces from the state, but after withdrawal of Pakistani forces and tribesmen. Local authorities under the UNCIP were to administer territory thus vacated by withdrawal of either side’s forces.  Nevertheless, the local authorities were practically under the India, the occupying power.

Since India was to maintain a reasonable force in the state’s territory until its final settlement, therefore, Pakistan, owing to its security reservations, sought necessary clarification from the Commission. However, later on, during informal conversation of the Commission with the representatives of India and Pakistan certain suggestions regarding the conditions and basic principles for holding the plebiscite in the state were communicated to both governments. Through various meetings between members of the Commission (UNCIP) and representatives of India and Pakistan, certain proposals / suggestions were later on accepted by both parties, which became part of UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949.

In the resolution of January 5, 1949, India and Pakistan were urged to implement the basic terms and conditions fixed in UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1947. In the UNCIP resolution of the January 5, 1949, it was made amply clear 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.” Subsequently, on July 27, 1949, both countries formally ratified the cease-fire Agreement at Karachi. Meanwhile military observers, appointed by UNCIP in its last resolution also reported about the progress to commission regarding the withdrawal of tribesmen/ Pakistani nationals in addition to some battalions of Pakistani regulars and some units of Indian Air Force. After prior consultation with India and Pakistan, the United Nations Secretary General appointed Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN, as a Plebiscite Administrator in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was to be formally appointed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir after settling the details of Permanent Truce Agreement. Since the authorities of the State were under India, therefore, its formal appointment was deliberately deferred by India.

Indeed, soon after the appointment of Plebiscite Administrator differences arose between India and Pakistan over the implementation of Truce  Agreement. India was insisting on the disbanding of Azad Kashmir forces and assurance for a control over Northern Areas by her forces (or to keep Northern Areas under State’s administration). Pakistan however, wanted that, these are the people of the State, therefore, should stay as such to perform the security duties. Moreover, there was practically no administration of the state itself. After a couple of meetings of the Commission with representatives of India and Pakistan (which failed), the UK and US President appealed to both governments (India and Pakistan) to accept the proposals of UNCIP. Pakistan, however, accepted this appeal but India rejected it.

However, by the end of December 1948, UNCIP got certain principles (which were supplementary to UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1948) accepted by the government of India and Pakistan. With these principles becoming part of the UNCIP Resolution of January 5, 1949, it was agreed that, the future of the state was to be decided through a fair and impartial plebiscite under the Plebiscite Administrator   (  A   high-ranking    person   of    international    standing   appointed    by      UN Secretary General). The Commission also promised to cater for human and political rights besides making necessary arrangements for the return of refugees who had left the state under unfavourable situation. Both the parties after clarifications given by the members of the commission accepted the proposals and declared cessation of hostilities in the state.

From January 1948 to May 1964, the United Nations Organization passed sixteen resolutions and carried out many debates/discussions concerning Jammu and Kashmir. It is the oldest unresolved issue present on the agenda of the United Nations Organization. In all of its resolutions, including resolutions of United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), United Nations Organization asked for a fair and impartial plebiscite to decide the future status of Jammu and Kashmir as per the wishes of its subjects. For implementing these resolutions, the UNO appointed its missions, mediators, and even nominated Plebiscite Administrator with various practicable suggestions / proposals to reach to a logical solution of the issue. However, owing to inflexible attitude of India, these efforts fell flat and could not become fruitful.

Originally published on Opinion maker

Son’s killing haunts Old City mother on Indo-Pak clash

Aisha shows a family picture at her residence in Srinagar's Old City. Photo: Izhar AliThe Indo-Pak clash in the cricket World Cup semi-finals has raised the cricket fever, like the rest of sub-continent, to a fervent pitch in Kashmir. Mouths wide open in nervousness, twitched eye brows, tension in the sitting rooms, all eyes glued to the Television screens, keen to not miss even a single moment of the clash.Not at the house of Aisha in Bana Mohalla locality of old city's Fateh Kadal area.

Up four stairs from the main door is a small room on the right, where she lies on the bed, X-rays hanging over her head. There is a silence and a stillness that lingers on her face and around. She is unmoved by the cricket fervor outside. An old TV set covered by a table cloth lies still. Not buzzing. A threefold photo frame is on a table next to her bed. It has family pictures.

For Aisha the India-Pak cricket fervor is an aching reminiscence. Years back she had thanked God for Pakistan’s victory over India. As she folded her prayer rug she came to know the victory had come for a price. It was too big a price. Her son.

Aisha’s son remains by her side captured in the photo. Tears brimming her eyes, it seems is the only sign of life on her old face. “This television was brought by my son. Cricket was not just a game, but obsession for him. He would forget everything else to watch Pakistan team playing,” she says, while pointing to the small black and white television.

“It doesn’t work anymore. But I always want it to remain in my sight,” she says.

On April, 22, 1994, Pakistan lifted the Australasia Cup defeating arch rivals India by a score of 39 runs. Pakistan’s victory in Sharjah triggered celebrations in Kashmir as well. Groups of youth and children poured on the streets in Fateh Kadal area of the old city to celebrate the Pak win.

Sweets, candies, firecrackers and pro-freedom and pro-Pakistan slogans marked the jubilations that brought old city to life. However, the celebrations didn’t last long.

A file picture of Imtiyaz taken days before he was killed by the CRPF after India lost to Pak in 1994Ayesha’s son Imtiyaz Ahmad, in his thirties, was returning euphoric after watching the game at his friends place in the neighborhood. Exuberant over Pak’s victory, he was celebrating the big moment. Minutes later, troopers came in charging. Anger and disappointment writ largely on their faces. They vent it out and Imtiyaz became their target.
“To revenge the defeat, they caught hold of my son and shot him twice till he died,” tearful Aisha says in feeble voice.

 Imtiyaz, an employee in University of Kashmir was the youngest of the eight siblings, including four sisters.An avid cricket fan, he would die for Pak’s victory and so he did.

Aisha manages to walk a few steps to reach the cupboard. In the cupboard is a steel trunk which has memories of her slain son treasured.

“There are the socks he was wearing on that day,” she says amid sobs.

Leaving the socks on the floor, she takes out a polythene bag containing some important documents and some memorable pictures of her son and other family members.

“She is Behanji; she is my daughter Maryam, this is her husband and here is my son Imtiyaz. This picture is of my daughter’s wedding,” she says a half-smile escaping her lips.

Suddenly, she breaks down again. Wiping the tears with her scarf she recalls, “It was Friday, Jumma-e-Muhammad (PBUH). After the game was over, we offered prayers and thanked Allah for bestowing Pakistan with victory. I was so happy that day.”

Victory became a loss.

“As I was walking down the stairs, gunshots replaced the firecrackers. Cries, screams and elegies replaced the slogans. I struggled to reach the main door, only to find my son lying in a pool of blood on the lane,” she laments.

An ailing Aisha remembers her son who was killed by troops in 1994. Photo: Izhar AliImtiyaz, she said, was cornered by the troopers as blood was profusely oozing from his chest.

Before, she could blink her eyes, she said, a trooper pointed his rifle on her son and shot at him again. “Yeh saala abhi zinda hain. Goli maro isko,” she quoted a trooper talking to his colleague.Imtiyaz’s last words were, “Go tell my mother that her son has been martyred.”After ‘cold-blooded murder’ the troopers, Aisha said, prevented her from picking up the body of her slain son. The troopers had warned her that she would be shot if she made advances.

“I asked them why they killed my son. I told them to shoot me as well. They pointed rifles and told me to go home,” she says in a choked voice.

The incident shattered the family and left Aisha in a state of shock. Sixteen years from now, she is yet to come in terms with the loss. “Like my son, I was crazy about cricket. Now, I don’t watch it anymore,” she says.

“Cricket reminds me of the painful death of my son. It was just a game. What was the fault of my son? Why was he killed?” asks a desperate mother while making failed attempts to hold back tears.


Published by Kashmir Dispatch

KASHMIR: THE LINES DRAWN WITH BLOOD

Rivers are red; blood is flowing in the rivers from Kashmir. Raja Mujtaba

By Brig Samson S Sharaf

The story of Kashmir is a Greek Tragedy with successive lines drawn in blood. The struggle of the aspirations of the people aside, it is also an endless tale of betrayals, geo strategic intrigues and cantankerousness.  The intrigues within, Nehruvian biases, Patel’s Machiavellism, the Kashmiri uprising followed by the tribal invasion, Radcliffe Award, the divided riparian, accession of Bikaner, Tibet, the Ceasefire Line and now the Line of Control.

If Narendra Singh Sarila the ex ADC to Lord Mountbatten is to be believed, all this was the fallout of the British geostrategic designs to contain a communist Russia and China. He goes on to write, “In agreeing to Jinnah’s project, the British also managed to whittle down Jinnah’s territorial demands to the minimum required for Britain to safeguard its defence requirements”. Plan for smaller Pakistan was not worked out by Mountbatten in 1947 as generally believed but by Lord Wavell in 1945”

Tragically, Pakistan’s unstinted support has been shadowed at crucial moments by the same overbearing allies. When I hear slogans like, ‘Kashmir runs in our Blood’, I often take it a prelude to forgetting the Kashmiri People and putting Pakistan’s interests first. But beyond the true aspirations of the people it also demonises those who played a role to stir the freedom struggle, amongst them, the Progressives of Lahore.

The late Professor Samuel Martin Burke, a founding member of Pakistan’s Foreign and Nuclear Policy understood the Congress and AIML mindsets. His books on framing of Indian Policy elucidate just that. He wrote that accession of Kashmir was crucial to Nehru’s dream of a rediscovered India of antiquity. A Muslim majority state suited his concept of secularism. Fabian socialism held a romantic appeal for the progressives, amongst them Faiz, Mian Iftikharuddin and Khan Abdul Qayum Khan who were also the Congress points men for Sheikh Abdullah, the symbol of resistance to the rulers of Kashmir. The division of Punjab ensured that India retained a land route to Kashmir, control of rivers and important head works in East Punjab. Bikaner, the State with biggest ammunition depots of united India ceded for these waters. In the days of Hind Chini Bhai Bhai and enamouring a socialist agenda, Nehru-Patel even traded off Tibet for Kashmir. These facts blow holes through Sarila’s belated revelations that undermine the struggle for Pakistan.

But the progressives of Lahore once the pride of Congress knew and challenged these motives. The trio of Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Dr. MD Taseer and Mian Iftikharuddin enjoyed close relations with both GM Sadiq and Sheikh Abdullah. Later Hafiz Jullundri and Maulana Daud Gaznavi also made efforts to win him over to the AIML. This is precisely why Indian historians label these gentlemen as shameless intriguers of Pakistani left and a blot on the history of left movement in the Indian sub-continent. But these stalwart leftist Muslim Leaguers were also a pain in the neck for the feudal Unionists who were to later become the power base of Muslim League in Punjab. Close to the partition and later, they effectively insulated Qaid e Azam from these leftists and later drew their blood through military regimes.

Radcliffe had hit Pakistan’s interests in multiple ways. The Indian plan for annexing Kashmir was obvious. It is debatable if Jinnah knew of the invasion plans. What is definite is that Dr. Taseer and Mian Iftikhar travelled repeatedly to Kashmir to galvanise support in favour of Pakistan.  They found an ally in Prime Minister Liaqat Ali who after the aborted visit by Mr. Abdullah in October 1947 gave the go ahead for the invasion. The invasion plans were a secret shared only with Khan Abdul Qayum Khan, Mr. Aslam Khattak, Khurshid Anwar and General Akbar. Some researchers write that an understanding to levels of over confidence existed between Jinnah and the Maharaja of Kashmir and that Jinnah was sure that Kashmir would join Pakistan. Ultimately, India managed to scare him to submission. Some opine that the tribal invasion was the catalyst.

A careful reading of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharajah Hari Singh is convincing to the minute legal details. It is a deliberate, well drafted and a sound document seeking to secure the immediate and long term interests of the Kashmir-India Nexus. In no way does it appear to be a document prepared in a hurry when Lashkars from Pakistan were knocking at the doors of Srinagar and Sheikh Abdullah threatening a local uprising. If we carry out an analysis on the amendments in the Constitution of India as regards Kashmir, it is revealed that the progression of amendments is chronologically congruent to the points enunciated in the Instrument of accession in that progressively all control ultimately shifts to India.

Field Marshal Manekshaw’s own memoirs challenge the Indian version and describe the confused state of mind of the Maharaja when he flew to Srinagar with V P Menon to get the Instrument of Accession signed. He writes,

“We went to the palace. I have never seen such disorganisation in my life. The Maharaja was running about from one room to the other. I have never seen so much jewellery in my life – pearl necklaces, ruby things, lying in one room; packing here, there, everywhere. There was a convoy of vehicles. The Maharaja was coming out of one room….Eventually the Maharaja signed the accession papers and we flew back in the Dakota late at night”.

If this be the state of the Maharaja’s Palace, how could he be logically expected to write such a fool proof document?  It is most probable that Sardar Patel and VP Menon with the help of some jurists first made amendments to the 1935 Act (a contravention of the Partition Plan) and finalised the Instrument of Accession.

Manekshaw’s memoirs also contradict the Indian assertion that the Maharaja wrote a letter on 26 October 1947 to the Government of India, the same day that Menon and Manekshaw landed at Srinagar. He also narrates that the entire entourage of Kashmiri Leaders led by Mr. Abdullah and those who later supported India were present at the Srinagar Airport lighting the runway with pine torches to see off Menon. This proves that these elements acted on the beck and call of Sardar Patel and Nehru to scare the Mahraja into submission and that Jinnah was right in ignoring them as double gamers.

The amended Government of India Act of 1935 provided in Section 6 that “a princely Indian state shall be deemed to have acceded to either of the dominion on the acceptance of the Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof” as a logical heir to the British Crown was legally misconceived. In the case of Madhav Rao, the Supreme Court of India found it strange that India should have claimed that the Government of India inherited any aspects of the paramountcy exercised by the British Crown. Again the Indian Supreme Court in Premnath Kaul and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in Magher Singh, observed that with the lapse of the British paramountcy, the princely Indian state became an independent and sovereign state in the fullest sense in international law a stand also taken by Pakistan. As the Governor General, it was Mountbatten’s duty to ensure that clauses of the Independence Act of 1947 should not have been changed by India in the 1935 Act and therefore declare the Instrument of Accession illegal. He did not do it and troops were airlifted to Kashmir within minutes for a pre determined occupation

Published by Opinion Maker

Endless Kashmir Movement

An Endless Journey Must End

By Sajjad Shaukat

India claims that Kashmir movement has slowed down and the situation is returning towards normalization. But since the partition of the Sub-continent, after passing through various faces, this war of Kashmir’s liberation has become an endless movement which continues unabated.

As regards the latest phase of Indian state terrorism, like the past, intermittent curfews, crackdowns, arrests, detentions and massacre by the Indian forces have continued against the non-violent mass uprising (Intifada) of Kashmiris. Thus more than 3000 innocent people have been killed during this new phase of the struggle.

In this connection, on July 10, 2010, a rigid curfew was imposed in most of Indian-held Kashmir (IHK), while shops and businesses were closed and public transport was off the roads after the All Parties Hurriyat Conference declared a strike. During strike, none of the nearly 60 newspapers published from Srinagar for four days.

Rocked by intermittent violence and unrest, the intensification of the uprising in the Indian controlled Kashmir could be judged from the fact that the Valley is now facing the threat of a civil disobedience as seven senior civil and police officers have refused to take up their duties. A large number of officers have refused to accept challenging assignments in different districts including Srinagar, Baramulla and Kupwara and preferred being posted in relatively peaceful areas of the state. Last year, following the killing of a youth in Baramulla district, the state government had ordered a reshuffle in the police administration.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International has urged India to immediately release the jailed persons in the Indian occupied Kashmir and repeal a harsh law that allows detention for up to two years without trial.

The current phase of Kashmir struggle began on August 12, 2008 when Indian forces killed Hurriyat Conference leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz along with five other persons who were protesting against the government decision to give land to the trust that runs Amarnath, a shrine of Hindus.

However, many innocent people have so far been massacred by the Indian security forces in the controlled territories of Kashmir since the new uprising started. It also includes the people killed by the Indian forces in the fake encounters. While, the issue has moved beyond the land allocation to the Kashmir’s Muslims, sparking a massive movement of Kashmiris, calling for their genuine right of self-determination.

Unlike the past, this time, Indian occupied Kashmir has become a special focus of world’s attention including India itself.

In this respect, Washington Post had reported on August 28, 2008, “Despite the government’s use of force, many Muslims in Indian controlled Kashmir seem determined to find peaceful ways to voice their aspirations as the nonviolent movement by the unarmed protesters flourishes, especially among the young.”

New critical situation has also affected other parts of India and its gravity could be judged from the fact that even Indian intellectuals have favoured the independence of the occupied Kashmir.

In its editorial, the editor of The Times of India wrote, “On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.”

The editor further elaborated, “We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India”. It was also admitted that subsequent state elections were also rigged in support of leaders nominated by New Delhi.

On August 16, 2008, Hindustan Times wrote: “Nothing has really changed since 1990s. A single spark such as the dispute over Amarnath land can set the whole valley on fire—Indian forces are treated as an army of occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor”. The paper further indicated, “The current crisis in Kashmir is a consequence of Indian establishment, raising the confrontation to a new level”. It realised that during the present demonstrations, “there is active hatred of India, threatening to further internationalise the present crisis. The world looks at us with dismay”. This Indian newspaper clearly suggested a referendum in the Valley, writing, “Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny—whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right of self-determination is the correct thing to do”.

It is of particular attention that demanding immediate withdrawal of Indian Army from the Indian controlled Kashmir, a renowned Indian author and book prize winner, Arundhati Roy, while criticizing the Indian media had already pointed out in 2005 that it failed to highlight the plight of ordinary Kashmiris, exposed to brutalities perpetrated by the Indian security forces.

As regards Indian delaying tactics in connection with the solution of Kashmir dispute, it has become fashion to blame Pakistan and its intelligence agency ISI for infiltration, using it as a pretext to crush the Kashmiri’s war of liberation which is indigenous as recognized by even Indian media.

Under the cover of ISI, New Delhi also wants to distract the attention of the west from its own atrocities, being perpetrated on the Kashmiris. In the recent past, hundreds of unidentified graves with more than 3000 bodies were discovered in the Indian-held Kashmir. Sources have accused Indian RAW of the custodial killings of the Kashmiri people through brutal methods. In this context, even the European Parliament has passed a resolution, condemning New Delhi for human rights violations.

Since 1989, India has deployed more than 500000 troops to quell the freedom movement of Kashmiris, but it cannot eliminate it at present as it could not do so through many years of oppression. Instead, a study report, prepared by Indian government revealed that Kashmirviolence has been affecting Indian forces’ psyche. In this connection, the report has disclosed that disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir have had adverse psychological problems found especially among the officers and Jawans such as an increase in short tempers, quarrelsome attitude, mental disorders and abnormal behaviour. Sometimes, the situation leads to suicide attempts or attacks on their seniors and colleagues.

Nevertheless, the Kashmir movement has entered the stage of ‘now or never’ due to the failure of Indian continued tactics of state terrorism such as curfew, firing at innocent Kashmiris, killings and arrests which could not reduce the strong determination of the people of the Valley, calling for freedom of their land.

At present, it is a turning point for the liberation of Kashmir as the Valley is burning and bleeding. It is ample clear that India still wants to equate the innocent Kashmiris with terrorism and is keen to continue its state terrorism in Kashmir. It does not show any serious willingness to settle this issue in accordance with the wishes of struggling Kashmiris. Every body will agree that it is the right hour to resolve this old dispute on which Pakistan and India fought three wars.

Nonetheless, the magnitude of the current movement is unprecedented in the history. The slogans for liberation in every nook and corner of India have strained New Delhi since independence. No doubt, Kashmir has reached the phase of solution. Taking cognizance of the new developments seriously at this sensitive juncture, Pakistani and Kashmiri leaders must take steps, making combined efforts to resolve this thorny issue. In this context, Pakistani government, Kashmir leadership, other Kashmiris, living in the Sub-continent and abroad must keep the tea pot boiling by highlighting the dispute, voicing the aspirations of the people for freedom.It is hoped that the day is not far away when the Kashmiris will be blessed with the fruits of independence.

Originally Published on  Opinion Maker

"I am a Stone Pelter "

by : Faizan Rashid

I work so hard for my freedom it’s beyond belief 

When I think of it I feel no fear just relief 

When I hold a stone in my hand I feel secure 

Coz I know, the hurt and pain will be no more 

I wipe the sweat on my head with clumsy fingers 

That smell of tear gas and bullet still lingers 

I think of freedom every day and night 

I know someday it surely will come to my delight 

I hardly care what’s wrong and right in fight 

I don’t love it; I’m just fighting for my Right 

Can’t wait to feel the freedom running through my vein 

Just the dream of it takes away my pain 

Nothing else matter when it’s YOU vs. ME 

I have no men to support but I’m the army 

My land is heaven or the closest I can get 

Until the day when my maker is met 

I don’t care for death 

I just want to be free 

And if you kill me for I ask freedom 

Then let it be…