Srinagar On 21th MAY

Authorities have imposed restrictions on civilian movement in Srinagar’s old parts to stall the Mirwaiz-led Hurriyat rally at Eid Gah today. The rally was part of Hurriyat’s week-long programme on the death anniversaries of Mirwaiz Molvi Mohammad Farooq and Khwaja Abdul Gani Lone

This is for the first time that the authorities decided against allowing the Hurriyat amalgam to take out a rally on the occasion. The decision not to allow the rally at Eidgah was taken at a high level meeting of police, intelligence and civil administration officials late on Friday evening.

Sources said that th decision came after Mirwaiz announced that Hurriyat Conference would lay a foundation for a Martyrs Memorial at the Eidgah graveyard. Some senior civil administration and police officials visited Mirwaiz’s residence on Friday night and asked him not to go ahead with the construction of the memorial. But after refusal from the Mirwaiz to fall in line, the authorities decided to impose ban on the rally.

Last year (2010), Syed Ali Geelan, chairman of the other faction of the Hurriyat, also announced to build a martyrs’ memorial wall at Eid Gah, which government foiled by imposing curfew restrictions in the city.

Eyewitness as also local residents, who could be reached over phone, said that strict curfew has been imposed in dozens of localities including Rajouri Kadal, Bohri Kadal, Saraf Kadal, Safa Kadal, Eid Gah, Nawa Kadal, Nowhatta, Hawal and other areas. They said that police and CRPF have been deployed in strength to curb the peoples’ movement.

Reports said that groups of angry youth defied restrictions at Nowhatta and pelted stones on police and CRPF. Clashes between angry youth and police were reported at Bohri Kadal and Rajouri Kadal as well.

The uptown areas of the city are paralysed under a shutdown. While all the shops and business house are closed, private transports however ply normally.

Police are reported to have arrested several youth in Srinagar during nocturnal raids on Friday. Senior JKLF leader Javaid Mir was arrested from his Zaiana Kadal house and lodged in Maharaj Ganj Police Station. Talking to Honour over phone he said that some half a dozen local youth had also been rounded up by police and lodged in police station.

Earlier police placed Syed Ali Geelani under house arrest on Thursday to thwart him from holding a public rally at Islamabad. Geelani has announced to hold public rallies at all district headquarters to press for the release of political prisoners. According to Geelani, around 1500 Kashmiri political leaders and youth are presently languishing in jails.

JKLF chairman Yasin Malik was also taken into custody on Friday to prevent him from addressing a public rally at Kangan.

India admits blunder and withdraws Pakistan 'Most Wanted' list

India on Friday withdrew a public list of most-wanted fugitives it wants Pakistan to extradite after discovering at least one of them was in a prison, the latest embarrassment for a government hit by corruption scandals and political slip-ups.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it had failed to update its records after one accused was arrested in 2010, meaning his name remained on a list handed over to Islamabad this March.
It is a setback for the government that has long accused Islamabad of aiding militant groups for attacks on India, including the 2008 Mumbai raids. The list was originally seen as adding pressure on Pakistan to act.
A second person on the list sent to Pakistan was earlier traced by local media to his home in western Maharashtra state. Another person on the website was extradited from Bangladesh to India in October, media reported.
Officials including Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, who initially laughed off reports of errors in the list, admitted responsibility.
"Error has been accepted. Responsibility will be fixed for the mistake," Internal Security Secretary U.K. Bansal told reporters.
The list included names of five Pakistani army men, the first time India has formally accused the powerful military of aiding militant attacks on India.
The embarrassment is a personal blow to Chidambaram, seen as one of the more efficient ministers in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's team, and it sparked calls for his resignation from the Hindu nationalist main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
It is also a setback for a Congress-led coalition government that has been perceived to be out of touch with the people due to its lumbering response to a series of high-profile graft cases and soaring prices.
The Congress party too has painted itself into a corner this week. Rahul Gandhi, seen as a prime minister in waiting, claimed the opposition-ruled Uttar Pradesh killed and incinerated farmers protesting against a $2 billion highway plan through their lands.
The claims came under immediate criticism from both the state government and media, which cast doubt on his charges. Many commentators said the controversy was a setback for Gandhi's campaign to portray himself as a future leader of India.

Kashmir- The Untold And Unread History.

By: Fariq Ahmed

Under the dogra rule kashmir has faced numerous atrocities, 1924 was the first ever revolt at silk factory by kashmiri’s who were only kept under forced labour. In 1930 plinth of “Muslim young association” was formed under Gulam Abaas,who in 1936 made revolutionary step of making “All jammu and kashmir muslim conference” with Sheikh Abullah… So the platform for Muslim conference was laid under Gulam abaas with Sheik Abdullah (who later betrayed), Obviously,it created panic among the leading political parties like Indian National Congress who left no stone unturned to break this unity and at last outshoot of Muslim conference was mad under the name of National conference (with nationalism concept). Thought both these parties initially found for Kashmir cause. When in 1940 pakistan act was accepted, Muslims of J&K tried to affiliate with Pakistan. So this became the political motive of Muslim conference. This led to mass arrest of activists and even exiled from their land. Still in 1947 Muslim conference won 15 seats out of 21, while other 6 were rejected candidates.
It was during World War II that revolution increased day by day even under harsh dogra rule…?”Almighty Allah knows my intensions” Insha Allah m peace loving but i can’t lie about history… Present govt. in j&k is Kashmir govt (i mean Kashmir CM) still killings continue; That too i accept. But i had to start from base….
With the idea of making two independent nations after the end of British rule, it was decided at “chambers of princes” that a state having Muslim majority will go to Pakistan and states with Hindu majority will go to Hindustan. This was already accepted baseline, but it was also mentioned states who match in culture, language, geography should join with respective nation… It was 19th July 1947 when Muslim conference put forth their points to affiliate with Pakistan before the maharaja of Kashmir. In it was written ”Muslim conference has reached to conclusion that according to geographical reality, Proportion of Muslims (80%), link with main rivers of Punjab, culture, economy, language etc Kashmir should get affiliated with Pakistan” But maharaja was playing diplomacy game… Maharaja on one hand was accepting points of Muslim conference but was having silent talks with Hindustan. This was most dangerous plan building for Muslims.
On 15th august 1947 “stand still agreement was made between maharaja and Pakistan which only give Pakistan a temporary position of affiliation. On the other hand maharaja was building links with many terrorist groups like RSS etc to eliminate the majority in Kashmir. September 1947 marked the start of mass genocide of Kashmir Muslims and whosoever was left alive was sent to Pakistan. Girls/women’s were kidnapped and youths were killed in mass. This was what was happening inside Kashmir, Britishers also give a pump to This war by making entry of Hindustan easy through gorda sopore.
Now Muslims realized about the dual nature of maharaja and started to revolt. In this regard poonch was the first area who revolted with weapons in October 1946.This fire slowly spread to entire valley. Maharaja tried to ward off this movement but he got nothing, even west Pakistan came to help and entered poonch. Maharaja tried to hide himself in Jammu. To make his place secure in Jammu, he gave orders of mass killings which counted for lakhs of lives at RS pura border area wich was Muslims majority area. It was turned to muslin minority and Sikhs from Punjab were forced to live there .. As mass killings continued in Jammu, still volunteers from Kashmir and west Pakistan came to rescue and as Maharaja was at brim to extinct. He requested Hindustan for a treaty. Defense commute accepted it in no time and Army landed in Jammu and Kashmir.
From that time till now they are residing In j&k. It should be borne in mind that the treaty was a temporary one only to fight against volunteers. So the fight was between armed, well equipped, trained Hindustan army and unarmed volunteers. Air force was also used and by may 1948 war reached to borders of Pakistan. Pakistan retaliated but was less advanced than Hindustan in terms of arms and ammunition.
This issue was brought under notice of Security council. Hindustan presented the issue in completly different format on 1 Jan 1948, wherein Pakistan complained on 15 Jan 1948. Now war reached from land to council. This was the time when Security council passed some important resolutions for J&K.
After a year of discussion at Security council it was on 13 august 1948 and 25 jan 1949 that cease fire resolution and resolution for being “Kashmir as disputed part” was given……

Disputed territories: Call for true autonomy, equal rights for G-B, AJK

Speakers demand constitutional safeguards; redefining views on Kashmir.

ISLAMABAD: 

A paradigm shift in Pakistan’s decades old stance on Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) is needed alongside genuine autonomy and equal rights at par with other provinces without altering UN resolutions on Kashmir.

This was the consensus of participants in a forum on “Proposed Constitutional Amendments in the Constitution of Pakistan for Empowerment of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan” organised by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT).

Participants also called for an end to bureaucratic rule and interference from Islamabad in the internal affairs of the two regions and ensuring genuine democracy in AJK and G-B. The participants, including political leaders, former presidents, prime ministers of AJK, former diplomats, retired military officers, journalists and legal experts, were near unanimous that Pakistani rulers are treating the two regions like colonies and are not honouring the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions regarding Kashmir and G-B. They called for giving equal representation to the people of AJK and G-B in Pakistan’s parliament.

Justice (retd) Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani, Former acting Chief Justice of the AJK Supreme Court, presented his discussion paper on the proposed Constructional Reforms. “AJK and G-B should provisionally be given at least the same quantum of autonomy (without changing their status) as given to the provinces of Pakistan,” he stated in his presentation.

Suggesting a few amendments in the Constitution of Pakistan, he stressed that these amendments would not affect the status of the disputed state, nor Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir dispute. “The state is disputed but rights are not disputed,” he said. While analysing the proposed amendments, Daily Pakistan Editor in Chief Mujibur Rehman Shami said, “If we recognise AJK and G-B as provinces then we should give them an equivalent number of seats in the Senate of Pakistan.”

Raja Farooq Haider Khan, Former AJK Prime Minister, said the powers given in article 31(3) should be given to the Pakistan Government and the rest should be given to the AJK government. Former IGP Afzal Shigri believed that rights should be given to those people who want to join Pakistan and struggled for it. Gen (retd) Muhammad Aziz Khan, a former CJCSC, was of the view that maximum autonomy should be given to AJK and G-B.

Asif Ezdi, an analyst, believed that there is a ‘constitutional limbo’ over AJK and G-B status. Mosharaf Zaidi suggested that strategic calculations should be kept in mind when ever we discuss any constitutional, administrative or legal change. Inamul Haq, former foreign minister, while commenting on the topic said that it is only in the ambit of the UN Security Council that Pakistan can stand internationally on Kashmir. Ghulam Abbas, Editor Daily K2, said that UN Security Council doesn’t deny fundamental rights of the people of AJK and G-B, therefore these constitutional amendments should be acted upon.

Amina Ansari, member G-B Legislative Assembly, said that people of G-B are part of Pakistan who voluntarily joined Pakistan. She objected to the legality of the G-B self governance order.

Haroon Khalid, a politician from G-B, commented that G-B is a strategically important part of Pakistan, therefore this region should be given its due importance. Dr Riffat Hussain, a political analyst, was of the view that any effort to empower people of AJK and GB would undermine India’s stance of denying rights to those areas.

Khalid Sultan, Director General Civil Services Academy and Former Chief Secretary AJK, said that the only way to protect the rights of AJK and G-B could only be done through amendments in the constitution.

Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, Executive Director PILDAT, said that the constitution status of AJK and G-B should be reviewed as it has been ignored in the mainstream political and constitutional structure of the country for almost half a century.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 19^th, 2011.

Jammu & Kashmir Must Release Or Charge Teenage Protestor :AI Report

The Jammu and Kashmir authorities must immediately release or charge a teenage anti-government protester who was rearrested this week after spending three months in administrative detention, Amnesty International said.

Murtaza Manzoor, 17, was briefly released from prison on Wednesday after the High Court found that his administrative detention was unlawful. He was immediately rearrested by police.
Amnesty International said it is likely that a repeat administrative detention order for Murtaza Manzoor will be passed, allowing police to detain him without charge or trial for up to two years.
"The police in Jammu and Kashmir are playing a game with the judiciary. Courts order a person's release only for the police to wait outside prison to re-arrest them. This farce should stop," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director.
"Murtaza Manzoor must be released immediately, unless he is charged with a recognizable criminal offence. If so, he should be remanded in custody by an independent court and his rights as a child should be recognized. The authorities must not order his repeat administrative detention."
Although he is 17 years old Murtaza Manzoor is being treated as an adult because the laws of Jammu and Kashmir define boys above the age of 16 as adults. This contravenes both Indian law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir has said that the laws will be amended to make them consistent with international law and standards.

"We can clearly see the need to amend the law in Jammu and Kashmir because teenage boys are held in jails with no special facilities for juveniles," said Sam Zarifi.

Police arrested Murtaza Manzoor on 21 January in the state capital Srinagar. He was accused of attempted murder, assault and rioting, based on allegations that he led a June 2010 protest against the Indian government that turned violent and resulted in protesters rioting and pelting police with stones.
On 8 February, fearing that Manzoor would be released on bail, police placed him in administrative detention under the highly problematic Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), which allows for up to two years’ detention without charge or trial.

On 13 May the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir found Murtaza Manzoor's detention to be unlawful and ordered his release.On 18 May, instead of being released to his father who was waiting outside the Kot Bhalwal Jail, Murtaza Manzoor was escorted from the prison by four policemen of a specialist counter-insurgency team and taken to the Joint Interrogation Centre at Jammu.

Police told his father that Murtaza Manzoor would be kept at the interrogation centre for a few days before being handed over to a police station in Srinagar. "Murtaza’s case illustrates the ‘revolving door’ nature of detentions widespread in PSA cases, as documented in Amnesty International’s recent report: A Lawless Law,” said Sam Zarifi. “ Murtaza Manzoor's family was not given any information on the alleged offences for which he is being held. Amnesty International said it believes his detention may be unlawful.

At least 322 people are reported to have been detained without trial under the provisions of the Public Safety Act in Jammu and Kashmir from January to September 2010 alone.A number of them, including children, have been detained on similar grounds of stone pelting and rioting during various protests against the Indian government throughout the summer of 2010.

READ MORE

Child at risk of detention without charge (Urgent action, 19 May 2011)
Jammu and Kashmir urged to release teenage protester held in administrative detention (News, 15 April 2011)
India: A 'lawless law': Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (Report, 21 March 2011)

Kashmir Dispute In Its Historical Background

The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India. The exchange of fire between their forces across the Line of Control, which separates Azad Kashmir from Occupied Kashmir, is a routine affair. Now that both India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons potential, the possibility of a third war between them over Kashmir, which may involve the use of nuclear weapons, cannot be ruled out. Kashmir may be a cause to a likely nuclear disaster in South Asia, which should be averted with an intervention by the international community. Such an intervention is urgently required to put an end to Indian atrocities in Occupied Kashmir and prepare the ground for the implementation of UN resolutions, which call for the holding of a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

Cause of the Kashmir dispute :-
India’s forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 is the main cause of the dispute. India claims to have ‘signed’ a controversial document, the Instrument of Accession, on 26 October 1947 with the Maharaja of Kashmir, in which the Maharaja obtained India’s military help against popular insurgency. The people of Kashmir and Pakistan do not accept the Indian claim. There are doubts about the very existence of the Instrument of Accession. The United Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. Except India, the entire world community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian subcontinent was partitioned by the British in 1947 justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: the State had majority Muslim population, and it not only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan but also had essential economic linkages with the territories constituting Pakistan.

History of the dispute:-
The State of Jammu and Kashmir has historically remained independent, except in the anarchical conditions of the late 18th and first half of the 19th century, or when incorporated in the vast empires set up by the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Mughals (16th to 18th century) and the British (mid-19th to mid-20th century). All these empires included not only present-day India and Pakistan but some other countries of the region as well. Until 1846, Kashmir was part of the Sikh empire. In that year, the British defeated the Sikhs and sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh of Jammu for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar. Gulab Singh, the Maharaja, signed a separate treaty with the British, which gave him the status of an independent princely ruler of Kashmir. Gulab Singh died in 1857 and was replaced by Rambir Singh (1857-1885). Two other Maharajas, Partab Singh (1885-1925) and Hari Singh (1925-1949) ruled in succession.

Gulab Singh and his successors ruled Kashmir in a tyrannical and repressive way. The people of Kashmir, nearly 80 per cent of who were Muslims, rose against Maharaja Hari Singh’s rule. He ruthlessly crushed a mass uprising in 1931. In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah formed Kashmir’s first political party—the All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference (renamed as National Conference in 1939). In 1934, the Maharaja gave way and allowed limited democracy in the form of a Legislative Assembly. However, unease with the Maharaja’s rule continued. According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and ethnic issues.

In Kashmir, however, the Maharaja hesitated. The principally Muslim population, having seen the early and covert arrival of Indian troops, rebelled and things got out of the Maharaja’s hands. The people of Kashmir were demanding to join Pakistan. The Maharaja, fearing tribal warfare, eventually gave way to the Indian pressure and agreed to join India by, as India claims, ‘signing’ the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. Kashmir was provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial plebiscite. This was spelled out in a letter from the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharaja on 27 October 1947. In the letter, accepting the accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the State would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. Having accepted the principle of a plebiscite, India has since obstructed all attempts at holding a plebiscite. In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir. During the war, it was India, which first took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on 1 January 1948 The following year, on 1 January 1949, the UN helped enforce ceasefire between the two countries. The ceasefire line is called the Line of Control. It was an outcome of a mutual consent by India and Pakistan that the UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed several resolutions in years following the 1947-48 war. The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948–one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir—stated that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. UNCIP Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC resolutions.

Nehru’s betrayal :-
India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a pledge to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with these resolutions. The sole criteria to settle the issue, he said, would be the “wishes of the Kashmir people”. A pledge that Prime Minister Nehru started violating soon after the UN resolutions were passed. The Article 370, which gave ‘special status’ to ‘Jammu and Kashmir’, was inserted in the Indian constitution. The ‘Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly’ was created on 5 November 1951. Prime minister Nehru also signed the Delhi Agreement with the then ‘ruler’ of the disputed State, Sheikh Abdullah, which incorporated Article 370. In 1957, the disputed State was incorporated into the Indian Union under a new Constitution. This was done in direct contravention of resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP and the conditions of the controversial Instrument of Accession. The puppet ‘State’ government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed rushed through the constitutional provision and the people of Kashmir were not consulted.
In 1965, India and Pakistan once again went to war over Kashmir. A cease-fire was established in September 1965. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bhadur Shastri and Pakistani president Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Declaration on 1 January 1966. They resolved to try to end the dispute by peaceful means. Although Kashmir was not the cause of 1971 war between the two countries, a limited war did occur on the Kashmir front in December 1971. The 1971 war was followed by the signing of the Simla Accord, under which India and Pakistan are obliged to resolve the dispute through bilateral talks. Until the early 1997, India never bothered to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan even bilaterally. The direct foreign-secretaries-level talks between the two countries did resume in the start of the 1990s; but, in 1994, they collapsed. This happened because India was not ready even to accept Kashmir a dispute as such, contrary to what the Tashkent Declaration and the Simla Accord had recommended and what the UNSC and UNCIP in their resolutions had stated. The government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, after coming to power in February 1997, took the initiative of resuming the foreign secretaries-level talks with India. The process resumed in March 1997 in New Delhi. At the second round of these talks in June 1997 in Islamabad, India and Pakistan agreed to constitute a Joint Working Group on Kashmir. But soon after the talks, India backtracked from the agreement, the same way as Prime Minister Nehru had done back in the 1950s by violating his own pledge regarding the implementation of UN resolutions seeking Kashmir settlement according to, as Mr. Nehru himself described, “the wishes of the Kashmiri people.” The third round of India-Pakistan foreign secretaries-level talks was held in New Delhi in September 1997, but no progress was achieved as India continued dithering on the question of forming a Joint Working Group on Kashmir. The Hindu nationalist government of prime minister Atal Behari Vajpaee is neither ready to accept any international mediation on Kashmir, nor is it prepared to seriously negotiate the issue bilaterally with Pakistan. ” Popular uprising since 1989 ” Since 1989, the situation in Occupied Kashmir has undergone a qualitative change. In that year, disappointed by decades-old indifference of the world community towards their just cause and threatened by growing Indian state suppression, the Kashmiri Muslim people rose in revolt against India. A popular uprising that has gained momentum with every passing day—unlike the previous two popular uprisings by Kashmiris (1947-48, first against Dogra rule and then against Indian occupation; and 1963, against Indian rule, triggered by the disappearance of Holy relic), which were of a limited scale. The initial Indian response to the 1989 Kashmiri uprising was the imposition of Governor’s Rule in the disputed State in 1990, which was done after dissolving the government of Farooq Abdullah, the son of Sheikh Abdullah. From July 1990 to October 1996, the occupied State remained under direct Indian presidential rule. In September 1996, India stage-managed ‘State Assembly’ elections in Occupied Kashmir, and Farooq Abdullah assumed power in October 1996. Since then, the situation in the occupied territories has further deteriorated. Not only has the Indian military presence in the disputed land increased fundamentally, the reported incidents of killing, rape, loot and plunder of its people by Indian security forces have also quadrupled. To crush the Kashmiri freedom movement, India has employed various means of state terrorism, including a number of draconian laws, massive counter-insurgency operations, and other oppressive measures. The draconian laws, besides several others, include the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), 1990; the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (amended in 1990); and the Jammu & Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, 1990.

Most densely soldiered territory :-
The Indian troops-to-Kashmiri people ratio in the occupied Kashmir is the largest ever soldiers-to-civilians ratio in the world. There are approximately 600,000 Indian military forces—including regular army, para-military troops, border security force and police—currently deployed in the occupied Kashmir. This is in addition to thousands of “counter-militants”—the civilians hired by the Indian forces to crush the uprising.
Since the start of popular uprising, the Indian occupation forces have killed thousands of innocent Kashmir people. There are various estimates of these killings. According to government of India estimates, the number of persons killed in Occupied Kashmir between 1989 and 1996 was 15,002. Other Indian leaders have stated a much higher figure. For instance, former Home Minister Mohammad Maqbool Dar said nearly 40,000 people were killed in the Valley “over the past seven years.” Farooq Abdullah’s 1996 statement estimated 50,000 killings “since the beginning of the uprising.” The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)–which is a representative body of over a dozen Kashmiri freedom fighters’ organizations—also cites the same number. Estimates of world news agencies and international human rights organizations are over 20,000 killed.
Indian human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir include indiscriminate killings and mass murders, torturing and extra-judicial executions, and destruction of business and residential properties, molesting and raping women. These have been extensively documented by Amnesty International, US Human Rights Watch-Asia, and Physicians for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists (Geneva), Contact Group on Kashmir of the Organization of Islamic Countries—and, in India, by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, the Coordination Committee on Kashmir, and the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples’ Basic Rights Protection Committee. Despite repeated requests over the years by world human rights organizations such as the Amnesty International, the Indian government has not permitted them any access to occupied territories. In 1997, it even refused the United Nations representatives permission to visit there. Settling the Kashmir Issue For decades, India has defied with impunity all the UN resolutions on Kashmir, which call for the holding of a “free and fair” plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Not just this. A massive Indian military campaign has been on, especially since the start of the popular Kashmiri uprising in 1989, to usurp the basic rights of the Kashmiri people. Killing, torture, rape and other inhuman practices by nearly 600,000 Indian soldiers are a norm of the day in Occupied Kashmir.
The Kashmir problem will be solved the moment international community decides to intervene in the matter—to put an end to Indian state terrorism in Occupied Kashmir and to implement UN resolutions. These resolutions recommend demilitarization of Kashmir (through withdrawal of all outside forces), followed immediately by a plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the future status of Kashmir. The intervention of the international community is all the more necessary, given the consistent Indian opposition to both bilateral and multilateral options to settle the Kashmir issue. Such an intervention is also urgently required to stop the ever-growing Indian brutalities against the innocent Muslim people of Kashmir, who have been long denied their just right to self-determination.

Averting a Nuclear Disaster:-
If the world community failed to realize the gravity of the Kashmir problem now, there is the very likelihood of Kashmir once again becoming the cause of another war between India and Pakistan. And, since both the countries have acquired overt nuclear weapons potential, and since India led by Hindu nationalists has clearly shown its aggressive intentions towards Kashmir after declaring itself a nuclear state, a third India-Pakistan war over Kashmir is a possibility, a war that may result in a South Asian nuclear catastrophe. The world community, therefore, has all the reasons for settling Kashmir, the core unresolved political dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi.
Like many other international disputes, the Kashmir issue remained a victim of world power politics during the Cold War period. When the dispute was first brought to the UN, the Security Council, with a firm backing of the United Sates, stressed the settlement of the issue through plebiscite. Initially, the Soviet Union did not dissent from it. Later, however, because of its ideological rivalry with the United States, it blocked every Resolution of the UN Security Council calling for implementation of the settlement plan. In the post-Cold War period—when cooperation not conflict is the fast emerging norm of international politics, a factor that has helped resolve some other regional disputes—the absence of any credible international mediation on Kashmir contradicts the very spirit of the times. An India-Pakistan nuclear war over Kashmir? Or a settlement of the Kashmir issue, which may eventually pave the way for setting up a credible global nuclear arms control and non-proliferation regimes? The choice is with the world community, especially the principal players of the international system.