Rethinking Kashmir

Guest Post By: Farhana Qazi

Defined by tourist cliches and brilliantly crafted one-liners, the disputed territory of Kashmir is a backpacker’s haven and “paradise on earth.” And while charmingly seductive, the idyllic landscape is beset by a sense-of-siege and is home to millions eager for change and consistency. Nearly two-decades of conflict and on-and-off talks between nuclear arch-rivals India and Pakistan have had few meaningful results. Deeply disappointed by Indian and Pakistani political ploys, people on both sides of the mountain passionately push for peace, either through active participation in much-talked-about-protests or political party meetings that are all-inclusive. Outside of government, residents of the conflict, many of whom are bewitched by deaths and disappearances of friends and foes, undertake risks to release information and record present grievances. Without the people of Kashmir, high-level talks will fail to alter the status-quo of aggressive policies, artificial politics, and animated street protests. The latest issue to haunt the valley is the discovery of mass graves and cyclical human rights abuses-neither issue is new to the residents of Kashmir, but a common narrative they have become achingly accustomed to. In Buried Evidence, a multiauthored publication by The International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir, the death toll between 1989 and 2009 is listed as well over 8,000-these include enforced or involuntary disappearances and an additional 70,000 or more were found dead. The authors contend that a history of “violence and violation” of human rights abuses result in anguish and anxiety among the population. In the summer of 2008, the international community offered a limited response to the mass graves discovery. For example, the European Parliament passed a resolution to denounce disappearances, detentions and deaths since the outbreak of conflict, calling for an impartial and independent investigation-similar to requests being made by international human rights organizations this year. Three years later, the same story repeats itself. This summer, Amnesty International and India’s Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission released reports with terrifying statistics of the dead and disappeared-a report that Indian authorities have repelled, despite outside pressure for transparency. The imbroglio over unmarked and unknown mass graves in Kashmir raises doubt and deepens distrust with the ruling elite. Amnesty’s report highlights a fundamental question of whether the Indian state is legitimate or lawful in its “occupation” of Kashmir-an instrumental issue that is debated. Discussion of the ongoing dispute has had a chilling effect and on the local population. The impact of unsettled policies has taken its toll on the youth. In a recent interview, a Srinagar-based doctor, who wished to be unnamed, expressed his concern that the youth of Kashmir are unable to cope in an unending and unresolved conflict. As a physician, he points to the youth’s increasing use of over-the-counter or inexpensive drugs. The doctor noted, “The trauma of war contributes to an ailing society. Most people suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. To live, Kashmiris are on drugs. We are all sick. Even children take cheap medicine to fall asleep. What will happen to our youth? They have no coping mechanism.” A temporary respite from rage, drugs masquerade the desperation and depression that local residents share. Countless stories of women as told by journalists, including my own collection of mourning, discredit India and Pakistan’s attempt at negotiation. Without taking into account the narrative of violence and a vicious cycle of neglect, the South Asian leaders’ initiative to engage one another is just that-a media blunder that masks the agony and affliction local Kashmiris have harbored for nearly six decades. The Kashmiri people are determined to seek a political solution. Aware of India and Pakistan’s recent overtures to resume dialogue, local communities on both sides of the border watch for signs of prosperity. High-level meetings between the two arch-rivals may be a significant step, though historical record of previous attempts at dialogue proves that neither India nor Pakistan is willing to make critical concessions. Interviews of local residents sport a business-as-usual attitude. A young lawyer in Srinagar admitted, “All the leaders are playing with the blood of martyrs. That is injustice.” A similar distrust expressed by other Kashmiris with their party leaders highlights the failure and fiasco of local officials to take seriously a collapsing society. A Kashmiri law student in exile indicated, “Every political party is vested in itself, with no regard for the people. Until they learn to serve the people, there is nothing India and Pakistan can do to settle the dispute.” A divided Kashmir may present opportunities for India and Pakistan in the short-term, but long-term inadequate policies will encourage strategic encirclement. To move forward on Kashmir, India and Pakistan may need an Arab ally to help South Asian rivals redesign their ambitions for Kashmir to ensure a longer time-table for progress. An outside negotiator has the potential to allow New Delhi and Islamabad to stitch together a political model that involves the people of the valley. Absent an outside collaborator, India and Pakistan risk reducing Kashmir to symbolic gestures, sensationalized by the international press as disingenuous and dishonest

. — Farhana Qazi is a senior lecturer on Pakistan and Islam for the US government. She can be reached at farhana331@gmail.com

TERRORIZING THE TERRORIZED

By: Koshur Mazloom

When crusaders started their crusade against Muslims, they obliterated everything which they encountered on their way. They massacred women, children and old without any mercy. Christian crusaders were blinded by religious fanaticism.

They laid the foundation stone of what in modern times is called, ‘Religious Fanaticism’ and which is strengthened by ‘terrorism’. But still no one talks about Christian crusaders today. When George. W. Bush announced his "War on Terrorism" he called it a ‘Crusade’. What a dilemma. ‘Crusade against Terrorism’. In other words “Terrorism against Terrorism”. Let us not forget, Western bigots have been preparing the ground for this ‘Crusade’ since long. World Trade Center attack by Osama (no one though proved through a trial that it was he who attacked WTC but then he has already been punished for his unproven guilt) was a watershed event. Western media left no stone unturned to blame Muslims for the act. Fox news of United States of America pasted the caption ‘War on US’ over the TV screen for months altogether. They used to write war in green letters and US in blood red. This implied war on US was declared by green army of Muslims. Slowly and steadily they were successful to change the perception of their people about Muslims and message was clear. Muslims are not any ordinary people but are all terrorists. This was further emphasized by G.W. Bush by his slogan, "Crusade against Terrorism". For him ‘Crusade’ meant holy war and ‘Terrorism’ meant Muslims. However for us ‘Crusade’ meant Terrorism and ‘Terrorists’ meant Muslims. And we tasted that crusade. G. W. Bush managed to slaughter one million 'terrorists' read Muslims in Iraq and still counting. His crusade which started from Afghanistan is going on with venom still today. Thousands of Afghans and Pakistanis have lost their lives and still counting there as well. So, modern day Crusade has achieved far better results for them than the old times crusade. In modern day crusade they did not find any Salah u Din Ayubi to confront them.

But still question remains, How can they justify to their future generations that whatever they did was not terrorism? How can they prove that Muslims were all terrorists or all terrorist were Muslims? Let us leave that to their future generations to question and judge. Let us observe with objectivity and with facts provided by them only, how much role Muslims played in terrorizing them.

Muslims are Terrorists

"All Muslims are terrorists" was the accusation. When the hypocrites who made this statement realized no one in their right mind would believe that all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world could be terrorists, they reversed the statement to sound more objective and fair: Thus they modified it and claimed, “All Muslims may not be terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.” Average American will continue to watch the mainstream media day in, day out and see pictures of “Muslim terrorists” flashed across the screen or spoken about for hours on the radio. Here are some hard facts to make it clear that every perception is not a reality.

The Facts

According to the FBI database, there have been 318 terrorist incidents in the US from 1980-2005. That includes 209 bombings and 43 arsons. Out of those incidents, 42% were committed by Latino groups, 24% by Extreme Left Wing groups, 7% by Jewish Extremists, 6% by Muslim Extremists, and 5% by Communists.

A RAND Corporation [funded by the U.S. government] report titled

“Would-be Warriors” reveals some very interesting facts:

Not a single U.S. civilian has been killed by Muslim extremists since Sept 11, 2001.

Only 3 out of 83 acts of terrorism between 9/11 and 2009 were done by Muslim extremists. Most were by animal rights and environmental activists.

There was more terrorism in the 1970s than the 21st century. There were over 60 terrorist incidents per year on U.S. soil, most of them being bombings. That’s 15 – 20 times more terrorism than post 9/11.

Europol’s report titled “EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report” showed that 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006-2008 were committed by Muslim extremists. That means 99.6% of terrorist attacks were by non-Muslims, most of which were separatists and leftists.

U.S. Terrorist Organizations

If you were asked to name five major terrorist organizations in the US, how many could you name besides al-Qaeda? Most people couldn’t name more than one. So here are some to help you balance the distorted view that the media feeds you with:

Animal Liberation Front: Is known for sabotaging animal testing facilities, etc. The FBI explicitly said that ALF is the “leading domestic terrorist threat.”

Alpha 66 and Omega 7: Cuban exiles opposed to anyone who takes a moderate approach to Castro. They are responsible for many bombings.

Army of God: Anti-abortion and anti-gay. Known for bombing at least two abortion clinics, a lesbian nightclub, and the Summer Olympics in 1996. They believe that Anglo-Saxons are the only true children of God.

Aryan Nations: A white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and Christian Identity group. The RAND Corporation described it as the “first truly nationwide terrorist network.”

Black Liberation Army: They carried out a series of bombings, robberies, and prison breaks.

The Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord: Another Christian Identity organization.

Earth Liberation Front: Eco-terrorist group. The FBI in March 2001 said that it is the number one domestic terrorist threat.

Jewish Defense League: Founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, they executed at least 15 terrorist attacks in the U.S. [more than al-Qaeda] and are responsible for at least 60 bombings.

Ku Klux Klan: A white supremacist, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic group.

Militia Movement: An anti-government movement. One common tactic is to explode pipe bombs at government facilities. They have about 20,000-60,000 members in the U.S.

Phineas Priesthood: Another Christian Identity movement that is against interracial intercourse, homosexuality, abortion, and multiculturalism.

Symbionese Liberation Army: A far left organization.

United Freedom Front: A Marxist organization responsible for at least 20 bombings and 9 bank robberies.

The Weather Underground: A far left organization responsible for at least 45 bombings between 1970 – 1977.

Ejercito Popular Boricua [Boricua People’s Army]: They have been demanding independence of Puerto Rico from U.S. imperialism.

New World Liberation Front: A far-left organization responsible for at least 70 bombings in the Bay Area alone.

International Terrorist Organizations

Of course, terrorism is not only an American phenomenon, but exists worldwide. Here are some examples abroad:

Aum Shinrikyo: Japan. A new religious movement responsible for the 1995 Sarin Nerve Gas attacks in the Tokyo subway.

All Tripura Tiger Force: India. Their goal is to expel all immigrants of Tripura. 90% of members are Hindu and 10% are Christian.

Babbar Khalsa: India/Canada. A Sikh religious organization that blew up a 747 jet in 1985 killing 329 people [including 280 Canadian citizens].

Communist Party of India (Maoist): Prime Minister Singh said that they are “the single biggest security challenge ever faced by our country”. They have killed over a thousand people.

Provisional Irish Republican Army: Ireland. They have killed over 1800 people.

ETA (Basque Homeland and Freedom): Spain/France. They have killed almost a thousand people.

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK): Turkey. A Socialist/Nationalist party demanding independence.

New Peoples Army: Philippines. A Communist organization.

National Liberation Front of Corsica: France. A separatist organization.

Justice Commandos Against Armenian Genocide: They have been trying to force Turkey to admit to the historical Armenian genocide. Responsible for at least 23 terrorist attacks.

Notable U.S. Terrorist Attacks

The following is a very brief list of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to make it clear that American terrorism is as American as cherry pie.

1910: Bombing of the L.A. Times Building by James and John McNamara who wanted to unionize the paper.

1920: Wall Street bombing by followers of Luigi Galleani with 100 pounds of dynamite that killed 38 people and injured 400.

1927: Bath, Michigan Bombings by Andrew Kehoe who was angry over taxes. He set off three bombs killing 45 people [including 38 students].

1971: Bombing of the U.S. Capitol Building by the Weather Underground in protest against the U.S. invasion of Laos.

1972: Bombing of the Pentagon by the Weather Underground in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi.

1975: Bombing of the Department of State Building by the Weather Underground in response to war escalation in Vietnam.

1976: Hijacking of Cubana Flight 455 by CIA-linked Cuban exiles who killed all 73 people on board.

1978-1995: Unabomber Attacks by Ted Kaczynski who sent letterbombs to academics and other influential people.

1995: Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols who killed 168 people.

1996: Centennial Olympic Park Bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph for which President Clinton called “an evil act of terror”. This was the largest pipe bomb in U.S. history.

2001: Anthrax Attacks by Bruce Edwards Ivins.

2007: Virginia Tech Massacre by Seung-Hui Cho who killed 32 people. He likened himself to Jesus Christ and expressed his hatred of the rich.

2010: Austin IRS Attack by Andrew Joseph Stack who flew an airplane into the IRS building because he was mad at the government.

2011: Tucson Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords where Jared Lee Loughner shot nineteen people.

Image is Everything

It is obvious that media gives maximum coverage to ‘Muslim Terrorism’ and usually labels it so and in other cases little coverage is given and the nomenclature is usually confined to ‘terrorism’ only without any prefixes before the word terrorism.The only statistics that are missing is the amount of media coverage per terrorist incident or group. It shouldn’t surprise anyone now that Muslims usually receive the most coverage despite the fact that they are near the bottom of the list when it comes to terrorist activity.

Now that the facts are clear, do you think anyone would dare to rephrase the statement and end with “almost all terrorists are…” Latinos, leftists, environmentalists, Christians, Sikhs or Jews? I doubt it. This twisted logic is only applied for Muslims, not anyone else. No never. It will be considered a blashphemy and anti - semitism. But for Muslims no rules apply. Muslims are still the dreaded terrosits for them despite being slaughtered day in and day our in the name of 'Crusade against Terrorism'. Who wil turn the tables on them and call their criminal crusades, as acts of real terrorism. But then we Muslims do not posses Fox TV and CNN to do that job for us. We possess only collaborators in our ranks and puppets on thrones. Our media is an extension of their media. No one among us is ready to bust their myths. We have only been given a job of pleading not guilty and playing as victims which we actually are. But no one is ready to accept that. Hope our future generations will not take these things as a norm . Hope they will confront them. Hope !

Koshur Mazloom © 2011

AFSPA has no legal sanction

Disturbed Area Act expired in 1998

Amidst the deafening noise of the heated debate that is going on the issue of the proposed partial withdrawal of the dreaded Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from some select parts of Jammu and Kashmir, the bare fact that the said law have no legal cover or sanction and that its provisions are being invoked deceitfully as the same have no legal sanction or cover. As per the statute book, provisions of AFSPA can be invoked by the Army and other paramilitary forces only in areas that fall within the purview of the Disturbed Area Act DDA). That is, AFSPA can come in operation only in those areas which have been declared as being ‘disturbed’ under the provisions of the DAA.

As per the official records, We could lay its hands on, Jammu and Kashmir was brought under the purview of the DAA in 1990 by the then Governor Jagmohan, when entire Kashmir valley was caught in unprecedented militant violence and there happened to be no trace of any governance worth its name. At that time, Jagmohan invoked the provisions of DAA to confer special powers to the police (not Army), special powers to conduct searches, arrest those suspected of being involved in militancy related activities and also the power to open fire on what could be called as ‘unlawful assemblies’. That time, Army was not formally called to deal with the militancy and instead this job remained entrusted to the otherwise non-operational police and paramilitary forces.

The promulgation of Governor Jagmohan was to remain in force till July, 1992, when the centre invoked the provisions of AFSPA, as the state continued to remain under the direct central rule.

Incidentally, AFSPA, during this period, remained in force only because the state, which was for all practical purposes under the direct central rule, had declared Jammu and Kashmir valley as “disturbed”. In July 1992, with the armed rebellion only spreading, the President — the state was by now under President's rule — re-enacted the law and since then it was extended by the parliament every year, till a civilian government was formed in Jammu and Kashmir in 1996, with National Conference ‘sweeping’ the polls and Farooq Abdullah taking over as the chief minister of the state.

In 1997, National Conference government brought an enactment before the state legislature, replacing the old disturbed Area Act that was promulgated in 1992, by the President. The enactment adopted by the two houses of the state legislature in 1997, lapsed only a year after, 1998 and was never extended after that by the legislature.

This means that in the eye of the law, Disturbed Area Act is no longer applicable in any part of Jammu and Kashmir and consequently the dreaded AFSPA has lost its validity as the latter can be operational only in the areas that stand declared as ‘disturbed’, under the DAA. If one goes strictly by the provisions of the law, then from 1998, AFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir is being invoked in gross violations of the law and all the actions taken under the Act are illegal and unconstitutional.

Jammu and Kashmir’s Law secretary G H Tantray is on record to have confirmed that “The Act, enacted by the Assembly in 1997 to replace the old Disturbed Areas Act, 1992 lapsed only a year later in 1998”.

For quite some time it is being argued on behalf of the proponents of AFSPA that unless Disturbed Area Act is not withdrawn by the state government the law remains in force. They dare the state government to issue notification for the withdrawal of the DAA if it seriously and sincerely wanted to revoke AFSPA.

State government, on its part, might well decide to withdraw the Disturbed Areas Act, but doing that would be nearly impossible, because the law doesn't exist anymore on the statute book.

In fact, former Deputy Chief Minister, Muzafar Hussain Baig, who also held portfolio of Law in the previous government, pointing to this glaring illegality and impropriety had moved a resolution during the 2009 budget session of the Legislative Assembly calling upon the House to declare the existence of AFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir as ‘illegal and unconstitutional’ as the DAA no longer was operative in the state. Baig contended that when the very source from which the AFSPA derived its powers and authority was non-existent, how AFSPA could be in operation.

However, ironically, the Omar Abdullah government, which is now very vocal in calling for the revocation of AFSPA, vehemently opposed the resolution moved by Baig.

October 27, 1947: Dakota in my dell

Guest Post By: Sameer Bhat

Autumn wind rustled in the terrified vale. In the chimneys of Srinagar, nestling birds shuffled. A DC-3 Douglas Aircraft Company Transport Airplane (called Dakota in brief) was heard in the sky around 8.15 in the morning. The dull camouflage paint suggested that the propeller-driven plane belonged to the Royal Air Force (gifted to the newly formed Dominion of India). Commandeered by Biju Patniak (who later went on to become the CM of Orrisa), the DC-3 had 17 soldiers of 1-Sikh regiment on board. The bumpy flight had just crossed Pir Panchal and was going to significantly alter the course of history in the subcontinent. Its first attempt to land on the ramshackle Srinagar airstrip was not successful.

Lt Col Dewan Ranjit Rai, the commanding officer of the party was getting edgy.

He asked the pilot to fly low on the airstrip again, this time, to ensure that no raiders were around. Also since the first hasty attempt to land was abortive, Plan B was to turn back to Delhi. Instructions from PM Nehru’s office were clear: If the airport was taken over by the enemy, you are not to land. Taking a full circle the DC-3 flew ground level. Anxious eye-balls peered from inside the aircraft – only to find the airstrip empty. Nary a soul was in sight. The raider party – also called Tariq’s raiders (after Gen Mohammad Akbar Khan of Pakistan’s 13 Frontier Force Rifles, codenamed Gen Tariq) were busy distributing the war booty amongst them in Baramulla.

Four days ago the fiercely combative Afridi tribals with active help from the Pakistan army, galvanized by reports of the mass murder of Muslims in Jammu, attacked Kashmir. Codename: Operation Gulmarg. Everything went according to plan for the Pakistanis. A few hours after the daredevil blitzkrieg was launched on October 24, 1947, Muzaffarabad fell. On October 25 the tribal militia, backed by regular army troopers, reached Uri. By evening the tiny town was captured. Mirpur and Poonch looked vulnerable. The Maharaja’s troopers were absolutely no match. The Pakistani onslaught was ferocious, sudden and swift. By the morning of October 26, 1947 the advancing squad was knocking at the doors of Baramulla. By afternoon the most important township in north Kashmir was taken. The same evening a feeble Hari Singh fled Srinagar, anticipating savage raiders – any moment — to drag him out of his Hari Niwas palace to impale him.

Ofcourse the moment never came. The uncouth raiders in the words of Gen Mohammad Akbar Khan (Brigadier-in-Charge, Pakistan, in War for Kashmir in 1947) himself: ‘Delayed in Baramulla for two (whole) days for some unknown reason’. The loot and orgy in Baramulla continued well into the morning of October 27, 1947. Around that same time the DC-3 hovered over the airspace of the still independent Kashmir. Later Indian claims that its forces landed on the Srinagar airport — only after signatures on the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja and the Indian government were obtained — is riddled with some confusion and disputed. Be as it may the Dakota quietly touched down, almost unnoticed at 8.30am. For the first time — ever — India was in Kashmir to help. Sometimes in history friends can cook up a storm.

A total of 704 sorties right from the morning of October 27, 1947 till November 17, 1947 meant that the tribals were totally routed by the more professional Indian army. PM Nehru was ecstatic. On November 2, 1947, the PM spoke to the nation from All India Radio. Nehru was pointed: [Quote] We are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide — And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir. [Unquote]

The matter went to the UN which announced a ceasefire of hostilities, pending a plebiscite. Pakistan still holds onto a part of Kashmir. The Indian army continues to increase its footprint in Kashmir and at present constitutes the highest military-civilian ratio anywhere in the known world.

63 years later, the battle for Kashmir wages on.

Postscript: Col Rai was killed in Kashmir a day after he landed. Gen Tariq was jailed under the Rawalpindi conspiracy case but was later released and went on to become the chief of national security under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

The day Maharaja went for Kashmir Accession

Guest Post By: ZAHOOR HUSSAIN BHAT

On October 26, 1947, the State of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to the Dominion of India when its ruler Maharaja Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession and the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten accepted the instrument. With this Maharaja handed-over the Valley to India. This was the time when thousands of tribal groups had raided the State. By the Instrument of Accession, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir accepted three subjects as ones on which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for the State. They were: Defence, External Affairs and Communication. While accepting the Instrument of Accession Mountbatten put forth the condition that as soon as peace is restored in Kashmir the people of Kashmir should confirm the Accession of the State.

On October 27, 1947 Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. The landing of troops in Srinagar was justified by Government of India by stating that troops were sent as was requested by the ruler of the state; and only after he had decided to accede to the Indian Union. However M J Akbar, the author of Nehru’s biography, has expressed doubts about Hari Singh’s formal request for assistance. He writes, “Nehru and Patel were both determined to send the army into Kashmir whether Hari Singh asked for them or not”.

Historians are of the view that the strongly nationalistic Kashmiris were fearful of joining India given the communal holocaust raging elsewhere in India during the Partition. This is clearly articulated in a famous speech by Sheikh Abdullah on October 22, 1947 where he explains the apprehension of the Kashmiri Muslims in joining India, given the massacre of Muslims in Kapurthala and elsewhere in India. However, Abdullah would consent to provisional accession to India on October 27 clearly stating that it was a provisional accession ultimately to be decided by a plebiscite.

The Maharaja made an order on October 30, 1947 appointing Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as “the Head of the Administration with power to deal with the emergency” and appointed a twenty three member Emergency Council “pending the formation of the Interim Government”. By a proclamation issued on March 5, 1948 the Maharaja decided “to replace the Emergency Administration by a popular interim Government and to provide for its powers, duties and functions, pending the formation of a fully democratic Constitution”.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir was then governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1939. Justice Dr. A.S Anand, an eminent judge, opined in his book, ‘The Development of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir’: “The Government of Jammu and Kashmir did not accept the Constitution of India as a Constitution for the State.

Despite the accession, the State was still to be governed by the old Constitution Act, 1939. This was because the Government of India had given an undertaking that the people of Kashmir could frame their own Constitution. The Government of India could not force the State to accept the constitution (of India), for that would violate the agreed terms of the association of Kashmir with India. The State had voluntarily surrendered three matters only (Defence, External Affairs and Communication) and the Government of India could not enlarge the sphere of its jurisdiction at its own discretion”.

On November 2, 1947 speaking on all India Radio Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “Destiny of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people who live in it. We have given this promise not only to people of Kashmir, but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it”.

On November 25, 1947 Nehru informed the Indian Parliament that we have suggested, “When people of Kashmir are given a chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial court such as United Nations Organization”.

Nehru in a famous speech at Lal Chowk made it clear that the wishes of Kashmiri’s regarding the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be consulted in a plebiscite or referendum. He would repeat this promise time and again in various speeches from 1947-1951 and the 1948 Indian White Paper clearly records that the accession of Kashmir to India is provisional until such time as the will of the people of the State could be ascertained by a plebiscite.

On November 1, 1947 Mountbatten held a meeting at Lahore with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah & Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Nehru on the justification of illness failed to attend meeting.

Pakistani leaders made it clear that accession was based on fraud and violence and was not genuine.

Nehru approached the UN Security Council to seek its help to settle the issue. On January 1, 1948 the Security Council of United Nations was called upon by India under article 34 and 35 of Chapter VI of the United Nations. In Indian complaint it has been pledged that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invaders and normal conditions restored its people could be free to decide their future by the democratic method of plebiscite or referendum which in order to ensure complete impartiality might be held under international auspices.

The Security Council met on January 15, 1948. The Indian delegation also included Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, head of Interim Government under Indian occupied Kashmir. The Indian representative referred to note of Mountbatten on instrument of accession that question of State’s final accession should be settled by reference to the people of Kashmir. Pakistan’s representative protested against Indian forces in Kashmir. He said that in the presence of Indian forces people of Kashmir could not express free will. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister made a forceful speech for five hours and made a history in records of United Nations. On January 20, 1948 Security Council by resolution No.39, established the United Nations Commission on India & Pakistan (UNCIP). On February 8, 1948 discussions in the UNO broke down on the question of free administration, as India wanted Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah to continue as head of the administration during plebiscite or referendum.

Negotiations again resumed in March 1948 in UNO and on April 21, 1948 a resolution was passed according to which Government of Pakistan was asked to withdraw from Jammu & Kashmir all its forces, tribal & Government of India was asked to reduce her forces to minimum strength after which plebiscite be held on the question of accession of State to India or Pakistan. The resolution asked for U.N delegation to proceed to sub-continent at-once. It did not condemn Pakistan as aggressor as desired by India nor it touched upon the legal aspect of Kashmir’s accession to India. The UN Security Council resolution of April 21, 1948, clearly states that the final status of Jammu & Kashmir should be decided through an impartial plebiscite held under the auspices of the world body.

The United Nations resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949, proposed the plebiscite option for resolving the Kashmir dispute. These resolutions laid down the principles and procedures for a free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices. Both India and Pakistan accepted the United Nations Resolutions. However, later, differences arose over the interpretation of various clauses of the resolutions, especially on the issues of demilitarization and disbandment/ disarming of the “Azad Kashmir” forces. India gave its own interpretation to the agreement and suggested that the Azad Kashmir forces be disbanded and the defence and administrative responsibility of the region be given to India and Indian Kashmiri authorities.

Pakistan, on the other hand, was in favour of a complete and simultaneous withdrawal of forces by both countries. By early 1948 Nehru had developed second thoughts about the plebiscite. The Indian leadership from the very beginning was aware that the majority of Kashmir was against accession with India and after dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah in August 1953 the alienation among Kashmiri people became increased.

Indian Constituent Assembly in 1949 adopted Article 370 of the Constitution, ensuring a special status and internal autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir with Indian jurisdiction in Kashmir limited to the three areas: defence, foreign affairs and communications. This was confirmed by Abdullah in 1952 Delhi Agreement and the State was allowed to have its own flag. In reality, Article 370 which was envisioned as a temporary measure till self-determination has been seriously eroded over years with the collusion of local ministers installed in rigged elections, by extending various articles like 356 and 357 to the State, by virtue of which the Centre can assume the government of the State and exercise its legislative powers.

Today, Kashmiri’s are worse off than people in other States in many respects: having been denied rights, Article 370 eroded and repressive acts such as Armed Forces Special Powers Act which lead to arbitrary arrests, torture and killing of thousands of innocent civilians.

What AFSPA & PSA Actually Is?

THE ARMED FORCES (JAMMU & KASHMIR) SPECIAL POWERS ACT, 1990:

The Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Ordinance, introduced in July, 1990,was later enacted by the Parliament of India and enforced on 10th September, 1990. When certain areas are declared to be “disturbed”, the army and paramilitary forces are granted sweeping powers under Section 4 (C) of this Act. The armed forces can be used in aid of civil authorities and even a non commissioned officer can search any place, stop/seize any vehicle, fire at any person (and kill), or arrest him even on the basis of suspicion with no obligation to inform him of the grounds thereof. It gives the Indian security forces sweeping powers that facilitate arbitrary arrests and detention and extra judicial executions as well as destruction of property. The provisions of the black law are further violated in the occupied Kashmir by the security forces. Under the law, an arrested person is to be handed over to the nearest police station. But it is seldom done. Besides, the armed forces personnel are supposed to act as and when requested by the civilian authorities. In other words, the former should work under the direction of the latter. However, factually the security forces are inflicting atrocities on the Kashmiris without informing the civil administration. The State government has proved ineffective in controlling the Indian security forces, who have unleashed a reign of terror in occupied territory. The Act legitimizes barbarism in the State, as under Section 7, the security forces are given an immunity from prosecution for any act committed by them.

JAMMU & KASHMIR PUBLIC SAFETY ACT,1978

The Act promulgated in 1978 (amended in 1987 and1990) empowers the State government to detain a person without trial for two years under the pretext of maintenance of public order. The Act fell short of the recognized norms of justice, such as equality before law, the right of the accused of appearance before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, fair trial in public, access to counsel, cross examination of the witnesses, appeal against conviction, protection from being tried under retrospective application of law, etc. Even the provisions of the Act, though already unsatisfactory, have been consistently violated. The detainees are not informed of the reasons of their arrest and they are kept in custody for a much longer period of time than stipulated in the Act. They are not allowed to meet their relatives and counsels. The amendment of 1990 extended its operation beyond the State, enabling the State machinery to keep the detainees in the jails of India, outside the State. Under Section 22 of the Act, any legal proceeding against officials for acts “done in good faith” are also disallowed.The law has been widely used against the innocent Kashmiris as well as political opponents. Thousands of people have over the years been detained under the Act.