Mass Graves In Occupied Kashmir : A Matter Of Concern

The confirmation of unnamed mass graves by the Human Rights Commission in occupied Kashmir has sent shock waves across the globe. A report released after a probe by the investigation wing of the Commission revealed that it is beyond doubt that there are as many as 2156 unidentified bodies buried in unmarked graves at 38 sites in Baramulla, Bandipore, Handwara and Kupwara areas of North Kashmir. The report said that all these bodies with bullet injuries were handed over by the police to the local population for burial and were classified as unidentified militants (Mujahideen).

This is for the first time that any official body has made such disclosures. Earlier in 2008, the International Peoples' Tribunal on Kashmir in its report had disclosed the presence of such over 2700 graves across the occupied territory.

Subsequently, the European Parliament had passed a resolution on July 10, 2008, demanding of India to conduct an impartial and thorough probe into the matter to ascertain the identity of those buried in these graves but New Delhi is yet to respond to the demand.

All these graves are believed to contain the bodies of those who have been killed by Indian police and troops in fake encounters and in custody over the years. The disclosures have raised concern among the family members and relatives of those over ten thousand innocent Kashmiris who have been subjected to custodial disappearance by the occupation forces during the past 22 years about their safety.

As this report of the Commission is based on the verified findings of its own team of investigators there is nothing to question its authenticity but unfortunately, and to nobody's surprise, the first reaction of the puppet administration of the occupied territory was that the report was 'yet to be seen' by the concerned authorities. This kind of attitude speaks volumes about the seriousness of the authorities towards bringing the truth to fore.

Unfortunately, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have been facing the worst kind of Indian state terrorism for the past over sixty-four years just for challenging its illegal occupation of their soil. Indian troops under the protection of draconian laws like Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Public Safety Act and Disturbed Area Act had been committing gross human rights violations in the occupied territory to suppress the Kashmiris' just struggle for securing their inalienable right to self-determination. During the last two decades alone more than one hundred thousand Kashmiris have been killed, thousands have been disappeared in custody and hundreds of others continue to remain behind the bars for demanding this right.

The Hurriyet leadership and the human rights activists of the occupied territory in their reaction to the revelations have maintained that the discovery of the mass graves have vindicated their stand that the occupation forces are engaged in the genocide of the Kashmiris. The world rights bodies like the Amnesty International have also expressed concern over the matter demanding its impartial probe.

The civilized world cannot afford to ignore these shocking revelations. India should come forward and bring forth the facts by identification of the dead bodies. For this purpose it should start DNA testing without any delay as this method is used and acknowledged across the world and give exemplary punishment to the erring personnel. Moreover, it is also responsibility of the international community to impress upon New Delhi to fulfill its obligations towards the issue. It should also hold India accountable for committing war crimes in the occupied territory if any foul play is proved. If it is done, it will help in stopping the occurrence of such incidents in the territory in future.

Two New Indian Army Camps In The Offing In Occupied Kashmir

In occupied Kashmir, in contravention to the growing demand of troops withdrawal, the Indian army is planning to set up two more camps at over 800 kanals of land in the Islamabad district.

The residents of the district said that the Indian army camps would be established at 896 kanals of land, transferred to Indian army by the authorities in 1980s. One such camp will be set up near Nowshehra village of the district, they added.

Residents of Mahind, Nowshehra and Hatigam in Bijbehara areas said that the puppet regime had transferred more than 800 kanals of land to the Indian army, which was in the process of setting up a huge cantonment there.

“Army could be seen carrying out different exercises onthe land including digging underground bunkers and erecting signage”, they maintained.

The administration is allowing the Indian army to set up new camps in rural areas that too at the cost of fragile forest land,” said a local. “We own the orchards and the agricultural land in the area where the camp is being set up. So if the camp is established we will not be able to move to our orchards and that will be rendered useless,” said the locals.

The Indian army is also trying to occupy even the proprietary land for setting up of a camp in the area.

Confirming the transfer of 896 kanals of land to the Indian army in the area a top revenue official posted in the area said, “Yes the army is setting up a big camp in the area”.

The state of affairs in Kashmir University; Perspective of a student activist.

With despair I compose this message to express the real state of affairs in Kashmir University as far as student activism is concerned. The activities of Congress backed NSUI & the statements made by the officials of KU are a matter of great concern to the stake holders of the varsity. I would like to convey my displeasure by the following points:

1. The recent press release of NSUI which was published in local dailies communicate that their membership drive was a success by recruiting 475 voters in KU. If you have a look at the official website of NSUI, you can find the member list of J&K and KU in particular, wherein the complete list of the students involved in this heinous affair is available even mentioning the department & the batch they belong to. It comes as a surprise to see that the total no. of students out of the 6000 plus students of KU is only 110. Out of the 110, only 37 votes have been polled. And out of these 37, 80% belong to a particular batch of Dept. of Law.

2. It is but obvious from the list that NSUI has published on their website that they have managed to rope in only one or two pro-active workers who belong to the particular batch of L.LB. Logical instinct leads me to believe that these pro-active workers either have a pro-Indian family background or have some support from a faculty member of the department.

3. The PRO of Kashmir University recently issued a press release wherein he mentioned that NSUI does not exist in varsity, based on the information found on the website either the PRO’s statement Is blatant lie or KU administration is not doing their job well.

4. Authorities in KU had banned every sort of student activism as they say it does pertain to academics. I would like to question what according to them comprises the domain of academic activism. Is it the unfair recruitments (an example being a student of home science being appointed as PRO), Is it the sponsored meeting of selected few with Indian ministers of the rank of Kapil Sibal & Rahul Gandhi or Is it the cases of alleged sexual harassment by officials of University (Zafar scandal) or is it the Christian conversion controversy with some professors being allegedly involved in it.

5. Talking of political activism which the authorities fear & over which the KUSU office was demolished, I want the authorities to make their stand clear whether they think protesting against the Shopian Double rape & murder case and killings of innocent school going youth amounts to politics.

6. According to my information the election of this 35 member voter list was held at the residence of a lady who calls herself Rabia Baji & claims to be a revert . She runs an NGO which facilitates social programs for CRPF & Indian Army. The recent Shehar-e-Khaas U-14 cricket tournament played at the Kashmir University grounds where General Hasnain & IG of Indian police SM Sahai were chief guests was also facilitated by her. I would like to question this “Baji” how in the world does she fit in, to facilitate NSUI elections.

7. Taking into consideration the volatile environment in Kashmir majority of the students cannot afford to put their careers & lives at stake by aligning themselves with the real representatives (HURRIYAT-G) of the people, for they have no desire to become a resident of another unmarked grave. So, I wonder what the KU administration is really afraid of. It’s but obvious the suppression of genuine student voice is a pretext to inhibit us from speaking on behalf of the people of Kashmir.

8. I honestly believe that even this voter list is fake & these 110 students in the list of NSUI have been fold into something they have no idea of. They should come out in public as far as their stand over this matter is concerned or else their silence will be taken as admission to the guilt they are involved in.

9. Some students pursuing MBBS in GMC & JVC are also a part of the voter list. It should be of no surprise that out of these students majority of them with their names like Rahul & Akash are from Jammu.

10. All these activities & the silence of local pro-Indian political parties compelled me to believe that it all is a part of big conspiracy which has been hatched to strengthen the roots of Indian military occupation in Kashmir & to show to the outside world that Indian sentiment is prevalent amongst the youth of Kashmir, with some important officials of KU being a part of this conspiracy.

It is my appeal to the pro-people intellectuals of Kashmir to speak & question the KU administration on my behalf, for their silence will amount to acceptance of defeat.

Martyrs Charged By Police

Five persons killed in police and security forces firing during protest demonstrations at Tangmarg last year against the desecration of holy Quran in USA have been charge sheeted by police along with 15 others.

A police spokesman said the 20 persons including five deceased persons have been charge sheeted for the crimes punishable under section 307, 436, 147,148, 149 RPC.

He added that they charge sheet was presented before a court today in a court for setting ablaze government property worth crores of rupees at Tangmarg.

The incident had occured on September 13 following reports of desecration of holy Quran in USA. Police had opened fire on the protestors killing a number of persons. Curfew was imposed in the affected area for several days.

Police spokesman said the mob had burnt down different government buildings including tehsil office complex, animal husbandry department building, social welfare office building, Tyndale Biscoe school building.

A case FIR number 91/2010 under section 307, 436, 147,148, 149 RPC was registered in police station Tangmarg.

The spokesman added that during the investigation, police identified the accused persons who were leading the mob and orchestrated the arson, through photographs, video-clips and eyewitnesses.

Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home

By: Nicholas D. Kristof

If you want to understand the Islamic forces that are gaining strength in Egypt and scaring people here and abroad, let me tell you about my dinner in the home of Muslim Brotherhood activists.

First, meet my hostess: Sondos Asem, a 24-year-old woman who is pretty much the opposite of the stereotypical bearded Brotherhood activist. Sondos is a middle-class graduate of the American University in Cairo, where I studied in the early 1980s (“that’s before I was born,” she said wonderingly, making me feel particularly decrepit).

She speaks perfect English, is writing a master’s thesis on social media, and helps run the Brotherhood’s English-language Twitter feed, @Ikhwanweb.

The Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as the dominant political party in parliamentary voting because of people like Sondos and her family. My interviews with supporters suggest that the Brotherhood is far more complex than the caricature that scares many Americans.

Sondos rails at the Western presumption that the Muslim Brotherhood would oppress women. She notes that her own mother, Manal Abul Hassan, is one of many female Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated candidates running for Parliament.

“It’s a big misconception that the Muslim Brotherhood marginalizes women,” Sondos said. “Fifty percent of the Brotherhood are women.”

I told Sondos that Westerners are fearful partly because they have watched the authorities oppress women in the name of Islam in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan.

“I don’t think Egypt can ever be compared to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan,” she replied. “We, as Egyptians, are religiously very moderate.” A much better model for Egypt, she said, is Turkey, where an Islamic party is presiding over an economic boom.

I asked about female circumcision, also called female genital mutilation, which is inflicted on the overwhelming majority of girls in Egypt. It is particularly common in conservative religious households and, to its credit, the Mubarak government made some effort to stop the practice. Many worry that a more democratic government won’t challenge a practice that has broad support.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is against the brutal practice of female circumcision,” Sondos said bluntly. She insisted that women over all would benefit from Brotherhood policies that focus on the poor: “We believe that a solution of women’s problems in Egyptian society is to solve the real causes, which are illiteracy, poverty and lack of education.”

I asked skeptically about alcohol, peace with Israel, and the veil. Sondos, who wears a hijab, insisted that the Brotherhood wasn’t considering any changes in these areas and that its priority is simply jobs.

“Egyptians are now concerned about economic conditions,” she said. “They want to reform their economic system and to have jobs. They want to eliminate corruption.” Noting that alcohol supports the tourism industry, she added: “I don’t think any upcoming government will focus on banning anything.”

I told her that I would feel more reassured if some of my liberal Egyptian friends were not so wary of the Brotherhood. Some warn that the Brotherhood may be soothing today but that it has a violent and intolerant streak — and is utterly inexperienced in managing a modern economy.

Sondos looked exasperated. “We embrace moderate Islam,” she said. “We are not the ultra-conservatives that people in the West envision.”

I heard similar reassurances from other Brotherhood figures I interviewed, and I’m not sure what to think. But opinions vary, and I’m struck by the optimism I heard in some secular quarters: from Dr. Nawal El Saadawi, an 80-year-old leftist who is a hero of Egyptian feminism, and from Ahmed Zewail, the Egyptian-American scientist who won a Nobel Prize and is passionate about education.

Amr Moussa, a former foreign minister and Arab League secretary general who is a front-runner in the race for president, was similarly optimistic. He told me that whatever unfolds, Egypt will continue to seek good relations with the United States and will unquestionably stand by its peace treaty with Israel.

“You cannot conduct an adventurous foreign policy when you rebuild a country,” he said. “We must have the best of relations with the United States.”

When I raised American concerns that Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood and the more extremist Salafis might replicate Iran, he was dismissive: “The experience of Iran will not be repeated in Egypt.”

I think he’s right. Revolutions are often messy, and it took Americans seven years from their victory in the American Revolution at Yorktown to get a ratified Constitution. Indonesia, after its 1998 revolution, felt very much like Egypt does today. It endured upheavals from a fundamentalist Islamic current, yet it pulled through.

So a bit of nervousness is fine, but let’s not overdo the hand-wringing — or lose perspective. What’s historic in Egypt today is not so much the rise of any one party as the apparent slow emergence of democracy in the heart of the Arab world.

Why Kashmir is Important to Me?

(The statement of Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai which was issued at the Alexandria Court House, Virginia)

The Kashmir issue is simply this: the people of a large territory which is not part of any existing sovereign state were assured by the entire international community represented by the United States that they would be enabled to decide their future by a free vote. Until now, this assurance has not been honored.
I, as an American of Kashmiri origin am profoundly grateful to the Administration for upholding the position of principle which the United States has sustained throughout the existence of the contentious issue relating to the status of Kashmir.

When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States championed the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be determined by the will of the people of the territory and that their wishes must be ascertained through an impartial plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United Nations. The U.S. was a principle sponsor of the resolution # 47 which was adopted by the Security Council on April 21, 1948 and which was based on that unchallenged principle. It was also upheld equally by both India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was brought before the Security Council in 1948. The commitment of the U.S. was indicated by a personal appeal made by President Harry Truman that differences over demilitarization be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator, a distinguished American war hero: Admiral Chester Nimitz.

It was most gratifying for Kashmiri American community when President George W. Bush (Republican) said on February 22, 2006 that the United States supports a solution of Kashmir dispute acceptable not only to India and Pakistan but also to “citizens of Kashmir.” It was equally gratifying for us when President Barack Obama said on October 30, 2008, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.’

Today, Kashmir is a living proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (independence) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering which has not been exacted from any other people of the South Asian subcontinent. Compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process.

The scale of the popular backing for Kashmiri resistance can be judged from the established fact that virtually all the citizenry of Srinagar (Capital city of Kashmir) - men, women and children - came out multiple times on the streets to lodge a non-violent protest against the continuance of alien occupation. The fact that they presented petitions at the office of the United Nations Military Observers Group shows the essentially peaceful nature of the aims of the uprising and its trust in justice under international law. At times the number of people in these peaceful processions exceeded 1 million. India has tried to portray the uprising as the work of terrorists or fanatics. Terrorists do not compose an entire population, including women and children; fanatics do not look to the United Nations to achieve pacific, and rational settlement.

That is a most poignant truth. But even more bitterly ironical is the contrast between the complex and decades-long agony the Kashmir issue has caused to Kashmiris, to Pakistan and to India itself and the simple, rational measures that would be needed for its solution. No sleight of hand is required, no subtle concepts are to be deployed, and no ingenious deal needs to be struck between an Indian and a Pakistani leader with the endorsement of the more pliable Kashmiri figures. The time for subterfuges is gone. All that is needed is going back --- yes, going back --- to the point of agreement which historically existed beyond doubt between India and Pakistan and jointly resolving to retrieve it with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time.

That point of agreement was one of inescapable principle- -- that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

Between India’s insistence that a settlement must be “within the four corners of the Indian constitution” and Pakistan’s demand that it must be based on the international agreement embodied in the UN Security Council resolutions, there cannot be a meeting point which the two governments can find by themselves. Neither can disentangle itself from the massive under growth of the dispute. There needs to be a third way which neither admits nor challenges any claim or proposition on the question of sovereignty over Kashmir nor on the desirability or otherwise of the partition or reunification of the State. Both these questions need to be set aside if the dispute is to be put on the road to a settlement.

There is nothing in the United Nations plan that is incompatible with pluralism. We do not wish to foreclose any of the three possible options for the people: independence, accession to Pakistan or accession to India. We refuse to believe that fairness is an impractical proposition.

Its object should be not to answer what is the correct or best solution of the Kashmir problem but how that solution can be arrived at. In other words, it should by itself neither promote nor preclude any rational settlement of the dispute, be it accession to India or Pakistan or independence. Rather than seek to impose a settlement on Kashmir, it should engage the peoples of each region of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir to work out a settlement themselves without any external constraint.

I am equally proud of Kashmiri pluralism. The term fundamentalism is quite inapplicable to Kashmiri society. One of the proud distinctions of Kashmir has been the sustained tradition of tolerance, amity, good will and friendship between the members of different religious and cultural communities. It has a long tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism and fundamentalism. Kashmir conflict was never a fight between Hindus and Muslims. It was never a struggle between theocracy and secularism. It has always been about the destiny and future of 17 million people of Kashmir, be they Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists.

The Policy Of Kashmiri American Council

After the uprising in Kashmir in 1989, a group of Kashmiri Americans established the Kashmiri American Council (KAC) in Washington in 1990. The primary objective of KAC was simply to raise the consciousness of the international community toward the issue of Kashmir; and to seek the understanding of the United States to help achieve the right of self-determination which was guaranteed to the people of Kashmir under the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The U.S. has, since the adoption of the UN resolutions in 1948, always held the position that Kashmir is a disputed territory; that it is not an integral part of either India or Pakistan; and that India and Pakistan should resolve the issue, taking into account the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir. Therefore, there was no need to influence U.S. foreign policy which has always been consistent with the goals of the Kashmiri people. However, we felt that there was a need to educate and encourage policy makers to take concrete steps to help achieve this goal.

Who I Represent

Kashmiri American Council and I have always tried to represent the sentiments of the people of Kashmir, irrespective of the religious background and cultural affiliations. Sometimes it meant to state the hard facts which people in the halls of power in New Delhi or Islamabad might not always find agreeable. But unfortunately facts are facts and ignoring them would not have done justice not only to people of Kashmir but to the people of both India and Pakistan. This fact can be understood from an article of mine which was published in Washington Times on January 18, 2004, when I was analyzing various possibilities that could lead us to a just settlement of Kashmiri issue. I wrote, under the title, "The taproot of South Asian turbulence,” (an article particularly harsh to the sensitivities of both the Indian government and the government of Pakistan.) "Finding a solution to the stalemate over self-determination in Kashmir, however, is vastly more complex than articulating the problem. Some in India profit from Kashmir's tumults. They appeal to extreme Hindu nationalists who insist on Muslim inferiority and envision India as an expanding sun in the South Asian universe. Likewise, some in Pakistan gain by keeping Kashmir unresolved. It distracts attention from Pakistan's enormous domestic faults, and provides indigenous militants with an outlet unthreatening to [its own] government."

Had it been true that I was being dictated by someone from New Delhi or Islamabad, then it would not have been easy for me to publish my article in Boston Globe on January 5, 2002, "Kashmir Rights Cannot Be Denied," I wrote, "There are suggestions in some quarters that the United Nations should broker a deal on Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Kashmiris wish to stress that their land is not real estate that can be parceled out between two [non-resident] disputants but the home of nation with a history far more compact and coherent than India's and far longer than Pakistan's. No settlement of their status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of self-determination and erases the so-called line of control, which is in reality the line of conflict. "

Likewise it would not have been easy to question the involvement of India and Pakistan in the talks to resolve the Kashmir issue. I wrote in The Quarterly Magazine About the Developing World published by the National Peace Corps Association in its August through October 1998 issue, Volume 11, number 4, entitled "Colony Kashmir, a Voice for independence." I said, "I wish to emphasize the point that as the dispute involves three parties-- India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir -- who are the most directly affected. Any attempt to strike a deal between two without the association of the third, will fail to yield a credible settlement. The contemporary history of South Asia is abundantly clear that bilateral efforts have never met with success."

In that same article, I also stated, "but we believe that India and Pakistan cannot by themselves reach a settlement over Kashmir without associating the genuine Kashmiri leadership--All Parties Hurriyet Conference--with the negotiations. It would be performing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark."

My approach has been consistent and there was absolutely no reason for me to do otherwise, and that is to inform the world powers that India and Pakistan by themselves are not able to resolve the issue of Kashmir. They have tried over decades but failed. That's why in an article called "The New Clinton Doctrine" which I published in July 1997, I wrote: "But the Kashmir problem should not be viewed as a territorial dispute between these two countries. The reality is that it is first and foremost a problem that involves the life and future of the thirteen million people of Kashmir-- a people with a historical identity, a distinct individuality and the same aspirations for freedom as that of any other people on earth."

The most important constituency which we have to address is not United States, not Pakistan, not elsewhere, but India itself. Meeting with Indian officials was fundamental to my strategy in communicating with New Delhi to find the means by which we as Kashmiri Americans could contribute to peace in that part of the world and in resolving the crisis in Kashmir. During the past twenty years, I along with Ambassador Yusuf Buch, former Senior Advisor to the United Nations Secretary General and late Dr. Ayub Thuker, President, World Kashmir Freedom Movement, have met with various Indian Cabinet Ministers, belonging to the administrations of Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, Prime Minister Atel Behari Vajpayee and current Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. And during the past eleven years, I also met with four different officials at the Indian embassy who succeeded each other periodically and introduced me to the new incoming official before leaving for a new post.

It has always been my habit to keep the channel of communication open to the Indian embassy. I have met with the officials of Indian embassy in Washington since 1999, sometimes monthly, sometimes bi-monthly. From March 2006 onward we met monthly and at times twice a month. Whenever we had a seminar or a conference on Kashmir I would invite the Indian ambassador to speak. I had a habit of exchanging information and establishing the details in advance with an official of the embassy, and then a final copy of the invitation for the ambassador would be given to the official, whom I usually met at a public cafeteria. An Indian official called me either on July 18 or July 19, 2011, the day I was arrested. He left a voicemail that we must meet, which I heard ten days later after my release.

I have made personal mistakes that I deeply regret and I feel great sorrow for that, but I have never compromised our goals of independence and self-determination for the Kashmiri people and our commitment to peaceful negotiations between India, Pakistan and the leadership of the Kashmiri people. My own passion for the plight of Kashmir is clearly nothing unique. As a child of Kashmir, born and raised in this environment myself, I am just one of the hundreds of thousands of youth who, through no fault or choice of their own, have become directly or indirectly involved and deeply and passionately motivated to do something positive for their country, however insignificant in the context of global affairs, to make a difference. A country can be destroyed but a nation cannot be defeated. Our own independence from this tyranny is the song in our heart, the poetry on our lips, and the vision that solidly unites us. It is the bedrock of our determination to continue unrelentingly to seek justice and truth for the people of Kashmir, despite our seeming powerlessness in the face of this occupation. Our hope is in our unity, in our love for one another as a people, as a nation, and as a divine spirit that pervades our history as a people with a unique cultural identity regardless of race, religion or creed, and our lasting belief that we cannot be denied our birth right to self-determination.

Conclusion

Win-win solutions are further important because they safeguard against prospective bitterness or humiliation that are the fuel of new conflict. If one party to a solution feels exploited or unfairly treated, then national sentiments to undo the settlement will naturally swell. We must not belittle, embarrass, or humiliate any party. Every participant should be treated with dignity and humanity. Charity, not the triumphal, should be the earmark of the negotiating enterprise. Also, we should not sacrifice the good on the altar of the perfect. Compromises are the staple of conflict resolution. To achieve some good is worthwhile even though not all good is achieved.