Monday, 27 June 2011

Will you ever wish the same for your own son?

Will you ever wish the same for your own son.

They were young buds you did not even let them run.
They fell like leaves, you harvested them just for the fun.

They were innocent; you said they were but pelting stones.
Did you think they were a danger for your bloody thrones.

Some had gone to buy candies to feed their innocence.
You plucked those who had not reached their adolescence.

You did not feel the pain of a mother weeping for her kid.
Watched the death dance in comfort that is what you all did.

You caged men inside and ordered all, not to cry.
You did not let fathers watch their dead sons fly.

You enforced brutal peace of fear by silencing the braves .
You claimed victory standing over the freshly dug graves.

You are happy, your guns may have fallen silent now.
God shall punish you soon, do not ever dare to ask how.

Our lads have achieved the status, which is all high.
Wish I could sleep for a night there where they lie.

Those who fell them, shall confess but never repent.
When their own sons to graveyards shall be sent.

Court of Allah delvers justice, maybe for us a bit late.
His judgment is tough, it has been written on their slate.

They will confess to the crime but it will not soothe their pain.
Confession without repentance, is an exercise done in vain.

Let the divine justice befall on them, let us all pray.
So that they do not drag son of someone again to slay.

You just killed our innocent boys for the fun.
Will you ever wish the same for your own son.

Koshur Mazloom © 2011

What Hanifa left behind

She stepped out of her house during a strict curfew – not as a protester but because of the compulsions of motherhood.

Written by Freny Manecksha

After eight months of lying paralyzed in bed, on March 25 this year, 35-year-old Hanifa Wani died at her parental home in Kreeri, Baramulla. A single mother, she begged her sister-in-law during her last painful breaths to take good care of her 11-year-old daughter Humaira. She, herself, would not live to keep her promise.

A picture taken with cellular phone shows Hanifa a few days before she died on March 25, 2011.

Hanifa was among the 2000 odd people estimated to have suffered injuries at the hands of government forces last summer. Significantly, the injuries she received were above the waist and on her back. According to hospital reports she sustained five bullet injuries that affected her lung, her kidney and, most seriously, her spinal cord leaving her paraplegic.

The people of the picturesque village of Kreeri, which gets its name from a particular thorny bush, are largely dependent on the produce of orchards and small floricultural plots. Last year this seemingly tranquil village, like many others in Baramulla, was severely affected during the summer of discontent. Angry protesters spilled out on the streets and were confronted by the government forces.

Kreeri’s local population was particularly outraged by the disappearance of teenager Farukh Bukhari on July 28 after the police rounded up some youths during a march. (Farukh’s body was later found dumped outside Choura police station with a mutilated face. His body had torture marks.)

Two days after his disappearance, there were huge protests in the area. Some reports in the media speak of Hanifa being one of the protester. But the family insists that she stepped out of her house during a strict curfew – not as a protester but because of the compulsions of motherhood.

In the house of her mother Raja Begum, and in the presence of her brothers Abdullah and Sunaullah Wani, her nephew Ishfaq Wani recounts the events of July 31. “Hanifa’s daughter, Humaira, was suffering from typhoid and had high fever. Hanifa wanted to take her to the Kreeri district hospital which is just a short distance away,” recalls Ishfaq. “It was calm that morning. There were no protests going on when she stepped out around 9 am,” he says.

Half an hour later the family received an alarming phone call. The caller said that Hanifa was in the hospital, and that she was dead. The news turned out to be incorrect, but Hanifa indeed came close to death.

What happened during those crucial moments when she stepped out of the house up until the time when she was shot at near the family’s hardware shop in the chowk? Ishfaq has pieced together the sequence of events from Hanifa’s own account and from that of her daughter and local people. (A fuse box on the pole in the area still bears bullet marks).

Hanifa was first confronted by three CRPF men who gave her the permission to proceed when she explained why she needed to go to the hospital. A little while later she was stopped again, and even as she was pleading, two other troopers came charging down the small lane towards her and Humaira. Frightened, she turned back and began fleeing even as they opened fire and bullets hit her. The sound of gunshots brought some people onto the streets and in the melee two other youths also received injuries. According to bystanders, after Hanifa fell to the ground, the government forces dragged her body and attempted to chuck it into the small open drain that runs through the village chowk. Her face distinctly bore the marks of abrasion on her nose, they say.

Hanifa was taking her daughter Humaira, 11, to a local medical facility when they were shot at by troopers. (Picture: Izhar Ali)

By that time the crowds had swelled. Government forces retreated, allowing her to be taken to the hospital. Others brought her distraught daughter, who had also received a small injury, back to her home.

The district hospital provided an ambulance for her to be taken to Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) Soura, Srinagar but the ordeal was not over yet. The ambulance was stopped near Pattan according to her brothers who had accompanied her. They were severely beaten by government forces before the ambulance was allowed to go. At SKIMS, Hanifa was rushed to the emergency ward and then shifted to neurosurgery department. The bullet that had lodged near the seventh dorsal vertebrae meant that she was paralysed for life. And since not much else could be done, the family brought her back to home after eight days.

“She regained consciousness two days after she came home. We saw her trying to speak and desperately trying to move her limbs,” recalls Ishfaq. “She kept asking what had happened to her. The days that followed were no better. She refused solid foods and survived only on liquids or intravenous fluids.”

Prolonged conflict in Kashmir has meant the crumbling away of whatever little infrastructure that existed. Expertise in medical facilities like Physiotherapy is rare especially in rural areas. There is no question of insurance cover for the kind of injury that Hanifa suffered. Many of her open wounds did not heal and she had to be taken at least twice a week to SKIMS for treatment in the ambulance provided by the district hospital. “We also had to pay for the diesel,” adds Ishfaq.

The family’s income had also suffered a serious blow because the injuries sustained by the brothers during the assault meant they were in no condition to work properly for several weeks.

The promise of assistance of Rs 50,000 for treatment of all injured by the state government did not materialize. Hanifa’s brother Abdullah Wani says he heard that Rs 3,000 would be sanctioned immediately but even that sum has not been disbursed. Meanwhile the family incurred large expenses in documenting and videographing the necessary evidence.

The only assistance we received was from the naib tehsildar who sanctioned Rs 5,000 from his own personal funds,” says Wani.

No member of the civic administration or the state government made a visit to their home. “Even the local MLA made a visit only after critical comments were made in the media about his absence. And after Hanifa’s death he did not come to condole even though he lives barely a kilometer away,” says Ishfaq.

Hanifa eventually died after agonizing seven months of suffering. Although her ordeal and death affected the entire family, it had its most severe effect on the two vulnerable female members of her family – her aged mother and her young daughter.

Although Hanifa's ordeal and death affected the entire family, it had its most severe effect on the two vulnerable female members – her aged mother and young daughter. (Picture: Izhar Ali)

Divorced after about a year and a half of her marriage, Hanifa left her husband in Sopore and returned to her parental home where Humaira was born. As a single mother she had sworn to be the chief provider for the fatherless girl. “We will give whatever we can to Humaira but how do we replace a mother’s love?” asks Ishfaq.

Raja Begum, her mother, frequently breaks into Kashmiri during Ishfaq’s narration and keeps gesturing with her hands. Ishfaq translates: “She has an older daughter who suffers from severe diabetes and kidney disorder and was reconciled to this daughter’s critical condition. But Hanifa’s tragedy has come as a real shock,” he says. “She never imagined that she would die first.”

From the window of their home Humaira sits solemnly in one corner of the garden as white, wispy blossoms of the poplar tree whirl and cartwheel in the spring air before they fall on the ground. She has slipped out of the room during our conversation and is reluctant to speak much. Ishfaq says she is a quiet girl and hardly interacts or plays with other children. Humaira, a young child, saw her mother fell to the bullets and later had to watch her reduced to a helpless invalid.

There is an acute paucity of professional counseling services that can address this trauma and other issues that haunt the family. What the family does cling to is solace provided by a tightly-knit community. “We have been given tremendous hamdardi (a sharing of pain),” emphasizes Ishfaq.

Sunday, 26 June 2011

More about Kashmir Dispute

More you need to know about The Kdispute:


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.

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

What you need to know about Jammu and Kashmir

A brief general knowledge about Jammu and Kashmir

Buddhism was introduced in Kashmir in about 245 BC.
Ruled by independent Rajas upto: 1325
Muslim Sultans: 1325 to 1585
Mughals Rulers: 1586 to 1752
Afghan Rulers: 1752 to 1819
Sikh Rulers: 1819 to 1846
Sale of Kashmir to Dogras Under Amritsar Treaty: 16th March, 1846
Movement against repressive measures of Dogra Raja Hari Singh: 1931
Launching of All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference by Shiekh Muhammad Abudallah :1932
National Conference: 1939
National Conference launched Quit Kashmir Movement: 1946
Partition of Indian sub-continent: 14 August, 1947
Popular revolt began against the repressive rules Of Maha Raja and an independent government Was Proclaimed in the liberated territories: 24 th October, 1947

The Heaven Split
1. Pakistan and India came into existence as independent states in August, 1947. The principle of partition was specified in the plan : The all Muslim majority areas were to constitute part of Pakistan and similarly the Hindu majority areas were to go to India . Besides, the 565 princely States at that time including the State of Jammu and Kashmir were given the option either to join Pakistan or India . Such joining to either State was to be determined by the geographical contiguity and communal composition of the population. The State of Jammu and Kashmir with a 77 % Muslims majority (according to 1941 Census)should gave acceded to Pakistan.
2. The Maharaja of Kashmir entered into a stand-still agreement with the Government of Pakistan on 15 th August, 1947 and decided to continue all the arrangements that had till than existed between the Jammu and Kashmir and the British Government. It was assumed that this was the prelude to the full accession of the State to Pakistan.
3. However, the Maharaja of Kashmir took certain measures which betrayed his intention of not acceding to Pakistan . Particularly important was his order that Muslims in the State should surrender their arms, followed by the disarming of Muslims in the police and the State army. These measures resulted in an insurrection by the people of Kashmir against the Maharaja. The insurrection which started in August, 1947 gained momentum in September and on 24 th of October the Azad Kashmir Government was formally proclaimed.
4. The Maharaja of Kashmir, making this insurrection an excuse and accusing Pakistan for having organized the invasion by the Pathan tribesmen acceded the state to India on 26 th of October and asked it for military help. Indian troops were flown to Srinagar on 27 th Of October and launched an offensive against the Muslims who had refused to accept the State's accession.

The so-called accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India has no legal and moral footings for the following reasons :- 
i) It was contrary to wishes of the people.
ii) The existence of an earlier stand-still agreement created a legal bar to the ruler's capacity to alter the existing position unilaterally.
iii) At the time he offered accession to India , the ruler himself had fled the State and a peoples government had taken the control over large portion of the territory of the state.
The Indian acceptance of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was conditional. The Governor-General of India while conveying acceptance of Maharaja's request wrote
“ In consistence with their policy that, in the case of any state where the issue of accession has been subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, It is my government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, the question of State's should be settled by a reference to the people”.
Similar assurance was given by the Indian Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir . During the war, India brought the issue before the Security Council on January 1, 1948. It pleaded that Pakistan was responsible for creating disturbance in Kashmir and wanted the Security Council to ask Pakistan to with draw the tribesmen who had entered the State. The Security Council did not endorse the Indian position and in its resolution of 17 th January, 1948 appealed to the parties to improve the atmosphere and to refrain from doing anything that might aggravate the situation.
Simultaneously the Indian Government intensified its military build up and operations in Kashmir and launched a full scale offensive in order to impose military solution in Kashmir,
The United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was established through Security Council resolution on 20 th January, 1948, which was reconstituted on 21 st April, 1948 through another resolution and instructed “ to proceed at once to the sub-continent”. The resolution provided for a plebiscite by India and Pakistan , acting in cooperation with each other and with the Commission.

Commission Action:
The United Commission on India and Pakistan arrived in the sub-continent on 7th July, 1948 and immediately engaged in consultation with the Indian and Pakistan authorities. After undertaking the survey of the situation, the Commission adopted a resolution on 13 th August, 1948, containing the proposals for ceasefire order, truce agreement and re-affirmation of the desire for a plebiscite in Kashmir . The Commission also decided that It will appoint military observers to supervise the observance of the ceasefire order. The UNCIP resolution of 13th August, 1948 was accepted by both India and Pakistan.

Appointment of Military Observers:
On 19 the November, 1948, the Commission received an urgent communication from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan concerning reinforcement of Indian troops in Kashmir and attacks by those troops against positions held by forces of Azad Kashmir.
After series of contact with the representative of both the governments, the UNCIP sent its final recommendations to India and Pakistan on December 11, 1948. Both the governments accepted the UNCIP proposals and recommendations of the Commission were subsequently adopted in UNCIP resolution dated 5 th January, 1949.

Monday, 20 June 2011

Azad Kashmir elections

Compiled by Farooq Sulehria for The News

On June 26, the electorate in Azad Jammu and Kashmir will elect a new Legislative Assembly. In the 49-member house, the voters elect 41 members, and the remaining eight seats reserved for women and technocrats are elected by the house. Unlike previous general elections, this one is not an electoral duel between the traditional rivals, the Muslim Conference and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). The Muslim League (Nawaz), which recently launched its Kashmir chapter consisting mainly of Muslim Conference dissidents, has converted the electoral fray into a three-way fight.


However, the likely outcome is not hard to guess. Ever since 1970, when the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were granted the right to vote on the basis of adult franchise, the cabinet in Muzaffarabad has been a mirror image of the ruling clique in Islamabad. Since the first general elections in Azad Kashmir were held before Zulfikar Ali Bhutto arrived at the helm in Islamabad, the GHQ was able to install its traditional puppet, the Muslim Conference, as the “government.” However, in 1975, Bhutto ensured a PPP government in Muzaffarabad. His nemesis, Gen Zia, dissolved Azad Kashmir’s Legislative Assembly the way he torpedoed Pakistan’s elected parliament in 1977.

It is ironic that Pakistani rulers, crying hoarse since 1947 for Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, denied the part of Kashmir under Pakistan’s control even the right to elect its Legislative Assembly until 1970. In 1977 they snatched back even this symbolic right. Hence, to avoid an embarrassing situation, in 1985 onwards electoral process in Azad Jammu and Kashmir has gone on uninterrupted. Even when Gen Musharraf liquidated parliament in 1999, he did not tinker with the legislature in Muzaffarabad.

However, both military dictators and elected civilian governments make sure that Muzaffarabad mirrors Islamabad when it comes to the government. Understandably, in 1985 when the dictator put in place a Muslim League cabinet in Islamabad, a Muslim Conference government was inevitable in Muzaffarabad. Sardar Qayyum, the controversial First Mujahid, was sworn in by the khakis as president, remuneration for his long-time services, while Sardar Sikander Hayat was rewarded with the job of prime minister. However, the Muslim Conference ministry was not punished in 1988 by Gen Zia when he dismissed the Junejo cabinet and the parliament he had himself carefully cobbled together. When the next elections were held in Azad Kashmir in 1990, Benazir Bhutto was ruling in Islamabad. Not unexpectedly, the PPP’s Kashmir chapter was able to form the government in Muzaffarabad. Mumtaz Rathore became prime minister. But he was not merely unlucky, he proved defiant too. When Benazir Bhutto was dethroned by the khakis in 1990, Rathore ordered a ceremonial guard of honour when he received Benazir Bhutto in Muzaffarabad. He did not stay long in power. After nine months, Rathore had to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and a fresh election paved the way for the return of the duo of Sardar Qayyum and Sardar Sikander. Fresh elections were held when Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League was firmly in control in Islamabad.

In 1996, Benazir Bhutto was back in power in Islamabad. Hence, elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir produced a PPP ministry. Octogenarian Sardar Ibrahim became president and Barrister Sultan Mehmoud was appointed prime minister. In 2001 and 2006, the 12 Division was supposed to cobble together the government in Muzaffarabad. Hence, the Muslim Conference conveniently emerged victorious in both these general elections. In 2001, the Sardar-Qayyum-Sardar Sikander duo enjoyed its traditional privileges. In 2006 the old duo was sent on forced retirement. However, to ensure continuity Sardar Qayyum’s son, Sardar Attique, was appointed prime minister and a retired general, Raja Zulqarnain, became president.

Meantime, Zardari replaced Musharraf’s as events took a dramatic turn in Pakistan. Though President Zardari, in spite of all his skills, was unable to bring down the Muslim Conference, three prime ministers faced a vote of no confidence in last three years. The Muslim Conference’s Farooq Haider, in collaboration with the PPP, engineered a coup and Sardar Attique was out in 2009. Sardar Yakub was sworn in as prime minister. Only nine months later, Sardar Attique and Farooq Haider joined hands to vote out Sardar Yakub. Finally, Farooq Haider, a protege of Sardar Sikander Hayat, was in the saddle. But before long, Sardar Attique was able to engineer yet another vote of no-confidence and was himself back at the prime minister’s secretariat. These petty intrigues generated such bad blood that Sikander’s faction split with the Muslim Conference and launched the Kashmir chapter of Nawaz League.

Interestingly, as in Indian-held Kashmir, the Jamaat-e-Islami has never managed to receive a sizeable number of seats in the Muzaffarabad legislature. It hardly gets into the Legislative Assembly, if at all. Most likely, a coalition of the Muslim Conference and PPP will form the next government. The Nawaz League will have to wait for now until a favourable change in Islamabad. The electoral show will go on.

The writer is a freelance contributor.

Email: mfsulehria@hotmail.com

20-year-old Kashmiri boy a victim of Indian police brutality

A 20 year old boy in Jammu and Kashmir is brutally tortured by the Indian police - leaving him partially paralysed. While the Chief Minister has ordered a probe into the matter - what is worse is that the police admit that there is no case against the victim.



vishal is 20-years-old, but has to be dealt with like a child. Vishal - totally dependent on his mother for eating his food, drinking a glass of water or even to wear his clothes. "He is the only breadwinner of the family.We can't meet our expenses now.They have spoilt his life. There is lot of tension," Vishal's mother said.

Reduced to this sorry state due to atrocities by the police. Picked from his shop ,taken to Janipur police station and tortured. Recalling the episode, Visha said, "Three to four policemen hanged me from my arms and hit me. I kept pleading with them but they did not listen. They told me to confess that I had bought stolen gold chains."

Torture that caused muscle rupture leaving Vishal's arms partially paralysed.

When Times Now asked the police some officers denied the incident outright. Deepak Pathania, SHO, Sarwal Police post said, "I don't know why he has named me. The case does not fall under the jurisdiction of my police station. There are so many pending cases in my area, why will I take up some else's work?"

But there were some who admitted that there was no case against Vishal. "Yes, there is no case against the boy.We did not call him & did not torture him,"

TIMES NOW also raised Vishal's case with the Chief Minister Omar Abdullah who said, "I will ask the Home department to probe the matter.This is the first time I am hearing about this case."

But that's no solace for Vishal who has been rendered physically challenged because of police brutality.

Originally Published at THE TIMES OF INDIA [link]