Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

One of the darkest chapters of Indian judicial partiality was left hanging half closed and banging in the wind when Major Avtar Singh, the killer of internationally known human rights activist and Chairman of Kashmir Commission of Jurists, Advocate Jalil Andrabi, was found dead after he killed his wife and two children, and finally himself this past Saturday morning, June 9, 2012, in Selma, California. Avtar Singh, a fugitive from justice, who lived in the hot dry central California community, a suburb of Fresno, was clearly haunted by his past, a past that had seen the blood spilled of more than one man by his own hands. He had killed four others to hide the murder of Andrabi, and now he had killed his own family.

In killing Jalil Andrabi, Avtar Singh certainly did not act on his own volition. He was only a major. His act was no doubt a response to orders from above and occurred in a longstanding climate of impunity that the Indian army enjoys in Kashmir. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives any Indian soldier the right in Kashmir to take a Kashmiri’s life under any circumstance, has enabled such a climate for decades. And Jalil Andrabi had become a hated, despised man by the Army, a man dangerous to the status quo of continued murder and torture that had been taking place in Kashmir’s jails, interrogation centers and detention facilities for many years.

Arshad Andrabi, Jalil Andrabi’s brother, has said that the real killers are still at large, and he is right. The real killers are not just army officers but all those from the highest office in India on down through Parliament who had arranged his escape from Kashmir to Canada before he moved illegally to the United States, or looked the other way and refused to extradite him when California authorities notified India that they had their man. They are guilty of maintaining murderous policies, defending hideous acts that take place, encouraging even more grotesque behavior by the mere act of covering up what does occur and failing to prosecute those who have used the law vindictively and without justifiable reason. One wonders whether the government of India is in control of its own policies or is intimidated by the grip of a military industry that has its own agenda. Had the government acted in a timely manner, more lives would have been saved, and perhaps a new horizon in the Indian judicial system would have finally appeared. Some say that Avtar Singh’s death was “poetic justice,” and perhaps in some small way it was, but it’s extremely difficult to see the death of his wife and children as anything but just another sad tragedy, and another great stain on the history and reputation of the world’s largest “democracy.” Arshad Andrabi touched the heights of magnanimity when he said that he was extremely pained by the death of not only his brother but the deaths of the murderer’s own family as well. This also symbolizes the compassion of not only Arshad but also the heart and character of the Andrabi family.

Jalil Andrabi, his primary victim, had been a friend of mine. His trip to Geneva in August 1995, shortly before his murder, to attend a conference was at my invitation, as were other international engagements he had attended in Washington and elsewhere. On one such occasion, we had traveled by car together, along with my wife, to attend a convention in Columbus, Ohio, in order to talk and exchange views intimately on various issues on which we shared an interest. It was on this trip that I gained a much deeper appreciation for Jalil Andrabi’s character. He was a man of deep compassion and vision, high intellect and deep judicial insight and had been personally responsible for bringing many human rights violations in Kashmir into the light of day.

During the 47th session of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights in August 1995, Jalil Andrabi made two interventions, one on August 7, 1995, under agenda item 18, which was on the issue of ‘Freedom of Movement.’ On that occasion he had said, “Mr. Chairman, the Kashmiris are waging a legitimate struggle for achieving the exercise of their right of self-determination, and the atrocities which constitute war crimes forbidden under the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being inflicted upon them only because of this struggle. Therefore, besides, calling upon India to put an end to the crimes against humanity, it is necessary to compel India to allow the people of Kashmir an unfettered exercise of their right of self-determination under the UN auspices.”

”The atrocities,” he said, “which are perpetrated upon my people are not aberrations but rather integral components of a systematic policy. These atrocities are being perpetrated as a weapon of war in order to break the will of the people.”

Jalil Andrabi also spoke under the agenda item, ‘The Administration of Justice’ on August 17, 1995 and said, “The laws conferring unrestricted and arbitrary powers on the armed forces continue to remain in operation in Jammu & Kashmir, with full impunity to the perpetrators of crimes against the humanity and violations of fundamental human rights, threatening the very existence of Kashmiri people.”

Advocate Jalil Andrabi knew firsthand the facts. He had been documenting the human rights violations by taking information from victim’s families and witnesses. In personal conversations he had told me how very difficult it was for lawyers to meet with the detainees and how much they are under pressure, and he had also told me that because of his political views the Indian Army had often harassed him. He knew that his life was on the line, in fact, and had spent a month in New Delhi just prior to his murder, hoping to escape India’s wrath. He had only returned to Kashmir to celebrate Eid with his family and friends.

It was in response to information he had gathered that in 1994 he filed a petition in Jammu & Kashmir High Court demanding greater access to prisoners. The evidence he presented was substantial and his arguments convincing, and the High Court ordered that all district committees consisting of judicial police and medical authorities make regular visits to jails, detention and interrogation centers, and police stations all across the state.

This was a huge victory. It brought the state government to its knees. Once he had opened the floodgates, much more evidence of torture and other crimes became public and it was then, no doubt, that the Army wanted him dead. The target of guilt had been placed squarely on their backs, and there was no escape. Many more cases of torture and other human rights violations became known.

Jalil Andrabi was a Muslim but his compassion and love transcended all religious boundaries. During his intervention in Geneva he said, “My people are intelligent, industrious and peace loving. The ethical concept of human brotherhood beyond the bonds of closed religious groupings has always animated Kashmiris.”

During his visit to Geneva Jalil Andrabi met with more than a dozen United Nations experts, hundreds of members of NGOs, and various delegations representing different governments. We also had a meeting with UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Jose Ayala Lasso. Jalil Andrabi was so convincing in his argument because he presented every detail with documentation and logic that I felt it would be helpful for the cause of Kashmir to invite him to the United States. In Washington we had meetings with members of Congress, the State Department, the National Security Council and members of think tanks and human rights organizations. Jalil Andrabi also spoke during the national annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America on Labor Day weekend, 1995, in Columbus, Ohio, which was attended by more than 20,000 people who came from all across America.

I wanted to invite him again in 1996 to attend the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, but unfortunately in March of that year, while he was returning home to Srinagar with his wife, the car was stopped, and he was taken into custody. Twenty days later, his dead body was seen floating in the Jhelum River. His hands were tied, he had been shot, and his eyes were gouged out. He had been tortured mercilessly, an inhuman brutality which can never properly be explained.

Here in Washington, we approached the U.S. Administration. Department of State and the U.S. Congress. The spokesperson of the State Department, Mr. Nicholas Burns issued a statement on March 29, 1996, condemning the killing of Jalil Andrabi and called upon the government of India to conduct a full and transparent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Andrabi’s abduction and murder. Mr. Burns expressed hope that Andrabi’s murderers would be quickly apprehended and punished.

Such a statement was also issued by the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Jose Ayala Lasso, condemning the murder and calling for an impartial investigation. Various members of Congress wrote a joint letter to the then Prime Minister of India P. V. Narasimha Rao on March 27, 1996 conveying their profound dismay at the death of Jalil Andrabi. They asked that the Indian government thoroughly investigate this shocking murder and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Members of Congress also wrote a joint letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher on March 27, 1996 and said that Mr. Andrabi’s death was a shocking reminder of India’s brutal conduct in Kashmir. They requested that the Secretary of State call upon our ambassador to India and raise this matter with the government of India. They hoped that the Secretary of State would express their shock at this extrajudicial killing to his counterpart in India and call for a thorough investigation to bring the killers to justice. Amnesty International also issued a statement on March 28, 1996 condemning the killing and asked for an impartial investigation.

Unfortunately despite this condemnation at a global level, the government of India not only did not punish the perpetrator but did not even arrest him. When the Jammu & Kashmir High Court found Major Avtar Singh to be the person who killed Jalil Andrabi, the High Court ordered his arrest in 1997. The judge who did so was punished by immediately being transferred from Kashmir to India. In addition, because Indian army personnel have full immunity in Kashmir, the government of India arranged a passport despite the court order for his arrest, and facilitated his exit from India to save him from any legal proceedings.

In 2011, the Selma police in California informed the government of India that they had Avtar Singh in custody and were aware of his fugitive status, a discovery that was made through Interpol when his wife filed a domestic abuse complaint against him. India failed to respond to this notice. He was never extradited. The U.S. Immigration Service could have deported him, but again did not, refused comment when contacted and clearly did not act. Avtar Singh is reported to have said at the time, “The law here is on my side. The case against me will not stand in court here.’’ The writer interviewing him, Hartosh Singh Bal, asked him, “what if the extradition does go through? He does not hesitate: ‘There is no question of my being taken to India alive, they will kill me.’ Who will, I ask him. ‘The agencies, RAW, military intelligence, it is all the same.’ ‘If the extradition does go through, I will open my mouth, I will not keep quiet.’”

The foundation of America’s greatness was established long ago in the Bill of Rights and its underlying recognition of human rights. Whenever America applied these principles, it set the bar for the highest moral standing in the global community. But unfortunately today America’s moral weight has foundered upon unnecessary war like Iraq and it seems to worry more about a corporate agenda of business deals and trade than it does human rights. India is being encouraged to take over America’s battle in Afghanistan and restrain the encroachments of China. Global hegemony takes precedence. The pot can no longer call the kettle black. It fails to appreciate or uphold those golden values of universal human rights, which it was forced to acknowledge when the blind advocate, Chen Guangcheng in Beijing came knocking on our embassy door. Obviously such values do not apply to Kashmir. The path of justice met a fork in the road.

Yet, paradoxically, it is important to note that it was our State Department, which in 1995 not only condemned the murder of Jalil Andrabi but asked for an impartial investigation and had hoped the murderers would be quickly apprehended and punished. It was kind of them to say so. But apparently, it doesn’t take much moral strength or political will to utter mere words. Sixteen years later, the killer had not been apprehended, extradited, deported or punished. We hope now that this duplicity in the exercise of justice will prick the conscience of our policy makers and motivate them to end these crimes against humanity. Their justice is awaited.

(Dr. Fai can be reached at: gnfai2003@yahoo.com)

While the US and India are incessantly blaming Pakistan for fomenting terrorism in Afghanistan and in India, Pakistan on the other hand remain on the defensive and never tire of giving lengthy explanations. Our leaders prefer to ignore the vicious propaganda of the two accusers despite the fact that Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism and its sacrifices far outweigh the sacrifices rendered by all the 48 states engaged in fighting global war on terror (GWOT). Our leaders at times hesitatingly mention ‘foreign hand’, but hardly pick up courage to name the country involved in terrorism in Pakistan despite possessing concrete proofs. PM Gilani, Interior Minister, chief ministers of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Sindh and other high officials of law enforcement agencies have often mentioned that foreign hands are involved and they have proof, but the matter was never pursued. Instead of strongly protesting and rejecting the baseless accusations of USA and India, our leaders mildly and apologetically say that Pakistan is not involved. Since the allegations are mostly concocted or based on faulty presumptions, the accusers never provide the evidence, but because of mala fide intentions they do not stop propagating.

Apart from the objective of discrediting and undermining Pakistan and its premier institutions through an orchestrated vilification campaign, other motives are to blame Pakistan for ISAF’s failings in Afghanistan and for the mess in India created by ruling Brahmans. Blame game helps the duo in keeping Pakistan under pressure and on the defensive. It helps the US in justifying as to why it is giving preferential treatment to India which is not even a coalition member of GWOT and raw deal to Pakistan which is taking the major brunt of terrorism as a frontline state.

Whenever any act of terror takes place in Afghanistan or in India, Pakistan’s ISI is promptly blamed without even carrying out preliminary investigations or providing evidence. The US-Western-India media picks up the event and keeps drumming it unabatedly. Mumbai incident taking place in November 2008 is a case in point. 3 ½ years have elapsed, but Indian leaders backed by US leaders have not forgotten it and they continue to play it to grill Pakistan. Lashkar-e-Taiba and head of Jamaat-ud-Dawa Hafiz Saeed, allegedly backed by ISI are projected as the masterminds. Pakistan has been constantly pressured to either punish the culprits or hand them over to India. To keep the issue alive, the US has jumped into Indo-Pak fray and announced $10 million award money for anyone helping to arrest Hafiz Saeed who runs an Islamic educational institute together with charity organizations in Muredke, where anyone can visit. They feel Pakistan’s ISI can be indicted in this case and declared as a rogue outfit.

The duo as well as its western allies looks the other way to many glaring loopholes in the Mumbai story manufactured by RAW, Mossad and CIA to embarrass Pakistan. India has masked murder of anti-terrorist chief Inspector Karkare who had busted the nexus between Hindu terrorist groups and Indian military officers involved in numerous terrorist acts in India all of which were pasted on ISI. The honest and upright officer was murdered during the Mumbai episode on the night of 26 November. The case which was being heard by a court of law has been shelved since it was too damning and embarrassing.

India and its western backers never talk of the infamous nexus between Hindu terrorist groups and Indian military including Military Intelligence deeply involved in terrorizing Indian Muslims so as to pave the way for Hindutva and also to undermine Pakistan. Startling revelations made by Aseemanabad have been obfuscated. India’s publicity wing sours their throats painting India as a model country, but smokescreen its weak areas under the artificial light of India shining. Its anomalies far outweigh the strong points. Beneath the façade of robust economy and outward show of prosperity, great majority of Indians are suffering from pangs of extreme poverty, hunger, mal-nutrition, illiteracy, health problems, injustice and lawlessness. Thousands die of hunger or of weather hazards every month. Out of 28 states, two-thirds are economically depressed. Bihar, Jharkand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are the worst affected.

It is essentially because of iniquitous development of states and rising gap between the rich and poor together with injustices and insensitivities of the elites that the deprived classes are perforce up in arms against the state. Eleven states are demanding independence. Some of the insurgencies are over six decades old. Other reason is the hideous four-fold caste system by virtue of which the Brahmans consider it their birth right to rule and enjoy all the worldly pleasures and their obligation to keep all others oppressed and subservient. All other classes in India are treated as 2nd rated and impure. In fact, all religious minorities in India have no right to seek their basic human rights or to progress on the basis of their skills and education.

To keep the aggrieved people in their places, hundreds of extremist and terrorist Hindu groups have mushroomed in India. Their intolerance and deep-seated aversion for other religious minorities has taken Hindu extremism to new heights. The extremist Hindus aspiring to convert India into a Hindu state want non-Hindu minorities to get Hinduized or else leave India. Communal rioting is a normal routine apart from organized pogroms against the Muslims such as in Ayodhia and in Gujarat, against the Sikhs during and after the destruction of Golden Temple and assassination of Indira Gandhi and against the Christian community in Orissa and other places. Dalits who fall in the lowest category of Hindus are treated worse than animals.

Of all the insurgencies and separatist movements, Naxalite movement which had triggered in 1967 as a peasant movement is the most dangerous and has become an existential threat to India. Rather than addressing their grievances by correcting the economic imbalances and social injustices, over 700,000 security forces equipped with black laws are vainly trying to quash the movements using draconian measures. In addition, India has saturated a small valley of Kashmir with 700,000 troops since 1989 where extra judicial killings, abductions, illegal detentions, rape and torture are practiced to crush the freedom movement and deny the Kashmiris their right of self determination.

Instead of meting out justice to the oppressed in Indian states and in occupied Kashmir and alleviating their sufferings, Indian leadership is engaged in building up its military might and is spending billions of dollars to acquire latest arms and technology. Its defence budget is shooting up each year and so is the length of its shopping list for armaments. This mad drive to become a world power is at the cost of great majority of Indians who continue to live in abysmal conditions. Instead of allocating funds to the economically weak states, Indian rulers are doling out huge amounts for the uplift of Afghanistan with which it doesn’t even share border. India is more concerned about the plight of Baloch separatists in Balochistan, who are supported by RAW, CIA, MI-6 and RAAM rather than its own seven separatist movements. Indian leaders are eager to fragment Pakistan so that India could become an unchallenged power of South Asia, not realizing that India itself is dangerously close to fragmentation from within. Unstable Pakistan will hasten the process of disintegration of artificially united Indian Union.

USA, where inequities between the rich and poor are as wide as 1:99%, and where the ruling elites have character traits similar to Hindu Brahmans, are helping India in not only making it the dominating power of South Asia but of Asia-Pacific at the cost of Pakistan, which it hypocritically calls as its ally. Under the garb of fighting terrorism, it is bashing Pakistan to please India and to achieve its hidden objectives; not realizing that its duplicity and discriminatory attitude is fuelling radicalism and anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Safe exit of ISAF from the quagmire of Afghanistan to a large extent is dependent upon Pakistan’s willing support. Retreat of ISAF in humiliating conditions will have disastrous social and economic consequences for the US and European nations that have wrought havoc in Afghanistan.

The writer is a retired Brig and a defence and security analyst. Email: asifharoon7751@yahoo.com

We pose no threat: Pakistani general

One of the senior-most Pakistani generals on Friday said regional stability would remain a distant dream as long as the Kashmir issue remained unresolved.

This articulation of the centrality of Kashmir to peace and stability in the region was made by the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Khalid Shameem Wynne, while maintaining that Pakistan posed no threat to any country.

Addressing the graduation ceremony of the National Security and War Course at the National Defence University, Gen. Wynne said: “We seek nothing beyond secure frontiers and pose no threat to any country and will accept no pressure for standing up for our principles.”

Dwelling on peace and stability in the region, he added: “I must also point out that as long as the regional disputes, specially Kashmir, remains unresolved, stability will remain a distant dream, we must therefore continue for a just solution of the Kashmir dispute as it is only fair to all the people who dwell in this region.”

Speaking at a seminar on “Erosion of Autonomy and its restoration to the State of Jammu and Kashmir” organized by the Department of Political Science, University of Kashmir in collaboration with Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation, New Delhi, here, the Minister said that Autonomy has remained, since the days of accession, the heartbeat of the people of the State. He said today we find that the State has last all semblance to autonomy. Its erosion is the primary cause for Kashmir discontent. Rather said that keeping this in view, the former Prime Minister of India, Narashima Rao announced in the Parliament in 1995 that the Union Government would be prepared to considered Autonomy “Short of Independence and Sky is the limit”. “Welcoming the Statement on the behalf of J&K National Conference, Dr. Farooq Abdullah asked the Union Government to issue an order under Article 370 to restore the State’s Autonomy in terms of the Delhi agreement of 1952. When this did not happen, the National Conference boycotted the Parliamentary Election in 1996”, Rather added.

The Minister said that it is well known fact that the State of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India in 1947 in respect of three subjects only viz, Defence, External Affairs and Communications. So the power of Parliament to make laws for the State was restricted to these subjects only or matters ancillary thereto. It is mentioned in the Instrument of Accession that terms of this instrument ‘shall not be’ varied except by an instrument supplementary to the instrument of accession. He said it would be pertinent to mention here that while other Indian States signed the instrument of accession and then the instrument of merger, J&K did not signs the instrument of merger. He said the Instrument of accession also provides “nothing in this instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitutor”. Right from the beginning in 1948 there was no doubt in any quarter that, regardless of the arrangements in respect of other former Indian States, the State of Jammu and Kashmir would have its own Constitution as a member of the Indian Union, Rather added.

He said uniquely, the State is the only one to have negotiated the term of its membership of the Union. The negotiations were spread over the five months. Negotiations on the provisions in the proposed constitution of India that would embody the terms of the State’s membership of the union began when a conference of the leaders of the National Conference and of the leaders at the Centre was held in Delhi on May 15-16, 1949. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru recorded the issues discussed in a letter to sheikh Sahib on 18th of May, 1949. “The State will have its own constitution and it will be for the constituent Assembly of the State, when convened, to determine in respect of what other subjects the State may accede”. He said Sher-i-Kashmir Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah so meticulous that during negotiations even minutest details were discussed. After threadbare discussions, Art 370 came into being. A careful study of the text of this Article reveals six special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir.

Elaborating on these provisions Rather said that it exempted the state totally from the provisions of the constitution of India providing for the governance of the States. It was allowed to have its own Constitution within the Indian Union.

Secondly, the Parliament’s Legislative Power was restricted to three subjects Defence, External Affairs and Communications. The President could extend to it other provisions of the Constitution to provide a constitutional framework if they related to the matters specified in the instrument of accession. For all this, only “Consultation” with the State Government was required since the State has already accepted them in 1947 by the instrument of Accession.

Third, if other Constitutional Provisions and others Union power are to be extended to the State of Jammu and Kashmir the prior “Concurrence” of the State Government was required.

Fourth feature is that even the concurrence alone did not suffice. It had to be ratified by the State’s constituent Assembly.

The Fifth feature is that the State Government’s authority to give the “Concurrence” lasts only till the State Constituent Assembly is convened. It is an interim power. Once the constituent Assembly met, the State Government cannot give its own concurrence. Once the constituent Assembly met, the State Government cannot give its own concurrence. Still less, after the assembly met and dispersed.

The Sixth and the last feature is the Art 370 (3) empowers the President make an order abrogating or amending it. But for this also “ the recommendation” of the State’s Constituent Assembly “ shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification”.

Rather said that Art. 370 cannot be abrogated or amended by recourse to the amending provisions of the constitution which apply to all the others states because Art 368 have a proviso, which says that no constitutional amendment shall have effect in relations to the State of Jammu and Kashmir unless applied by order of the President under Art 370 and that requires first the concurrence of the State Government and subsequent ratification by its constituency Assembly. He said the Art. 370 was authoritatively explained by the mover in the constituent assembly, N. Goplaswamy Ayyanger contemporaneously and resident of India, Dr. Rajinder Parsad. “ Ayyanger said in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949 that “we have also agreed that the will of the people through the instrument of the Constituent Assembly will determine the constitution of the State as well as the sphere of union Jurisdiction over the State. You will remember that several of these clauses provide for the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir State. Now, these relate particularly to matters which are not mentioned in the instrument of Accession, and it is one our commitments to the people and Government of Kashmir that no such additions should be made expect with the consent of the constituent Assembly, which may be called in the State for the purpose of framing its constitution. In other words, what we are committed to is that these additions are matters for the determination of the Constituent Assembly of the State”. Ayyangar repeatedly said that the Government concurrence alone will not do. “That concurrence should be placed before the Constituent Assembly when it meets and the Constituent Assembly takes whatever decisions it likes on those matters”.

He said it is abundantly clear that from 1953 onwards, especially in sixties, the process of erosion of the State autonomy began rapidly and on massive scale, adding that they assault on the State autonomy has to be and must be undone. For this purpose, he said the State autonomy committee has prepared a comprehensive report, which was approved by both Houses of the Legislature by two-thirds majority and the Centre should reconsidered this authentic and legal document so that peace can return to the State on sustain basis.(GNS)

Journalist Zahid Rafiq tells how he tried to reach Avtar Singh, a former Indian military man living outside Fresno with a dark past in Kashmir. On Saturday, Mr. Singh killed his family and himself.

By Zahid Rafiq, Contributor / June 12, 2012

Selma, Calif. and Srinagar, Indian-controlled Kashmir

A former Indian Army major placed a call Saturday morning to police outside Fresno, Calif., to inform them that he had murdered four people. By the time police arrived at the nearby scene, Avtar Singh had killed not just his family but himself, too.

Nearly two months prior, Mr. Singh had called the same Selma Country police for the last time to complain against media who wouldn’t leave him alone. I was that reporter.

I am a Kashmiri journalist studying at the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Singh had been discovered last year to be living in Selma, where he ran his own trucking company. I wanted to interview this man, who was notorious back home after a judicial inquiry accused him of murdering a prominent human rights activist.

Like so much from the Kashmir conflict of the 1990s – of my childhood – the case remained unresolved, and the pain of victims left to fester.

After decades of mostly nonviolent resistance to Indian rule, Kashmiri separatists and Pakistani militants rose up with guns in 1989. India cracked down with a massive counterinsurgency that continues today, more than a decade after quashing the armed uprising. Government figures say at least 47,000 people have died in the conflict and thousands remain missing; other estimates are much higher.

Atrocities committed by Indian forces during the conflict have rarely if ever been punished. Singh’s was the rare case that made it to court in Kashmir, but he then fled the country. The magistrate put out a warrant over Interpol, and in 2011, Selma police alerted India’s Interpol bureau that they had their man.

But Singh was never extradited. In an age when the reach of international justice is growing, Singh’s case highlights how much influence international relations and national politics can still warp the process.

“It shows the ongoing hurdles that have to be overcome,” says Matt Eisenbrandt, legal director for the Center for Justice and Accountability in Canada. He tried for a time to help locate Singh when he was missing.

“Just because a perfectly innocent human rights lawyer is murdered doesn’t mean that you always bring the bad guys to account. You still have to deal with politics, both domestically and internationally,” he says.

Why I started writing about Singh

I first heard about Singh after I became a reporter in Kashmir in 2007. Like many reporters in the disputed region, I wrote about him and the struggle of the families of his victims for elusive justice.

Singh was wanted for the kidnapping and murder of human rights activist Jaleel Andrabi in 1996. Months before his death, Mr. Andrabi had addressed a UN session in Geneva about human rights violations by India in Kashmir.

On the evening of March 8, 1996, Andrabi was driving home with his wife when he was stopped and taken away by Army personnel who were apparently waiting for him.

Twenty days later, police asked Andrabi’s younger brother to identify a body recovered from a jute sack in the Jhelum River. It was Andrabi: his hands tied behind his back, his eyes gouged out.

The Special Investigation Team formed to investigate the case – at the order of the high court in Kashmir – reported that everything pointed to Maj. Avtar Singh of the 35 Rashtriya Rifles unit as the person who had committed the murder. It also found that to eliminate the trail, Singh had murdered four Kashmiri counterinsurgents who had witnessed the killing.

Kashmiri police also claim to have found Singh’s involvement in five other cases of murder, including that of a young man whom he suspected of having an affair with his sister-in-law and an old Sikh tailor whom his wife’s family might have owed some money.

Soon after the death of Andrabi, Singh left Kashmir and the country, even though the court had placed restrictions against his flight abroad.

The victims’ families allege that India’s Home Ministry and External Affairs Ministry smuggled Singh out to save him from legal procedures where he might have given away the names of other officers involved in the case, and also to avoid setting a precedent for Indian soldiers accused of human right violations to appear before the law.

“If the extradition does go through, I will open my mouth,” Singh said in an interview last year with the Indian magazine Open. “I will not keep quiet.”

JP Singh, an official with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), said he could not comment on the case. Multiple efforts to reach the Home Ministry failed. Neither ministry appears to be talking to the media about the case since Saturday’s killings.

Even before I started graduate school in Berkeley, I checked how far Selma was from campus. I wanted to speak with the man who has claimed that he was being blamed to save other culprits. I also wanted to see him, because his only two available pictures were so radically different that it was hard to believe it is the same man.

Heading to Selma

On March 26, I went to Selma.

There I met police chief Myron Dyck. In 2011, his officers arrested Singh in a domestic abuse case filed by his wife. Singh was now on a 36-month probation, Mr. Dyck said, but otherwise a free man.

I asked about why Singh was never extradited. Dyck said that Singh’s home country never wanted him back.

“When we arrested him in 2011 and found that he was wanted on the Interpol list, we informed the Interpol Washington office and they asked us to hold him till they contacted their Indian counterparts,” Dyck said.

Interpol’s Washington office confirmed this. Interpol is a communications network, designed to pass messages between law enforcement agencies across international borders. Interpol Washington passed the message that Singh was in custody in Selma to the National Central Bureau of Interpol in India.

“Quite a few contacts were made, with little to no response,” says LaTonya Miller, a spokesman at Interpol Washington. “The Indian government has to initiate whatever extradition process needs to happen.”

But they did not.

Interpol in India confirmed they received the messages. “To avoid delay, we asked them to directly contact the MEA, who do the extradition,” said an Interpol official in India who refused to be named.

“We don’t get involved with governments. We deal with police-to-police only,” says Ms. Miller in Washington.

Back in Selma, Dyck said he waited for two days for word on what to do with Singh, but when Interpol Washington couldn’t get any response, “we had to release him,” he says.

Why no deportation proceedings?

The US had another option: deportation. According to Lori Haley, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman, Singh was arrested by ICE in July 2007 for unlawful presence in the US and placed in removal proceedings.

“At the time of his death, Mr. Singh was pending removal while the ongoing investigation into his case continued,” says Ms. Haley via email, referring to an investigation by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit.

Asked if it is usual for such cases to go on for five years, she responded: “Removal cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and timeframe.”

In recent years, the US has been courting India after weak relations during the cold war. The US has been encouraging India to deepen its involvement in Afghanistan and with the navies on China’s periphery. In 2011, the US ambassador to India visited Kashmir but did not meet with Kashmiri separatist leaders, a suggestion at least to some that the US was willing to stay quiet on Kashmir for the good of broader US-India relations.

The US government also remained quiet in 2011 when Singh was not extradited but remained on US soil. A call to the US State Department Monday was not returned.

A low-profile life in California

After talking with Dyck, I drove by Singh’s house on Pine Street and also by his previous house on McCall Avenue. They were quiet neighborhoods, past endless vineyards and peach orchards.

Singh changed houses often enough that neither his neighbors nor the Sikh religious leaders knew much about the family. Harry Gill, president of the local Punjabi organization, knew only that the family kept a low profile.

“Not many people knew him. He didn’t tell anybody who he is or where he came from,” he told the Associated Press after the killings.

I was also asking around about Singh from journalists who had reported his domestic violence story in 2011, and had asked a Fresno-based journalist to arrange an interview for me with Singh, if possible. I was reluctant to meet Singh myself because I somehow knew he wouldn’t talk to me after finding out that I was Kashmiri.

Word had reached Singh that a Kashmiri reporter was inquiring about him and had come seeking an interview. He called me that evening. It was a calm voice, speaking in steady English, and inquired if I was the Kashmiri who was looking for him. I said yes. He asked if I was in Fresno. I lied that I was coming tomorrow. And then he shouted, using expletives.

“You think this is your father’s Kashmir. Do you have any idea where you are coming? You have such guts that you have come from Kashmir. Just set your foot in Selma and I will shoot you. I will kill you,” he yelled, jumping between native Punjabi and Hindi as he got more upset.

I asked if he knew he was threatening with death a reporter who only wanted an interview. He continued making threats, and then hung up.

A restraining order

The next morning, the Selma police called me to say that Singh had filed a complaint and got a restraining order against me that prohibited me from going close to his house, his office, or him and his family.

When I read the news of killings in Selma two days ago, I was shocked. The first thing I remembered was the long email Singh’s wife had sent to me in 2011 after I had written a story about Singh’s past in Kashmir and the need for his extradition.

She had threatened to sue my magazine and me if we didn’t apologize in the next issue. She also wrote that her husband was a soldier who had bled for his country, and had never, and would never, spill an innocent man’s blood.

Had Singh been extradited and made to face the legal system, it would have been a lifesaver for the 10 families in Kashmir who accuse Singh of killing their loved ones. It also, most likely, would have been a lifesaver for Singh’s wife and two of his children killed Saturday. A third child was badly injured but remains alive in a hospital.

“It is an unfortunate end. Not justice in any sense of the word,” says Hafizullah Mir, Andrabi’s lawyer. “Avtar Singh should have faced the court, and we should have heard his side of the story, too, and the side of the victims and then the court.”

* Ben Arnoldy contributed to this report from Boston.

There is poignant irony to the brutal ending of the blood-stained tale of Major Avatar Singh who was wanted in the gruesome murder of Jaleel Andrabi. Singh, living as a fugitive in far away America, shot dead four of his own family members, on Saturday, just as the Kashmir Valley was preparing to remember and pay homage to the youthful martyrs of 2010 summer uprising. Yet another dark chapter of Kashmir’s contemporary history has been consigned to the limbo, like the mysterious case of theft and intriguing recovery of the Holy Relic from the Hazratbal shrine in Srinagar in 1963.

About a year before he took his own life and brutally killed his wife and three children, Major Singh, in a rare press interview re-published in Kashmir Times on Monday, hinted at deeper conspiracy behind Andrabi’s murder and threatened to expose it if and when forced to account for his involvement in the crime. ‘They will not allow me to live till then’, he feared. Obviously, the stress and strain of living as a fugitive were getting the better of Major Singh’s endurance. Earlier last year his wife had lodged a police complaint in America that he had been ill treating her and their children. All this was happening across the oceans even as the judicial process here was moving at less than snail’s pace.

Three or four facts support Major Singh’s allegation of a wider conspiracy behind Andrabi’s murder in 1996. The cloak and dagger game was being played by intelligence agencies in connivance with higher ups within the establishment. Firstly, he was allowed to roam freely in Punjab for more than five years and shielded against the arrest warrant against him issued by the J&K High Court in 1997-98. Secondly, Major Singh was provided with necessary official documents and his escape to the US was facilitated by government agencies who were fully in know of his criminal involvement. Thirdly, one of the alleged Ikhwani accomplices in the Andrabi murder case, Sikandar Ganie, had been shot dead in custody to erase the trail. It was another Ikhwani, Umar, who eventually spilled the beans when things got hot for him. Fourthly, Justice Bilal Nazki was summarily transferred out of J&K soon after he ordered the setting up of a special investigation team (SIT) of the state police to probe Andrabi murder case.

Put together, these closely linked incidents lead to the inevitable conclusion that Major Avatar Singh was not acting alone and that he was a link in a long chain. Involvement of persons at higher levels as well as that of shadowy ‘intelligence’ agencies in those dark deeds stands out as a sore thumb. The game, in fact, continues unabated, notwithstanding official acknowledgement that the ground situation in Kashmir had vast improved.

Merciless killing of nearly two hundred young boys during 2008 and 2010 popular uprising and stonewalling of attempts at enforcing accountability in such cases shows that, in effect, nothing really has changed since Major Avatar Singh and his gang of Ikhwanis patronised by the establishment kidnapped and murdered Jaleel Andrabi in March, 1996. Major Avatar Singh’s brutal end in a far away land, 16 years later, has actually blown the cover off. More skeletons are likely to tumble out.

For the aggrieved Andrabi family, Major Avatar Singh’s violent end is a mixed bag. On the one hand, fate had caught up with the most wanted fugitive but on the other it had to be at the expense of four more innocent lives—that of his own family. Also, Major Singh’s trial in a court of law would have exposed the whole trail as he had threatened to do, ‘if I am let to live’. The culture of impunity and unaccountability under the protective umbrella of ultra-constitutional black laws is leaving behind an unending trail of ‘Andrabis’ and ‘Avatar Singhs’ across the landscape.

Farooq Ahmad Wani, father of Wamiq Farooq one of the victims of 2010 bloodbath of Kashmir, cried tears of frustration and fear today saying that he is losing hope on Supreme Court of India especially in the wake of its recent decision on Pathribal killings.
Farooq Ahmad Wani says that if he is not able to bring justice to his family, he will hang himself in front of public.

“They lodged an FIR in the Police Station saying that my son is a stone pelter. They killed him first, and then lied over his dead body. What more could be infuriating to a father?” an emotionally charged father tells Kashmir Times.

Muhammad Ahsan Antoo, Chairman International Forum for Justice & Human Rights Forum J&K who accompanied Farooq Ahmad Wani said that the victim families of 2010 unrest have been secluded and justice eludes them since last two years.

He said that various families of victims of 2010 would be organizing a silent-sit in on 11th, 13th and 15th of this month in central, south and north Kashmir districts observing Martyrs week.

A few of the cases of 2010 killings which have gone to Supreme Court for seeking justice have almost lost their ground when the apex court directed these parties to study the Pathribal killings judgement and see whether there is anything which has not been covered.

Pertinently, under the Supreme Court’s latest judgment on Pathribal case there is no distinction between an active and off duty serviceman. And impunity is available to all service men all the times-on duty or off duty. Secondly, army or the concerned para-military force personnel have the first option to determine the mode of prosecution (court martial or civil court trial).

“The Pathribal killings judgement, therefore, weakens the stand of victim families none of whom have been able to see the killers of their kids behind the bars,” Ahsan Antoo told Kashmir Times.

Meanwhile, back in Wamiq’s house ever since he succumbed to teargas shells on January 31, 2010 his school trophies, certifications and medals have poured in which his father holds closely to his chest.

Recalling that rush on Wamiq’s face last time Farooq saw him when he rushed for call to prayers (Adhan), and never came back home, Farooq murmurs, “I do not know what to tell his mother every time I go for a court hearing. She is suffering from various heart ailments and only justice will bring respite to her longing heart.”

The natural beauty of the Kashmir Valley is an overpowering sight after traversing the 2.5-km bleakly-lit Jawahar Tunnel. Cradled in the midst of towering mountains, Kashmir is a rich canvas of all shades of green, with wild flowers sprinkled liberally everywhere.

All along the way to Srinagar, the roadside is a riot of colours with even the smallest households having a beautiful garden, with roses and pansies in full bloom.

The natural beauty of the land comes as a great contrast to the bunkers of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), fortified with sandbags, manned by gunmen and surrounded by rolls of razor wire.

Once inside Srinagar, the state capital, the presence of security personnel increases substantially, with bunkers and riot control vehicles on almost every street and crossing.

“Some sort of unrest happens here almost every day but you don’t have to worry. You are from outside and they don’t hurt tourists,” a CRPF soldier told IANS.

The Kashmiri point of view differs.

“Nowadays we don’t have any problems. The forces man the city and there are no untoward incidents any more,” Jemal, a waiter at a hotel in Srinagar’s Lal Chowk, told IANS.

“But now they don’t need to be here in such large numbers. The tourists get scared,” he adds, after a moment of thought.

However, Lal Chowk still bears the scars from several decades of unrest. A bombed out cinema hall turned into CRPF bunker, a CRPF post blackened with fire, the bullet marks on the area’s namesake red-coloured Sanatan Dharma building, which once served as a charity guesthouse for Amarnath pilgrims.

Due to the peace, the tourists have returned to the Valley in huge numbers this year.

Inside Srinagar, the traveller can catch a whiff of mutton and Kashmiri spices being cooked over a coal fire in every street. The Seekh kebabs with a rumali roti are cheap but tasty. For dessert, there are stalls of phirni, sewaiyon ki kheer and kulfi after a day of tasting street-food.

“In Kashmir, you should go for a wazwan if you can. It is a completely different experience. Essentially, the Kashmiri term for ‘feast’, wazwan is also the best showcase of Kashmiri cuisine,” Raja Muneeb, a hotelier, told IANS.

The traditional wazwan is a wedding feast spread over more than 10 courses, ranging from appetizers to dessert.

Then there are the usual attraction of Kashmiri shawls, dry fruits and saffron.

Shop after shop in the local Kukar Bazaar selling saffron, almonds, apricots, walnuts, pre-mixed Kahwa powder and bundles of cinnamon is a huge draw with the tourists looking for the best Kashmiri produce.

Apart from Srinagar, Gulmarg remains one of the biggest draws for tourists. Rolling green grassy mountainsides give way to tall Deodars on the upper reaches, before finally making way for the snow-capped tips. The fact that the place has also been the setting for shooting of many Hindi films also helps lure the tourist.

Home to a mountaineering institute and a golf course, Gulmarg also has the world’s highest Gondola cable car. The more adventurous ones can trek through the virgin forest of Deodar and pine, with rashes of sweet smelling wild roses and lush meadows.

The valley comes out as a land of duality. It is as if the war zone-like security and the paradise on earth have somehow learnt how to co-exist.

The Kashmiri, however, claims that everything is fine and ends the conversation. Quick to laugh or joke, the Kashmiri on the street doesn’t seem to be a violent person. But after long years of hearing about the “Kashmir problem”, the distrust is mutual.

The huge military presence also adds to the Kashmiri’s insecurity. Perhaps we need to bridge his distrust rather than soldier his thoughts.

Nikhil Walia can be contacted at nikhil.w@ians.in

The evolution of the right of self-determination has been one of the great normative narratives of the twentieth century. It was part of the visionary contributions of President Woodrow Wilson, who despite a deep-seated conservatism, seemed to have an uncontrollable tendency to give credibility to normative ideas that contained implications that carried far, far beyond his intentions. Ever since the words of self-determination left the lips of President Woodrow Wilson, the wider meaning of the words has excited the moral, political and legal imagination of oppressed peoples around the world. Although, self-determination even now, decades later, still seems to be a Pandora’s Box that no one knows how to close, and despite concerted efforts there is little likelihood that the box will be closed anytime soon.

All people appreciate the concept of the right of self-determination. The self-determination of peoples is a basic principle of the United Nation Charter which has been reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and applied countless times to the settlement of many international disputes. The UN celebrates self-determination in Article 1.2 as a major objective of its Charter. Self-determination has been enshrined in countless international documents and treaties. It is guaranteed under the Article 1 of International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (ICPCR) and Article 1 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The experience teaches that certain factors militate in favor of its exercise: an oppressive ruler; ugly and sustained human rights violations; military support from a foreign country or multinational organization; unwavering resistance; a common culture, history, language, and religion; democracy within the ranks of an oppressed peoples lead by a towering figure on the national or international stage.

From some perspectives, the decolonization process has had some successes in the United Nations machinery. However, the entire process of decolonization was not all-smooth sailing. There were many instances when those states still intent on holding on to their colonies put up a strong resistance against having their dominions stripped from them but the calls for independence – in many cases accompanied with well-motivated insurgent movements – brought home to the international community the importance of achieving self-determination in order to ensure peace and security.

In modern international law, self-determination is considered a collective “peoples’ right.” It is generally defined as the right of a people not only to preserve its language, cultural heritage and social traditions, but also to act in a politically autonomous manner and — if the people so decide — to become independent when conditions are such that
its rights would otherwise be restricted.

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo exercised self-determination by seceding from Yugoslavia. Ireland achieved self-determination by revolting against Great Britain. Namibia justified self-determination by force of arms against South Africa. The Southern Sudan did the same to obtain independence from Sudan. East Timor commanded strong international sympathy and help from the international community in asserting self-determination because of Indonesia’s repressive rule. The United States earned self-determination by defeating the British in the Revolutionary War. India and Pakistan attained self-determination by a combination of British weakness and exhaustion from World War II, a growing international consensus against colonial domination, and the political and diplomatic skills of the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

Kashmir may present the strongest facial case for self-determination which has been nevertheless denied. The applicability of the principle of self-determination to the specific case of Jammu and Kashmir has been explicitly recognized by the United Nations. It was upheld equally by India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was brought before the Security Council in 1948. Since, on the establishment of India and Pakistan as sovereign states, Jammu and Kashmir was not part of the territory of either. The two countries entered into an agreement to allow its people to exercise their right of self-determination under impartial auspices and in conditions free from coercion from either side. The agreement is embodied in the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan explicitly accepted by both Governments. It is binding on both Governments and no allegation of non-performance of any of its provisions by either side can render it inoperative. These resolutions do not detract from the binding nature of that agreement as far as the obligations of these two parties are concerned. But they do imply recognition of the inherent right of the people of Kashmir to decide their future independently of the contending claims of both India and Pakistan.

It is commonly thought that the United Nations resolutions limited the choice of the people of the State regarding their future to accede to either India or Pakistan. Though understandable, the impression is erroneous because the right of self-determination, by definition, is an unrestricted right. By entering into the agreement, India and Pakistan excluded, and rendered inadmissible, each other’s claim to the State until that claim was accepted by the people through a vote taken under an impartial authority. They did not, as they could not, decide what options the people would wish to consider. No agreement between two parties can affect the rights of a third: this is an elementary principle of law and justice which no international agreement, if legitimate, can possibly flout.

To put it in everyday language, it was entirely right for India and Pakistan to pledge to each other, as they did, ” Here is this large territory; let us not fight over it; let us make its people decide its status.” But it would be wholly illegitimate for them to say, ” Let one of us get the territory. Let us go through the motions of a plebiscite to decide which one”. That would not be a fair agreement; it would be a plot to deny the people of Kashmir the substance of self-determination while providing them its form. It would amount to telling them that they can choose independently but they cannot choose independence. It would make a mockery of democratic norms.

It must be pointed out that an independent Kashmir would not be a Kashmir isolated from India and Pakistan. On the contrary, it would have close links, some of them established by trilateral treaty provisions, with both its neighbors. Indeed, it would provide them a meeting ground. In this respect, Kashmir could make a contribution to the stabilization of peace in South Asia which no other entity can.

Dr. Fai can be reached at: gnfai2003@yahoo.com

The attempt to have the Kashmir issue converted from one involving a people’s right to self-determination to one of human rights violations is being orchestrated by India, so that it will claim its sovereign right to deal with its citizens as it wishes, thus having the Kashmiri people counted amongst its citizens. The flaw in this approach is that such a so-called solution would be neither lasting nor stable, and would very soon bring all parties back to square one, with the Kashmiri people once more fully committed to the struggle against Indian occupation and striving for their intrinsic right to self-determination.

The UN should not be fooled by Indian wishes, and must not imagine that its attempt to stop the Kashmiri people from exercising their right of self-determination by converting the question of a people’s self-determination, into one of human rights, will ever be successful, even among the people of Pakistan, who remain comitted to the diplomatic and moral support they have committed to the Kashmiri people.

Shumaila Raja

Media these days is discussing the issue of Dr Shakil Afridi, who played the role of CIA informer which resulted in the Abbottabad operation on May 2 last year. They are also referring to Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai who has been arrested in the US for what they call spying for the ISI. It would be absurd to argue that if the US can track down Dr Fai on charges of spying for Pakistan, why can’t Pakistan charge Dr Shakil Afridi on the now proved charges of spying for CIA?

In Washington Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai voiced his continuing belief that Pakistan and India alone cannot solve the 65-year-old Kashmir conflict, and that genuine leadership of the people of Jammu & Kashmir must be included in all kinds of dialogue. He was speaking at a reception arranged by Captain Shaheen Butt at Royal Banquette Hall, Brooklyn, New York. The event was organized to express solidarity with Dr Fai. “More trade between India and Pakistan will do nothing to end the indigenous Kashmiri resistance, which is fueled by shocking human rights abuses perpetrated by 700,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces and the denial of self-determination plebiscite for 17 million Kashmiris that the United Nations Security Council has prescribed. And no power or combinations of powers can bargain away the rights of Kashmiris; only they can determine their own political destiny.”

“In Kashmir, during its centuries of virtual independence, communal violence or abrasiveness was unknown between Muslims, Pandits, Buddhists, and Sikhs. Kashmiris, Fai added, shared values and a heritage that far transcended religious divides. But this serenity was destroyed by the onset of India’s illegal military occupation of Kashmir on October 27, 1947.” With good faith by all parties, Dr. Fai maintained, common ground leading to a final settlement of the Kashmir tragedy can be discovered. If it can happen in East Timor, South Africa, Kosovo and Southern Sudan, then it can happen in Kashmir, which is even more urgent because of nuclear and missile proliferation in the region.

Captain Shaheen Butt, while appreciating the contribution Dr. Fai has made to the cause of Kashmir said that the international community should not abandon Kashmir to the whims of India and Pakistan. They should be persuaded to permit outside intervention to resolve the Kashmir conflict. They should also be persuaded to permit Kashmiris to participate as full partners in the negotiating enterprise. Sardar Sawar Khan said that the Cease-fire Line (CFL) that divides Kashmiris between India and Pakistan is as ugly and sinister as the Berlin Wall. But why is there no international outcry? Suggestions that the CFL becomes a permanent international border is flatly unacceptable to Kashmiris, and it is their sovereignty which is at stake.

Sardar Sawar Khan said that non violent movement in Kashmir is popular, spontaneous and indigenous. This needs to be strengthened and the people of Jammu & Kashmir need to be give the right of self-determination to decide their future. Sardar Haleem Khan explained that a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir would yield a decisive vote in favor of independence. India, by giving a deaf ear to that understanding, has resorted to horrific human rights violations to crush Kashmiris into submissiveness. Sardar Taj Khan said that India is living in a dream world if it thinks it ever has or ever will capture the hearts and minds of the 17 million people of Kashmir.” Mr. Rohil Dar said that India’s illegal insolence to the Security Council resolutions has persisted for many decades, but no sanctions or even moral reproaches have been forthcoming because of India’s military, economic, and political muscle, the epitome of squalid “might-makes-right” international diplomacy.

Dr. Khalid Luqman explained the urgency of American intervention because of the importance of South Asia to the future of the United States in particular and mankind in general in light of the dangerous ongoing nuclear and missile proliferation in the area. Choudhary Sarwar said that experience and human nature teach that violence begets violence and leads to nowhere, while dialogue and peaceful dissent based on universal democratic and moral principles marks the path of progress and success. Naseem Gilgaati called for greater moral suasion and non-violent measures to persuade India to cease its persecution of Kashmiris. Sardar Zahid said that peace in South Asia in general and Kashmir in particular is too important to be left to two rivals alone with their own self-interests guiding their maneuvering. Dr. Mohammad Shafique urged that Kashmiri representatives must be brought to the negotiating table as equal partners for progress on a solution to the 65-year-old conflict. Rana Mohammad Saeed explained that Kashmir was about the people and their destiny, not about religion or terrorism. India and Pakistan should both cease diverting attention from this primary fact. Sardar Imtiaz Garalvi, while moderating the event maintained that direct and effective participation of the people of Kashmir was indispensable to a successful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

The case of Dr Fai is not linked to Dr Afridi. If these are to be the instances, then Dr Afridi stands proved as a traitor and the sentence is correct but as some of the analysts say the timing of sentence is not right as it would add to further driving the agenda of the superpower as an operation similar of May 2 last year is possible that would threaten once again the sovereignty of Pakistan.

India’s terrorist activities against the innocent and oppressed people of Kashmir in the occupied territory are not hidden from anyone. Similarly, day in and day out double standards of Delhi in other issues appear before the world as well. In the same context, on March 23, 2012, India voted against Sri Lanka in the conference of the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in Geneva regarding the resolution moved by the US. Analysts are viewing this measure by India as a worth-considering act for the South Asian region. UNHRC has forty-seven members. Out of forty seven members of the UNHRC, twenty-four members that mainly include India, the US, Austria, Belgium, Spain, The Czech Republic, Switzerland etc have voted in favour of the resolution steered by the US which accused the Sri Lankan government of violating the ‘human rights’ under the cover of tackling the rebellious activities of Tamil Tigers. It further argued that a case of war crimes should be made against the government of Sri Lanka. However, on this issue, Pakistan, China, Russia, Bangladesh, Maldives, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, in total fifteen countries, opposed the resolution. Eight countries did not participate in the voting process.

Reacting to the resolution, the spokesperson of the Sri Lankan government strongly condemned the Indian role in this regard. He stated that in the near future, the Sri Lankan government might move a resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) against India. The resolution would address the on going state-sponsored terrorism by New Delhi in the occupied Kashmir. Similarly, that would also draw attention towards the constant violation of human rights by India in terms of persecuting the people of Kashmir. Moreover, the resolution would also appeal to initiate a case of war crimes against the concerned Indian officials.

By reviewing the situation in detail, neutral analysts are of the view that the above mentioned situation would affect the regional and global situation to a great extent. Similarly, it would provide ample boost not only to the struggle for the freedom of Kashmiri people but would also strengthen Pakistan’s position and stance on the unjust occupation of Kashmir by India. Broadly speaking, the regional political parties are having an increasing impact on the foreign policy of India. A few days back, the current chief minister of the state of Tamil Nadu, J. Lalita who belongs to the party of AIDMK, pressurised the Indian government to vote in favour of the resolution against Sri Lanka. Soon after that, DMK, an important coalition party of Manmohan Singh’s government, shoved the Delhi government to vote against Sri Lanka. It also threatened the government of parting ways from the coalition of the government. Paradoxically, government decided to protect its coalition government and voted in favour of the resolution, though other factors were also involved.

Likewise, in October 2011, chief minister of West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee, nudged the Manmohan Singh government to revert the TEESTA agreement regarding the division of river water between Bangladesh and India — which Singh had signed in the September 2011 during his visit to Bangladesh. According to the agreement, it was decided to give 50 percent water to Bangladesh. Ironically, soon after the agreement, Banerjee and her party members made a hue and cry over the accord by claiming that it would not be in favour of the Indian state of West Bengal. So, even the ink of the agreement had not dried and when it was reverted by the Indian government. Mind you, Mamta Banerjee is not only the chief minister of Bengal but her party Trinamool Congress is one of the important coalition partners of the ruling government. For the same reason, Delhi government decided to retract on its decision of TEESTA agreement with Bangladesh.

According to the analysts, India’s antagonistic approach towards Bangladesh and Sri Lanka points towards number of issues. Firstly, the contradiction between what India says and does has taken deep roots in the Indian politics. Secondly, regional political parties in India have gained lot of momentum and influence on the foreign policy of India. In this context, Pakistani media, government and concerned authorities should be fully aware of the importance and functioning of India’s regional political parties in order to maintain peaceful relations with that country. Similarly, serious and practical attempts to resolve the dispute of Kashmir and water issues between India and Pakistan should be made in this backdrop. Friendly relations between India and Pakistan are of great significance for regional peace and stability of South Asia.

—The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.

The KAC reviewed the report, and considered the groups mentioned as having participated in meetings with the Government appointed team.  The Board questioned if the team met with the family of Shaheed Jalil Andrabi, the eminent human rights lawyer whose eyes were gouged and body thrown into the Jhelum, the victims occupying the thousands of mass graves being discovered on a far too regular basis in many towns and villages of Kashmir, the families of those children arrested for the grave crime of participating in peaceful demonstrations, and who remain jailed, the parents of those murdered in 2010 for protesting the continued egregious acts of Indian occupational forces, and other similarly situated Kashmiri citizenry?  The Board questioned how the team understood the response from those left unmentioned, wondering where religious extremism and ethnic and regional chauvinism ranked in their since muted ability to respond.  The Board sought further clarification on the definition of “legitimate dissent,” and how it was to be expressed, when India’s unmentioned response to dissent is well documented in Kashmiri jails, torture centers and graveyards.

The KAC questioned the delay in the report’s release, wondering how many times it had been amended to accommodate the various special interests involved.  Focus on “disadvantaged groups,” “minorities” and “women” seemed designed to accommodate government interests, rather than report with accuracy the cries from the ground.  Confirmed in numerous media outlets, of which the team’s chair Mr. Padgonkar, himself a media man, should have been aware, were polls taken of Kashmiris who, when asked what they wanted, replied with the unmistakably simple AZADI, or freedom from Indian occupation.  It is indeed unfortunate that a team of such highly educated members could have ignored this oft-repeated cry.

In response to a question on the “broad consensus” of points to which the report referred, Sareer A. Fazili, Esq., KAC Spokesperson, wondered which Kashmiris felt that they should remain as a “single entity, within the Indian Union.”  Was it those who are unable to remove the draconian PSA, AFSPA and similar regulations despite their status as state legislators?  Was it those who rule Kashmir from behind the barrel of a gun?  Was it the armed forces themselves whose opinions were sought? Or did the team speak with the hearts and minds of the Kashmiris whose blood and sweat brought the committee into existence?  It seemed laughable to the Board that the committee that was born from unrelenting street demonstrations, mass public programs concluding with marches to the imposed barrier separating the two parts of Kashmir, and mass protests over Indian domination could conclude that continued occupation was a “consensus” opinion.

Finally, the Board bemoaned the team’s continued call for a political settlement of the Kashmir problem, without it’s acknowledged recognition of the disputed nature of the situation itself.  The Board reminded the team that numerous parlays, talks and meetings have failed to produce any movement on Kashmir, due to the simple fact that Kashmiris have never accepted any solution that was imposed upon them.  Rather, they have demanded an equal seat at the negotiating table, and no one will be allowed to bully them into submission or acquiescence.  The Board respectfully reminded the Chair of the team of his participation in the KAC’s 2005 Peace Conference Declaration team, where he and they affirmed, among other things, that a lasting settlement of the Kashmir issue would be according to the wishes and aspirations of the Kashmir people.  The Board affirmed its support and continued effort towards the pursuit of a settlement of the problem that centered solely on the wishes and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

‘The Christian Science Monitor’ in its column on April 25, 2012 said it all by emphasizing that “Ritual Aggression: India and Pakistan’s missile tests, following peace talks.”

We know that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers.  Both have now tested intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Both are adamant against inking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  Both feature domestic constituencies that universally celebrate their muscular nuclear postures; no political party or serious private association champions nuclear controls or disarmament.

India and Pakistan have warred three times since their respective births in 1947, and two occasioned on the disputed territory of Kashmir. In the best of times, India and Pakistan are no more friendlier than the Montagues and Capulets on the streets of Verona.

Two not mutually exclusive approaches are available to the United States to turn back the nuclear clock in South Asia; a region that former President Clinton has lamented is the most dangerous place on the planet.  The first emphasizes restraints on nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles; the second gives primacy to eliminating the probable cause of nuclear exchanges.  The US has chosen the first, and given but lip service to the second.

All experience teaches that neither India nor Pakistan will accept non-trivial limits on their nuclear arsenals in the foreseeable future. India’s intransigent position for more than 44 years is no nuclear constraints unless every nation abandons its nuclear forces and stockpiles, including the big five nuclear powers under the NPT: the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France.  India has now tested intercontinental ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads to the Beijing and Shanghai.  Pakistan reciprocated with just few days. The United States did not say anything that gives cause for Indian military anxieties. India’s nuclear and missile fixation pivots on her national ambitions and self-perception as the hegemonistic power in South Asia she routinely meddles in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives, and annexed Goa in 1961 and the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1975 by force of arms.  Thus, nothing but an overwhelming nuclear disarmament incentive could cause India to entertain the idea.  At present, such an incentive is chimerical.

According to the United Nations, Kashmir is a disputed territory. When the Kashmir question got erupted at the UN in 1948, the world powers took the stand that the future of Kashmir must be ascertained through plebiscite conducted by the United Nations.  India’s plebiscite obligation has been defied with both insolence and impunity for more than half a century, which substantially explains the chronic convulsions and ubiquitous indigenous Kashmiri resistance to India’s illegal military occupation.  Contrary to popular myth, cleverly peddled by India, the resistance in Kashmir is indigenous & popular; and infiltrators or terrorist “Afghan Arabs” are marginal to the Kashmir conflict.

The nuclear clock in South Asia thus can be turned back only by addressing the source of the proliferation, i.e., Kashmir.  If the 65-year-old Kashmir conflict is settled with fairness and justice to all parties, then the possession of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan will be dramatically less worrisome.  Britain and France, for instance, do not fret that the other is a nuclear power.  And the United States and Russia are engaged in serious nuclear arms reductions, but it came only after the end of the Cold War.  In sum, Kashmir is the key to spiking the nuclear arms race in South Asia.

I do not mean to suggest, however, that tackling Kashmir will not be difficult.  But here are my thoughts about a new and promising approach.

First, recognize that Kashmir is primarily about the 17 million Kashmiri people, their human rights and right to self-determination under international law and still binding United Nations Security Council resolutions.  It is not a border quarrel between India and Pakistan, nor a fight between Hindus and Muslims, nor a struggle between secularism and theocracy.

Second, third party intervention and mediation is indispensable.  India and Pakistan have negotiated for 65 years without result. All the flowery declarations from Tashkent, Simla, Lahore and other summits have proven sound and fury signifying nothing.  To persist in the same course after 65 years of dismal failure conjures up many adjectives, but none are flattering to the cerebral faculty.

Third, the United States should urge the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon to appoint a special envoy on Kashmir. More importantly, the United States should insist on the inclusion of genuine representatives of the Kashmiri people at the negotiating table.  It is their political destiny and human rights which are at stake, and no solution that fails to command their consent will endure.  That same reasoning explains the United States support for Sinn Fein representatives in the Northern Ireland talks, PLO representatives in talks with Israel, East Timor voices in negotiations with Indonesia, KLA leaders in negotiations with Yugoslavia, and Muslim, Croat, and Serb politicians in discussions over Bosnia.

Fourth, the United States should mount a campaign of moral suasion against India’s illegal occupation of Kashmir.  At present, its moral voice has been as silent as the Sphinx. Moral suasion generally works slowly, but is not Pollyannaish.  It accelerated South Africa’s dismantling of apartheid and the end of the international slave trade.  It promises no miracle in South Asia, but is nevertheless superior to all other peace and non-proliferation alternatives.

Finally, all tactics aiming at progress over Kashmir must be exercised with supreme prudence, without which, as the inimitable Sam Johnson sermonized, knowledge is useless, wit ridiculous, and genius contemptible.

The fiftieth session of “the United Nations Commission on Social Development” (CSocD) held in New York in 2012 unanimously approved its priority theme of ‘Poverty Eradication.’ I agree with the theme and I think that the issue of global social development is the issue of the century. Never before have so many suffered amidst liberty and luxury for the few. The wealth of single individuals exceeds the wealth of many nations. In highly developed countries, the number of persons living past 80 years is soaring. In deprived and convulsed countries, the average longevity is but half that age.

While citizens of some African countries are starving, the rich countries are beset with obesity. Discrepancies of these types are morally disturbing. The United Nations is ideally suited to ending these shocking inequalities because it hosts all the nations of the world and endows each with identical voting power in the General Assembly. The poorest and the weakest are equal to the richest and the strongest.

Therefore, the most urgent approach to promoting the global social development agenda should be the elimination of poverty and the securing for every man, woman, and child a right to flourishing health, a clean environment, comfortable housing, and nutritious food. The goal is not a choice but a moral obligation.

There is no moral excuse for regimes in poor nations to forfeit the rich self-help opportunities for economic growth. As Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan teach, economic prosperity turns more on human capital and the rule of law than on the flukes of natural resources. Think of some oil rich nations mired in misery and destitution.

The second urgent approach to promoting global social development is the ending of warfare. War, whether intramural or international, wreaks havoc on the elements necessary for health, housing, education, employment, the environment, and happiness generally.

War is enormously expensive, for example, India & Pakistan in the disputed territory of Kashmir. It diverts resources from schools, hospitals, roads, and telecommunications to AK-47s, Kalashnikovs, missiles, bombs, and artillery shells.

War also arrests economic development. Foreign investment withers. Infrastructure is destroyed. Lawlessness hikes the risks of any business enterprise. The consequence is widespread poverty.

I admit that denunciation of warfare is easier than prevention. But if mankind can assemble knowledge to send men to the moon and Land Rovers to Mars, the knowledge necessary to end wars cannot be far behind.

Accordingly, the United Nations should summon all Nobel Peace Prize winners or ‘Elders’ to devise principles of international law and conduct that will abolish the scourge of war from the face of the planet.

The third urgent global social development objective should be universal literacy and education. As Socrates explained, the unexamined life is not worth living. This observation is made not to deride or degrade the uneducated, but to underscore the criticality of education to making life morally meaningful and purposeful.

Education is also human capital that fuels economic growth. A worker’s productivity and compensation generally rise commensurate with educational achievement. In addition, education correlates with a worker’s ability to shift jobs and master new skills in an ever-changing global economy.

The United Nations should thus develop educational yardsticks that a nation must satisfy to receive economic or military aid from third parties, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The yardsticks should be incorporated in a treaty to be ratified by all United Nations members.

A fourth global social development should be the eradication of AIDS. AIDS is a question of virtual survival for some nations. In Africa, for instance, the incidence of AIDs or HIV infection are staggering. The ramifications of the AIDS crisis are enormous. It kills productive workers. It spikes medical costs.

The United Nations through the World Health Organization has a key role to play in curing or mitigating AIDS. It should sponsor research seeking a cure or vaccine for AIDS. And all new discoveries should be provided free to all persons suffering from AIDS. A goal should be set by the year 2020 to make AIDS as rare as smallpox.

Next on the list of global social development priorities should be the ending of all racial, ethnic, or class hatreds or enmities. Think of the horrifying quantity of violence in the world whose fundamental cause can be traced back to such social divisions. It infects every country on the planet. And if even one person suffers from invidious discrimination, then all are threatened and civilization has been tarnished. The United Nations Human Rights Council is ideally suited to fashion a program to achieve the desired result.

The attainment of equality for women is another pressing yardstick of global social development. Experience and intuition both demonstrate that women are as intelligent as men. They are as entrepreneurial and disciplined. They contribute every bit as much to

economic growth and social cohesion as men. It is thus imperative that women receive the same legal rights and social dignity as men if global social development is to advance.

Trafficking in women or children to provide sexually decadent pleasures for the rich and squalid also should rank high on the agenda of global social development. Degradation as commercial sex objects is morally repulsive. The United Nations must do something to end the vile practice. It scars women and children both physically and emotionally. Children are the future of mankind. They cannot be permitted to groan, suffer, and wither to satisfy the greed and lust for pleasure of the wicked.

Global social development also requires universal access to the Internet, a technological marvel that brings the excitement of knowledge and the joys of instant communication to every user. Internet communications can dissolve ancient enmities and overcome mutual distrust. Ignorance between races, ethnic groups, or religions breeds fear and prejudice. When two human beings communicate and share ideas, apprehensions recede and stereotypes die. They see each other as equals, with equal rights, equal aspirations, and equal dignity. The United Nations should play a key role in the universal access quest.

A clean environment is also essential to global social development. Pollution is more than twice cursed. It damages crops. It kills lakes and rivers. It occasions disease and illness through water and air, for example, lead poisoning or cholera.

Let me with great humility offer a few closing observations about the entire global social

development enterprise. It is characteristic that national or international organizations employ quantitative benchmarks to measure success in meeting enumerated objectives. For instance, a longstanding objective has been for each nation to contribute a

specified percentage of its gross domestic product for humanitarian or foreign aid. Companion quantitative benchmarks have been set for literacy, vaccinations, annual income, longevity, smoking, etc.

There is nothing inherently mischievous about these development yardsticks. But they should never distract from our recognition that the highest in social development consists of non-quantifiable characteristics. These would include acts of charity, humility, courage, benevolence, magnanimity, self-restraint, and non-vindictiveness. It would seem

to me to turn logic and morality on their heads to award higher social development acclaim to a nation whose citizens were universally economically prosperous, literate, healthy, long-lived, non-polluting, but also mean-spirited, selfish, and egotistical than to a nation whose citizens were impoverished, plagued by disease, but were generous in time, effusive in hospitality, austere in habits, and selfless for the community.

Dr. Fai can be reached at: gnfai2003@yahoo.com

The report of the group of interlocutors for Jammu & Kashmir entitled, “A New Compact With The People of Jammu & Kashmir” was finally released on May 23, 2012, after months of waiting.  Prepared by Mr. Dileep Padgoankar, Mr. M. M. Ansari and Professor Radha Kumar, it’s unfortunately a mess and unquestionably a diversion from the primary interests of the people, if not an outright diversionary tactic by the members of the group.  In fact, that is what some members of the leadership of the resistance have charged. The report was rejected out of hand by Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Muhammad Yasin Malik and Shabir Ahmed Shah, as well as other factions including the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association.  None feels that it represents the will of the people and most believe that the government is simply buying time to avoid the inevitable, a real political solution to the quagmire that Kashmir has become.

The interlocutors have suggested that the solution rests within the constitution of India and treats it as a problem internal to the affairs of India, cementing further the view that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, which obviously is a non-solution.  All the constitutions of the world are subject to amendment, and the Indian constitution is no exception.  If India gives anything to Kashmiris within the framework of the Indian constitution, how do you guarantee that she will not take it away tomorrow?  This move will not even need a debate within the Parliament of India.

The team also recommends that Article 370 should be made special within the Indian constitution.  And it is quite clear that the members of the team know well that this option has been rejected by the people of Kashmir many times in the past.  And they also know that Kashmiris have had autonomy within this Article, which has been abrogated due to the passage of time. The people have revolted against the status quo and status quo cannot be an answer.  Therefore, talking about Article 370 is an insult to the intelligence of the Kashmiri people.

The interlocutors have read the situation in Kashmir through the old grimy lenses of policy makers in New Delhi and did not bother to recognize that it is the obduracy and stubbornness of India that fails to accept the fact that Kashmir is not a law and order issue, nor is it a center-state question; it is primarily an issue of the 17 million people of Jammu & Kashmir which under all international agreements is not an integral part of any member state of the United Nations, including India and Pakistan.  If that historical fact is ignored, there cannot be any lasting solution to this tragic situation.

The report details its deliberations with over 700 delegations. However, a glaring omission is any mention that the interlocutors met with any member of the leadership of the Kashmiri resistance. It was none other than the former Prime Minster, Atel Behari Vajpayee, Deputy Prime Minister, L. K. Advani and current Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh who expressed desire time and again to meet with the leadership of the Kashmiri resistance to find the final settlement of the Jammu & Kashmir problem.  The group was appointed in fact as a direct consequence of massive street demonstrations and uprisings which began in 2007 and extended through the hot summer of 2010, in which Aazadi was the clarion call.  What happened?  Did they not see the blood on the streets?  Did they not read the newspapers?  Did they not watch television?  Were they in a deep slumber during these long years?

India may make a deal with any so-called leader of Kashmir, but deal making does not by itself establish legitimacy.  This deal making must be acceptable to the common man on the street.  He is the one who is the real stakeholder, and the legitimacy of any deal rests with his acceptance. History tells us that even the so-called ‘Lion of Kashmir,’ Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who had agreements with the founding Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru and the Iron Lady, Indira Gandhi, could not sell them to his people.  Therefore, it is imperative that India understands that no solution to the Kashmir problem will last if it does not have the consent of the people and their leadership, which is represented by the Kashmiri resistance, which has demonstrated time and again the ability to garner the support of the masses.

However distinguished, the partiality and bias of the members of the group of interlocutors becomes clear when the report states that it takes into account the official documents related to political and constitutional developments since Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to the Indian Union.  Paradoxically, the report does not mention that the accession was subject to a referendum of the people of Kashmir. It does not mention that it was in 1948 and 1949 that India and Pakistan agreed at the United Nations Security Council to give the people of Kashmir the right of self-determination to decide the fate of their land.  It does not mention the 18 UN resolutions since in support of self-determination.

Obviously, a committee buzzing around the state in a Mahindra Scorpio, with pencil and paper in hand does not constitute a referendum.  The provisions of the UN resolutions were negotiated with both India and Pakistan before they was endorsed by the Security Council. This thus constitutes an international binding upon both India and Pakistan to fulfill their pledges.

The report says that the political settlement proposed takes into full account the deep sense of victimhood prevalent in the Kashmir Valley. It surely deserves to be addressed with great sensitivity.

That recommendation certainly would have called for consulting with the resistance movement.  Although its leadership refused to meet with the group from the outset, they did so understanding that the group did not have a mandate to find a solution according to long standing international agreements.  The report that was released in fact exonerated them, because it did not mention even a syllable of these agreements.

The report further states “our interactions revealed a widespread desire of people to lead a life of dignity and honour.”  The interlocutors, however, failed to understand that that kind of “dignity and honour” desired is the right to determine the course of one’s own country and not to live under the very large fist of 700,000 occupation troops.

The report nowhere says that the dominant desire of the people of Kashmir as confirmed by the survey conducted by British-based Chatham House is “Aazadi,” or independence or freedom from occupation. The survey says that 90 to 95 % of the people of the Valley demanded Aazadi.  The word Aazadi wasn’t even mentioned in the report.

The report says that a political settlement in Jammu and Kashmir must be achieved only through dialogue between all stakeholders, including those who are not part of the mainstream.  Who did they have in mind?  Chief Minister Omar Abdullah or Dr. Farooq Abdullah? Any discussion regarding Kashmir’s future requires not only the appearance of good will and intent bur real efforts to include those who represent the disenfranchised.  This commitment to democracy and pluralism must be above board.

In addition, the report says that Jammu and Kashmir should continue to function as a single entity within the Indian Union. Mr. Padgoankar should listen to a member of his fraternity, Mr. Vir Sanghvi who wrote in Hindustan Times on August 16, 2008, “Why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don’t want to have anything to do with us? “

Finally, I would like to remind Mr. Padgoankar, the chairman of the group, of the New York Declaration.  He was a member of the draft committee, which was adopted on February 25, 2005, which says, “The Conference hopes that the leadership of both India and Pakistan recognize that there can be no settlement, negotiated or otherwise, without the active and full participation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir living on both sides of the ceasefire line as well as those belonging to the Jammu and Kashmir diaspora.”

Obviously the report fell far short of such a goal. The wishes and aspirations of the people are Aazadi, which were completely ignored in the report.  The chairman wittingly or unwittingly does not want to acknowledge the true sentiments of the people, which obviously he knows are for freedom from occupation.  His approach seems to have been merely bureaucratic.

Simply put, the wishes and aspirations of the people were ignored, so we are back to square one.

‘The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 – Where the terror began’ is a book recently released in March 2012. Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark are the authors of this book. The authors say they spent a long time on doing research and investigation and finally succeeded in finding out the reality that the Indian government itself is behind the long story of human rights violations in Kashmir. Commenting upon the kidnapping of six western tourists in 1995 from Anantnag the authors say, “It appeared that there were some in the Indian establishment who did not want this never-ending bad news story of Pakistani cruelty and Kashmiri inhumanity to end, even when the perpetrators themselves were finished.” The writers claim kidnapping of six western tourists in 1995 including two Britons, two Americans, one German and one Norwegian tourist in Anantnag district was carried out by a group of Kashmiri militants who worked for Indian Army. The tourists were kidnapped by a terrorist organization Al-Faran, which initially demanded release of 21 persons including Harkat chief Maulana Masood Azhar and Omar Sheikh. Later Azad Nabi, a pro-govt militant, bought four from Al Faran for 4 lakhs and shot them on 24 Dec 1995. In all this story of abduction the most interesting thing is the demand of release of Harkat chief Maulana Masood Azhar, who in fact has nothing to do with Al-Faran. His name was included in the demand list just to drag Pakistan into the affair and to give the world a false impression that Pakistan was behind this abduction. India authorities are still projecting the thought that Al-Faran, which claimed responsibility for the abductions, was part of the Harkat-ul-Ansar militant group but Harkat denies any ties with Al-Faran.

The Indian government is in a habit of using its own militants to kidnap and kill the foreign tourists and blame Pakistan for this heinous act of terrorism particularly in the paradise like valley of Kashmir. For more than half a century Kashmiris have been suffering a lot due to the extremely brutal Indian occupation. Since 1988 over 80 000 civilians including women and children have died at the hands of the Indian army and paramilitary forces. The people of Kashmir are being punished for their desire of liberty and independence. Their crime is they want India to end the brutal occupation of Kashmir, their homeland. More pathetic is the fact that their basic human right of freedom is always being neglected and ignored by the world peace makers and even by the UNO. It is only Pakistan which stands by the people of Kashmir in their war against inhuman brutal Indian occupation.

The people of Kashmir are entangled into the unseen strings of politics of terrorism. The government of India which claims to be the care-taker of their basic human rights, is itself involved in the violation of these rights. High rank military officers posted there in the occupied valley of Kashmir are busy in planning how to make the lives of the Kashmiri people more painful whereas the lower military officials are doing all their best to act upon their plans. To counter the struggle for independence in occupied Kashmir, the government of India has introduced different terrorist groups in the garb of Islamist extremist organizations. These fake organizations not only disrepute the preaching and teaching of Islam but also generate hatred against those who are actually busy in the real war against Indian atrocities in the valley of Kashmir. The story of kidnapping of six western tourists in 1995 as exposed by Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark is also same type of story. By adopting such immoral and unethical tactics, India is killing two birds with one stone; on one hand she is crushing the freedom movement and on the other hand she is shifting all blame onto Pakistan. And such tactics are surely not the new ones; India has been firing all her blame-shots towards Pakistan since independence in 1947. And ironically, Pakistan is not the only target of this blame game; Pakistan’s all weather friend China also has to face the bullets of this stray firing.

According to a recently issued report, India has erected an impenetrable wire along its border with Pakistan and the Line of Control in Kashmir. Yet, for each security failure of seven million strong Indian military forces in Kashmir, India finds an easy scapegoat in form of “cross-border terrorism” from Pakistan.  Instead of wasting all her zeal and zest in playing blame game against Pakistan, India could have made situation far better by concentrating upon the remedy of actual issues which compel the people to revolt against the government. The matter of the fact is that it is not only the valley of Kashmir where people are striving to get freedom; there are numerous states where struggle for freedom and liberty is going on. Naxilite movement and the uprising for freedom in seven north-eastern states is no more a hidden story. Even Dr. Manmohan Singh, the honourable prime minister of India once admitted in 2009 talking to the media men that India is facing the worst threat from the Naxilite movement. He said with severe distress and anguish, “Naxilite movement is the biggest internal security threat for India.” The seven north-eastern states including Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura are also the worst example of India’s home-grown terrorism. These states cover an area of about 250,000 km2 which amounts to 7 percent of India’s total area and about 3.8 percent of India’s total population. A continuous state of disturbance and disorder in such a vast area could never be a negligible reality. Instead of targeting Pakistan, India must pay attention to this ‘biggest internal security threat’. Indian authorities must also be aware of the nexus between the Indian security forces personnel and the so-called militants they claim to fight against; with the passage of time this coordination is getting stronger.

Democratic freedom that India prides itself has been missing from the IHK since 1947. The voice of Kashmiris has always been portrayed as a threat to India’s territorial integrity rather than treating it as a whistle blower’s call to mend the ways. IHK has indeed been an open cage for the last six decades or so.

A United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur has, yet once again, urged India to repeal the controversial law that gives its military special powers to act in troubled areas. Christof Heyns, UN’s Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) has become a “symbol of excessive state power” and “has no role to play in a democracy”. These comments came after the conclusion of his 12-day fact-finding mission to India.

AFSPA has been in force in different parts of India since 1958 and is currently enforced in IHK, Manipur and Nagaland. Human rights workers have accused the Indian troops of illegally detaining, torturing and killing rebel suspects; sometimes even staging gun battles as a pretext to kill. Law also prohibits soldiers from being prosecuted for alleged rights violations unless granted express permission by the federal government. According to official documents, the IHK government sought permission to try soldiers in 50 cases in the last two decades, but the federal government has refused each request. Immunity provision effectively blocks any prosecution of members of the armed forces,” Heyns reported. “During my visit to Kashmir, AFSPA was described to me as ‘hated’ and ‘draconian’. It clearly violates International Law. A number of UN treaty bodies have pronounced it to be in violation of International Law as well,” said Heyns. “The main finding in my report is that despite constitutional guarantees and robust human rights jurisprudence, extrajudicial killings continue in India and it is a matter of serious concern,” Heyns said. Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, many of which have been incorporated through amendments in the Code of Criminal procedure are not sufficiently complied with, he claimed. Prevalence of communal violence, encounter killings, custodial deaths, ‘honour’ killings and plight of dalits and adivasis are other areas of concern mentioned in the report. Heyns has proposed a number of provisional steps to be taken to address these concerns, including the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry, consisting of respected lawyers and other community leaders. “India also should ratify a number of international treaties, including the ‘Convention Against Torture’ and the International Convention for the Protection of All persons from Enforced Disappearance,” he said. Special Rapporteur’s final conclusions and recommendations will be submitted as a comprehensive report to the Human Rights Council. Earlier on also, the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteurs have demanded investigations to trace thousands of missing persons in held Kashmir and account for the mass graves of 2,700 Kashmiris.

Moreover, ‘Amnesty International’ has urged India to scrap the Public Safety Act (PSA) that allows police to detain a person up to two years without charge or trial if he or she is deemed a threat to the state. “Kashmir authorities are using PSA detentions as a revolving door to keep people they can’t or won’t convict through proper legal channels locked up and out of the way,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty’s Asia-Pacific director. A new report from the group said up to 20,000 people had been held under the law since the start of an insurgency in 1989. Indian authorities detained hundreds of people each year without charge or trial in order to “keep them out of circulation”, it said. According to an official count, 47,000 people have died in over two decades of rebellion. Amnesty’s recent report has called for “an independent, impartial and comprehensive investigation” into reports of torture and ill-treatment of detainees.

In January, UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, also demanded a repeal of the draconian laws. India’s rights record in Kashmir also came under scrutiny in December 2011, when leaked diplomatic cables said the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had evidence of systematic torture by Indian security forces. The ICRC, according to the cables leaked by Wikileaks, told US diplomats in 2005 of 177 visits it had made to Kashmir detention centres that revealed “stable trend lines” of prisoner abuses.

Stanley Wolpert. in his book “India and Pakistan” writes: “The people of Kashmir themselves must be permitted to choose their own leaders in free and fair elections, as do Indians in every other states in that union, and New Delhi solemnly commit to supporting Kashmir’s provincial autonomy and rights of its people, as it does the autonomy and rights of the people of Punjab, Maharashtra or West Bengal”.

UN is squarely to be blamed for the miseries of the people of IHK because it has not implemented its resolutions for holding a plebiscite in Kashmir to ascertain the aspirations of the people of the state. Pakistan did support the Kashmiris at various stages in varying degrees to wrest their freedom from India. Pakistan’s support may have been inefficient, it was not illegal. In the post-colonial period, international law has evolved through several UN instruments and articulations on decolonization which make it legal to support, even militarily, the struggle of peoples under colonial or foreign occupation, while they struggle for their right of self-determination. Pakistan indeed lost several strategic opportunities for securing Kashmiri rights and freedom. Effort by Pakistan to evolve a bilateral solution through ‘back-channel’ diplomacy was a strategic fiasco. Such ‘solution’ would have legitimized the status quo and forsaken the rights of the Kashmiris for good. Pakistan should continue to publicly express and uphold its longstanding and legitimate position on Kashmir that a final settlement must be based on the resolutions of the UN Security Council, agreed by and, hence, binding upon Pakistan and India. Pakistan’s articulations must be bold and recurring.

As settlement of Kashmir dispute is likely to take indefinite time, therefore without prejudice to the final settlement, Pakistan needs to work out a provisional mechanism to ensure representation of the people of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan in the National assembly and Senate. Here, an appeal is in order to the collective conscience of the American people that before casting their votes in the upcoming presidential elections, they must scrutinize President Obama’s actions towards fulfilling his Kashmir related pledges during his previous campaign. Moreover, an urging is due to the American Senators and Representatives to take notice of the Human Rights abuses in Kashmir and hold a hearing on this pressing issue. Sanity demands that Representative Dana Tyrone Rohrabacher should focuses on HR situation in Kashmir which is a UN recognized conflict, instead of wasting his breath in pressurizing Pakistan via Balochistan.

A government human rights commission in Kashmir on Tuesday evening said it will review records [2] from the 1995 abduction of Western tourists after a new book claimed that four of six foreign tourists were murdered by a pro-India militia to discredit India’s arch-rival Pakistan.

On July 4, 1995, Americans Donald Hutchings and John Childs, as well as Britons Paul Wells and Keith Mangan were kidnapped by the little known Al-Faran militant group while trekking in the Himalayas near Pahalgam, 97 km (60 miles) southeast of Srinagar.

Four days later, Childs escaped. On the same day, the captors abducted German Dirk Hasert and Norwegian Hans Christian Ostroe. Ostroe was found beheaded in August 1995. The others were never found.

Journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, whose book “The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 – Where the Terror Began [3]” is about the abduction, claim that the four Westerners were murdered by a pro-government militia group who worked for Indian security forces.

After Ostroe was beheaded, Al-Faran was ready to strike a monetary deal to free the hostages and might have released them for £250,000, the authors claim. They say the deal was deliberately sabotaged.

“It appeared that there were some in the Indian establishment who did not want this never-ending bad news story of Pakistani cruelty and Kashmiri inhumanity to end, even when the perpetrators themselves were finished,” the book says.

Al-Faran then demanded the release of 21 prisoners, including Masood Azhar and Omar Sheikh, who were freed by the Indian government after the hijack of an Indian Airlines plane from Kathmandu in 1999.

The book claims a pro-government militia leader, Alpha, or Azad Nabi, alias Ghulam Nabi Mir, who used to be in Anantnag area of south Kashmir, had “bought [4]” the four Western hostages from Al-Faran and held them for months before shooting them.

The investigators became convinced a pro-government militia group had control of the four Westerners after Al-Faran dropped them, according to the authors, quoting the Jammu and Kashmir police’s crime branch squad.

“The squad reported some of its thoughts to its seniors, using these kinds of words, ‘Sikander’s men handed over Paul, Dirk, Keith and Don to Alpha’s renegades in the third of fourth week of November, around the time when the final sightings dried up. Sikander has given up. Al-Faran is finished. Embarrassingly, India controls the renegades.’”

Quoting a crime branch detective, the book claims that the Indian government had not wanted the hostage crisis to end.

India authorities then said Al-Faran, which claimed responsibility for the abductions, was part of the Harkat-ul-Ansar militant group. But Harkat denied any ties with Al-Faran.

The U.S. state department later listed Harkat-ul-Ansar as one of 30 “foreign terrorist organisations” for which it is illegal to raise funds in the United States. It also bars visits by members or representatives of the groups.

The fresh demand for a probe into the hostage taking comes after a Kashmir-based human rights group requested the region’s State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the kidnapping and subsequent killing of the four Western tourists.

From all the information that I have, 95 percent of Kashmiri Muslims do not wish to be or remain Indian citizens. I doubt therefore the wisdom of trying to ‘keep’ people by force where they don’t wish to stay.

Jayaprakash Narayan in a letter to Nehru; May 1, 1956. Following the course of Kashmiris’ resistance in the backdrop of September Eleven paradigm shift in the global politics, it is manifest that the Movement has undergone a substantive change. The armed rebellion that burst out into open in December 1989 was indicative of the fact that the Kashmiris had lost patience with the charade of electoral exercise that India had been presenting to the world as ‘proof’ of their exercise of right of self-determination. Their four decades long experience with India had shown that unless Kashmiris resorted to extreme measures their political demands would continue to be treated with disdain; even contempt.

Such a realization had been long in coming. India’s founding fathers had tended to highly underrate Kashmiris’ determination for actualizing their political ambitions and had a poor opinion of the “Kashmiri masses”.

Indira Gandhi wrote to Nehru from Sri Nagar on May 14, 1948; “All this political talk would count for nothing, after all the people are concerned with only one thing – they want to sell their goods and to have food and salt.” The people had no mind and no soul, Nehru repeated this view to Sheikh Abdullah on Aug 25, 1952; “The common people are primarily interested in a few things – an honest administration and cheap and adequate food.”

This attitude of taking Kashmiri masses for granted was to cost India dearly when the magnitude of the electoral malpractices in 1987 crossed all limits. The backlash saw the young political firebrands like Shabbir Shah, Yasin Malik and Javed Mir taking to gun and going underground to seek ‘azadi’ from India by throwing a gauntlet to India’s military might.

The armed resistance gathered its momentum till 2001 when September Eleven provided a windfall to Indian politicians to equate the Kashmiri armed resistance as terrorism.

The dynamics of the war on terrorism tended to discredit the claims by the Kashmiri militants that they were engaged in waging a struggle for securing their internationally sanctioned cause of self-determination. The Kashmir centric militant organizations like LeT and Jaish-e-Muhammad were designated by the US as terrorist organizations reinforcing India’s contentions that Pakistan’s support for the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination was illegitimate.

The New York Times speculated that President Bush seemed to be siding with India over Kashmir telling the Pakistanis “that any further backing for armed Islamic militant groups operating in held Kashmir will be tantamount to supporting terrorism.” But Indian jubilations over such fortuitous developments were short lived.

What happened next couldn’t have been gauged by the Indian leadership; the guns could be fought and controlled by deploying boots on ground but the changing global environment set free the much under-rated political aspirations of the masses in Kashmir.

The 9/11 had transformed the nature of Kashmiri freedom movement – changing in character from essentially an armed resistance to embrace the tactics of non-violence. This was manifest in the summer of 2008 when a transfer of 100 acres of Kashmiri forest land to Shri Amar Nath Shrine Board for construction of staging facilities for the Hindu pilgrims, caused a mass upheaval.

This was certainly a portent of things to come since Yatra, a pilgrimage to a cave holding a stalagmite icicle shaped as a Hindu deity had been going on for over a century under the stewardship of Kashmiri Muslims; duly welcomed and facilitated by the local population.

The strength of the collective resistance was in full view when on 11 August, 500,000 people participated in a rally that marched towards the LoC; threatening to breach it. Fifteen people were killed when the police opened fire but the event rocked the IHK with the fury of a mighty volcano coming alive; the coalition government of Congress and PDP crumbled in face of mounting public anger and frustration. A watershed had been reached.

According to Shobna Sonpar, an eminent Delhi based psychologist, and author of an incisive book on Kashmir; Violent Activism, following the Amar Nath land row Kashmir is simmering with palpable anger across the valley, particularly among the youth.

“What is different now compared to some years ago is that the sense of victimization, the hyper sensitivity to threats to Muslim identity, the outrage at human rights violations by security forces are being publicly expressed by large segments of Kashmiri society, including women and children and not just those who took up the militancy,” she says.

Kashmir is simmering with anger and instead of bullets the youngsters expressing their alienation with Indian occupation are doing so by hurling stones at the police and paramilitary forces.

This is indicative of the dawn of a new era whereby a generation raised on a diet of Indian atrocities and thoroughly alienated with India has come of age. The civil society of Kashmir is getting organized to challenge the Indian state authority and the power of mass non-violent resistance has shown that it is way stronger and more effective as compared to the impact of armed struggle launched by a small yet determined band of freedom fighters.

The mass uprising has laid bare the Indian claims that the Kashmiris have thrown in their lot with India consequent to the exercise of sham elections. If one was to believe the Indian stance then why are the tumultuous throngs of Kashmiris shouting at India to set them free? One might ask.

Pakistan’s diplomatic and moral support to Kashmiris, in their struggle for freedom from India, is a great source of strength for the Kashmiri masses. Now that India has joined the two years term as a non-permanent member of the UNSC, and aspires to be inducted as a permanent member, Pakistan must project her double speak and the exploitation of Kashmiris and the brazen manner in which it is subverting their call to exercise the UN promised right of self-determination. It is a golden opportunity, which needs to be seized to expose the true face of India’s hegemonic credentials, as it aspires to mark its rising profile at the global forum.

There is no dispute over the fact that Kashmir is an unresolved issue between India and Pakistan. In this regard, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement during his recent visit to Pakistan is highly significant.

He said: “Britain is responsible for many of the world’s historic problems, including the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan.” This was indeed a bold statement, a reflection of the wrongs done to Pakistan.

Cameron, according to reports, also said that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute. ‘’I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.’’

So what happened at the time of partition, which Mr Cameron is pointing to?

The Indian Independence Act of 1947, which was in fact the partition plan of Sub-Continent, provided that the valley was free to accede either to India or Pakistan. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, dithered on the subject, as he probably wanted an independent Kashmir. He signed “Standstill Agreements” over the status of the valley with Pakistan while India refused to do so. The agreement was a step towards Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan as it provided Pakistan an automatic authority over Kashmir’s foreign policy.

But India, denying the basic principle of partition i.e. contiguous areas with Muslim majorities in both west and east India would go to Pakistan, started putting pressure on the Hindu ruler. Then Indian troops invaded the Muslim dominated state of Jammu & Kashmir and occupied it forcibly on the pretext that Pathan tribes from Pakistan had invaded the valley. Therefore, October 27 is marked as a “Black Day” in the annals of Kashmir history.

Under pressure, the Maharajah of Kashmir acceded to Indian union. Meanwhile, the first governor-general of India, Lord Mountbatten, and the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, repeatedly pledged that the issue of Kashmir would be decided in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris.

The Indian pledge was incorporated in the UN resolutions of August 13 1948 and January 5, 1949. But the free and impartial plebiscite was subsequently never held and unfortunately the Indian pledge was never honoured.

Now some 64 years down the line, the British prime minister’s statement acknowledges and confirms the universal truth that Kashmir is an issue between India and Pakistan. In fact, it is the most important issue that has seen at least three wars between the two neighbours.

The Indian establishment and some political parties cannot reject the issue out handedly and deny its existence. Indeed, the problem has been that some sections in India have tried to minimise the existence of the perennial problem between the two countries and that has exacerbated the problem.

In the backdrop of prime minister level talks in Mohali, it is time for the two countries to move forward and resolve the issue, to which the future of South Asia is linked, in a just and equitable manner.

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

As regards the latest phase of Indian state terrorism, like the past, intermittent curfews, crackdowns, arrests, detentions and massacre by the Indian forces have continued against the non-violent mass uprising (Intifada) of Kashmiris. Thus more than 3000 innocent people have been killed during this new phase of the struggle.
In this connection, on July 10, 2010, a rigid curfew was imposed in most of Indian-held Kashmir (IHK), while shops and businesses were closed and public transport was off the roads after the All Parties Hurriyat Conference declared a strike. During strike, none of the nearly 60 newspapers published from Srinagar for four days.
Rocked by intermittent violence and unrest, the intensification of the uprising in the Indian controlled Kashmir could be judged from the fact that the Valley is now facing the threat of a civil disobedience as seven senior civil and police officers have refused to take up their duties. A large number of officers have refused to accept challenging assignments in different districts including Srinagar, Baramulla and Kupwara and preferred being posted in relatively peaceful areas of the state. Last year, following the killing of a youth in Baramulla district, the state government had ordered a reshuffle in the police administration.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International has urged India to immediately release the jailed persons in the Indian occupied Kashmir and repeal a harsh law that allows detention for up to two years without trial.
The current phase of Kashmir struggle began on August 12, 2008 when Indian forces killed Hurriyat Conference leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz along with five other persons who were protesting against the government decision to give land to the trust that runs Amarnath, a shrine of Hindus.
However, many innocent people have so far been massacred by the Indian security forces in the controlled territories of Kashmir since the new uprising started. It also includes the people killed by the Indian forces in the fake encounters. While, the issue has moved beyond the land allocation to the Kashmir’s Muslims, sparking a massive movement of Kashmiris, calling for their genuine right of self-determination.
Unlike the past, this time, Indian occupied Kashmir has become a special focus of world’s attention including India itself.
In this respect, Washington Post had reported on August 28, 2008, “Despite the government’s use of force, many Muslims in Indian controlled Kashmir seem determined to find peaceful ways to voice their aspirations as the nonviolent movement by the unarmed protesters flourishes, especially among the young.”
New critical situation has also affected other parts of India and its gravity could be judged from the fact that even Indian intellectuals have favoured the independence of the occupied Kashmir.
In its editorial, the editor of The Times of India wrote, “On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.”
The editor further elaborated, “We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India”. It was also admitted that subsequent state elections were also rigged in support of leaders nominated by New Delhi.
On August 16, 2008, Hindustan Times wrote: “Nothing has really changed since 1990s. A single spark such as the dispute over Amarnath land can set the whole valley on fire—Indian forces are treated as an army of occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor”. The paper further indicated, “The current crisis in Kashmir is a consequence of Indian establishment, raising the confrontation to a new level”. It realised that during the present demonstrations, “there is active hatred of India, threatening to further internationalise the present crisis. The world looks at us with dismay”. This Indian newspaper clearly suggested a referendum in the Valley, writing, “Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny—whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right of self-determination is the correct thing to do”.
It is of particular attention that demanding immediate withdrawal of Indian Army from the Indian controlled Kashmir, a renowned Indian author and book prize winner, Arundhati Roy, while criticizing the Indian media had already pointed out in 2005 that it failed to highlight the plight of ordinary Kashmiris, exposed to brutalities perpetrated by the Indian security forces.
As regards Indian delaying tactics in connection with the solution of Kashmir dispute, it has become fashion to blame Pakistan and its intelligence agency ISI for infiltration, using it as a pretext to crush the Kashmiri’s war of liberation which is indigenous as recognized by even Indian media.
Under the cover of ISI, New Delhi also wants to distract the attention of the west from its own atrocities, being perpetrated on the Kashmiris. In the recent past, hundreds of unidentified graves with more than 3000 bodies were discovered in the Indian-held Kashmir. Sources have accused Indian RAW of the custodial killings of the Kashmiri people through brutal methods. In this context, even the European Parliament has passed a resolution, condemning New Delhi for human rights violations.
Since 1989, India has deployed more than 500000 troops to quell the freedom movement of Kashmiris, but it cannot eliminate it at present as it could not do so through many years of oppression. Instead, a study report, prepared by Indian government revealed that Kashmirviolence has been affecting Indian forces’ psyche. In this connection, the report has disclosed that disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir have had adverse psychological problems found especially among the officers and Jawans such as an increase in short tempers, quarrelsome attitude, mental disorders and abnormal behaviour. Sometimes, the situation leads to suicide attempts or attacks on their seniors and colleagues.
Nevertheless, the Kashmir movement has entered the stage of ‘now or never’ due to the failure of Indian continued tactics of state terrorism such as curfew, firing at innocent Kashmiris, killings and arrests which could not reduce the strong determination of the people of the Valley, calling for freedom of their land.
At present, it is a turning point for the liberation of Kashmir as the Valley is burning and bleeding. It is ample clear that India still wants to equate the innocent Kashmiris with terrorism and is keen to continue its state terrorism in Kashmir. It does not show any serious willingness to settle this issue in accordance with the wishes of struggling Kashmiris. Every body will agree that it is the right hour to resolve this old dispute on which Pakistan and India fought three wars.
Nonetheless, the magnitude of the current movement is unprecedented in the history. The slogans for liberation in every nook and corner of India have strained New Delhi since independence. No doubt, Kashmir has reached the phase of solution. Taking cognizance of the new developments seriously at this sensitive juncture, Pakistani and Kashmiri leaders must take steps, making combined efforts to resolve this thorny issue. In this context, Pakistani government, Kashmir leadership, other Kashmiris, living in the Sub-continent and abroad must keep the tea pot boiling by highlighting the dispute, voicing the aspirations of the people for freedom.It is hoped that the day is not far away when the Kashmiris will be blessed with the fruits of independence.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon during his recent visit to India, dilating on the Kashmir dispute observed that it must be resolved according to the will of the people of Kashmir. He in fact reiterated what UN resolutions on the dispute stipulate. What he conveniently forgot was that it was actually the responsibility of the UN to get its resolutions implemented. The UN resolutions on Kashmir adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter remain legally binding on the parties. Article 25 also reiterates their obligatory nature. The Security Council under the UN Charter has the power to enforce its decisions and resolutions militarily or by any other means necessary; the powers that it has used during the Korean war in 1950, in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 and recently in East Timor. The matter, unfortunately has lingered on due to the Indian intransigence and backtracking on the UN resolutions and the apathy shown by the UN to have the resolutions on Kashmir implemented.

The on-going process of dialogue and resumption of trade ties with India will be welcomed by all those who believe in peace in the region and an end to the arms race between India and Pakistan that has consumed precious resources of both the countries which otherwise would have been spent on changing the economic situation of their teeming millions. We have seen such attempts in the past as well ending in a whimper. Unless the Kashmir issue is resolved these measures will not succeed in ending animosity between the two countries. The passage of 64 years has not changed the legal status of the dispute and as a matter of fact the first step should have been to negotiate on the settlement of the dispute on Kashmir; the rest would have followed automatically. But the process has been initiated the other way round.

Perhaps a cursory look at the legal perspective on the Kashmir conundrum will be in order here. According to the Indian Independence Act, 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 demographic realities. Lord Mountbatten in letter written to Maharaja in October 1947 accepted the accession provisionally and 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. It is thus quite evident that in the so-called instrument of accession as well as the partition plan, two elements were of paramount importance i.e. the will of the people and geographical contiguity.

In case of Kashmir both these elements were negated. Kashmir was contiguous to Pakistan and majority of its population was also Muslim. It had cultural and historic links with Pakistan and had remained under Muslim rule for centuries before Ranjit Singh annexed it. In regards to the UN resolution on Kashmir it is relevant to point out that in the wake of the war that broke out between the two countries after the landing of Indian forces in Kashmir, it was India who took the matter to the United Nations, which facilitated an immediate ceasefire. The UN during the course of its deliberations on the subject passed twenty three resolutions, including two UNICEP resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5th January 1949 calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir under the auspices of United Nations. It is also pertinent to mention that the UN through its resolutions 91 and 122 also repudiated Indian stance that the issue of accession of Kashmir had been resolved by the constituent assembly of Kashmir. These resolutions reiterated that the question of accession could not be resolved by any means other than enunciated in the UN resolutions on the subject. This proves beyond any doubt that the Indian claims of Kashmir being an integral part of India represent travesty of the facts and lack any legal basis.

In the wake of 1971 war between India and Pakistan, Simla Agreement was signed and clause 6 of the agreement emphasized the resolution of all disputes between the two countries including Kashmir through peaceful means, bilaterally. The very fact that India acknowledged Kashmir as a disputed territory in Simla Agreement,also negated its claims of Kashmir being its integral part. But unfortunately the Indians have never shown honesty of purpose in resolving this issue and have used varying tactics to suspend or scupper the process of dialogue. It has always remained evasive on the core issue of Kashmir. The Indians also claim that in view of the Simla Agreement, Pakistan cannot internationalize the Kashmir dispute. That stance is also devoid of any legality.

The bilateral agreement does not change the status of the dispute. It also does not preclude the possibility of raising it again at the UN in case the bilateral agreement fails to deliver. Article 103 of UN Charter says “ In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present charter will prevail” What it means is that the UN resolutions on Kashmir will take precedence over all other international agreements on the same issue. So Pakistan is very much within its right to invoke UN resolutions, after having been frustrated to find solution through the bilateral arrangement.. It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the legal status and obligations of the parties to the dispute under UN resolutions and that of the Security Council to have its resolutions implemented, remain unaffected.

There are hundreds and thousands of cables leaked by WikiLeaks, but one may not find any cable mentioning that the ‘text’ of the ‘deal’ on Kashmir was ready, just to be signed by India and Pakistan.

According to a report published The Nation, the leaked cables said that Britain’s Labour government regarded Pakistan’s Army Chief as a major “obstacle” to an India-Pakistan “deal” on Kashmir. Those who have had the experience of working in diplomatic missions know that the internal reporting between the embassy and the government is frank and candid. However, its veracity depends on the credibility of the diplomat and of those who provide the information. Sometimes diplomats throw hints to the media if the US State Department does not respond to their memos either due to preoccupation with some important matters, or it does not consider the information worthwhile to dwell upon. Hence, they resort to leaks. Anyhow, it is true that former Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri had more than once stated that India and Pakistan had made substantial progress on resolving the Kashmir dispute, but he never talked about any ‘text’.

Even Shah Mehmood Qureshi has denied seeing any document in the Foreign Office revealing that India and Pakistan were on the same page on the issue. The fact of the matter is that it is due to India’s intransigence that no progress could be made to resolve any of the major issues between the two countries, including Kashmir. However, once again the talks have resumed.
The talks between the Home Secretaries of India and Pakistan were held in New Delhi on March 28 and 29, 2011. The Indian delegation was led by Shri Gopal K. Pillai, while the Pakistani delegation was headed by Qamar Zaman Chaudhry. The meeting was held in pursuance of the decision taken in Thimphu, Bhutan, in February 2011, by the two governments to resume the dialogue process. However, it is yet to be seen as to whether India would show flexibility on the core issues like Kashmir, Siachen, water, Sir Creek and find their solutions.

Anyway, a joint statement was issued which mainly addressed the problems like information-sharing about terrorist threats and commitment to fight terrorism, and exchange of information on the ongoing trial and investigation on the Mumbai terror attacks. India provided information on the Samjhota Express blast investigation. At the same time, both sides noted and welcomed the release of prisoners and fishermen by each other, since the last round of talks. Both sides agreed that the problems of inadvertent crossers should be viewed sympathetically. Both sides shared the concern of the growing menace of narcotics/drugs and agreed that cooperation between the NCB of India and the ANF of Pakistan should be enhanced to ensure an effective control on drug trafficking. It was decided that India’s CBI and Pakistan’s FIA will schedule a meeting to work out the technical details of moving forward on the issues related to human trafficking, counterfeit currency, cyber crimes and Red Corner Notices (RCNs). It is hoped that other issues would be discussed in the Foreign Secretary level talks – the dates for which have yet to be decided.
During the last 62 years, Pakistan and India had many rounds of talks, including the composite dialogue that started in 2004, and stalled after the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008. In the past, India had always insisted that before discussing the Kashmir dispute, other issues of lesser importance should be discussed and resolved. However, whenever the time for discussing Kashmir came, New Delhi on one pretext or the other ended the dialogue.
Having said that, the resumption of the talks between New Delhi and Islamabad is a welcome move, but it should be kept in mind that without resolving the Kashmir dispute, genuine peace in the South Asian region cannot be achieved. In fact, the core issue between the two countries need to be sorted out, first for a normalisation to occur in their relationship. However, it is unfortunate that the four rounds of the stalled composite dialogue covering the whole gamut of disputes, keeping the two countries at loggerheads, had passed without any remarkable progress on any of the important issues. We will not delve into the reasons for India’s decision to resume the talks, but will hope that those who took the initiative would create a climate conducive to the resolution of the issues bedevilling the relations between India and Pakistan.
Of course, the credit for having offered an olive branch to Pakistan in 2004 goes to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. But after the elections when the Congress came into power, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also underscored the need to resolve the festering issues. He, however, had simultaneously foreclosed the possibility of resolution by saying that there would not be any change of borders between the two countries.
Later, both sides agreed that matters of trade, communication contacts, including Srinagar-Muzaffarabad, Khokharapar-Monabao, Siachen, Sir Creek and other issues would form part of the composite dialogue. So, Pakistan and India had held talks on communication links, economic and trade cooperation and upgrading military hotline. Some of the conventional confidence building measures between the two nations were mere affirmation of what was already in place, like holding ceasefire on the Line of Control and Siachen. When the second round of confidence building measures had ended in the last week of April 2006, India had rejected Pakistan’s proposal to demilitarise Kashmir. The third and fourth rounds had also ended without any substantive progress. Since the war between the two nuclear states is not an option, India and Pakistan must resolve the core issues for permanent and durable peace in the region.

Srinagar, May 12: Today they would be celebrating their lost motherhood, only if they knew that it was Mothers’ Day for the rest of the world. They would then probably clutch the portraits of lost sons to their hearts again, gather up memorabilia, and lose themselves in reverie – the tears have long dried up.

Some of them have done this for two decades, and in the past few years, every fortnight in central Srinagar for rustic sons not sophisticated enough to bring cards or messages – – their gruff calls for evening meals, nevertheless, carrying a robust endearment felt rather than spoken.

In grief and trauma, children in many such families have lost mental health, and one mother says that she has become a good actor at make-believe, faking happiness for the sake of what remains of her home.

The past twenty years of conflict in Kashmir have ensured that there are thousands of such mothers, and according to human rights groups here, around 8000 of them are suffering because of “enforced disappearances,” a phenomenon perfected by the security forces, and protected by the government.

Except for a handful of activists, no one in Kashmir cares for their tragic stories. But they have forged themselves into a valiant band determined to fight the state and ask what happened to their loved ones. For two decades or more there have been no answers.

For 65- year- old Hajira Begum of Waniegam of north Kashmir’s Bandipur district the life has shrunk to activities like attending neighborhood mournigs, and nursing her grandchildren from three sons, who were killed by the army in early 1990’s.

Hajira, whom others call (Haji Masse) says, she saw her family vanishing. Her three sons- Nazir Ahmad Sofi,Muhammad Rafiq Sofi and Aijaz Ahmad Sofi were killed by the army, and then her husband died She blames both, the centre and the state machinery for her grief and trauma. But she is proud trio who, she says, achieved martyrdom for representing the voice of the oppressed in Kashmir.

Hajira says she the dies every day for her son, Bashir Ahmad Sofi, whom she would call ‘Kak’, who was picked up by army and never returnned.

“I lost my Kak (Bashir) and I lost everything. I am the only elder in my family to look after the kids of my three martyred sons, including his,” Hajira says.

“Sometimes I wonder why I am alive after seeing my family destroyed,” she says.

Bashir had a shop in Sunarwan area of district Bandipor. Hajira says he was on his shop that day when he was picked up by the14 RR, never to return.

“miyani gobra tala yeman wan asi chu na naukri te ropye zarurat, asi haiwtokh sirf panin shur,” she says.

(My son, please tell these people –the government -that we don’t need their jobs and money, tell them we only want to see our sons back in our lives)

She accuses New Delhi of turning her life into hell. She says that forces personnel, including some of administrative officers of that time destroyed her home.

“God is with me, and I am hopeful that my Lord will punish the culprits in a fitting manner- but what I will never forget is the pain I am in. I will never forget the scene when my three sons were martyred, that gives me sleepless nights. These deep wounds are in all of our hearts and they won’t be healed by any medicine, by any compensation or any job offer. It could only heal when my Kak knocks on the door again and says moji ba hai awsai, shere batte (mother, I have come, serve meals),” she says.

Among the mothers of the Valley’s missing is another gutsy woman, Parveena Ahnager, who says that though she has failed to trace the whereabouts of her son, her struggle was the beginning of a continuing battle to trace the missing sons for all mothers in the valley. She says it is a battle fought with anguish and despair; a battle which she continues to fight with courage and fortitude.

Ahanger, 59, who speaks a broken Urdu and couldn’t understand English speaks some technical court terms like writ petition, habeas corpus, commissions, division bench, hearing etc. she says she has started a fight on behalf of all such mothers looking for the whereabouts of their missing sons, and husbands. She says it was after her son; Javaid Ahmad Ahanger (15 at the time of arrest) was picked up by the forces almost two decades back that led her to become an activist.

In 1991 Parveena`s son was picked up by the forces and she has never heard from him again. She says the forces in a search-and-cordon operation picked him up at night from his uncle`s home where he was studying.

Through sheer determination and grit she learnt to find her way through brutality and callousness. She says her fear disappeared along with her son. She went from police station to police station, interrogation centres to army camps, police posts to police headquarters, hospital to VVIP bungalows, looking for disappeared.

She met many others like her who were also searching for their loved ones. Parveena opened her home to them where they would bond together, share their grief and their meals, draw their strength and set out on their search together, which gave birth to their common child, in 1994, that is Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP).

An organization compiled of victims headed by Ahanger, relentlessly campaigning against enforced disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir. APDP is an association of the relatives of the victims of Enforced Disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir comes together to seek justice and to get information on the whereabouts of their disappeared family members.

“When I heard in the morning that Javaid had been taken by the army in a van, I was distraught. I thought my son is innocent and would be set free. But all went in vain,” Parveena Ahnager, who is also the chairperson of the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons, says.

“Court has not done anything so far. Judges have no power of delivering justice to the victims of the Kashmir, which is very unfortunate. We don’t need any compensation we need an impartial commission on these disappearances,” she says.

“Farooq Abdullah, Mufti Sayed , Ghulam Nabi Azad and now Omar Abdullah, they couldn’t do any justice with our cases,” she says.

“APDP hasn’t remained an association of victims only. We have become a family now. As the number of disappearances started growing the origins and aims of this form of repression, became evident. It was part of the larger policy of repression followed by the state, a strategy to terrorise people. Efforts by individuals to trace their missing relatives became unsustainable,” she says.

She says that during the early nineties in Kashmir, very few people dared to come to the court for redress. In 1994, Parveena filed a habeas corpus petition in the Srinagar High Court. With the help of human rights activists and lawyers more and more petitions continued to be filed.

“More and more family members got together, went to court together, held demonstrations together. We will not accept any compensation neither any job offer. We want the whereabouts of beloved sons whom they (army) treated like animals,” Parveena says.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights established a Working Group in 1980 to assist families in determining the fate and whereabouts of disappeared relatives.

The main purpose of the visit was to make submissions on behalf of the APDP on the issue of Enforced Disappearance in Kashmir. The written submissions by APDP consisted of six individual case submissions (along with extensive documentation) as well as a general submission on the issue of Enforced Disappearances in Kashmir, and features of the legal framework which impede efforts of families seeking justice.

For Khalida Begum 47, of Narbal, the abduction of her son, Showkat Ahamd in late 1990’s left her family shattered. Ahmad was a student of BSC second year in one of the city colleges. She says three years after his son’s abduction; her husband developed severe heart ailments and had to stay home, and their livelihood suffered. Besides his daughter became mentally disturbed and had to be admitted in valley’s psychiatric hospital.

“My son had gone out to check his BSC second year results but forces picked him up and then he never came back to greet me. Now I am wondering for the results of his whereabouts, everything got shattered,” says Khalida.

Over the years, Khalida herself has become a diabetic and hypersensitive but she says when she sees her family- husband and her daughter, she forgets everything.

“I have become a good actor now. I act in a way that makes my family happy otherwise I am shattered and broken,” she says. “For about three years, we couldn’t do anything and then we went from the pillar to the post to trace the whereabouts of my son but no results.”

She says when her son wasn’t associated with any militant outfit, why was he picked up made to disappear. “Why did this happen, was he a threat to these ministers. He was the support of my old age; he was my only hope, my only son. Now I have only his memories with me,” she says.

Khalida says she has never stopped to serve the meals in his son’s plate.

“It gives me self-satisfaction and it has become a routine for me now to serve his meals in his plate also. I hope I will hear him once again and see him among us,” Khalida says.

These women have become human rights activists in order to achieve a common goal. For over two decades, the mothers have fought for the right to re-unite with their abducted children. Rehti Bano, 60, of Check Kawoosa of central Kashmir’s district Budgam and Taja Begam, 45, of her neighboring village Bati-pora, Kanihama have knocked the doors of ever office in the district administration, but they say their voices were never answered.

Rehti’s son Muhammad Ramzan Shiekh, who according to her was in his early twenties during time of his abduction left her family in grief, as he was the only son among eight children Rehti’s husband also died after he disappeared.

“There is no male member in my family now. I have seven daughters; I have now managed to get four of them married. I am their only hope-their mother and father as well,” she says.

“I still remember the people who picked him up. They had donned whitish dress and some of them had covered their faces under black scarf’s,” she recalls.

She says that tragedy didn’t end there. When her son was been taken away by the forces, Rehti resisted it and shouted at them.

“I resisted and ran behind them; then they suddenly fired in the air first and then beat my hands with gun butts,” holding hers, deformed, up.

“We are not asking for any job, for any compensation, we want the whereabouts of our dear ones, who were forcibly picked up from our midst,” she says.

Taja Begum of Batpora Kanihama of district Budgam says that protesting on the 10th of every month has become a movement. She says she would prefer for die rather than making a deal over their dear ones.

“This has certainly become a movement for us; we will continue our fight against the brutal acts by the forces and every government in power here,” Begum says.

“This is the 13th year of my son Aijaz being lost; parents have many dreams for their children, but I have only one that I want to see his face gain, I want to hug him tight,” she says.

“I went to so many places to trace him. agar woh zinda hai, tuo hum se door kyon hai (If he is alive, then why is he away from us,” Begum asks.

Katija, 60, of Chatabal, Srinagar had adopted her nephew, but she says she was not allowed to dream more by the state machinery.

“I had no children. So I had adopted my nephew. 34 RR took him out from our Chatabal home and then he never returned,” she says.

“I went to Human Rights Commission repeatedly, and after a long time, it told me that I wouldn’t get him back,” she says.

Another mother of the missing in the valley is Azra Begum of By-Pass Tengpora in Srinagar She accuses India for her plight, she says truth would prevail and expose the wrongdoing of largest democracy of the world.

Her son Mustaq Ahmad Dar was picked up by the 20 Grenadiers in 1990.

“I have taken an oath, that we will fight for these families and this movement will never stop functioning for the welfare of the affected families victims. We want an independent probe should be ordered to trace out the whereabouts of our dear ones will be ascertained,” she says.

In Kashmir, people wouldn’t forget the relentless fight of Kashmir’s brave and fighting mother, Mughli,– the elderly woman whose relentless fight to trace her only son had become the epitome of the struggle of the parents of disappeared in Kashmir. She died without closure. She was the mother of Nazir Ahmad Teli, who was a school teacher and disappeared in 1990 after he was picked up by the forces, never to return.

She was separated from her husband before the birth of her son; Mughli began a lonely search and a life that was filled with silence and solitude.

For years, Mughli lived alone in her large family house deep inside Srinagar’s Habba Kadal where narrow streets run like a crawling snake through a cluster of housing blocks. The hope that her son may return was so much alive that she would spend days at the window, looking out at the door.

Upon establishment of the United Nations Organization, Colonialism came into sharp contrast with the right of self-determination.

Resultantly, many of the Afro-Asian countries including India and Pakistan were decolonized and got independence. The UN however, failed to give right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Rather, the miseries of Kashmiris, started with the Treaty of Amritsar-1846, had increased many-fold over the years. Earlier, Kashmiri’s peaceful attempt to come out from the clutches of the slavery was brutally crushed, resulted into the worst massacre by Dogra Rule in 1931. Sequel to this, Dogra rulers’ committed worst form of human rights violation of the Kashmiri until Kashmiris revolted in October in 1947 to get their right of freedom. In the process, they gained partial success, with bulk of the state getting under Indian occupation.

United Nations has passed a number of resolutions, all promising them their right of self-determination. These resolutions were accepted by India too. However, subsequently, India denied the right of self-determination to Kashmiris, until their peaceful struggle was forced to convert into an armed resistance movement against Indian occupation in early 1990s. The tactic used by India for the human rights violation include; indiscriminate killings of Kashmiri masses by its security forces, arbitrary arrest and detention, gang rapes of women, torture and even arson and looting of houses. Through inhuman and discriminatory laws, India has given special sweeping powers to its security forces. As per Jawayria’s article, ‘Kashmir: India’s Reign of Terror’, there is a huge concentration of Indian army in Jammu and Kashmir, indeed, unparallel in the world. “From January 1989 to December 2007, nearly 100,000 Kashmiris have been killed by Indian troops in Kashmir and as many disappeared during Indian forces’ custody in various interrogation centers and torture cells. About 113,882 civilians have been arrested without any reason, 22,591 women widowed, 1756 gang-raped and the children orphaned estimate to 107,051, People rendered homeless are beyond calculation as vaguely 105,536 buildings/homes have been destroyed brutally. There is hardly any house in occupied Kashmir, which has not sacrificed one or two or more of its members for the cause of liberation.”

India did not let loose its brutalities even after Kashmiris denounced their armed struggle in 2003. Indian security forces still number over 650,000, continued human rights violation of Kashmiris. In 2008, Indian forces fired on the group of peaceful demonstrators and killed dozens of innocent Kashmiris. These protestors were asking for a safe passage to sell their fruits and other agricultural product either to Indian markets or else to Azad Kashmir. Their movement was blocked by Indian security forces and Hindu nationalists, under BJP, thus disallowing them their legal right of selling their product. Like all other discriminatory acts of the Indian security forces, this was a clear violation of the international humanitarian law. Earlier, India attempted to change the demography of Kashmir, through allotment of Kashmiri land for settling non Kashmiri Hindu population in the garb of extending the space for a Hindu shrine. There have been continuous brutalities on Kashmiris by Indian forces thereafter. In May 2009, India Army rape and murder two Kashmiri women at Shopian area. The incident was seriously resented by all Kashmiris and also invited condemnations from all over. Similarly, Indian forces killed a nine years old boy without any fault. In 2010, there has been killing of many innocent Kashmiris by Indian security forces, an act totally in violation of the UN Charter and Human Rights Declaration. Until now, there has been a debate whether Kashmir is a political or a religious issue. A dominant class believes that, it is a political issue. It in fact is the issue of the future of a state, having population of over 15 million, spreading over an area of 84471 square miles. A limited class, however, believe on the religious context of the state. Nevertheless, over the years, the humanitarian dimension of the issue has become more glaring then other two. Today, the global community has a realization that, the massive human rights violations in the occupied state has to be dealt as per the provisions of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights of December 1948 and Article 1 of the UN Charter. Under the declaration, the broad guidelines are “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The declaration prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention of any human being and also declares that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The declaration takes a lead from the UN Charter, which aims to, “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” Article 1 of the UN charter, emphasized on the promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction.

Upon Kashmiri uprisings in 1990, Governor Rule was imposed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and through a special amendment in the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), Indian security forces were given sweeping powers of arrest and detention of Kashmiris. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), permits people to be detained for a period up to two years on vaguely defined without trial for simply asking whether the state of Jammu and Kashmir should remain part of India. This contravenes their right to express their opinions guaranteed in Article 19 of the ICCPR a clear violation of human rights by Indian forces as they have never permitted any detainee or arrested person to know the charge or allegation against him / her.

Similarly, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, (TADA) permits the Indian forces to detain the people arbitrarily for just inquiring whether Jammu and Kashmir should remain part of India or discussing the possibilities of plebiscite. This cruel act allows the authorities to arrest and detain people just on mere suspicion and people can be remanded up to 60 days in police custody. Amnesty International has analyzed the provisions of TADA and found it completely violation of important international Human Rights Laws. No guarantee is given for freedom of expression or security for fair under TADA. This Law is a gross violation of Human Rights. Besides, as per Special Power Act, Indian Army and Para-military forces have the power to shoot any individual who is violating or behaving in contravention of the law enforced. Under all these discriminatory laws, Indian security forces could even shoot to kill with virtual immunity. These special legal provisions are in contravene to most important human rights provisions laid down in international human rights instruments to which India is a party. It is therefore, moral responsibility of international community that, India should be forced to abolish these inhuman and discriminatory laws specially designed for human rights violation in Kashmir. After all, in this highly civilized world, Kashmiris too should be given their basic right to live as a free nation. The issue has to be tackled as a humanitarian issue, aiming to reduce the human sufferings.

Srinagar, May 8: A study by UK-based child rights organization, Save the Children, has revealed that estimated population of orphans in Jammu and Kashmir is 2,14,000 and 37 percent of them were orphaned due to the armed conflict.

The report titled “Orphaned in Kashmir- The State of Orphans in Jammu and Kashmir” says that the study conducted in six districts of the state reveals that 37 per cent of the orphans lost one or both parents due to the conflict while 55 percent were orphaned due to the natural death of parents and remaining eight percent due to other reasons.
The six sample districts for the study were chosen by the child rights group after consultation with state government. Among them, Islamabad (Anantnag), Kupwara and Baramulla represent high-intensity conflict districts, Poonch and Rajouri represent medium intensity conflict districts and newly created Ganderbal district represents a low intensity conflict district, the study says.
According to the 61-page report, the proportion of children orphaned due to conflict is highest in Islamabad (Anantnag) district of south Kashmir. “The largest number of children orphaned due to conflict were in Islamabad (Anantnag) (56 percent), followed by Ganderbal (48 percent), Baramulla (33 percent) and Rajouri (31 percent),” the report says, adding that number of orphans is higher in Valley than Jammu due to the conflict.
The study reveals that five percent of the orphans were either physically abused or intimidated, such as having guns pointed at them, threatened by armed actors, accused of providing support to the fighting sides, physically assaulted and hurt, used as bait to capture their parents or as human shields during the conflict.
“Among the orphans attending schools, a large number said that the main distraction in school was that they had worries about their families (28 per cent), noise of explosions during conflict (19 percent) and intimidating presence of troops (13 per cent),” the report adds.
According to the survey, one-third of the orphans had faced emotional stress during the conflict.
“While 38 per cent felt despair and skepticism about the future, 32 per cent said that their anxiety was triggered by sudden loud noises or seeing battle uniforms,” it says.
The child rights group has made number of recommendations for overall betterment of orphans in the state like formulation of child protection policy, setting up of child protection committees.
“A child protection policy should be designed for the state and operationalized, which also ensures the rights of orphans, with adequate funds and personnel allotted to it,” the report recommends, adding, “Child Protection Committee and children’s groups should be set up through NGOs at the village and urban ward levels with their members sensitized about the rights of orphans and their educational, psycho-social and health problems.”

Stress causes fretful anxiety and enlarged nervousness leading to low morale and depressing thoughts. Constant stress turns into a morbid disease with serious implications as people lose confidence, self-esteem and the requisite vigor to live a normal life. Their conduct becomes irritable with signs of confused thoughts and disorganized make up. They develop sluggish and lethargic tendencies with signs of weariness, disillusionment and exhaustion. People are required to develop coping strategies to protect themselves from total collapse and chronic sickness caused by stress. Psychological phenomenon of stress acts as a damage inflicting syndrome causing visceral injuries to the body. Since military environment bears aversive characteristics as related to training, operations and or administration, therefore, stress remains its underlined feature. Hence, the military leaders are required to pay full attention to welfare of troops. Extreme stress may consume one’s coping capacity forcing the individual to run out of options and commit suicide. In the military organizations cases of self immolation are regarded very dangerous for reflecting disparaging and deteriorating conditions of the outfit.

Recent press reports revealed that a parliamentary panel in India was very upset to find an alarming trend of suicides in the Indian armed forces. As per the media reports (made public) there were 635 cases of suicide / attempted suicide and 67 cases of fratricidal killings in the past five years. The main cause of such cases is high level of psychological stress and poor stress management techniques by the Indian armed forces. Political and military leadership is mainly responsible for creating conditions under which the troops remain under constant stress. Basically Indian armed forces are organized on British model which envisaged a master-servant relationship. After independence the royal class of British Officers got replaced by local elite class of Indians. The officer class maltreats their under command troops disregarding their (troops) rights to be treated as honorable citizens in an independent state. In fact officer-soldier-divide of British legacy suited Indian caste’ system and humiliating treatment of soldiers is regarded as a symbol of assertiveness to get best out of the troops. The requisite harmony and comradeship between officer and lower ranks to attain cohesion in the armed forces is lacking. The officers frequently abuse and disgrace the soldiers and senior officers scornfully ward off the junior officers. Respect and loyalty are demanded as a military rule and no effort is made to lead from the front setting personal example. The nature of employment in the armed forces is tough as Indian Security Forces are constantly deployed in war zones like Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) and North Easterly (NE) states of India. Power politics and repulsive social order do not preserve the sanctity of military families living far away from the place of duty of their spouses. While insurgencies pose threat to life, the news from home remain extremely shocking, and disturbing as many families fait to maintain loyalties to their spouses and or are forced to sell their honor to those having money, power and connections to indulge in anti social activities. The soldiers serving at far flung areas can not afford to get leave at frequent interval to attend their family affairs. Officers cannot spare the men due to operational commitments and leave requests are frequently turned down with humiliating rebukes. The pattern of behavior of senior officers is the same for the junior officers. Under such conditions of psychological stress the poor military men feel miserable and fail to cope with the service oriented strains. They ultimately run out of options and commit suicide causing serious damages to the armed forces as well as the tax payers.

Mr. Larry Cox, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA addressed Mr. Obama on 18 November and urged him not to forget the plight of women, men and children who are facing numerous human rights abuses in India and to make public statements emphasizing that human rights are central to US-India relations. He also stressed that Obama has the opportunity to directly communicate concern about human right to Prime Minister Singh. The director of Amnesty International tabulated the glaring violations regarding human rights through a letter. India always claimed her as one of the largest secular democratic state but her formal and informal policies in vogue do not reflect her claim. However, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama failed to take clear stance on the issue of violation of human rights in India. President of supper power did not condemn the Indian brutality which was pointed out by Mr. Larry since he (Obama) knew that Indian PM has to start his visit of Russia from first week of December, 2009.

After conclusion of USA visit, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama in the joint statement reaffirmed the global strategic partnership between India and the United States, and agreed on launching a new phase of partnership. Both the leaders also discussed economic relations, civil nuclear deal, democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and avowed the respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights. President Obama expressed that the United States looks forward to a stable and prosperous India playing an increasingly important role in world affairs. The Obama’s desire of promoting India as regional power would be taken as living in a fool paradise. Obama probably tried to close his eyes over Indian naked state terrorism against neighbouring countries and minorities.

Amnesty international very rightly expressed that government of Indian failed to prevent abuses and also providing shelter to member of security forces from facing justice. The amnesty international report is not the only report which has reflected the bleak picture of violation of Human rights in India. According to Indian National Human Rights Commission, there were more than 2000 cases of human rights violations (which include rapes, terrorizing, abduction & killing of innocent women, children youngsters & communal violence) by the security forces from 1990 to 2009. No downward trend in crime ratio has been noticed so far because of unethical and lenient approach adopted by the concerned authorities. The indecent activities against the innocent agitators went up almost 100%. If we consider that it reduced by 50 % even then figures will be quite alarming for the international community. Indian Ministry of Defence reported that it filed 17 rape cases against army personnel whereas media reported 20 cases of rapes from 2003-2004 and by adding 50 % per annum will make this figure 90 till November, 2009. There are reports that till to-date only two or three rape cases have been concluded so far in a guilty verdict. In the remaining cases, the investigations are still in process or terminated because of tremendous pressure on the presidents of the court of inquiries, investigating officers or on the eye witnesses.

Currently, 5,137 women officers serve in the armed forces. They include 4,101 in the army, 784 in the air force and 252 in the navy. In July 2008, Captain Poonam Kaur of the Army Supply Corps (ASC) has alleged that three officers of her unit had mentally and sexually harassed her and confined her illegally when she resisted their advances. The army then constituted a court of inquiry whereby all three officers denied the allegations and an innocent complainant (Miss Poonam) has been thrown out of the army instead providing justice. This incident has created bad impact in the ladies of Armed Forces and most of them are ready to quit from the forces. According to the amnesty international, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 has remained in effect in “disturbed areas,” including Kashmir and large parts of the northeastern states of India for over forty years. This act is a major contributor to mass human rights abuses in these areas of India and protects Indian security forces from prosecution by requiring permission to prosecute from India’s Central Government–permission which is rarely given. Thus security forces are busy in mass killing against, Maoist, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. Though, Indian government has made the laws for bluffing international community but implementation of such laws is not being carried out in real life.

In fact the prevailing Indian terrorism is of two types, one is Indian state terrorism and other one is sponsored terrorism of Hindu extremists against minorities. As per the report, the Mass killings of Sikhs and Muslims are the worst kind of state terrorism. In this form of terrorism over three thousand Sikhs were massacred when the governing Congress Party incited mob violence targeting Sikh civilians. In reaction assassination of Prime Minister India Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards has been carried out in 1984. Scores of women were gang raped and some were burnt alive. Similarly mass killing of Muslims was made in Gujarat and Kashmir. In reaction 59 Hindus have been burnet in a train fire. This train fire was blamed on Muslims. According to the media reports in 2009, workers over the past 18 months, nameless graveyards where Indian security forces dumped nearly 2,400 nameless corpses. In Kashmir since last two decades only, over 68,000 people have been killed, the graveyards have deeply shaken Kashmir, digging up memories of the estimated 8,000 people who disappeared at the height of the militancy. The graves have also become constant reminders that while violence is down, it is far from over. Bodies have been buried as recently as the past few months

It is worth mentioning here that India has failed to make safety arrangements on her nuke plants. The thefts of uranium and equipments from Tarapur nuke plant have also created an alarm in the world community. Bhopal tragedy does also remind the death of several thousand people. No compensation has been made to the bereaved families. There are over 300 cases of nuke accident in India ‘Times of India reported on November 30, 2009 about radiation contamination at the Kaiga nuclear plant in Karnataka. The locals residing in surrounding area suffered heavy damages in the shape of casualties of inhabitants and livestock worth costing in corers. Indian Prime Minister (PM) Manmohan Singh has denied any radiation leak and said there was “nothing to worry about”. He further added that he has been briefed that it is a small matter of contamination and is not linked to any leak. In this regard global Nuke experts were astonished over Indian PM Statement, in which he tried to tone down the most serious crisis of India asset since the leak occurred, but the plant site has not been cleaned up and toxic wastes continue to pollute the environment and ground water. Tens of thousands continue to live with debilitating illnesses. Despite numerous efforts, survivors continue to be denied adequate compensation, medical help, rehabilitation, and justice.

Abuses against “Dalits” are an open secret. India’s caste system involves a social hierarchy in which individuals are considered to be born into a particular caste in which they remain throughout their lives. This category is being suppressed ruthlessly by the extremists Hindus. Outside these caste categories are the “untouchables”, now commonly known as “Dalits”, whose occupations — sweepers, tanners, sanitation workers, according to the Amnesty international report, it has been Indian is busy in fomenting terrorism in Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The action against Maoists-Naxalites in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal and other states are pure example of Indian state terrorism.

Indian violation of human rights is eye opener for the world community. So called world largest democratic country is in disaster, where human values and rights are suppressed, why West in general and the US in particular does not feel concerned raises some strong questions. American top brass should critically view the letter written by the director of Amnesty international since south Asian peace would only be possible when Indian state terrorism would come to an end.

Black day was observed in all over the world and occupied Kashmir to protest against landing of Indian troops on Oct. 27, 1947, some six decades back and it converted a beautiful valley of the world into ever bleeding landscape of the region. Thousands of motivated Kashmiri came out on the roads against presences of security forces in Kashmir. Five individual martyred and many injured in the clashes with Indian security forces in Srinagar, Baramullah and other towns of Kashmir. The People of Kashmir took to the streets and held big demonstrations against Indian illegal occupants. There was complete shut down while a number of leaders were put under arrest, preventing them to lead the processions. President Tehreek-e-Kashmir UK, Mohammad Ghalib led anti Indian rally of Pakistani and Kashmiri community in front of Indian High Commission in London on the occasion of 62nd anniversary of Kashmir’s military occupation.

Black day was observed in all over the world and occupied Kashmir to protest against landing of Indian troops on Oct. 27, 1947, some six decades back and it converted a beautiful valley of the world into ever bleeding landscape of the region. Thousands of motivated Kashmiri came out on the roads against presences of security forces in Kashmir. Five individual martyred and many injured in the clashes with Indian security forces in Srinagar, Baramullah and other towns of Kashmir. The People of Kashmir took to the streets and held big demonstrations against Indian illegal occupants. There was complete shut down while a number of leaders were put under arrest, preventing them to lead the processions. President Tehreek-e-Kashmir UK, Mohammad Ghalib led anti Indian rally of Pakistani and Kashmiri community in front of Indian High Commission in London on the occasion of 62nd anniversary of Kashmir’s military occupation.

The day of landing Indian troops on SrInagar Airport to capture the valley against the wishes of inhabitants is remembered as black day of Kashmir history. The back ground of the issue reveals a trade of a civilized country with a cruel local ruler. What a Historical Trade concluded on March 16, 1846 when British Government through Treaty of Amritsar transferred for ever an independent possession of Kashmir to Gulab Singh for his willingness to pay rupees 75 Lac out of the total amount of indemnity demanded by them. Basically the deal was selling of Kashmiri nation along with their mother land in the hand of Gulab Sing. The revealed trade made two nations dagger drawn to each other. It converted South Asian region into nuclear zone which resulted into four wars, coupled with a never ending arms race between the neighbours since 1947. Kashmir Movement basically started on the day when British have sold their territory. But in 1931 struggle against Dogra rule came on lime lines when for the first time in the history, Kashmiri people openly opposed the cruelty of the rulers. In same year on July 13, twenty one (21) Kashmiri Muslims faced bullets and embraced shahadat in Srinagar Central Jail. This day is known as Martyrs Days of Kashmir and reminding us the blood of liberators.

According to the Partition Plan Hindustan was supposed to be divided on the religion bases into two major states Pakistan and India. The instruments of agreement relating to the Partition of India, the rulers of princely states were to be given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan. They were also asked to take into account the demographic nature, history, geography and future prospects of their subjects. British’s never respected the rights of Kashmiri people; once again they left them on the mercy of Heri Sing in 1947. The Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Sing went against the will of predominantly Muslim majority and announced annexation of Kashmir with India. Actually almost 78.9% Muslims, 11.2 % Hindu’s and 8.6% Buddha’s were located in the Kashmir. The annexation of Kashmir with India was resulted due to an under hand deal between India, Lord Mountbatten and British’s. The conspiracy against newly created Islamic state could be ascertained from these two too facts, firstly, latest changes of Partition Plan has restricted Punjab Boundaries till Ferozepur , according to initial Plan “Flour” ( Indian City now ) would have been the boundary line between Pakistan and India . One of the vital purposes of changing the Partition Plan could be that lonely land route leading to Kashmir started from Pathan kot fell into the Indian lap. Second fact could be established from Jagmon ‘book My Frozen Turulence in Kashmir “he quoted gist’s of Maharaja Hari Singh’s letter of October 26, 1947 to Lord Mountbatten and latter’s reply to Maharaja on October 27, 1947. He stated that Maharaja Hari Singh said: “With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from Indian Dominion. Naturally they can not send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so and I attach the Instrument of Accession for acceptance by your Government.”

Lord Mountbatten in reply writes: “In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my government has decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. 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 accession should be settled by a reference to the people. Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness’s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.”

A book “Kashmir in Conflict” has unveiled the plot and indicated that Hari Singh did not reach Jammu until the evening of October 26 and that due to poor flying conditions, V P Menon was unable to get to Jammu until the morning of October 27, by which time Indian troops were already arriving in Srinagar. Thus Maharaja Act has been proven as fraudulent because he would not have written the letter to Lord when “standstill” agreement with Pakistan was already in force.

Thus, Kashmiri and their Muslim brothers stood up for snatching their rights from the aggressors and prepared the force of locals Mujahids who started their march toward Jammu & Srinagar. On October 22, 1947 Pashtun tribesmen from Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province too came all-out for the help of Kashmiri Muslims. The struggles of locals for their rights converted into first Indo & Pakistan war. India started defending the stance of Heri sing and physically landed her forces on Srinagar Airport. The war which started actually on Octber21, 1947 has lasted in December 31, 1948. India occupies roughly 101,387 km² of Kashmir. Pakistan occupies 85,793 km² (Later divided into Azad Kashmir (13,397 km²) and Northern Areas (72,496 km²).)

Pakistani government stops further advancement of forces on the directions of UNO and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s assurance of plebiscite election. In fact India has never complied with her promises and started claiming Kashmir as their “Atoot Ang”. 1965 war, Siachen and Kargil issues were occurred as result of Kashmir. However back door diplomatic channels remained activated in Mushraff & Zia’s eras. Present government has taken some positive steps to lessen the tension for example, opening the border trade, restarting of negations with India openly. But astonishingly, some steps taken by India reflect her non seriousness approach and malicious intentions towards resolving of burning issue of Kashmir. For example the water dispute which was resolved under Sind – Tas Agreement again came up and started pinching Pakistan after constructing newly constructed Dams “Bugliar Dam “over Jhelum River.
Coming back to the discussion, the wave of liberation all over the world has induced the flicker of freedom in Kashmiri Muslim youth too. They and their leaders are all out to break the chains of Indian slavery and ready to scarify their lives for the desired goal of independence from India. Kashmiri suffered worst type of humiliation, exploitation and repression for more then six decades at the hands of Indians. Over a million people have been victimized, thousand of women were raped but Indian failed to suppress the Kashmir movement. The Kashmiri blood will keep on illumining the path of liberation with the help of Pakistani Nation. Concluding I suggest to New Delhi that they must study the actual cause of Kashmir movement instead using her security forces to control the freedom movement criminally. The world and UNO must pressurize Indian to stop her brutality and give rights to Kashmiri who believe in plebiscite. The only workable option is the “Plebiscite Option” and the Kashmiri people decide their right of final accession. South Asia today stands on the cliff of a nuclear disaster. world powers particularly and UNO should play their role in finding an everlasting solution to the dispute.