Latest Entries »

Hurriyat Conference New Avatar

Filed Under: Editor's Take by zahidgm — Leave a comment
February 20, 2012

Prodding and prompting are not synonymous.Prodding gets on one’s nerves as against this prompting stirs the thinking process.I admire prompting by friends on the social networks but am averse to prodding. On the exposure of the examination scandal involving Education Minister, Peerzada Muhammad Syed, some friends on the social network persistently prodded me to write against the ‘tainted minister’ detailing all his previous scandals.  At the same time, prompting by some friends made me conscious about the   catastrophic impact of the scandal on the future of educational system in the state.
The scandal did provoke plethora of columns, some seeking intervention of the Congress Chairperson   but with scepticism reigning supreme, I was amazed if my writing about the scandal would make any difference. Having an understanding of the Congress politics vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir from the day th party set up its unit in 1964 in the state with a set agenda of extending many central laws to the state that included Article 356 etc, with all certainty I believe that the people of the state at no point of time have  been its concern.  It has all along been “loyalty” towards the ‘family’ that has overweighed the ‘image’ or the ‘performance’ of its ministers in the state.  The fact of the matter is that after Mufti Muhammad Syed siding with V.P. Singh and bidding adieu to the Congress the ‘tainted minister’ has been the face of the Congress in Kashmir valley. In all power, sharing arrangements whether it is 1987 N.C-Congress coalition or 2002 PDP-Congress combine or the 2008 NC-Congress partnership the minister in the dock has been part of the cabinet. The ‘exam-gate’ is not first of its kind of scandals involving the minister that attracted the headlines and filled up opinion pages, the indictment of the minister by the Jammu and Kashmir State Accountability Commission and exposure of   the Panchayat Ghar Electrification Scandal during the PDP-Congress coalition had been more ‘ferociously’ reported in the press. The media outcries and deafening outbursts by the opposition were dismissed as unheard by the Congress leadership in Delhi. The minister might have been as good as an embarrassment to the then Chief Minister as it is humiliating to the scion of the Abdullah family- who like his predecessors  seems having taken it with a pinch of salt. I will not be surprised if the Congress high command after the Assembly Elections in various states insists on rotational chief minister and projects ‘exam-gate’ minister as its chief ministerial candidate. Expecting the vox pop guiding the policies of the Congress Party in Jammu and Kashmir or attuning them with the public sentiment would be tomfoolery but crumbling of institution, decaying of systems and plundering of resources should be the cause of concern to all and sundry in the state.
In the bizarre scenario that has been, obtaining in the state there seems no light across the tunnel. The people who strode across the corridors of power for their non-performance have largely lost their standing. Seen in right perspective, so far giving voice to the public concerns about the rot and decadence that has set in public institutions are concerned there is no credible voice around. Out of desperation an old time journalist wrote on his wall on the face book- ‘Geelani Sahib and Mirwaiz Umar’ need to come forward and steer the state out of morass.’   In the given political scenario with most of the leaders engaged in electoral politics largely suffering from credibility crisis for their non deliverance the question that haunts the public minds is who is going to fill up the space.
It seems that All Parties Hurriyat Conference headed by Mirwaiz Muhammad Umar Farooq is girding its loins to fill up this space. In its meeting on Tuesday the ‘Executive Council’ of this multiparty combines decided to move beyond the agenda as contained in its Constitution viz right to self-determination for the people of the state as guaranteed in the UN resolution or ‘negotiated settlement of the sixty three year old dispute to the aspirations and urges of people of the state. Believing that it is high time for highlighting the economic and social issues confronting the people and telling the international community that the non-resolution of the Kashmir problem was affecting the common person’s life the multiparty combine seems geared to redraft its agenda. The envisaged agenda is likely to include campaigning against: the systematic and unabated loot of the water resources by the Government of India agencies like the NHPC; environmental degradation and plundering of forest wealth; for opening of traditional trade routes that connected the state with the Central Asian States before 1947; deliberate attempts at eroding educational system in the state and making cross border trade more meaningful. Fighting against the orchestrated religious discourses targeted at creating and widening sectarian divide in the majority community.
I am not going to debate here whether the new agenda could be construed as diversionary politics that could infringe the major narrative. It will be equally premature to suggest that if the APHC for seeing its agenda implemented finally graduates to electoral politics that would require it changing from a conglomerate into a political organization with its basic units all over the state. I am not also going to draw a parallel between the post 1971 phase of the Plebiscite Front and the APHC that had seen the Front instead of articulating demand for plebiscite focusing on economic and social issues and finally graduating to electoral politics first through proxy candidates then direct participation. Not contradicting the APHC leadership that the new agenda would strengthen the major narrative the question arises that if this conglomerate was going to take the new agenda beyond rhetoric and launch an effective movement for seeing its agenda translated into reality… the year 2011 will be year to watch the APHC in its new avatar articulating public issues.

Did you like this? Share it:
Share
Comment

Asian Powers in Kashmir

Filed Under: Editor's Take by zahidgm — Leave a comment
February 24, 2011

Asian powers in Kashmir

Z.G. MUHAMMAD | ARAB NEWS

Some 18 years back British historian Alastair Lamb, in his second book “Birth of Tragedy” raised some important questions about the birth of the “Kashmir Dispute”.

In the questions posed, he looked for the attributes for the cause and perpetuation of this dispute.  One of the questions that he raised is about the geographical location of the state:

“Had the State of Jammu and Kashmir been situated almost anywhere else in the Subcontinent and had it embraced a lesser area, India-Pakistan argument over its future might not have been conducted with particular intensity. The State, however, lay not only adjacent to both India and Pakistan but also on a key frontier region which gave access to Central Asia, a part of the world which had for more than a century attracted attention of British strategists whose attitude were inherited by their successors.”

He finds geographical location as an attribute for the birth of the Kashmir dispute. He believes that but for this attribute and implications of certain decision made in 1947, “the state of Jammu and Kashmir in general and the Vale of Kashmir in particular might indeed have enjoyed a happier future”.

History testifies that many decisions that had far greater implications for Kashmir, even before India and Pakistan were born had their roots in the geostrategic importance of the state. Some contemporary historians do hold the view that the Treaty of Amritsar (Amritsar Sale Deed) was executed by the British with Gulab Singh to create a buffer between powers in the North and the British Empire.

A lot has been written about how the Cold War added complexity to the resolution of the Kashmir problem. Peter Lyon in his article “Britain and the Kashmir issue” quoting a senior British diplomat significantly suggests that all major powers including Britain, United States, and Soviet Union and after 1960 China competed with each other to retain their influence in the region. He writes that “It thus became virtually an article of faith in official Washington and Whitehall that only if Kashmir dispute could be resolved would a lasting improvement in Anglo- American relations with South Asia become possible”. It was “tenuous belief of the British governments and American administrations that their policies in South Asia would be successful through ‘concerted efforts’ rather than if each of them operated alone. In this post-Cold War situation the United States and Britain lost their interest not only in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute but in the region as such. In the post-Cold War United States concluded, in the words of Thomas P Thorn, that “it is not and, for foreseeable future and cannot be militarily threatened from South Asia. The region is not particularly useful as a base of operation for the US to use against its principle rivals. South Asia is of virtually no importance to it economically.”  It did recognize that a third of humanity lives in the region but did not think it of “immediate relevance to American Security”.  Notwithstanding sticking to its “broad objectives” of maintaining a balance of power and preventing other nations from dominating the region it lost its interest in Indo-Pakistan relations and resolution of the Kashmir problem.

This self-centered post-Cold War thinking about South Asia in the United States and allied countries changed only after the rise of Taleban in Afghanistan. After the withdrawal of Soviets troops from Afghanistan, the United States not only dumped its ally in war but also counted disputes in the region as of no consequences to its interests. In the scenario that has now been emerging in the region, the resolution of the Kashmir problem is slowly gaining centrality for ensuring peace in the region. In his article titled “Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir”, Ahmed Rashid wrote in the Nov. 10, 2010 issue of prestigious international magazine Foreign Policy: “There can be no peace in Afghanistan until these two neighbors sit down and talk about a common approach to both Kabul and Kashmir, rather than negotiating by proxy war.” Rashid is not the only expert to believe that Kashmir dispute affects security in South Asia but a galaxy of international experts and scholars from Daniel Markey to Howard Schaffer have been sharing his views. Many international think tanks in the US, Britain and other parts of the world have renewed their interest in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Institutions like the Harvard University Carr Center, US, the Chatham House, UK and Royal United Institute of Defense and Security Studies (RUSI) have not only renewed their interest in Kashmir dispute but are actively engaged in identifying a road map for resolving the 63-year-old dispute that in fact has brought the South Asian region to the “precipice” of a nuclear war and is causing concern for wider global security. The Howard University has been engaging scholars in its series of conference titled “World’s Highest Militarized Dispute”, the Chatham House, recognizing the human dimension of the dispute and threat it has been posing to the peace in South Asia and beyond conducted the first opinion poll on both the sides of the Line of Control and the Royal Institute For Defense and Security Studies since 2009 has been analyzing the implications of the perpetuation. Besides, these premier institutes there are many other institutions that of late have been looking at various dimensions of the Kashmir problem. On Jan. 25, this oldest British think tank held an international conference on Kashmir titled “Asian Powers in Kashmir”.  The conference was “aimed at examining the potential ‘spill over’ from the conflict in Afghanistan and the effect of a protracted conflict on Pakistan’s western front on Kashmir’s security.” It had been divided in four sessions:   Violence in Kashmir – the global context, the Kashmir Dispute and South Asian regional Security, the role of China and Sino-Indian rivalry in the Kashmir dispute and the Post-Simla agreement environment and Indo-Pakistani dialogue. Besides eminent experts on global security, international relations, Indo-Pak relations and Kashmir dispute, delegates from India, Pakistan and both sides of Kashmir participated in the deliberations at the conference. Every session of the conference was important and needs to be debated and analyzed separately in the context of need for resolving the Kashmir dispute.

Three important factors that have caused renewed interest in Kashmir have been the rise of extremism and Taleban in Afghanistan and its spillover effects on the region, India-Pakistan tension and dangers of bringing two nuclear countries “toe-to-toe” and India-China rivalry and the role of China in Kashmir. Of the three factors it is the “creeping influence of the region’s superpower China in Kashmir dispute that has caused worry in the United States and other Western powers. China’s issuing visa on a separate sheet of paper and not on Indian passport to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and issuing visas on Pakistan passport to citizens of AJK and refusing visa to a senior Indian Army serving in Jammu and Kashmir is seen as major development by many eminent international experts and many have been seeing it as its “grand designs” in the region.

It is a very difficult question if China’s interest could add complexity to the Kashmir dispute or prove as a catalyst in its resolutions.

Did you like this? Share it:
Share
Comment

Washington Post

Filed Under: Editor's Take by zahidgm — Leave a comment
October 28, 2010

A cage called Kashmir

By Z.G. Muhammad

Mogul emperor Shah Jahan, four and half centuries back, waxed lyrical on the sight of beautiful Kashmir valley nestled in the bosom of mighty Himalayas and called it paradise on the earth. In his wildest dreams he would not have imagined that one day this land will become more hellish than hell for its citizens. Now for for past more than six decades it is soaked in blood and tears with its every year having tales of repression, intimidation and terror to tell.

The birth of Kashmir ‘tragedy’ dates back to the birth of India and Pakistan as independent nations. The future of this state at this important juncture of history of the sub-continent had remained undecided. The dispute over this strategically located state, bordering China, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India commenced “on the morning of 27 October 1947 when units of Indian Army started landing at Srinagar Air filed” and the United Nations Security Council asked India and Pakistan for demilitarization and allowing people of the state right to self-determination. India’s military presence in the state over years has increased to 700000, making it highest militarized zone in the world. Notwithstanding massive military presence, people of the state have been asking for right to self-determination and being met with repressive force. More than half a million people have been killed in state during past six decades. Of these over one hundred thousand have died after an anti-India armed insurgency was triggered by rigged State Assembly poll in 1987. Thousands have been maimed, crippled and disabled for rest of their life and over a hundred thousand have been orphaned. The ‘killing fields’ of Kashmir wrote Pankaj Mishra, in Guardian “dwarf those of Palestine and Tibet.” Now when India has contained the armed insurgency and militant’s guns have fallen silent people have been holding peaceful rallies and demonstration in support of ‘Azadi’ (freedom).

For past three summers hundreds of thousands have been coming on the roads and streets of the capital city and other towns demanding withdrawal of troops, repealing of draconian laws giving extraordinary powers to military, prosecution of those responsible for crimes against civilians, release of political prisoners languishing in jails, accountability for seven thousand forced disappearances and a chance to determine their own political future.

This summer’s demonstrations began at a different note, with teenagers converging on the streets, raising slogans for Azadi being met with disproportionate force by the government troops. The youth, mostly born during the post 90 insurgency responded the baton charges, teargas canisters and firing by the troops with stones. The stone pelting has not only emerged as new form of resistance but as a phenomenon that has succeeded in sending tremors to New Delhi.

In Kashmir, the year 2010 had a gory start. On 8 January, Inayat Khan 16, was shot dead by Indian federal troops (CRPF) at Srinagar. On 22 January, Manzoor Ahmed Sofi 23, was killed by same force at Parahaspora, Pattan. On 31 January, Wamiq Farooq, 13, was shot dead by police. And on 31 January, Zahid Farooq, 16 years, was shot dead by Border Security Force, Srinagar. None of the killed was part of the demonstration but were students either on way to schools or homes. After massive protests in January, it was relative calm and business as usual for few months. On Fridays only after the noon prayers this deceptive calm would be punctured, with youth appearing on the streets and chanting pro-freedom slogans.

To control the restive population the government has imposed curfew and strict restrictions on people’s movement. Every town and colony wrapped up in concertina, spools of razor wires, barbwire wire, with thousands of helmeted, gun totting and baton wielding soldiers dotting every place looks like a war time garrison. For past more than seventy days more than four million people have been virtually caged. There are lots of festering and disturbing tales about the ‘curfewed’ life that hardly get reported in the press. Hundreds of thousands of students have missed their studies and confinement has been adversely affecting their psyche. Shortage of medicines has been causing complicacies in many patients. To stretch their stocks, many daily wage earners have been living on one time meal for past month or so. Scarcity of fresh vegetable has made some to live primitive life and depend upon wild vegetables in their holdings.


By Z.G. Muhammad  |  September 13, 2010; 11:17 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail Facebook
Previous: What Obama should have said about Qur’an burning | Next: Understand anti-Semitism, and anti-Muslim bigotry

View or post comments


 

Add Post I.T. to Your Site

Stay on top of the latest Post I.T. news! This easy-to-use widget is simple to add to your own Web site and will update every time there’s a new installment of Post I.T.
Get This Widget >>

–>

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

It is all biased report which is derogatory to standards of washington post. Does anyone mentioned the plight of hindu pandits, who were forced out of the kashmir valley by a covert operation by pakistan ? Isnt it a double standard ?
The hand of pakistan isnt highlighted anywhere in the violence in kashmir. The indian army/govt is too soft in their stand.

Posted by: shaleen11 | September 22, 2010 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Fantastic article. The millions of men, women and children marching and chanting ‘freedom’ clearly demonstrates the aspirations of the people of Kashmir: India to get out of their country. The whole world can see this but its only Incredible India that is blind. Let’s face the facts people and give Kashmiris their chance to express their inalienable right in a fair, impartial and UN sponsored plebiscite.

Posted by: GhazishahChak | September 16, 2010 4:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The author has very rightly said that the Solomon’s Garden as Kashmir is know has turned a hell for its denizens since the birth of Kashmir dispute in 1947. The people of Kashmir have been asking for freedom- the survey’s conducted by Indian News Magazine like Outlook or international agencies have shown that ninety percent of people do not want to stay with India. Why should we keep them with us when they want to have their own way- we have no right to deny them the right given to them by UN- let us give them this right. Manmohan Singh should behave like General De Gaulle who despite opposition granted freedom to Algeria. Truth is that Lord Mountbatten and Pandit Ji before 1948 promised a referendum. The state of Jammu and Kashmir is divided in two parts- let us unite them and hold a referendum.
Nehru was ready in 1948 – 1950 to allow a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir but he was blackmailed by then Jan Sangh after death of Shyama Prasad Mukeerji- he even arrested his friend at their behest. Mr. Singh should not submit to BJP but allow people of Kashmir go their way if really wants India to prosper. We have fought three wars over Kashmir and fought twenty years long insurgency- trillions of dollars have gone down the drain. Had we spent this amount of development the percentage of people living on one dollars would have gone from 25 to 5 percent. We have kept development of Dalits and tribal hostage to Kashmir. At the end of day we will have to leave from Kashmir as US left from Vietnam and Russia from Afghanistan why not without much blood. I was shocked to read story in NY Times about Kashmir. The author has rightly presented picture of Kashmir. India is a big nation with tradition of Wachan- Promise let us keep our promise with Kashmiris and give them their right to self-determination.

Posted by: Pamposh | September 15, 2010 7:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The author has very rightly said that the Solomon’s Garden as Kashmir is know has turned a hell for its denizens since the birth of Kashmir dispute in 1947. The people of Kashmir have been asking for freedom- the survey’s conducted by Indian News Magazine like Outlook or international agencies have shown that ninety percent of people do not want to stay with India. Why should we keep them with us when they want to have their own way- we have no right to deny them the right given to them by UN- let us give them this right. Manmohan Singh should behave like General De Gaulle who despite opposition granted freedom to Algeria. Truth is that Lord Mountbatten and Pandit Ji before 1948 promised a referendum. The state of Jammu and Kashmir is divided in two parts- let us unite them and hold a referendum.
Nehru was ready in 1948 – 1950 to allow a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir but he was blackmailed by then Jan Sangh after death of Shyama Prasad Mukeerji- he even arrested his friend at their behest. Mr. Singh should not submit to BJP but allow people of Kashmir go their way if really wants India to prosper. We have fought three wars over Kashmir and fought twenty years long insurgency- trillions of dollars have gone down the drain. Had we spent this amount of development the percentage of people living on one dollars would have gone from 25 to 5 percent. We have kept development of Dalits and tribal hostage to Kashmir. At the end of day we will have to leave from Kashmir as US left from Vietnam and Russia from Afghanistan why not without much blood. I was shocked to read story in NY Times about Kashmir. The author has rightly presented picture of Kashmir. India is a big nation with tradition of Wachan- Promise let us keep our promise with Kashmiris and give them their right to self-determination.

Posted by: Pamposh | September 15, 2010 7:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear readers, if you think that the author has made any unsubstantiated reference and facts then i request you people to introspect but without any reference to concocted versions and hatred towards the people of Kashmir. People are caged and are reeling under the 24*7 stict curfew restrictions. Kashmiris are not against any religion or faith as being portrayed by some chauvinistic minded people. Why is India showing her adamant stand despite the people of Kashmir are on streets protesting against grave human rights violations, demanding their inalienable right…..

Posted by: QaZia | September 15, 2010 7:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello, the problem did NOT start when Indian troops entered the state …

it started even earlier, when Govt of Pakistan sponsored a “tribal invasion” of Pashtun tribals into the state. They came raping and looting as far as the outskirts of Srinagar before they were repulsed by the Indian Army.

Posted by: Logos1 | September 15, 2010 3:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Addendum:
I would suggest following books to all those who have blamed author about being biased.
1. Danger in Kashmir by Josef Karbel father of former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.
2. Two Nations by Lord Birdwood
3.Birth of a Tragedy by Alastair Lamb
4. Kashmir in Conflict, by Victoria Schofield.
5.Limits of Influence by Howard Schaffer
6. India’s Foreign Policy by Jawaharlal Nehru.
7. Limits of Influence by Howard Schaffer.
and scores of others
See reports by Amnesty International and Asia Watch.
Watch lectures by scholars in Haward on highest militrized zone by scholars like Prof. Ayesha jalal, Prof. Anagana Chaterji and Prof. Bose.

Posted by: laldedkashmir | September 15, 2010 1:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Sir,
There are lots of biased posts about this write up. I am amazed that those who written adverse comments have been blinding themselves to the realities. Kashmir is suffering for three months people – about five million people are caged- it is an aweful situation eighty four people mostly students from class eight have been killed in cold blood. What author has written- I read almost same tory in todays New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/world/asia/15srinagar.html.
The author has brought out facts. Kashmir has been suffering for past sixty three years, it is a truth that has brought out by many independent writers from USA and UK that more than a half a million people have died since 1947, during past twenty only by government’s recknoning eighty thousand have disappeared.
The author should have quoted statements made by Indian leader Nehru in Parlaiment promising holding of plebiscite. Kashmir in accordance with the partition plan for its demography and contiguity should have been part of Pakistan – but it was dilly dallying of a fugative Hindu ruler that it could not join Pakistan in 1947 and it was India that took the matter to the United States on the pretext tribals had raided Kashmir and the United States in its wisdom adopted resolution guranteeing rightt to self-determination and hold of plebiscite under its control and supervision. India after joining Soviet Union as an ally renged from the promise on the pretext that Pakistan had joined SEATO and SEANTO. People of Kashmir have been demanding fullfillment of prmises made by the United Nations and Indian leaders. People of Kashmir have been offering immense sacrafices for their cause. India has been suffering from newly got arrogance of power-
I feel sorry for the biased minds who have described the author as biased – he has brought out hard realities.
Cold War is over- Soviet Russia is fragmented but Kashmir continues to suffer because of cold war. United States has been co-sponsor of the UN resolution guranteeing right to self-determination to people and it is moral of duty of this power to see this resolution implemented. Mr. Obama during his November visit should call upon Indian leadership to drop its stiffened attitude and resolve Kashmir problem on the baisis of justice in accordance with the historical realities. There are 16, UN resolution on Kashmir… and Kashmiris are suffering. The fact of matter is that even China did not support Kashmir till 1964 because of Pakistan being close to US.
Indian leadership need to learn a lesson as very rightly said by Indian writers like Arunditya Roy and Pankaj Mishra and many others and it should stop killing Kashmiris and allow them freedom.
I appreciate the author for his truthfull depiction of the situation.

Posted by: laldedkashmir | September 15, 2010 1:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I have been reading the author. There are hundreds of his column available on net. The author has skipped details perhaps of paucity of space. One need not to blindfold to realities- Kashmir is disputed territory there are 16 United Resolutions about that. It is dispute that is to be decided by holding a plebiscite. People of Kashmir have been asking that right only. The author has beiefly touched history of the dispute and has focussed on the present situation. Those who have pronounced author biased need to read today’s stories in other US papers New York Time, Christen Monitor.. all have called it a caged. Some years back a delegation of European had called it beautiful prison in the world. India has been defiance mood despite commitments at the international level. About human rights violations in Kashmir there are scores of reports by international organization like the Amnesty International – that is being entry in Kashmir.
India claims that it is democratic country- well taken but this democracy fails when it comes to Kashmir. People of Kashmir have been raising their voices not only for their own right to self-determination but for Tibet- that was once part of Independent State of Kashmir and Palestine. It is truth that cannot be denied that millions have been coming on streets for past three summers demanding right to self-determination for all the people including miniscule buddhists and sikhs and Hindus of Jammu.Kashmir have been asking implemenation of UN resolution which were co-sponsored by the United States. The United States stand on Kashmir has been that it should be given right to decide- even President Bush who was pally pally with New Delhi called for the resolution of Kashmir to the aspirations of the people of the state. There have been proposal by none other the United Nations for holding Plebiscite at district level India did not agree to that.
Kashmir is not part of India nor of Pakistan but a disputed territory.
The author of the article has been impartial in depicting Kashmir situation- many Indian writers of Credibility have been writing same thing.
The miseries of Kashmiris during past three months have been immense. These have reported by Press in USA and Britain. None but President Obama made his views known on Kashmir dispute during the election campaign. I would request these friends to read literature on Kashmir by Amercian and British Historians.
Dear Friends for God’s sake unfold your blinds and see the hard and harsh realities and raise your voices for freedom of Kashmir.

Posted by: aliimran_analyst | September 14, 2010 11:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This article is right on target. India has mass mass mass human right violation records. Country top of list in detainees- being-killed-in-custody. A huge list of world known terrorist organizations.

Things in favor of India is his wonderful lobbying, support of US and West. No wonder you will never see things against India in mass media.

India is not fulfilling UN resolution but so what, Israel is also not doing it :-) India is stronger than Pakistan and in in good terms with US and Europe so that particular UN resolution will never get resolved.

India occupied Kashmir and not giving rights to Kashmiris. This is right infront of your own eyes in news but these Indians are oppressing the voice of Kashmiris just because that location is important for India and he will never let it go.

Again, might is right. If you have backing of US and Europe, nothing can happen to India or Palestine. Strong will have the land and will kill people and weak is there to protest and die.

Posted by: for_subscriptions | September 14, 2010 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pakistan invaded independent Kashmir and forced the hand of the kashmir ruler who had to go to india to save kashmir from pakistan. It’s strange that a blogger in a reputed media house like washinton times can put out a lie that India invaded Kashmir first and expect to get away with it. Sorry z.g mohamad. You have been caught lying for Pakistan. Washington post readers are not like the Pakistan Urdu media consumers who gladly consume conspiracy theories.

Posted by: rajmirage | September 14, 2010 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

self-determination for countries with predominantly Muslim population
always means death or expulsion for all other religions. Then Mussis will start killing each other.
Of course Muhammad should know this.
So this article should be classified as fraud and removed from Washington Post

Posted by: nikit2h | September 14, 2010 4:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This article is completely biased with all facts twisted. He is the same author who spreads hatred against India with such articles. He might be working for Pakistan. Shame on you Washington Post for publishing such articles.

Posted by: realcitizen | September 14, 2010 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One hand India is making life more & more difficult in Kashmir other hand Pakistan is also working hard via money & their puppets in Kashmir to make life hell for average Kashmiries.

Posted by: kashmirpage | September 14, 2010 3:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The author begins with a lie. The story of Kashmir began prior to the independence of India and Pakistan itself. There over over 500 Princely States, none of whom were given the option to gain independence. There were only two choices – India or Pakistan. How was the state to decide? India had advocated leaving it to the population to decide. Pakistan, led by MA Jinnah, insisted on the absolute writ of the ruler to decide. The King of Jammu and Kashmir offered a standstill still agreement that Pakistan violated, upon which, the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India. The above is historical fact which the author deliberately obfuscates.

Now to the present – yes, a number of Kashmiris are disaffected by India. Is this disaffected number the majority? Going by the response to elections etc. it is not. Regardless, the disaffection is specific to the Kashmir Valley, not to Hindu majority Jammu or Buddhist majority Ladakh. The Muslims of the Valley were succesful in ethnically cleansing Hindu minority but have not been successful in defeating the Indian state. Simply put, they are on the wrong side of History where a demand for nationalism is predicated on religious extremism alone. An Islamist movement masquerading as a Kashmiri Movement cannot be allowed to succeed.

The fact remains that India commits no economic or political discrimination in Kashmir, relative to any other Indian state. Have their been mistakes made? Absolutely. The Indian state has made mistakes across many different issues and states. As an underconfident new country it has manipulated state elections or dismissed governers. But those were exceptions and as Indian self confidence in its national project has grown, so has the free expression of democracy and federalism.

The Kashmir cannot point to any right not offered to him, relative to other Indians. The feeling of disenchantment is therefore in the heads of Islamists and for that there is no cure.

Posted by: stuka1 | September 14, 2010 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

@sj77

you are absolutely right. The only reason this is being covered is because the Indian goverment allows press freedom in Kashmir. If this was Tibet or Chechnya u would never even hear about this in the news.

Posted by: cbebop | September 14, 2010 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Indian readers will not be pleased with this article. But it is about time that they realized that scorched earth policies in Kashmir will only result in more chaos. Here is an article written by a person of Indian origin (Pankaj Mishra) for the Guardian news paper in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/aug/14/silence-over-kashmir-conflict

Indian authors such as Arundhati Roy have also called for a review of Indian policies in Kashmir.

Posted by: imran2u | September 14, 2010 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And the WP should have known better than to post such a biased article with no facts in it whatsoever. This article looks like its been written by some dude working for the Pakistani government.

Posted by: cbebop | September 14, 2010 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Only thing author is right about – Kashmir has more electoral violence than Tibet and more disturbances from ‘freedom’ marches!! I think Tibetans would love to have these kinds of disturbances with a free press reporting and ‘opinion’ pieces like this without fear of retribution from Chinese government.

Posted by: sj77 | September 14, 2010 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

@facelessinusa

The Author seems to have forgotten that it was Pakistan who first tried to capture Kashmir by sending thousands of armed Militants to the then Independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian Army was sent there at the request of the then King of Kashmir to counter the Paskitani insurgency. These are facts which you can easily find on the internet.

And the Indian state of J&K was peaceful and prosperous until 1987 when the Pakistanis who after losing 3 wars with India finally decided to take Kashmir by terrorizing its people. The Indian army is just there to protect the people. And I am not denying the fact that the army may have committed human rights violations over the years but that happens in every place with a military presence.

And the Author also cleverly forgot about the 300000 kashmiri hindus who were forced out of their homes by the muslim terrorists and are now living as refugees in the rest of India. Talk about being biased u S0B.

Posted by: cbebop | September 14, 2010 3:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What an absurd of an article? Muslims asking for a freedom from a secular state. Kashmir valley is not entire Jammu and Kashmir. There are many more parts that are quite happy with being in India. Kashmir was relatively peaceful until 1989, after which armed struggle started with Pakistan support. They had driven out Kashmir Pandits out of valley. They have islamized the entire revolution. All they want to prove is Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. If India let that happen, it would be blot on India as a secular state. What’ll happen if all other muslims in India ask for a separate state.

Posted by: eamanis | September 14, 2010 3:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It will be in the best inetrest of India to get over with the KASHMIR MESS sooner is better. We have not received any goodwill from the Kashmir population for the last 60 years even we have promised them to provide everything. We have fought 3 wars, drained billions of rupees, sacrificed hundreds of our jawans and KILLED THOUSANDS of innocents, but still we are not closer to resolve anything. The Hindutv forces of INDIA will never allow India to extend additional rights promised to them but we will have to continue killings and occupation against the wills of the masses for an another century. It is not worth for super power state like INDIA. If majority of population is against our rule, we have no choice but to allow the public to have their choice. Hopefully Congress and some BJP leaders will read this and act accordingly. It will be in our NATIONAL INTEREST.

Posted by: citysoilverizonnet | September 14, 2010 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wrong at many levels. Kashmir was a heaven till late seventies. The tragedy began when Pakistan decided to use subversion and later, terrorism to use Kashmir Muslims in a proxy war with India. Kashmiris would suffer like Afgans until Pakistan focuses on betterment of its own people. Only thing thing wrong with Indian forces, they just are not as efficient as Israel Defense Forces.

Posted by: sj77 | September 14, 2010 3:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Obviously this author is heavily biased. All the statements he makes in this article are unsubstantiated and twisted version of the facts. It is very clear that Pakistan tried to occupy Kashmir even when it was still a princely state. Then Indian soldiers were sent to Kashmir to fight off the Pakistani infiltrators from the princely state on the request of its ruler.

Its a shame that a recognized and worthy news paper is open to publishing such biased and twisted article with no fact checking.

Posted by: facelessinusa | September 14, 2010 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

Did you like this? Share it:
Share
Comment

Obama’s India visit and Kashmir connection

Filed Under: Editor's Take by zahidgm — Leave a comment
October 19, 2010

Nov. 6 is going to be the D-day for New Delhi.

That is the impression one gets about the visit of US President Barack Obama to India on that day. He is arriving in the country’s commercial capital, Mumbai when majority of Indians would be celebrating Diwali — the festival of lights and most of North India would be drowned in a sea of lights. The night is marked by lighting of fireworks and exploding of firecrackers worth millions of rupees every year. A word has been very subtly sent across by the government, “save some of those firecrackers if you are a fan of Obama and/or a votary of better India-US ties” to greet the US president.

What makes New Delhi so excited is the question that haunts the public mind. Is the thrill over the expectations of the summit helping in deepening America’s commercial relations with this country, strengthening US-India nuclear partnership and supporting American jobs – a vital question that has been under debate for the past many weeks or something beyond. Many New Delhi-based journalists and television anchors have been deriving pleasure out of Islamabad not being part of his 12-day tour. Besides India he will be visiting Indonesia, Japan and South Korea. It is believed that this visit has been promoted more because of “China’s assertive stance” and not because of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many Indian writers have been attributing noninclusion of Pakistan in Obama’s itinerary to Islamabad’s stronger ties with Beijing. Besides thrill, fears are also lurking in the minds of New Delhi. The fears are about Kashmir dispute finding primacy in the agenda.

Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna after his visit to Washington shared the US perception about Kashmir with some senior editors of New Delhi newspapers. He said Washington has its own compulsions in Afghanistan and that is where it needs Pakistan much more than before. And US wants us to resolve Kashmir bilaterally with Pakistan. Indian diplomatic corps in Washington have been working overnight to ensure Kashmir does not dominate the visit. The worry got doubled because the worsening situation in Kashmir during past four months got large coverage in the US and European media and invoked statements of concern from some US Congressmen like Don Burton and Dennis Kucinich.

It is a big question if the Indian team of ministers and diplomats that camped in Washington for weeks have succeeded in getting K-dispute deleted from the agenda or not but belief continues to be with many in Srinagar and New Delhi that the 60-year-old dispute that has caused three wars between India and Pakistan, continues to be a nuclear flashpoint in the region and counted by many American think tanks as one of the contributing factors for terrorism will be on the agenda of US president’s talks in India. These hopes were strengthened when two junior diplomats from American Embassy visited Srinagar for four days immediately after The Times of India carried a lead story: “Obama’s pitch: Fix Kashmir for UN Security Council seat.” Quoting top White House sources, the report had said that President Obama during his November visit to India will tell Indian leadership to “go for Kashmir solution and help bring stability to the region and the United States will support India’s candidature to the UN Security Council”. The team met chairman of moderate Hurriyat Conference Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and pro-independence JKLF Chairman Yasin Malik. The team did not meet octogenarian Syed Ali Shah Geelani who has been spearheading the four-month- old peaceful “Quit India” movement. Despite the team’s selective meetings in Srinagar along with reports about Kashmir being on the agenda of the US president created an upbeat mood in beleaguered Kashmir. Kashmiris since the birth of the dispute have been looking to the US as an ardent supporter for the right to self-determination. Soviet Union during Cold War days used to veto every resolution tabled in UN Security Council for the resolution of this dispute. This is the reason for Kashmir continuing to have faith in Washington.

It is not on the spur of the moment that Obama entered into the Kashmir narrative but India has been wary of his presence ever since he mentioned Kashmir during his campaign. Many Kashmir “experts” including a former Indian Army general asked New Delhi to do something about Kashmir before the visit of the US president. It suggests that he is apprehensive of Kashmir becoming one of the dominant subjects for discussion during the visit. The fact is Washington has always been interested in the Kashmir dispute. It was the US that cosponsored the 1948 UN resolution guaranteeing right to self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Notwithstanding my disagreement with Howard Schaffer for his formula for the resolution of Kashmir dispute, his book “Limits of Influence” gives a kaleidoscopic view of US involvement in the Kashmir dispute. His book along with others by people like Reobert Wirsing and Shirin Tahir Kheli suggest that despite New Delhi parroting the mantra of “bilateralism,” Washington has been present in all talks between India and Pakistan for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute as a mediator. US involvement was there not only between 1950 and 1971 when Kashmir dominated discussions at the Security Council but even after 1971, when India and Pakistan under Shimla agreement decided to resolve the issue bilaterally. It is a fact that in the wake of the withdrawal of Soviet Union from Afghanistan, Washington’s priorities in the region also changed and it wanted to “enhance relations with India.” In keeping with its changed priorities in South Asia it no more wanted to intervene in Kashmir and was unwilling to insert itself in the squabbles of the subcontinent but was determined to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

The United States is largely convinced that American national interests would be best served by a policy aimed at diminishing these historic tensions – of course Kashmir being the one. This in fact is what Obama, one of the brightest minds in the United States had learned from history. During his election campaign he had seen resolution of Kashmir dispute as gateway to peace in one of the most volatile and dangerous regions of the world.

Obama’s campaign speeches about Palestine and Kashmir placed him in the company of the great founding fathers- like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.

True, the Kashmir leadership more particularly those demanding right to self-determination for the people of the state as enshrined in the United Nations Charter are yet to respond to the visit. However, the statement made by a former Minister of State for External Affairs and present Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on the floor of the state assembly has highlighted the importance of resolving the issue for peace in the subcontinent. His statement may be seen disagreeing with the statement made Indian Foreign Minister Krishna in the Security Council but it is largely in sync with the dominant thinking in Washington that was has been amply manifest in the statements of Obama or his predecessors that the dispute should be resolved in accordance with aspirations of the people. Despite New Delhi’s intense lobbying having prevailed upon White House in not appointing an envoy for Kashmir as was done in the case of Afghanistan the United States understanding of the peace in the region has not changed. It continues to believe that the resolution of Kashmir dispute holds key to lasting peace and restricting China’s influence in the region. Washington very well understands that playing cool on Kashmir would be encouraging a greater role for Beijing in the region — the Maoists in India nicknamed as “India’s Red Army” unlike most of political parties in India not only have been supporting Kashmir’s right to self-determination but had also identified themselves with the people of Jammu and Kashmir by calling a strike in six Indian states in support of Kashmir struggle and against caging more than half a million people for months by imposing curfew and killing of 110 children and youth.

India undoubtedly is America’s strategic partner in the region but it also needs to remember this partnership will be meaningless as long as the region continues to rest on a volcano of uncertainty- with Afghanistan in the grip of violence and Kashmir in turmoil.

— Zahid. G. Muhmmad is editor, Peace Watch, Srinagar.

(www.peacewatchkashmir.com
–
ZAHID G .MUHAMMAD
Columnist and Writer
Srinagar,
Kashmir.

Did you like this? Share it:
Share
Comment