What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
If i were the kid, you can damn imagine I will pick up an assault rifle, a revolver, a broken branch, an iron rod -- whatever


they took his eye, took his honour and dignity.....if I were him, I would fight.
 
'Azadi for us means an end to repressive military rule in Valley' - The Times of India


NEW DELHI: A cross section of Delhi's civil society and women activists listened in stunned silence as Parweena Ahangar, a middle-aged Kashmiri woman, narrated the torment of a mother whose son "disappeared" 20 years ago. It's believed that he was killed by security forces. Parweena mentioned her son only once. After that she wept for dozens of others, naming them and describing the circumstances of their disappearance. Parweena is in Delhi with a group of Kashmiri women to narrate the horrors of a society at war, and to make another attempt to seek justice. It's a diverse group including university and school teachers, a hospital worker, a journalist and some housewives. They have been invited here by Women's Initiative for Peace in South Asia (WISPA).


Hameedah Nayeem, a professor at Srinagar University, in a counterpoint to Parweena's choking grief, provides the context in staccato objectivity. She says that the current protests that started four months ago are peaceful. ''Protesters throw stones only after police firing or if a woman's modesty is attacked, like security men forcibly snatching away the head-dress, as often happens,'' she says.

Explaining what ''azadi'' — a slogan voiced routinely in the Valley — means, Nayeem says it means getting rid of the armed forces and their repression, and also, the establishment of democracy.

''In Delhi, you can't understand what it means to live with the military for 20 years. They have taken over all the public space — schools, roads, hospitals, cinemas, everything. They can hold up anyone, enter anyone's house do anything that they feel like,'' she says. According to Nayeem, the military has taken over one million ''kanals'' of land legally and another 2 million illegally in the Valley. ''This has destroyed the normal vocations of thousands of people,'' she says.


The women from Kashmir silently weep as Parweena recounts the chilling story of 8-year old Samir Khan who was going to his uncle's house one afternoon and disappeared. His mutilated body was found the next day in the river. Investigations showed that his frail body had been crushed by boots and a metal rod inserted into his mouth. ''Why is the government honouring policemen who are responsible for killing thousands in Kashmir?'' she asks.


Parweena formed the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) to fight for investigation of all cases of what she calls ''enforced disappearance''. According to her, over 8,000 cases of such disappearance are recorded. In many cases investigations have been done and guilty persons from security forces identified. ''But, we have to run from pillar to post trying to get somebody to hear our sorrow,'' she says. The delegation presented a set of demands to home secretary G K Pillai, which included getting women involved in the peace process, demilitarization, withdrawal of AFSPA and PSA, release of imprisoned youth, prosecution of errant security personnel etc.


Whether it is the agony of Parweena Ahangar or the cold objectivity of Hameedah Nayeem, the message from the women of Kashmir is loud and clear — they will continue the struggle for justice and peace, and for end of what they call military rule in Kashmir. ''It's an oath we have taken in the name of Allah. We will not give up,'' says Parweena softly.
 
ALeqM5iTNA8F-xVS4mvtruAUNF01zrO53A
 
When you begin using guns to oppress the people, except the people to respond with guns.
 
When you begin using guns to oppress the people, except the people to respond with guns.

it is the other way round, before 1989 there was no violence in Kashmir, It started with militancy.
 
Even the whole Kashmir issue started with Pakistan invading into Kashmir... If it were not for that single folly... history would have been different. It has always started from the Pakistani side and India has always finished it.
 
The JKLF has often accused pro-Pakistan groups of turning a legitimate nationalist struggle of the Kashmiri people into an Islamic terrorist movement, thereby undermining the movement's credibility.

A JKLF statement says that the JD campaign "will sabotage the Kashmiris' spontaneous movement once again, and provide propaganda material to the Indian government to defame and suppress the Kashmiri people's movement for national liberation".

I'm sorry to disappoint you but indians will never support the nationalist freedom struggle of the Kashmiri people.

Over 100 unarmed Kashmiri protesters have been killed by indian armed forces in just 3 months. No indian has criticised the indian armed forces, no indian is demanding justice for the 109 Kashmiris killed in these past 3 months. indians have black hearts especially when it concerns Kashmiri Muslims.


Its Pakistan that went to the UN and addressed the repression of Kashmiris in IOK so the international community knows whats happening in Kashmir. Its Pakistan that went to the OIC and talked about human right violations in IOK so other Islamic countries know whats happening in Kashmir. Its in Pakistan where thousands of Pakistani citizens are protesting against indian brutalities in IOK.

Are any indian leaders talking about the violations of human rights in Kashmir? Are any indians protesting against indian brutalities in IOK in delhi or mumbai?


The Kashmiri freedom struggle lacks proper leadership. You have Hurriyat, JKLF, and numerous other parties in IOK. Both Hurriyat and JKLF demand freedom but they both criticize the other and are not united. Pakistan won its freedom struggle because we had the Muslim League, lead by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Millions of Pakistanis supported the freedom struggle lead by Quaid-e-Azam and thats how we won our freedom. India won its freedom struggle because they had the indian congress lead by Gandhi, millions of indians supported the freedom struggle lead by Gandhi and thats how they won their freedom. The Kashmiri freedom struggle needs millions of Kashmiris to unite and support one party and one leader, who has what it takes to win freedom for the Kashmiri people.
 
Last edited:
Even the whole Kashmir issue started with Pakistan invading into Kashmir... If it were not for that single folly... history would have been different. It has always started from the Pakistani side and India has always finished it.

Pakhtuns from tribal areas of Pakistan went to free Kashmir after they heard dead bodies of Muslims were coming into Pakistan during partition and yes the rest of Pakistan supported the Pakhtuns because we were not going to have a tyrant hindu ruler determine the fate of a Muslim majority state that is connected to Pakistan.


We Pakistanis always wanted the Kashmiri people to determine their own fate, thats why to this day Pakistan supports a referendum for the Kashmiri people.

And I should remind you that its not in Azad Kashmir but its in India Occupied Kashmir (IOK) where over 100 unarmed Kashmiri protesters have been killed by indian armed forces in just 3 months.
 
^^^And those same tribals killed and raped muslims and non-muslims of the Kashmir valley as well as indulged in looting of property. One of the reasons why the local Kashmris fought alongside with the Indian army to drive back the tirbals.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Many join Dawa proxy in Kashmir cause

ISLAMABAD: After a long time, a pro-Jihad rally was held in the federal capital which was participated by the top leadership of rightist parties along with a representation from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) on Wednesday.

Tehrik Azadi-i-Kashmir (TAK), an organisation launched by Jamaatud Dawa Pakistan, organised the gathering titled: ‘National Kashmir Conference’ at Aabpara after culmination of a three-day Azadi-i-Kashmir Karvan’ that started from Mirpur in Azad Kashmir and after passing through Kotli, Bagh and Muzafarabad culminated here.

Speaking on the occasion, Tehrik chairman Hafiz Saifullah Mansoor drew the attention of the world towards the situation in Kashmir and said there had to be a reason why the general public had taken to the streets in Kashmir.

“How can we turn a blind eye to such a situation where innocent people are bleeding at the hands of

strong and well-equipped forces?”

The rally was held to mobilise the masses and create awareness about the atrocities being faced by the Kashmiris.

Apart from PML-N spokesman Siddiqul Farooque, most of the occupants of the stage belonged to religious rightist groups including Jamaat-i-Islami chief Syed Munawar Hasan, Maulana Samiul Haq, the chief of his own faction of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, and representatives of All Parties Huryyiet Conference (APHC).

Amid high pitched pro-Jehad slogans, leader of Tehrik-i-Azadi, J&K chapter, Abdur Rehman Makki warned India to respect the rights of Kashmiris.

“If they did not resolve the Kashmir issue peacefully, we are left with no other option but to take the course of Jehad,” he said.

The speakers also took oath from the participants of the gathering to rise for the solidarity with the people of Kashmir.

While Maulana Samiul Haq called for Jehad saying it was the only way to resolve the Kashmir issue, saner speeches were delivered by the Jamaat-i-Islami and PML-N leaders.

Talking to Dawn, Siddiqul Farooq said his participation was not to strengthen the idea of Jehad for resolution of Kashmir issue.

“PML-N believes in peaceful struggle for the resolution of Kashmir issue and we were here to express solidarity with the rightful struggle of Kashmiris.”

The JI leader, however, criticised the government and accused the country’s leadership of speaking in the tone of Indian government.

The conference adopted resolutions demanding the government of Pakistan to call an all parties conference for devising a national policy that could play a role in ending atrocities in Kashmir.
 
^^^And those same tribals killed and raped muslims and non-muslims of the Kashmir valley as well as indulged in looting of property. One of the reasons why the local Kashmris fought alongside with the Indian army to drive back the tirbals.

Any proof of that or are you again making nonsense statements based on your bharati pride.
 
Last edited:
Here is a pro-Indepedance Kashmiri leder who is original from PAkistani side of Kashmir with refrences at the end.

Dr Shabir Choudhry's blog: Tribal invasion and its implications


Tribal invasion and its implications
Presentation of Dr Shabir Choudhry on Black Day conference organised by Kashmir National Party in Watford, England.


Mr Chairman, friends and colleagues aslamo alaykam

1. Introduction

Tribal invasion was a major event in the modern history of Jammu and Kashmir. This tragic event changed the course of our history.
• It changed our destination.
• It changed secular ethos of Kashmir.
• It undermined our sovereignty.
• It deprived us of our independence.
• It divided our beloved motherland.
• It divided families and the nation.
• It killed innocent Kashmiri men and women.
• It dishonoured Kashmiri women.
• It plundered and looted Kashmiri resources.
• It is the main cause of our present miseries and troubles.
• In one sentence, it is the cause of all of our problems we face today.

We need to investigate and analyse what was this tribal invasion? How did it happen? Who were behind this and what was the purpose of this? We people of Jammu and Kashmir are repeatedly told that tribesmen from North West Frontier came to Jammu and Kashmir to help us. They came there for Jihad. However historic facts do not support this contention.

These tribesmen were set on us not to help us, but to subdue and invade us. Some of them might have been motivated by holy name of Jihad, but for the majority it was an opportunity to satisfy their hunger for loot and plunder, and take away Kashmiri women. Religion of victims was not an issue to them; and their victims included Muslims and non Muslims.

In name of ‘Jihad’ when these unruly tribesmen entered territory of Jammu and Kashmir, their first victim was a Muslim. When the tribesmen attacked house of a non Muslim citizen of Muzaffarabad, Master Abdul Aziz in line with his Islamic duty and Kashmiri ethos, tried to protect his neighbour. He asked them not to loot and kill his non Muslim neighbours.

The tribesmen did not like intervention from Master Abdul Aziz, and killed him on spot. To these ‘jihadis’ crime of Master Abdul Aziz was so severe that he did not even deserve a funeral (janaza) or a burial. They threw his dead body in River Neelam.
They created mayhem and sent the message to all that if anyone even questions them as to what they were doing, they will eliminate that person. Grandchildren of Master Abdul Aziz, first victim of the tribesmen still live in Muzzafarabad, and explain the tragic events which they heard from their elders.

2. Legal status of Jammu and Kashmir

It is well established fact that the State of Jammu and Kashmir had attained its sovereignty after lapse of the British Paramountcy on 15 August 1947. The Independence Act, Section 7.1 explains that after ‘the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses’; all powers which were responsibility of the Crown were to revert back to the Rulers of the States.
This point was further elaborated by Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten in his address to a Special meeting of the Chamber of Princes on July 25 1947, he said, and I quote:
There had been universal acceptance among the States of the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May and when the political parties accepted the Statement of 3 June they fully realised and accepted that withdrawal of Paramountcy would enable the States to regain complete sovereignty……Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent. Unquote.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah agreed with the above legal position. He strongly believed that the State of Jammu Kashmir and other Princely States had a right either to accede to India or Pakistan, or become independent States. In a reply to a question on 17th June 1947 about legal status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah said:

‘That after the lapse of paramountcy the Indian States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to States to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly {or Pakistan Constituent Assembly} or to decide to remain independent’.

Despite all pressures from Lord Mountbatten, different leaders of Congress and Muslim League the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir did not accede to any country. He wanted to remain independent. He attained his independence after lapse of paramountcy on 15th August 197. As late as on 12 October 1947, the Maharaja wanted to remain independent, and this position was reinforced by his Deputy Prime Minister Ram Lal Batra, who during his visit to Delhi said:

‘We intend to keep on friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. Despite constant rumours we have no intention of joining either India or Pakistan, and the Maharaja and his government have decided that no decision of any kind will be made until there is peace in the plains. He also revealed that the Maharaja had told him that it was his ambition to make Kashmir Switzerland of the East – a completely neutral state.’ 1

All sovereign states must have four characteristics, and before any state attains sovereignty these attributes must be satisfied:

1/ First attribute is that the state should have people. This attribute Jammu and Kashmir satisfied before the lapse of Paramountcy. The people living within the State boundaries were regarded as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir; and State Subject Definition Notification dated the 20th April, 1927 further strengthens our case in this regard.
2/ Second attribute of a statehood is that the state should have a defined territory. Size of the state does not matter; it could be a city state. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had clearly defined territory of which he was the Ruler.

3/ Third attribute of a statehood is that there should be a government. A government could mean one or more people who are responsible for making laws and keeping law and order. All these attributes were satisfied before the lapse of paramountcy.

4/ Fourth attribute of a statehood is that a state should have capacity and right to enter in to relations with other states. This attribute distinguishes states from lesser units like members of a federation.

The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir attained this capacity after the lapse of Paramountcy. He demonstrated this ability or right by concluding a Standstill Agreement with government of Pakistan; and by offering to have a Standstill Agreement with government of India.

Some people argue that because the State of Jammu and Kashmir was not recognised, therefore it was not a sovereign state. This is not true. A State becomes sovereign when it is granted independence by a paramount power; legally it attains independence from that moment and does not depend on recognition of other states. Israel exists as a sovereign country, yet it is not recognised by so many countries.

In case of Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan could not have recognised it as a sovereign state as both wanted Kashmir to join one or the other Dominion. Other countries could not recognise the State of Jammu and Kashmir so soon because situation was not clear; and the State of Jammu and Kashmir could not maintain its independence due to the tribal invasion which forced the Maharaja to accede to India, which was provisional and had to be ratified by people of the State.

3. Who planned the tribal invasion?

Mohammed Ali Jinnah and government of Pakistan always took pro Maharaja and anti people position in Jammu and Kashmir, in hope that the Maharaja will join Pakistan. Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir RC Kak also gave them similar impression, but on 11 August 1947, he was replaced by General Janak Singh. In second week of September he was replaced by Mehr Chand Mahjan, who incidentally was a member of the Punjab Boundary Commission.

It is claimed by some Pakistani writers that he was assured of the post if he had provided the State a land access to India. Even though the District of Gurdaspur had a Muslim majority, the Radcliff Award divided the district in such a way that India had a land access to Jammu and Kashmir. 2

On 24 August 1947, Mohammed Ali Jinnah sent his Military Secretary, Colonel William Birnie to Kashmir that he can negotiate for him two weeks holiday visit in Kashmir in mid September. He came back after one week and gave Mohammed Ali Jinnah news he did not want to hear. Because of the political turmoil the Maharaja government refused this request. This stunned Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Pakistan government. They realised that all was not well, and things were not evolving the way they envisaged.

After few days the Pakistan government sent a secret agent to Kashmir to ascertain the situation there. His report was not encouraging either. In view of this report Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan convened a secret meeting of top officials in Lahore to ‘decide how to force the Maharaja’s hand’. Authors of Freedom at Midnight write and I quote:

‘The conspirators dismissed immediately the idea of an outright invasion. The Pakistan army was not ready for an adventure that could lead to war with India….Colonel Akbar Khan proposed that Pakistan supply the arms and money to foment uprising of Kashmir’s dissidents Moslim population. It would require several months, but the end, Khan promised would see forty or fifty thousand Kashmiris descending on Srinagar to force the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan’. 3
Unquote

The second proposal was presented by Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Chief Minister of North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, which involved use of the tribesmen to force the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. I once again refer to authors of Freedom at Midnight, and I quote:

‘Sending those dangerous hordes to Srinagar had considerable appeal. It would force the swift fall of the Maharaja and the annexation of his state to Pakistan. And by offering the tribesmen the opportunity to loot the bazaars of Kashmir, their covetous eyes could be kept off the bazaars of Peshawear…..The gathering closed with a stern warning from the Prime Minister. The operation must be a complete secret. Finances would be provided by secret funds from his office. Neither the officers of Pakistan’s army nor her civil service nor, above all, the British Officers and administrators in the service of the new state were to know.’ 4 Unquote

In line with this secret decision Muslim dissidents were encouraged and fully supported to rise against a ‘Hindu Maharaja’. The Maharaja government had many serious problems to deal with. Future of its State was uncertain. Both India and Pakistan applied tremendous pressure for accession.

Muslims in Poonch had started their armed rebellion at a time when there were communal riots in parts of Jammu, mainly started by non Muslims who uprooted from Pakistan. Situation in Gilgit Baltistan was not satisfactory either, as his newly appointed Governor Gansara Singh was having some difficulty to assert his authority in this region which was only reverted to the Maharaja on 1st of August 1947.

State forces were not capable of dealing with all these problems; and to make things more difficult for him the Pakistani government in clear violation of the Standstill Agreement stopped essential supplies to Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja government complained to the government of Pakistan, and requested to lift the economic blockade. Pakistani government was in no mood to lift the economic blockade without getting the accession of the State; and to accomplish this task they sent Major A.S.B Shah, a junior officer who had no knowledge of Kashmir history and had no skills in politics and diplomacy. A junior military man had to negotiate and persuade experienced Maharaja Hari Singh, Prime Minister Mehr Chand Mahajan and Ram Lal Batra Deputy Prime Minister.

Mehr Chand Mahaja later recorded that, ‘Major Shah was in Srinagar with a whip in one hand and a letter of accession in the other…..He was keen to have an assurance of the State’s accession to Pakistan or in the alternative, a negative assurance that I would not advise the Maharaja to accede to India. I told him this would take some time but he was not prepared to wait. When I found he had came there almost with an ultimatum, I said, “If you raise the blockade and allow food, cloth and petrol to enter the State I will discuss the matter with you.” 5

Major Shah agreed to persuade Mohammed Ali Jinnah to lift the blockade, and sent him a telegram, but got no favourable reply. Instead he was told to ask Mehr Chand Mahjan to go to Lahore and discuss the matter there. Mehr Chand Mahajan said: I was in no mood to fall into Pakistani hands. I declined the invitation as the object was to coerce me in to securing the State’s accession’. 6

4. Arrogance of Pakistani rulers

Government of Pakistan managed to fool people for sometime that these tribesmen came to help and liberate people of Jammu and Kashmir. They also claimed that these tribesmen were motivated by religious sentiments and came there on their own. Unfortunately some Kashmiris also advanced and supported that propaganda as it suited their political and personal agenda.

Over the years it has been revealed by many Pakistani officials and writers that the whole affair was initiated and managed by Pakistani officials; and main attraction for the tribesmen was not liberation of Kashmir or jihad but loot, plunder and Kashmiri women. Unfortunately those who planned this tragic expedition permitted them to loot and plunder and create atmosphere of fear that the Maharaja surrenders and begs Pakistan for accession.

People of Jammu and Kashmir had to pay a big price for this blunder of the Pakistani government. Despite all the humiliation and degradation which Sheikh Abdullah suffered at the hands of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and other Muslim League leaders, he was considering some kind of understanding with Pakistan where by the State could have maintained its special status in return for Pakistan taking certain responsibilities in line with the Standstill Agreement.

Even as late as first week of October 1947, he was persuaded by Dr M D Taseer and Mian Iftikhar Uddin to travel to Lahore and meet Mohammed Ali Jinnah and finalise matters. Sheikh Abdullah secretly travelled to Lahore with Dr Taseer and stayed at Mian Iftikhar Uddin’s house. Ego and pride of Mohammed Ali Jinnah overcame national interest of Pakistan and that of people of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite sincere advice of some people Mohammed Ali Jinnah refused to meet him, which was against Islamic teaching, against rules of politics and bad statesmanship.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah said, ‘I don’t need to meet this man. Kashmir is in my pocket’. 7 In another place ego centric Governor General of Pakistan said, ‘Who is Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah? I am prepared to discuss Kashmir with the Maharaja or senior Government official from Kashmir.’ 8

This was the fourth time Mohammed Ali Jinnah rebuffed the tallest leader people of Jammu and Kashmir ever had; and it was the last opportunity to bridge differences between the most popular leader of Jammu and Kashmir and Governor General of Pakistan. According to Balraj Puri, Mr Jinnah wanted ‘complete surrender on the part of anybody, particularly a Muslim, seeking political alliance with him. It was too tall demand from the tallest leader of Kashmir, who was no less proud of his own personality as also that of Kashmir’. 9

Pakistan lost Kashmir not because Indians were too clever, but because Pakistani leaders were not farsighted; and they were too arrogant and ego centric. To them satisfaction of their ego was more important than the national interest. At a time when Congress leaders were trying to meet and appease Sheikh Abdullah, leaders of Pakistan treated him like a trash. They thought with help of tribesmen they will be able to annex Kashmir.

Even after this last rebuff, Sheikh Abdullah’s men were in Lahore waiting to meet some sensible Pakistani leaders with whom they could negotiate something, but Pakistani government abandoned political and diplomatic route and relied on the force of gun. It was their arrogance, impolitical attitude and too much reliance on use of gun which cost them Jammu and Kashmir. Ultimately it was the people of Jammu and Kashmir who had to suffer at that time; and who continue to suffer because of follies of Pakistani rulers.

5. What if there was no tribal invasion

I understand we cannot turn back clock of history, but as thinking people who were victims of tribal invasion; and who are even today suffering as a direct result of that conspiracy, we can analyse what might have happened if there was no tribal invasion

All the available evidence clearly indicates that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir did not want to accede to any country. He wanted to maintain his independence. It was possible that he could have maintained his independence if there was no outside interference.

True, not all of his citizens were happy with him; but it is also true that his subjects enjoyed more rights than subjects of other Princely States at that time. It was quite possible that after independence of his State and after independence of the Sub Continent, he could have made changes to his style of government where by he could have given more rights to people and Assembly.

He could have maintained his neutrality and made agreements with both India and Pakistan. Even few days before the tribal invasion his Deputy Prime Minister explained his vision of the State in the following words: ‘The Maharaja had told him that it was his ambition to make Kashmir Switzerland of the East – a completely neutral state.’

If there was no tribal invasion people of Jammu and Kashmir could have avoided loot, plunder and rapes in 1947. They could have avoided separation of families. They could have avoided division of their homeland. They could have avoided other miseries since 1947. They could have avoided the present suffering on both sides of the divide which was thrusted upon them as a direct result of militancy which started in 1988.

If there was no tribal invasion then there might have been no Kashmir dispute as we see it today. It was possible that both countries in absence of this dispute could have resolved other issues and could have developed friendly and cordial relations; and that could have led to peace and stability in the region.

In conclusion, one could say that source of many of our troubles and troubles of the region are directly related to that fatal decision of directing hordes of tribesmen in name of jihad to invade Jammu and Kashmir and loot, plunder and **** people without any accountability.

The genie of extremism and hatred released in name of jihad in October 1947 to advance political agenda, continue to spread extremism and hatred. Unfortunately that policy of promoting extremism to advance political agenda continued until very recently, and forces of extremism and hatred have become power in their own right. They have already affected lives of millions of people. Like any other living being, it wants to live and flourish; and has become out of control. Like Frankenstein monster it has turned against its creator, hence we see cries in Pakistan about terrorism, jihad and establishing writ of government, all claiming to be on the right path.

I hope those quarters who deliberately promoted extremism and hatred have learnt their lesson. Also I hope they will do their best to put things right; and will not promote terrorism and hatred in future, or create more hurdles in our inherent and most cherished right of self determination.

I thank you Mr Chairman.

References:

1. Kashmir Problem – its legal aspects, Dr HO Agarwal, page 31
2. The Kashmir of Sheikh Abdullah, Bilqees Taseer, Page 264
3. Freedom at Midnight, Larry Collins and Dominque Lapierre, Page 402
4. ibid, Page 402
5. opcit, Bilqees Taseer, page 265
6. ibid, page 265
7. ibid, Page 301
8. ibid, page 303
9. ibid, page 305
 
Here is a pro-Indepedance Kashmiri leder who is original from PAkistani side of Kashmir with refrences at the end.

Dr Shabir Choudhry's blog: Tribal invasion and its implications

You have posted an article from a BLOG.

Theres no proof that Pakistani Pakhtuns from tribal areas raped or killed Kashmiris. However, its well documented and its a fact that dead bodies of Muslims were coming from india to Pakistan during and after partition.
 
Also google Jammu Kashmir Light Infantry. This regiment was formed as a result of the the local J&K militia that fought against the tribal invaders.


J&K Light Infantry celebrates Diamond jubilee, reunion - Express India
The JAK LI was raised as a volunteer force on April 15, 1948. A clarion call was given by the late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah at the historic Lal Chowk for volunteers to come forward, protect the state and push back the raiders supported by Pakistan. Thousands volunteered, which facilitated the Indian Army to launch operations with the volunteers acting as guides, porters and even leading assaults.

After the raiders were thwarted, the volunteers were organised into fighting units under the banner of Jammu and Kashmir militia. The regiment remained deployed along the line of control as a regional force and participated in all operations. Soon after the 1971 Indo- Pak conflict, the Government of India, on December 2, 1972 recognising their valour accorded them the status of a regular regiment of the Indian Army. In April 1976, the regiment was redesignated as ‘The Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry
 
You have posted an article from a BLOG.

Theres no proof that Pakistani Pakhtuns from tribal areas raped or killed Kashmiris. However, its well documented and its a fact that dead bodies of Muslims were coming from india to Pakistan during and after partition.

It is a speech given by a pro-independance PAkistani born Kashmiri. And I quoted it because it has all the relvant details along with refrences

Please read if you are interested the following

1. Kashmir Problem – its legal aspects, Dr HO Agarwal, page 31
2. The Kashmir of Sheikh Abdullah, Bilqees Taseer, Page 264
3. Freedom at Midnight, Larry Collins and Dominque Lapierre, Page 402
 
Last edited:
Please read if you are interested the following

1. Kashmir Problem – its legal aspects, Dr HO Agarwal, page 31
2. The Kashmir of Sheikh Abdullah, Bilqees Taseer, Page 264
3. Freedom at Midnight, Larry Collins and Dominque Lapierre, Page 402

Again, where in these refrences does it say Pakistani Pakhtuns from tribal areas killed and raped Kashmiris.

Again, theres no proof unless you can bring a valid and neutral source.
 

Back
Top Bottom