What's new

Kashmir The Freedom of Struggle

A.Rahman

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
4,727
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
A new party, the Muslim United Front (MUF), attracted the support of a broad range of Kashmiris, including pro-independence activists, disenchanted Kashmiri youth, and Jama'at-i Islami and MUF appeared poised to do well in state elections in 1987. Blatant fraud assured a National Conference victory, which was followed by the arrests of hundreds of MUF leaders and supporters.

How did armed struggle begin in Kashmir?

India's efforts to manipulate elections in Kashmir and suppress dissent have marked Kashmir's history since 1948, but it was not until 1986 that discontent within the state found wider popular support. In that year the state's ruling National Conference (NC) party, widely accused of corruption, struck a deal with India's Congress Party administration that many in Kashmir saw as a betrayal of Kashmir's autonomy.

A new party, the Muslim United Front (MUF), attracted the support of a broad range of Kashmiris, including pro-independence activists, disenchanted Kashmiri youth, and Jama'at-i Islami and MUF appeared poised to do well in state elections in 1987. Blatant fraud assured a National Conference victory, which was followed by the arrests of hundreds of MUF leaders and supporters. In the aftermath, young MUF supporters joined the ranks of a growing number of militant. In late 1993, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), an umbrella organization of the leaders of all the political and militant organizations fighting for independence, was founded to act as the political voice of the independence movement.


Who are the Kashmiri renegades?

On January 19, 1990, the Indian central government imposed direct rule on Jammu and Kashmir, and repression deepened. . In the mid1990s, Indian security forces began arming and training local auxiliary forces (renegade thugs) to assist in counterinsurgency operations. These gangsters assisted Indian government in its campaign against freedom fighters, which was marked by widespread human rights violations, including the shooting of unarmed demonstrators, civilian massacres, and summary executions of detainees. Human rights defenders and journalists have been among the principal victims of the renegade gangs. They are also used in the election drama occasionally staged by the Indian Government in Kashmir.


Is the freedom struggle in Jammu and Kashmir merely "cross border terrorism" from the Pakistan side?

The indigenous nature of the current Kashmir freedom struggle is well known: it started almost 12 years ago in response to the killing of 100 peaceful Kashmiri demonstrators in Srinagar; over 83198 Kashmiris have sacrificed their lives in this struggle; thousands of Kashmiris have been injured, tortured or arbitrarily detained. No external influence could have persuaded the Kashmiri people to sustain their struggle for so long in the face of India's brutal military repression. It is only genuine and popular quest for freedom, which evokes such monumental sacrifices. Under the auspices of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Dr. Paula R. Newberg wrote: "Since 1989, the number of dead (in Srinagar) has reached tens of thousands, the exact number unknown. Mostly boys and men, they have died for their religious beliefs, their political beliefs or because they were in the way. The circumstances of birth have become the accidents of death".

The legitimate response to India's military repression cannot be denigrated as "terrorism". The targets of the Kashmiri freedom fighters have been the instruments of India's occupation, not innocent civilians who are Kashmiris.

Indeed, terrorist acts in Kashmir have been largely sponsored by Indian agencies and "agents provocateur". Amnesty International's report "IF they are dead; tell us", and Human Rights Watch report "India's secret army in Kashmir", both testify that India has used Kashmiri renegades to carry out the worst forms of repression and human rights violations in Kashmir. Such acts of terrorism are an integral element of the Indian strategy to malign the Kashmiri freedom movement and to exploit international abhorrence of terrorism. Renegade groups have been given names by India like "Ikhwan-ul-Muslemoon" and "Taliban" to play upon the fears in the western countries and to make the repression of Kashmiris more palatable.


What are the reasons for India's current posture?

India used the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11 as a license to crush Kashmiri movement by denigrating it as international terrorism supported by Pakistan. India hoped to emulate American action in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, the US was not in occupation of Afghanistan when it was attacked, but in India's case, it had not only occupied Kashmir but also has been involved, for the last twelve years, in the brutal suppression of the Kashmiri freedom struggle. However, when Pakistan joined international coalition against terrorism, India saw no choice but to use terrorist activities of Kashmiri renegades to put pressure on the world to compel Pakistan to stop supporting the Kashmiri freedom struggle. It threatened war with Pakistan as a tactic to pressurize the international community. This amounted to nuclear blackmail not only against Pakistan but also against the world.

India's belligerence is a part of its campaign to de-legitimize the Kashmir struggle by equating it with terrorism. It is also in violation of the UN Charter that rejects use or threat to use force and aggression to settle international disputes and also calls upon the members to respect the right of self-determination of the peoples.


What objectives does India want to achieve out of the current crisis?

India wants to achieve the following objectives:

a) De-legitimize the Kashmiri movement by equating it with terrorism,
b) Force Pakistan to stop all political and diplomatic support to the freedom struggle in Kashmir.
c) Weaken the President of Pakistan who is committed to modernizing Pakistan by eradicating obscurantism and extremism from Pakistan. Pakistan is currently engaged in fighting against terrorism on three fronts, i.e.: (i) supporting the International Coalition in Afghanistan (ii) combating domestic extremist forces, and (iii) isolating and identifying foreign elements which might have infiltrated the Kashmiri movement.
d) Deflect international criticism on the current state-sponsored genocide of Muslims in Gujarat and repression against other minorities.
 
What is India's reaction to the President of Pakistan's assurance that there was no infiltration taking place across the LOC?

In his address on 27 May, the President of Pakistan categorically declared, "nothing was happening across the LOC". This declaration was in line with the commitment of Pakistan not to let anybody use Pakistan's territory for terrorist purposes.

Without giving any evidence that Pakistan sponsored infiltrators were involved in the terrorist events either of December, 2001 or January and May 2002, India mobilized its military against Pakistan and threatened a war on this issue. India is thus acting as accuser. judge and executioner: first accusing Pakistan of cross-LOC infiltration then threatening war against it without allowing anyone to verify its accusations.

Despite considerable difficulties, Pakistan has been living upto its commitment regarding cross-LoC infiltration. This has also been acknowledged by independent sources. For example, in its editorial on June 4 2002, the Wall Street Journal, appreciated Pakistan's efforts to check all possible cross-LoC infiltrations. Nevertheless, the newspaper recognizes that " the LOC is so long and wild that no government can stop all incursions". The newspaper has also advised the Indian Government "if it really wants terrorists to be stopped, some cooperation with Pakistan would be in order"
India has been accusing Pakistan of this infiltration, without providing any proof that it takes place. What is required is an international impartial and mutually acceptable verification mechanism.

Unfortunately, India's reaction to Pakistan's very concrete steps and proposals, in this regard, has been marked by extreme intransigence, non-cooperation and arrogance. India has, so far, not gone beyond cosmetic gestures to de-escalate tensions with Pakistan. Over a million Indian troops in high readiness remain poised for attack.


What could possibly be an impartial and independent mechanism along the LOC?

Pakistan wants an impartial and independent mechanism to verify India's allegations of cross-LOC infiltration. Pakistan has already shown its willingness to accept together with India various proposals in this regard, such as the strengthening of UNMOGIP, or alternatively the stationing of 300 helicopter borne monitors, or a multinational force across the LOC. India proposed joint patrolling as an alternative mechanism to pre-empt any international involvement in resolving the Kashmir dispute. Realizing that its own proposal was not feasible, India soon withdrew it.


What role can the United Nations play to defuse the current tensions?

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility to address threats to international peace and security. It has, however, been unable to address the most serious current threat-threat by India to attack Pakistan. India has mobilized most of its massive ground, air and naval forces in battle-ready formations against Pakistan. It is the Charter duty of the United Nations Security Council to address this threat to international peace and discourage India from using logic and language of war.

Through UN resolutions, the International Community has, time and again, recognized the urgency to resolve the underlying cause of tensions between Pakistan and India- namely Jammu-Kashmir dispute. While persuading India, in an impartial manner, to de-escalate the current situation, the UN should facilitate an early settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the Charter provisions.


What could possibly be the step-by-step approach to address the underlying cause of tension between Pakistan and India?

Pakistan has categorically declared that nothing is happening across the, LOC. Pakistan's assurance should be accompanied by the immediate de-escalation and progressive and mutual withdrawal of forces by India and Pakistan to their normal peacetime locations. The threat to peace will subside only once such de-escalation takes place.

Thereafter, further mutual steps could be take non the one hand, to end the repression by Indian forces in occupied Jammu and Kashmir and to provide access for media and human rights organizations there and on the other, to facilitate transit of the freedom struggle to a political process for the realization of the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiri people.


Is Pakistan threatening a nuclear war?

It is India that introduced nuclear weapons in South Asia. It first conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and then in 1998. Right after its nuclear tests in 1998, Indian leaders made provocative and belligerent statements threatening Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Pakistan was left with no option but to restore the strategic balance by demonstrating its nuclear capability. Pakistan has since clearly declared that its nuclear capability is meant to protect it from the security threat emanating from India.

During the current crisis too, it was India that first explained warfare in nuclear idiom. On 11 January 2002, Indian Army Chief S Padmanabhan threatened Pakistan with a nuclear strike that could make its continuation in any form doubtful. So far, Pakistan has responded responsibly to this pronounced belligerence. If India is serious about averting conflict and promoting peace in the region, it should conform its commitment to the purpose of non-use of force and accept Pakistan's long-standing offer for a No-War Pact to India aimed at eliminating all possibilities of conflict in the region
 
An integral part of Pakistan's position is the claim that Pakistan's support to the seperatists was diplomatic in nature. Who then arms the militant groups? Where do they train? Somebody has to provide the logistics.
 
just because Musharraf SAYS that there are no incursions going on the LoC, doesnt mean it is actually so...the bombs are still exploding. Pakistan is the source of terrorism, this fact is indispputable...it is Musharraf's will whether he wants to stop it or not, he however thinks that it is wise to play 2 cards...use terrorism to compel the Indian government. Sometimes, the genie doesnt go back in the bottle. it is the ISI which trained these terrorists and armed them. Simply saying that because Musharraf said no innfiltration is taking place, India should remove its army from Kashmir is foolishness. The army will leave, when the bombs stop exploding...as simple as that.
 
Who cares about who arms, trains and supplies the militants. That's a secondary question to why shouldn't the Kashmiris to choose their own destiny.
 
Who cares about who arms, trains and supplies the militants. That's a secondary question to why shouldn't the Kashmiris to choose their own destiny.

It matters IMMENSELY as whoever trains and equips them ALSO INCITES them in the first place to take up arms and spreads wrong idiologies. They have branded under the flag BECAUSE ISI has provoked them, brainwashed the youth into taking arms. Thus, it is the SOURCE of problems...Kashmiris wudnt even have HAD a problem if Pakistan had not incited them religiously and otherwise to fight "Hindu's".
 
It matters IMMENSELY as whoever trains and equips them ALSO INCITES them in the first place to take up arms and spreads wrong idiologies. They have branded under the flag BECAUSE ISI has provoked them, brainwashed the youth into taking arms. Thus, it is the SOURCE of problems...Kashmiris wudnt even have HAD a problem if Pakistan had not incited them religiously and otherwise to fight "Hindu's".

Then I guess you also agree that RAW 'incited' and 'brainwashed' and what not the Mukti Bahini in Bangladesh's case and the Tamil Tigers in the Sri Lankan case? Lets play fair here!
 
Then I guess you also agree that RAW 'incited' and 'brainwashed' and what not the Mukti Bahini in Bangladesh's case and the Tamil Tigers in the Sri Lankan case? Lets play fair here!
I wud have agreed if the RAW actually had such a capability.Firstly it should be the IB(intelligence bureau) u should be pointing fingers at not RAW.
Secondly neither RAW nor IB is as effective as the ISI.They simply dont have the ability to do what pakistan is accusing them of.If they did have the capability they wud have done it though,that much I admit.
 
Amazing how ISI is made to sound as powerful as the American CIA and RAW and/or IB is portrayed as a weak organization so as to limit questions on its acts. That strategy doesnt really work well anymore.

It has already been established by numerous sources and evidence exists that India was heavily involved with Mukti Bahini and the Tamil Tigers. I would suggest a Google Search for starters.

Lastly, ISI is surely strong but lets not get carried away by Indian government's rhetoric that its problems as far east as Assam and Nagaland are also ISI's workings. That is pure hogwash.
 
Who cares about who arms, trains and supplies the militants. That's a secondary question to why shouldn't the Kashmiris to choose their own destiny.
Easy for you to say. It is the IA who is fighting the militants. Indians are the ones taking casualties. Why shouldn't we care who arms the militants? But, action against militancy camps is termed a hostile action by India.
Pakistan's position on the militancy is a lie. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
 
IA wouldn't be fighting the militants if they would not occupy them forcibly?

C'mon why not just ask the Kashmiris "Do you want us or them?" Once they choose you guys, case closed and shame on us. Perfect opportunity for you guys... If you are confident, of course.

Your justification to be in Kashmir is a lie. That happened first, militancy came afterwards.
 
Why do Indian POV is just a rant about a self-conducted election of 1954, when the ruling of the UN (which India invited in) was there'll be a plebiscite. UN resolutions amount to something?
 
Now would'nt a plebicite also be applicable in Balochistan?
There is similar upheval in both Kashmir and Balochistan.:coffee:
 
Now would'nt a plebicite also be applicable in Balochistan?
There is similar upheval in both Kashmir and Balochistan.:coffee:

Good try but I guess it needs to be more spiced up to work. Actually for starters, Balochistan doesn't have a 'separatist' movement, their demands are for more autonomy and bigger share of the resource revenue.

Secondly, there is no UN resolution calling for a plebicite in Balochistan.

Core difference here is, for starters in political science; people of Kashmir dispute the legitimacy of the Indian state's rule over them while people of Balochistan respect the legitimacy of the Pakistani state's rule over them, only seeking some decentralization. Cheers!
 

Back
Top Bottom