Kashmir Conflict 101 - An independent view

[PAFAce]

Kashmir Conflict 101

Eric Margolis is an award winning American-Canadian scholar and journalist who, for over two decades, has been studying the Asian Sub-Continent and its relation to the West. In particularly, he has spent much time going back and forth between Pakistan, China, India and Afghanistan. This is an interview conducted by Peter Mansbridge, an award winning Canadian journalist, for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shortly after the Bombay attacks of 2008.

"Kashmir Conflict 101", in my opinion. One thing he ommitted which I would include in my 101 would be mentioning the UN Kashmir Resolution and Lord Mountbatten's promise to hold a plebiscite in the region as the first Governor-General of India.

Also, check out the following book:
American Raj: Liberation or Domination
Eric S. Margolis

FINALIST IN THE 2009 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARD - NON FICTION

Journalist Eric S. Margolis brings his lifetime of insight into the complex reality of the way the Muslim world really operates.

American Raj: Liberation or Domination United States and the Muslim World is the culmination of veteran journalist and foreign policy expert Eric S. Margolis’ years of on-the-ground reporting and analysis in the Middle East and Asia. Margolis brings the weight of his authority on the Middle East to answer the questions “How did we get to this place in history and can this conflict ever be resolved?”

American Raj also discusses such topics as:

• Understanding why there is so much anger against the west in the Muslim world
• Why al Qaeda is so popular and can it be defeated
• How each conflict in the Muslim world feeds on the others
• How oil drives western policy in the Muslim world.

Margolis takes the reader behind the conventional headlines and into the thinking and world view of Islamic radicals throughout the Muslim world. He identifies the historical, political and religious factors that have played such a huge role in generating hostility towards the West. More important, it offers a comprehensive roadmap to a workable and lasting peace.

 

[EjazR]

For being an award winning journalist, he is certainly low on facts. Not a single mentions of Sheikh Abdulla the most popular leader in 1947 who was anti Muslim League and didn't want to join Pakistan. It was only after he was released from prison by the Maharaja and administration of state was handed to NC workers is when the Indian Army started coming into play.

Another factual mistake was claiming that Pakistan wants to give independence to Kashmir which is not the the official Pakistan position. Neither any mention of no democratic and political rights in Gilgit Baltistan until this year.

And I'm not sure when this interview on "Mumbai attacks" was taken but his flawed statement that the attackers were not "part of any established organization" and the blatantly wrong statements that they were young angry "Indian muslims" (who also killed 38 muslims btw) seriously puts his credibility down the drain.

 

[Creder]

For being an award winning journalist, he is certainly low on facts. Not a single mentions of Sheikh Abdulla the most popular leader in 1947 who was anti Muslim League and didn't want to join Pakistan. It was only after he was released from prison by the Maharaja and administration of state was handed to NC workers is when the Indian Army started coming into play.

Another factual mistake was claiming that Pakistan wants to give independence to Kashmir which is not the the official Pakistan position. Neither any mention of no democratic and political rights in Gilgit Baltistan until this year.

And I'm not sure when this interview on "Mumbai attacks" was taken but his flawed statement that the attackers were not "part of any established organization" and the blatantly wrong statements that they were young angry "Indian muslims" (who also killed 38 muslims btw) seriously puts his credibility down the drain.

exactly he's just a pathetic journalist, who happened to win an award... absolutely no credibility at all... infact the real award should have been given to you whose knowledge regarding the issue of kashmir surpasses this "flawed" journalist who actually did his research on it... journalism is supported by facts not delusions, and more importantly by truth not bias. But to see the truth you have to be prepared to accept it, i dont know which one is more bitter for you

 

[EjazR]

^^^I mentioned three points above. Please prove that any of what I said is wrong and I will take my statements back.

By the way, I have been trying to find which "award" he has won and for what, but still no success. Can anyone point out which award he won?

 

[Khajur]

For being an award winning journalist, he is certainly low on facts. Not a single mentions of Sheikh Abdulla the most popular leader in 1947 who was anti Muslim League and didn't want to join Pakistan. It was only after he was released from prison by the Maharaja and administration of state was handed to NC workers is when the Indian Army started coming into play.

Another factual mistake was claiming that Pakistan wants to give independence to Kashmir which is not the the official Pakistan position. Neither any mention of no democratic and political rights in Gilgit Baltistan until this year.

And I'm not sure when this interview on "Mumbai attacks" was taken but his flawed statement that the attackers were not "part of any established organization" and the blatantly wrong statements that they were young angry "Indian muslims" (who also killed 38 muslims btw) seriously puts his credibility down the drain.

As PAFAce himself pointed out this interview was done for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shortly after the Bombay attacks of 2008. most likely atfer few days of the attcks thats why it sounds so half baked ,low on the events surrounding the attcks and the culprits behind it.

 

[Creder]

^^^I mentioned three points above. Please prove that any of what I said is wrong and I will take my statements back.

By the way, I have been trying to find which "award" he has won and for what, but still no success. Can anyone point out which award he won?

here's how the judicial system works contrary to your judicial thinking

"not guilty unless proven guilty"...you made these statements so back them ? whatever the journalist said he had arguments based on facts backing them up


PS the dude posted a real good article from credible un-biased source... i dont want this thread to become a troll fest, so for the sake of it don't bother replying if all you got is retorts and your musings about what happened 30 years before you were born

 

[EjazR]

@Creder
We are discussing an interview by Eric. He has opinions which I have not touched as these are his opinions (which btw looked a little biased to me). But when it comes to facts, I have pointed out a few errors.

I request you study a little about Shaikh Abdulla. The history of J&K can never be complete without his contribution. IT was from 1931 that he started he movement for the landless of J&K and fought the rule of the Hindu Maharaja. Later it was his national conference that eventually took over the administration of the state and defended J&K against the tribal invaders. He was also the first CM of J&K free of Maharaja's rule.

Here is a speech he gave in the UN in 1948 on the matter. I suggest you read it in full, but I will quote the important part that shows his view on the partition

We do not believe in the two-nation theory, nor in communal hatred or communalism itself. We believed that religion had no place in politics. Therefore, when we launched our movement of "Quit Kashmir", it was not only Muslims who suffered, but our Hindu and Sikh comrades as well. That created a strong bond of unity between all the communities, and the result was that while Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were fighting each other all along the border, the people of Jammu and Kashmir State — Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs alike-remained calm.

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's Speech in UN Security Council (February 1948)
Sheikh Abdullah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the official GoP position has always been to "implement" the plebiscite as per UNSC resolutions. The UN resolutions has only two options India or Pakistan. Have a read of the UN resolutions in the Kashmir section which has a dedicated thread. http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

About the mumbai attacks, all I will say is see the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's documentary "Terror in Mumbai"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For being an award winning journalist, he is certainly low on facts. Not a single mentions of Sheikh Abdulla the most popular leader in 1947 who was anti Muslim League and didn't want to join Pakistan.

I assume that by arguing that Sheikh Abdullah was the 'most popular political leader in 1947' you want to suggest that Kashmiris did not want to join Pakistan.

That is a fallacious argument since I can point to the NWFP where KAGK (Frontier Gandhi) party had overwhelmingly won the elections just a year ago and despite its opposition to Pakistan, the people of the NWFP overwhelmingly voted in favor of Pakistan in the referendum that was held.

Another factual mistake was claiming that Pakistan wants to give independence to Kashmir which is not the the official Pakistan position. Neither any mention of no democratic and political rights in Gilgit Baltistan until this year.

That has apparently changed - an Indian member in the Kashmir section pointed out Pakistani Foreign Secretary Abdul Basit;s comments in which he specifically talked about Kashmiri independence. Apparently that, or quasi independence at least, is being looked at as a compromise solution.

 

[EjazR]

AM,

Eric stated that the muslims in J&K wanted to be with Pakistan while the Raja wanted to go to India. I guess we can't be sure who would have won the plebescite and we can only speculate if the people would have chosen as their representatives who fought for their rights for 20 years, were imprisioned and suffered brutalities and launched the Quit Kashmir movement or with those who washed their hands of the people's movement and tried to oblidge the maharaja that no land would be taken away if he would join their union.
NC being the dominant and pro-poor party as well as their workers and Sheikh Abdullah and his workers heading the first Emergency Administration defending against the tribal invasions make it definitely an important part and parcel of J&K history.
It would have been pertinent to mention it atleast to have an objective view by Eric.



Abdul Basit's statement was most likely part of Musharraf's plan(pushed by the US as well) of just the Kashmir valley being independant instead of all of J&K (If I'm wrong-please correct me). Almost all Kashmiri valley sepratists reject this and want the entire J&K to be independant which would include Gilgit-Baltistan as well as Chinese, Indian and Pakistani areas of J&K.

 

[FireFighter]

AM,

Eric stated that the muslims in J&K wanted to be with Pakistan while the Raja wanted to go to India. I guess we can't be sure who would have won the plebescite

I think we can be VERY sure who would have won the plebescite. O
therwise why would India hijack the rights of Kashmiris to decide their own fate?

In truly democratic societies decisions are not made at the whims of maharaja's or religious clergy or political workers, they're made by people and 1947 partition proved that. Now you can't rob Kashmiri's of their right to choose to be part of Pakistan, just like you couldn't stop muslims living in other parts of India who choose to move to Pakistan in 47.

 

[EjazR]

I think we can be VERY sure who would have won the plebescite. O
therwise why would India hijack the rights of Kashmiris to decide their own fate?

In truly democratic societies decisions are not made at the whims of maharaja's or religious clergy or political workers, they're made by people and 1947 partition proved that. Now you can't rob Kashmiri's of their right to choose to be part of Pakistan, just like you couldn't stop muslims living in other parts of India who choose to move to Pakistan in 47.

Well, IMO the National conference workers were drawn from the landless peasansts class which represented the majority in the valley. They later also defended their land were tribesmen raided pillaged and raped their women. MA Jinnah was opposed to their movement and actually sided with the Maharaja against the NC movement. These are historical facts. The Indian army was not he first to enter the state of J&K, it was the tribal invaders under the supervision of the then GoP. Why did they do that if they were so sure of winning popular support?

Many muslims didnt have a "choice" on where to live. They were basically ethinically clensed out of Eastern Punjab. Just like many non-muslims didnt have a choice and were pushed out of west Punjab. While there were massacres happening along the IB, the hindus and muslim in the valley were living in relative calm until the tribals came in.

 

[Peshwa]

I assume that by arguing that Sheikh Abdullah was the 'most popular political leader in 1947' you want to suggest that Kashmiris did not want to join Pakistan.

That is a fallacious argument since I can point to the NWFP where KAGK (Frontier Gandhi) party had overwhelmingly won the elections just a year ago and despite its opposition to Pakistan, the people of the NWFP overwhelmingly voted in favor of Pakistan in the referendum that was held.
.

Correction.... "overwhelmingly" is a rather generous word to use for a razor thin majority of 50.1% that won Pakistan the referendum for NWFP....

I agree with Ejaz here that the strong leaders can heavily influence the minds of the average public......S.Abdullah being the most popular in Kashmir was bound to garner support for the local populace....
For the above the best example is that of parition, where even though no poll was conducted to see if muslims in India actually wanted a seperate homeland, but rallied behind their representatives (muslim league) and their leader Jinnah into forming a new state....

The influence of strong leadership cannot be undermined....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Correction.... "overwhelmingly" is a rather generous word to use for a razor thin majority of 50.1% that won Pakistan the referendum for NWFP....

Overwhelming is the correct word. Please see this thread where the discussion on this took place.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/39251-nwfp-history-referendum-pakhtunistan-demand.html

I agree with Ejaz here that the strong leaders can heavily influence the minds of the average public......S.Abdullah being the most popular in Kashmir was bound to garner support for the local populace....
For the above the best example is that of parition, where even though no poll was conducted to see if muslims in India actually wanted a seperate homeland, but rallied behind their representatives (muslim league) and their leader Jinnah into forming a new state....

The influence of strong leadership cannot be undermined....

Its fallacious to argue that S Abdullah being the most popular leader in Kashmir meant that Kashmiri sympathies lay with India given the KAGK example.

And the ML campaigned quite specifically, initially, on the rights of the Muslims of South Asia having significant autonomy within the Indian Federation, and later, on the platform of a separate homeland, in an atmosphere where the British were leaving and change was certain. So not an accurate comparison necessarily.

 

[FireFighter]

Well, IMO the National conference workers were drawn f.rom the landless peasansts class which represented the majority in the valley. They later also defended their land were tribesmen raided pillaged and raped their women. MA Jinnah was opposed to their movement and actually sided with the Maharaja against the NC movement. These are historical facts. The Indian army was not he first to enter the state of J&K, it was the tribal invaders under the supervision of the then GoP. Why did they do that if they were so sure of winning popular support?

You're full of contradictions, on one hand you quoted Shaykh Abdullah (bare in mind he wasn't representative of Kashmiri muslims) but fought for the rights of kashmiris who became landless during maharaja's rule, on the other hand you justify his rule and later accession to India ignoring the right to choice of Kashmiris on joining Pakistan.


I have to give you a history lesson because your memory is so selective and the typical indian bias runs through your mind making Pakistan a scapegoat for everything explicitly or implicity in all of your posts.

There was no such thing as "barbaric tribals or tribal invaders" before 1947. Those tribals were actually Afghans and at some pint in history belonged to the Durrani Empire and they ruled over Kashmir for a century. Afghans were civilization for thousands of years despite of living in tribes. Living in tribe doesn't equate to having an illiterate or backward lifestyle. Kashmir was under the rule of Muslims for centuries and Islam was spread in Kashmir through peaceful means. Your comments really feed the hindu trolls who view Islamic expansion in India through aggression.

Muslims had been a majority for hundreds of years in the valley. It was not until the British came that things started to change in Kashmir. Sikhism was formed as an arm struggle against Muslim rule by Hindu priests to reclaim Kashmir. Sikhs were only able to defeat the Durrani Afghans in Kashmir when Mogul empire had weakened and was on the verge of collapse. Sikh massacres of Muslims led by Ranjit Singh f.rom Lahore are probably not covered in Indian text books, otherwise I wouldn't have to type this all out for you.

Pakistan barely had an army in 1947, it only requested the Afghans for assistance so as to protect the muslim majority in kashmir who wanted to be a part of Pakistan despite of living under an oppressive hindu maharaja. Kings have to be overthrown, they never give up power, given the circumstances, it was largely in the interest of Kashmiri' muslims that Pakistan and Afghans corresponded with their brethren's desires. Hence, the reason why India never allowed to this date a plebiscite and thereby never recognized the rights of Kashmiri's. But, you on the other hand, would rather be happy and content with your brethren, muslim majority in Kashmir live under a tyrant hindu maharaja or a so called "Indian democracy" ruled by a Hindu elite.

Many muslims didnt have a "choice" on where to live. They were basically ethinically clensed out of Eastern Punjab. Just like many non-muslims didnt have a choice and were pushed out of west Punjab. While there were massacres happening along the IB, the hindus and muslim in the valley were living in relative calm until the tribals came in.

Muslims were a majority (77% according to the 47/48 consensus) in Kashmir and were living under an autocratic hindu Maharaja, how can you say they were living under 'relative peace'?

You think they "choose" to live under a Hindu Maharaja?

They were far more educated and literate than your compatriots in India, You just insulted their intellect and intelligence, and thats pathetic. As a matter of fact, Kashmiri muslims moved out during the Dogra hindu maharaja's rule to avoid persecution and settled in lower parts of Punjab and NWFP.

 

[EjazR]

@FireFighter

You want to give me a history lesson and then you state that there was "no such thing as tribal invasion". Please go through the UN speeches made by Pakistani and Indian representatives including Sheikh Abdullah at that time. I can even provide you links for that if you want. No one there denies that there were tribals looting and killing people. The only question was wether GoP supported it or not. Hence the UNSC requirements for the plebescite was withdrawals of all tribals and Pakistani nationals. Why did the UNSC put this clase if there was "no tribal invasion"?

And more interestingly why are Kashmiris on the Pakistanis side commerating Oct27 as Black day?

Kashmiris observe 'Black Day' in Muzaffarabad - Yahoo! News

Oct27 Kashmiris from all walks of life observed a "Black Day" in Pakistan Kashmir, including capital Muzaffarabad, on Thursday on the occasion of the 62nd anniversary of the invasion of the area by Pakistani army men disguised as tribesmen from the North West Frontier of Province (NWFP), known as the Lashkars.

A large number of people, carrying black flags and protest placards, participated in demonstrations held in various parts of Pakistan Kashmir.

Among the participants were Arif Shahid, the general secretary of the All Party National Alliance (APNA), Baltistan National Front leader Nawaz Khan Naji and Abdul Hamid Khan, the Chairman of Balawaristan National Front, besides others.

So vociferous were the protests by the almost 800-odd participants, that security forces deployed to ensure maintenance of law and order, had to use teargas shells and firing in the air to disperse them.

Some of them said that Jammu and Kashmir would never have been a subject of dispute had then newly created Pakistan not launched an "unprovoked tribal aggression against the Kashmiris" over six decades ago.

"This was an unprovoked aggression against the people, against the state of Jammu and Kashmir on the 22nd of October 1947," said Arif Shahid, general secretary of the All Party National Alliance (APNA), and added, it was important to recall "historical facts and put things in the right perspective."

And including Kashmiris in london as well
My voice forum, Tribal invasion was unprovoked aggression against Jammu and Kashmir, by Dr Shabir Choudhry

Thirteen political parties from the UK representing various political view points participated in the conference and declared that the tribal invasion was designed to force the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir to join Pakistan. Apart from Kashmiris a number of Pakistanis were also present in the conference to express their support for the cause of Jammu and Kashmir.

Even nuns in a church were not spared
The day that changed Kashmir's fate 62 years ago | TwoCircles.net

These are Kashmiri viewpoints and parituclarly from the Pakistani side of Kashmir and they themselves claim the reality of tribal invaders. Infact, the Pakistani army regulars who had gone with them had a hard time keeping them in check and tried to prevent them were continuing their looting and killing spree.


And another reminder for you that Sheikh Abdulla was protesting against the Maharaja's rule, MA Jinnah did not even give him moral support when he was leading the people's movement. He had been in prison for the last 3 years before the tribal invasion.

After independance, the Kashmiris chose who should rule them. They can still choose who to rule them and the state of J&K. Atleast the govt. is not remote controlled by American and Saudis


@AM
The Khudai Khitmatagar's boycotted the referendrum. There was widespread allegations of fraud reported by no more than the Governor of that province.
In the elections of 1946, the people did not even know where the boundaries of the future Pakistan would be. This is said by no more than Ayesha Jalal. Even Allama Iqbal never advocated for a seperate homeland which is corrobated by none other than his son Javed Iqbal.

And if the people of Kashmir were not ok with Sheikh Abdulla's decision to agree to be a part of India. Pass resolutions in the newly formed constituent assembly in that manner. Why didnt the locals take up arms agains the Indian state straightaway instead of fighting against the invaders?

Just like there was rebellion by Faqir of Epi and the NWFP which was brutally put down by the PA, just like ther was an uprising by the Khan of Kalat in Balochistan (and four other uprisings afterwards as well). There should have been similar uprisings happening throughout the period when the "half a million army" was not there, but we see that there was only one major indigeneous insurgency period between 89-95 and that died down due to lack of popular support.

Anyways, my only point was for this reported to be fair and balanced, he should have mentioned these points of view as well. The tribal invaders, Sheikh Abdulla being the most popular and not believeing in the "two nation" formula which was unIslamic anywas as well as the poor "analysis" on mumbai attacks.