Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This "hammering" is mere tapping compared to terrorism, nuclear confrontation, and border warfare. If you evaluate the feelers from the GoI, you may find that progress on Kashmir is indeed possible - but it can't happen while these three issues dominate India-Pakistan relations. And why not at least suspend them for a while? After all, they are merely tactics for achieving the goal of liberating Kashmir. With the right governments at the helms of India and Pakistan, diplomacy may be more effective.

The 'feelers' from the GoI are best summed up by the statements of Nehru and other officials posted above. Please explain to me how you interpret them.

I concede nothing. Don't you think discussion about the U.S. belongs in other threads?

No - if you are to insist that your use of the word terrorism, to describe Pakistani support for insurgent groups fighting Indian occupation in violation of the UNSC resolutions, is not dishonest language for propaganda purposes, then I expect to see consistency from you and an acceptance the the United States of America was founded by terrorists and is a nation based on terrorism.

Without that declaration to indicate consistency in your approach, I do not see why you should be allowed to spew dishonest, inflammatory anti-Pakistan propaganda on this forum.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So your comment of these posts proving that India's leaders had decided to not honor the commitment despite no transgression on part of Pakistan is not correct..

I think I illustrated quite clearly in my exchange with Toxic that the UNSC resolutions required no withdrawal on the part of Pakistan without negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission. So there was no violation and no transgression by Pakistan.

What happened here is that India decided on her own that the negotiations should be ended and that India should not honor its commitment to the resolutions, and the statements I quoted of Nehru and from the officials you listed are all statements made before Operation Gibralter.

 

[Solomon2]

The 'feelers' from the GoI are best summed up by the statements of Nehru and other officials posted above.

I may be wrong, but I dispute this characterization of the GoI's current approach. Even if it were true, why should that prevent Pakistan from seeking suitable interlocutors in the Indian opposition?

Without that declaration to indicate consistency in your approach, I do not see why you should be allowed to -

I accept specific, factual, analogies but I reject application of the sweeping term "terrorism" to both the American and Pakistani cases, for it levels and thus ignores the factual differences between the two. Giving both the same label is a matter of opinion and judgment, not fact, and as such is something to be debated by itself, not something to be blithely accepted in the name of "consistency".

I don't accept this kind of linguistic despotism. It's like me telling someone that I'm allergic to apples and my listener saying that means I'm allergic to all fruit, because apples = fruit; otherwise, he's going to make me suffer by serving me apples.

From my interactions at PDF I suspect that this phenomenon is widespread among Pakistanis. Do you agree, AM?

 

[karan.1970]

I think I illustrated quite clearly in my exchange with Toxic that the UNSC resolutions required no withdrawal on the part of Pakistan without negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission. So there was no violation and no transgression by Pakistan.

What happened here is that India decided on her own that the negotiations should be ended and that India should not honor its commitment to the resolutions, and the statements I quoted of Nehru and from the officials you listed are all statements made before Operation Gibralter.

The negotiations had to be completed before the plebiscite. They were not. Now it can be an endless debate on whose fault that was, but the negotiations never got completed till 1952. At which time the ground realities had changed significantly to make the Indian agreement to hold plebiscite outdated.

So you simply cant take a part of the statements from Indian leaders as true and the remaining part as false to align to your arguement.

 

[toxic_pus]

For the umpteenth time, I am not the one making the distinction, the language of the UNSC resolutions should be self explanatory - again:

The resolutions clearly refer to 'Citizens (Pakistani nationals) and Tribesmen', and their withdrawal is linked to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission. End of story.

Irrelevant.

As much vague as the Cease Fire agreement was, it makes one thing clear. Part II/B.1 required complete withdrawal of Pakistani ‘citizens and tribesmen’ before IA would even begin to withdraw. On the other PA had only to begin withdrawing. That pretty much cuts down any scope for negotiation in connection with ‘citizens and tribesmen’, since no matter what IA was not to move an inch until the whole of ‘citizens and tribesmen’ had packed their bags and left. The hint of a broader mechanism for withdrawal and demilitarization makes it clear that UN was looking at the two entities separately and no matter how much you want to look at these as a homogeneous entity for the purpose of ‘negotiation’, to UN they were not.

Whether Pakistan was satisfied or not at one particular time does not change that fact that Pakistan was not obligated to withdraw tribesmen without negotiations.

The ‘fact’ that Pakistan was ‘not obligated to withdraw tribesmen without negotiations’ stopped making a difference and became irrelevant when Pakistan made that claim of withdrawal without so much of a ‘negotiation’.

Perhaps Pakistan started to withdraw/withdrew and realized that it would amount to handing India a military advantage. Pakistan would then be acting within the framework of the resolutions to not withdraw until negotiations were concluded.

Perhaps we decided doing so with give India a military advantage and therefore decided to wait until negotiations to our satisfaction were completed.

There is no evidence that Pakistan even began any withdrawal. In fact India’s central stand was violation of Part I/B & E. B required both the countries to stop ‘augmenting the military potential of their forces’ and E required to create and maintain ‘an atmosphere favorable to the promotion of further negotiations’. India had always maintained that Pakistan was continuously augmenting Azad Kashmir forces and flooding P0K with its own citizens. Later admission by the Azad Kashmir govt. that they were ‘35,000’ people strong, which India believed to be an understatement, somewhat validated India’s stand.

Regarding ‘military advantage’, it was not for Pakistan to bother. Pakistan was the one who had to evacuate the land occupied by it, only to be taken over by ‘local administration’ which would be supervised by the UN. Pakistan had no role in anything post withdrawal. Besides Pakistan had to completely withdraw its ‘citizens and tribesmen’ before IA could begin the demilitarization process. Clearly UN didn’t care if ‘military advantage/disadvantage’ mattered in connection withdrawal of ‘citizens and tribesmen’ and effectively made it a non issue.

On another note, this whole ‘military advantage/disadvantage’ arises out of Pakistan's misplaced sense of entitlement that they owned P0K and therefore was entitled to hold and defend that piece of land. UN made it clear that it was not the case.

The ‘perhaps’ part of your statement is just a figment of your imagination. The remainder part of that argument is therefore irrelevant.

Again, ""I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line."

On the basis of the present ceasefire line - that is status quo.

Again, that is not status quo. If he had wanted the situation to linger as it was, then it would have been a status quo. Like it is today. He clearly wanted to resolve the Kashmir problem i.e. terminate the situation as opposed to linger, by converting ceasefire line, which later became LoC, into international boundary.

If the facts were self-evident then the proper recourse was to have the UNSC take into account the 'self-evident' facts and pass a resolution indicating so.

That’s why Gunnar Jarring was sent in ’57 and Dr Graham in ’58, to verify why ‘demilitarization’ wasn’t happening.

Deadlock does not equate irrelevance of the resolutions nor violation of them. This was India's unilateral decision that things could no longer move forward and it acted unilaterally to violate its commitment to the resolutions.

Deadlock meant that the preconditions for plebiscite couldn’t he fulfilled and hence the plebiscite couldn’t be held till the unlocking of deadlock. Meanwhile, as one waited till eternity for this magical unlocking to happen, this deadlock meant that passage of time had resulted in change in ‘political, economic and strategic factors surrounding the whole of the Kashmir question, together with the changing pattern of power relations in West and South Asia’ which made implementation of the resolutions, ‘progressively more difficult’. In other words deadlock made the resolutions irrelevant over time.

The gulf between the two countries’ stand points made it impossible for things to ‘move forward’ and that we haven’t been able to move in any direction in these 50 odd years, sort of vindicates our assessment of the situation as it stood in the 50s. Dr Graham in his 6th report, in '58, recognized this problem:

'...it would appear that the execution of section A in Part II might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that clause.' (para 13)

Once again, there was no ‘violation’ of resolutions on India’s part, since the preconditions to plebiscite couldn’t be fulfilled due to the deadlock created by Pakistan’s ‘intransigence’. If, in your words, deadlock is not violation, then inability to perform due to such deadlock is also not violation.

And Pakistan did not agree with your interpretation of the situation, and we did not agree - hence a unilateral violation of the commitment on the part of India.

Childish.

India didn’t accept Pakistan’s position on Part I/B & E, withdrawal & demilitarization, post demilitarization obligations, definition of ‘local authority’ and several other Pakistani interpretations. I guess that would make ‘unilateral violation of the commitment’ on the part of Pakistan as well, simply because India didn’t agree.

It is irrelevant if Pakistan disagreed with India’s interpretation or vice-versa. It is obvious that they didn’t agree (Duh!). What is relevant for passing a resolution by UN to declare an earlier resolution to be void – which is what I attempted to explain earlier – is that both the parties must agree that such a nullifying resolution was required to be passed.

I think the above clearly shows that unilateral violation is exactly what it was - there was no language related to timelines or deadlocks in the resolution, and there was no violation of the resolutions by Pakistan […] India chose to indicate that it would not honor its commitment to the resolutions without Pakistan's agreement - that is a unilateral violation of India's commitment to honor the UNSC resolutions, no matter how you try to spin it.

It is precisely because Pakistan chose not to implement the preconditions that forced us to choose to not ‘honor’ our commitment. If Pakistan’s choice of not implementing the preconditions was not violation, then our choice of not implementing our commitment, which was itself contingent upon Pakistan’s choice, was not a violation either. End of story.

You haven’t debunked anything yet.

..(since the whole 'withdrawal of Citizens and Tribesmen' argument has been debunked).

Careful with that premature chest thumping. It might give you a severe sore chest.

 

[EjazR]

Spring in Srinagar's step - India - The Times of India
Sameer Arshad, TOI Crest, 13 February 2010, 10:42am IST

Occasional gunfire still rattles the Valley, but it's an unwelcome punctuation whose glory days are over and gone. Dividends of the peace process are now visible more than ever before - days no longer defined by curfew hours, politicians unafraid of the streets, and youngsters sipping latte as they listen to Bryan Adams at hip cafes brimming with tourists ...

It was an extraordinary sight. Omar Abdullah, chief minister of J&K , visited his grand father Sheikh Abdullah's mausoleum near Dal Lake, Srinagar, to pay his respects on the leader's birth anniversary last December. Hundreds of young and old alike jostled to get a glimpse of the young CM. The luckier ones shook hands with him while others captured the happy moment on their phone cameras.

The scene, reminiscent of the days when his grandfather held sway over Kashmiris, was rare for a place where politicians have confined themselves to barricaded houses in exclusive security zones for the past 20 years. But with violence dipping considerably - some statistics suggest a fall of 27 per cent in just the last one year - since India and Pakistan started a stop-start peace process in 2004, the Valley these days looks like a refreshingly different place.

The city is a far cry from how Eric Margolis, an American journalist, described it in the 1990s. He compared the "pall of fear and raw tension" over Srinagar to other cities at war - like Beirut, Algiers, San Salvador, Bogota and Kabul. The benefits of the peace process are evident - Srinagar is suddenly alive and kicking. The gloomy, deathly silence of the dusk-to-dawn curfew days is a fading memory. Sinister looking bunkers made with sand bags and secured with barbed wire on every road corner have been replaced with signs assuring you that the police are "with you, for you, ever and always" . Today, the streets are buzzing; shops remain open until late at night and the tourists - the mainstay of Kashmir's economy - are back in the picturesque land. YouTube star Terra Naomi performed in the city on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit last November. Hip cafeterias that have sprouted all over Srinagar play Bee Gees and Bryan Adams as they serve lattes and cappuccinos . The choice of music may be a tad dated, but in a city where theatres were banned from showing films till very recently this is a big step forward.

Sumit Ganguly, professor of political science at Indiana University, Bloomington, and author of The Crisis in Kashmir, says the peace process made it incumbent on the ISI "to call off its dogs for a bit" . He says, otherwise, the US administration would have been forced to hector the Pakistanis yet again. "More importantly, public opinion in India would have scuttled the peace process."

Pakistani-American historian Ayesha Jalal echoes Ganguly and adds that considerable American pressure on the Pakistani establishment since 9/11 forced Islamabad to discourage infiltration into J&K . "The infiltrations aren't being actively encouraged as in the past, leaving the Lashkar-e-Taiba and its radical supporters dissatisfied and prone to plotting 26/11-like attacks," she says.

Former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee - often described as the architect of Kashmir's peace process - turned the tide when he extended a hand of friendship calling for better relations with Pakistan and a peaceful approach to the Kashmir conflict during his April 2003 visit to the troubled state. At the time of Vajpayee's intervention, the conflict had taken menacing proportions with a greater degree of involvement of Pakistani terrorist groups such as LeT and later Jaish-e-Mohammad , units that unleashed a wave of suicide attacks at the beginning of the millennium.

The renewed thaw was consolidated when Vajpayee and Musharraf met at Islamabad in January 2004 and announced a slew of measures to normalise relations. Later, the same month, a Hurriyat delegation met Vajpayee and deputy prime minister L K Advani in the first such face-to-face encounter between the separatists and senior government representatives. Advani, on his part, pledged accelerated release of political prisoners and improved enforcement of human rights standards.

In February 2004, the first round of talks were held in Islamabad between India's and Pakistan's foreign secretaries and an eight-item agenda, including Kashmir, was agreed upon for substantive talks. Further meetings were held in the second half of 2004 - to set an agenda that included commencement of a trans-LoC bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad in ***.

Jalal believes there was "more than an element of truth" in reports of fragmentation among militants after the 2004 peace process and doesn't rule out the possibility of a directive from Pakistan to terrorists holed out in Kashmir to lie low. "Pakistan doesn't want trouble with India anywhere along the eastern border as its army wrestles with grave challenges along the northwestern frontier," she says. "While not all militants operating in Kashmir are Pakistan exports, even if they have links with the Lashkar, they do depend on support from across the line of control. Any curtailment in support is bound to affect their operations. By not stirring up the pot unduly, Pakistan can be seen to have contributed to the change."

Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary and John Tirman in their book Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, say: "Before the fall from office, Vajpayee and his national security advisor Brajesh Mishra had laid the groundwork for a substantive peace process and built good rapport with their Pakistani counterparts. Vajpayee also enjoys high standing among the population in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, not a mean feat for an Indian politician.''

Mehbooba Mufti of the People's Democratic Alliance seconds the assessment and credits Vajpayee for picking up the signals correctly from his Srinagar visit. "He made a historic announcement in spite of Kargil, the Parliament attack and the Agra setback," she says.

When the UPA came to power in 2004, prime minister Manmohan Singh built upon Vajpayee's work and declared a ceasefire at a time when the two armies were in a combat position, and it continues in spite of 26/11. What's more, the bus service between the two Kashmirs may be only symbolic but it has survived against all odds. Similarly, even though trade across the LoC lacks procedural sophistication, it still thrives.

Mufti notes that all these developments could never have happened in the past because Kashmir was never a part of any confidence-building measure. "It's therefore necessary that (the) Indo-Pak dialogue restarts with Kashmir as a part of it," she adds.

Darren C Zook, who teaches comparative Asian politics at the University of California, Berkeley, says India and Pakistan may have orchestrated their own contributions to the peace process, but the lack of popular support for terrorists among most Kashmiris has caused splintering and fragmentation of militant movements . "Most Kashmiris feel that militants are using Kashmir as a pawn in their own Pakistani-based agenda to battle India. They cannot win hearts and minds in Kashmir because their own hearts and minds are with Pakistan," he says. "This may be why even small initiatives taken by Pakistan or India work in a positive direction - they are merely capitalising on political moods present in Kashmir. I've never heard a single person from Kashmir voice support for groups like the Lashkar. What they want is peace."

The biggest positive outcome of the peace process, and by far, remains the extraordinary voter turnout during the November-December 2008 state elections. A record 68 per cent of voters cast their franchise braving the icy cold weather and poll-boycott calls from terrorist outfits. The historic election led to consolidation of a competitive two-party system consisting of the NC and PDP - a political arrangement that the state had rarely seen in the last 60 years of its existence. As experts point out, it was this lack of healthy competition in politics and the presence of an opposition that was stifled at best that led to an explosion of militancy in the late1980s.

For now, though, the smiles are back on the faces of a harried population that wants development, peace and prosperity more than anything else - a population that is fervently hoping for the spring to last.

 

[Khajur]

Shopian rape case of kashmir: The undoctored truth



Link part one :
Shopian case: The undoctored truth: India : India Today - Latest Breaking News from India, World, Business, Cricket, Sports, Bollywood.

February 13, 2010

Headlines Today possesses tapes to establish that doctors helping the probe tried to mislead the investigators by saying that the two kashmiri girls were raped.

part two:

Shopian case: The undoctored truth: India : India Today - Latest Breaking News from India, World, Business, Cricket, Sports, Bollywood.

 

[Khajur]

This is another example of how low some separatists in Kashmir vlley can go to sensationalize the tragic deaths of two young girls and make false charges of rape that never happened against security force to defame them for their benefit.

 

[blueoval79]

Lets see whats up next.....these so called paid activists would be running for cover now.

 

[weaponx]

saw the video and heard the audio tape....

My god what an a$$...those guys knew that the girls were not raped but just to blame the armed forces they made lies...

in the tape we can hear them that when they understood that the investigators found that hymen is intact..they r discussing that they can claim that it was rape attempt....

 

[mrwarrior006]

hahahahah busted

now lets see wat are tey gonna do about it

 

[Solomon2]

...the negotiations never got completed till 1952. At which time the ground realities had changed significantly to make the Indian agreement to hold plebiscite outdated.

Who is to say when and why an international agreement is "outdated"?

 

[blueoval79]

But ..don't you know that this is an Indian propaganda.....LOL....

 

[Hutchroy]

Kashmir freedom impossible sans economic independence: CM

CHIEF Minister Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif has said that the freedom of Kashmir cannot be achieved without making Pakistan economically strong and independent.

He said that let alone Kashmir, even Pakistan cannot be termed an independent country, politically and economically, without elimination of illiteracy and ignorance and added that we would have to develop our own resources to get rid of foreign aid for political and economic freedom.

He was addressing to a ceremony held for distribution of prizes among winners of speech and essay writing competitions at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat here on Saturday.

Shahbaz Sharif said the Punjab government had made education its top priority and took revolutionary steps for promotion of quality education. He said poverty, unemployment, ignorance, terrorism and extremism could be eliminated through promotion of education and all the resources would have to be utilised for providing education to the youth. He said the developed nations had made progress due to education, science, technology and modern knowledge and we would have to equip the young generation with the same for achieving glory and making the country an Islamic welfare state in accordance with the ideals of Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal.

The chief minister said unanimous approval of the National Finance Commission award was an important step towards the national unity and solidarity and under the award, people of all provinces and democratic leadership of federal and provincial governments decided to distribute resources judiciously. He said the federal government and provinces put their share in the NFC award, adding that nation was unanimous on the award due to the sincerity of the democratic leadership. He said due to the role of Punjab, the misunderstandings of Balochistan had been removed regarding the NFC award and the whole country appreciated it. He said the country could become prosperous by strengthening all the units.

The CM said the previous so-called government gave power of making decisions on the award to a dictator. He said the four chief ministers had gathered at the Minar-e-Pakistan and expressed national unity. He said people of NWFP were fighting the war of existence of the country and were rendering exemplary sacrifices. Shahbaz Sharif said Iran and Turkey had made tremendous progress through hard work. He said the exports of Turkey and Pakistan were equal in 1980 and today the exports of Turkey were 136 billion dollars whereas exports of Pakistan were only 19 billion dollars. He said from Casablanca to Kuala Lumpur, Islamic countries were rich in natural resources but they were still dependent on West as they had no expertise in any sector including science, technology, politics and economics.

The CM said Japan and Germany were totally destroyed in World War II but due to education, skill and science and technology they had made progress. He said the allied forces had destroyed Germany but it had achieved its lost glory through science and technology within 50 years. He said that if we promoted education in Pakistan, equip young generation with modern knowledge and utilise natural resources, not only the country would be strong but would also achieve freedom of Kashmir. He said freedom of Kashmir would never be achieved through statements and speeches.

The chief minister said that for the first time in the history of the country, scholarships were being given through the Punjab Educational Endowment Fund to the talented students facing financial constraints. He said due to the educational fund, 20 such students were being given scholarships in prestigious educational institutions like LUMS who got admission to the institution purely on merit but were unable to continue studies due to financial problems. He said next year, 50 talented students would be given scholarships for getting admission to LUMS.

Earlier, Punjab Education Minister Mian Mujtaba Shujraur Rehman, narrating the details of speech and essay writing competitions, said these contests were held at tehsil, district, divisional and provincial and levels and Rs 17.5 crore were distributed as prizes among the winners. Similarly, in 2008 prizes worth Rs.14 crore were distributed for such competitions. He said more than 100,000 students participated in speech and essay writing competitions whereas more than 50,000 students participated in sports competitions. He said due to the step of the Punjab government, the spirit of competition was inculcated in the new generation.

Speaking on the occasion, Senior Minister of Sindh Pir Mazharul Haq said that if Punjab had not display openheartedness on NFC award, it would not have been announced unanimously. He said Punjab chief minister was taking commendable steps for promotion of education.

Minister for Education of NWFP Sardar Hussain Babak said Punjab had provided us an opportunity to gather here while playing the role of elder brother. He said the situation in NWFP was different from other three provinces and it was facing terrorism. He said that 3,000,000 people were displaced during the operations in Swat and Malakand but today they had returned to their homes honourably and the process of their rehabilitation was going on.

Education Minister for Balochistan Tahir Mehmood paid tribute to the efforts of Chief Minister Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif for improvement of education sector and said the way Punjab was constructing a hospital for the people of Balochistan, it should also send teachers to the province on the same pattern so that schools could run could be run there. He said we had buildings for schools but there was a shortage of teachers, therefore, Punjab should help us in this regard.

Punjab CM, visiting ministers from other provinces and educationists distributed prizes of Rs 100,000 each among the winners first position in speech and essay writing competitions. The CM also announced Rs 500,000 for a student, Sara Nasir, who won gold medal in Karate Competitions in SAF Games.

Senior Advisor Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khan Khosa, Provincial Ministers Mian Mujtaba Shujaur Rehman, Raja Sanaullah Khan, Tanvir Ashraf Kaira, members national and provincial assemblies, vice-chancellors of all universities of Punjab, intellectuals, writers, educationists, teachers, parents and a large number of students were present.

 

[MilesTogo]

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Azad Kashmir today

Azad Kashmir was created within two months of Pakistan’s independence with high expectations. Nestled in the mountainous western region that abuts the vale of Kashmir, it forms an archer’s bow that is about 100 miles long and about 20-40 miles wide.

The Pakistani security elite hoped that an arrow fired from the bow would bring about the instant liberation of the vale of Kashmir from Indian occupation. The first arrow was fired almost within days of creation.

It plunged the entire region of Kashmir into armed conflict. Fourteen months later, a ceasefire sponsored by the United Nations took effect on Jan 1, 1949. The ceasefire line remained stationary despite several attempts to move it. But after the 1971 war which saw the secession of East Pakistan, it was renamed the Line-of-Control (LoC). That militaristic designation persists to this day since the line which separates the two Kashmirs has not been formalised as an international border.

‘Azad’ means free and Azad Kashmir was supposed to serve as a model state whose liberty and freedom would inspire rebellion in Indian-administered Kashmir. That did not happen for several reasons. Constitutionally, Azad Kashmir is not a part of Pakistan. But neither is it an independent state. For its entire 62-year history, it has depended on Pakistan for its economic and political survival. It does not even issue its own postage stamps.

Because Islamabad has always exercised its claim on the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir is not counted as a fifth province of Pakistan. But for all practical purposes, Muzaffarabad lives under Islamabad’s shadow. Its first government was established on Oct 24, 1947 with Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim as president. On Nov 3, 1947, Azad Kashmir sought unsuccessfully to join the United Nations as a member state.

In March 1949, after the dust had settled along the ceasefire line, Azad Kashmir signed a power-sharing arrangement with the Government of Pakistan ceding all authority related to defence, foreign affairs, refugees and the plebiscite to Pakistan.

Pakistan created a Ministry for Kashmir Affairs to look after its newest asset. However, as events would show, the ministry was soon preoccupied with influencing political direction in Azad Kashmir. Not surprisingly, the ministry’s directives were not always well received by Azad Kashmiris. At times, they were met with stiff resistance.

In 1955, Pakistan declared martial law in some parts of Azad Kashmir to suppress street violence triggered by the Kashmir Act. In 1957, Pakistan resorted to police action to quell a public meeting that was seeking direct action to create a united and liberated Kashmir. In 1961, President Ayub Khan carried out indirect elections in Azad Kashmir through a Basic Democracies Ordinance which legally only applied to Pakistan, further straining ties with the Azad Kashmiris.

Subsequently, faced with Islamabad’s dominance in their day-to-day affairs, several Azad Kashmiri leaders started a movement for liberating Indian-held Kashmir not for Pakistan but for creating a separate Kashmiri state. This further aggravated ties with Pakistan. While all this was happening, Jammu and Kashmir was inducted into the Indian union.

In 1965, the Pakistani army launched a covert war inside Indian Kashmir seeking to instigate a popular rebellion. This arrow too missed its target. Instead, it enraged India which launched a strong counter-offensive along the international border with West Pakistan.

Under the weight of the Indian elephant, the Pakistani military hastily called of its operations in Kashmir. The war ended in an UN-brokered ceasefire along the international border with minimal changes in the Kashmiri line. After the war, Pakistan lost its urge to light a fire across the Line of Control (LoC). Matters changed in 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and the Pakistani military, with US and Saudi assistance, began training legions of Mujahideen to evict the godless communists.

After a bruised and battered Red Army pulled out of Kabul in 1989, Indian Jammu and Kashmir found itself in the grip of a large-scale revolt. Whether this was a purely indigenous movement or a corollary to events in Kabul continues to enrich scholarly volumes.

Regardless of the cause, the uprising in the vale provided the Kashmir hawks in Pakistan’s security elite yet another opportunity to press on with their objective. They reactivated their bases in Azad Kashmir and once again decided to fire arrows into Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Soon, ‘freedom fighters,’ armed and trained allegedly by the Pakistan Army, were rolling across in droves across the LoC.

Azad Kashmir was again in the cross-hairs of armed conflict. Against this backdrop, Pakistan under Gen Ziaul Haq decided to legally separate the geographically much larger Northern Areas of Gilgit and Baltistan from Azad Kashmir. This caused almost as much consternation in the latter as it did in India. The separation of the Northern Areas by Pakistan eliminated all doubts about the sovereignty of Azad Kashmir. With the reactivation of conflict across the Line-of-Control, the quality of life of the Azad Kashmiris was trammelled. Those who did not want to take part in the proxy war became pariahs.

Most of the cross-border infiltration was halted in the wake of 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan. The attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001 was designed to reinvigorate the Kashmir issue but all it did was bring India and Pakistan to the brink of full-scale war in 2002. For a while the Musharraf regime sought to differentiate the struggle for freedom in Kashmir from political acts of terror but its spin failed to gain traction with the world community. Cross-border terrorism was quiet for several years.

The attacks on Mumbai by a group linked to militant activities in Kashmir in November 2008 were an attempt to reignite the conflict but succeeded only in drawing widespread opprobrium. During the past 62 years, the people of Azad Kashmir have been unable to arise out of poverty in large measure because they are caught in the crossfire between India and Pakistan. The land which their elders knew as a mountain paradise has been turned into a living hell.

Of the four million people who inhabit the region, nine of 10 live in extremely impoverished conditions in rural areas. Population growth is excessive, at 2.4 per cent per year, and the average house holds no fewer than seven people. Sadly, Azad Kashmir’s future is as murky today as it was in 1947. And the objective for its creation, the liberation of the vale of Kashmir, seems increasingly remote.

ahmadfaruqui@gmail.com