Pakistan is no friend of Kashmir, either

[Shabi1]

In a recent opinion piece penned for the New York Times, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the world to wake up to the conflict in Kashmir because if it does not, there is a risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Like previous Pakistani premiers, he sought to present Pakistan as a champion of the Kashmiri cause.

While the world indeed needs to take action on ongoing crackdown and rights abuses in India, it should not overlook the role Pakistan has played in the Kashmiri tragedy.

Over the past decades, it has shown little commitment to Kashmiri self-determination.

When India and Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Kashmir was a princely state which wanted to remain independent, a choice given by the colonial masters to all such entities and agreed upon by both countries.

Pakistan even signed a standstill agreement with the Kashmiri Hindu ruler of that time, Maharaja Hari Singh, which basically meant it agreed to its status as it was. However, a few months later, Pakistan broke that agreement and helped Pashtun tribesmen invade the region, eventually sending its own security forces to Kashmir in a bid to take over the valley.

In response, the Kashmiri ruler asked India for help to defend his kingdom. New Delhi agreed to intervene but only if Kashmir would agree to accede to it, albeit temporarily. The conflict escalated into what has come to be known as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, which led to the de facto partitioning of the region by Pakistan and India.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution, according to which Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its forces first (as it acted as an aggressor), while India was to maintain a minimum military presence until an independence referendum was held to let Kashmiris decide their own future. However, neither India nor Pakistan abided by that resolution.

Then in 1965, the Pakistani military launched a secret mission called Operation Gibraltar which involved military officials infiltrating the valley and attempting to engineer a rebellion from within by mixing themselves with the locals.

The calculations by General Ayub Khan, the Pakistani dictator who was in power at that time, were that since India had just been exhausted by the Sino-Indian War of 1962, there was a good opportunity to take New Delhi by surprise. However, Operation Gibraltar failed to rouse the local population, and instead India launched a counter-offensive, forcing Pakistan to retreat.

Paradoxically, every year on September 6, Pakistan marks its "victory" over the Indian army attacking its territory in 1965. The official narrative does not mention Operation Gibraltar which effectively triggered the conflict.

Then in the aftermath of the 1987 election in the valley, which was widely perceived as rigged, massive agitations broke out in Indian-administered Kashmir, which Pakistan supported. In the wake of these protests, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had taken centre stage and become the leading voice for Kashmir's armed resistance.

A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.

Then in 1999, Pakistan once again attempted to infiltrate the valley using its military in what came to be known as the Kargil War.

In the following two decades, Pakistan-based groups have been repeatedly accused of carrying out terrorist activities, not just in Kashmir but also in mainland India. From the 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi to the Mumbai attack in 2008, to recent attacks in Pathankot and Pulwama, these aggressive tactics have sealed India's perception of the Kashmiris through the lens of its historic confrontation with Pakistan.

With its past actions and hesitancy to crack down on militant groups in its territory, Pakistan has given India repeatedly the opportunity to present the unrest in Kashmir to the world as nothing more than a Pakistan-backed insurgency. This has effectively undermined the struggle of the local population of Indian-administered Kashmir.

At home, Pakistan has also not been too keen to accommodate Kashmiri people political rights and has targeted pro-independence group like JKLF.

In Pakistani-administered Kashmir, no political parties can contest the general elections if they do not agree to an accession agreement to Pakistan. Because of that, only Pakistan-based political parties end up participating and winning elections in the region.

Also, most of the bureaucracy and civil service is controlled by Islamabad, and a body called the Kashmir Council headed by the Pakistani prime minister oversees all government affairs. Moreover, Pakistan has made efforts to absorb the region into Pakistan by carving out parts of its territory - the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region - and by creating a separate entity for it in the 1970s.

The Pakistani authorities took away GB's special status and until today it is mostly governed by Islamabad directly.

If Pakistan is sincere about the Kashmir cause and cares for the wellbeing of its people, then it must first demonstrate its commitment at home. It can do so only by putting an end to rights abuses and letting Kashmiris decide their own fate. Only then will the world take Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taha Siddiqui
Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-friend-kashmir-190911133539203.html

Need we say anymore

Taha Siddiqui
Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

 

[H. Dawary]

I'd like to ask from everyone here, what possible options does Pakistan have? and assuming the use of force being the last option?

 

[airmarshal]

What an as^hole!

 

[Imad.Khan]

There are 3 ways to deal with situations some voices of independence arise.

The first way is UK way, hold a referendum and let the people decide. This way whatever the outcome, atleast the picture will be clear and there will be no room for speculation. Things will quite down itself and there will be no bloodshed or human rights violations. The country's standing will rise among nations.

The 2nd way is the Indian way. send in the military, commit massive human right's abuses, and even after decades the situation will not change. Get the title of occupiers and lose standing among other countries

The 3rd way is the Pakistani way. Do nothing and keep living amidst speculations. Keep providing material for anti-state actors and be a punching bag for the enemy countries.

So if we are confident enough we should hold a referendum in AJK, GB and even in Balochistan.

 

[Kabira]

There are 3 ways to deal with situations some voices of independence arise.

The first way is UK way, hold a referendum and let the people decide. This way whatever the outcome, atleast the picture will be clear and there will be no room for speculation. Things will quite down itself and there will be no bloodshed or human rights violations. The country's standing will rise among nations.

The 2nd way is the Indian way. send in the military, commit massive human right's abuses, and even after decades the situation will not change. Get the title of occupiers and lose standing among other countries

The 3rd way is the Pakistani way. Do nothing and keep living amidst speculations. Keep providing material for anti-state actors and be a punching bag for the enemy countries.

So if we are confident enough we should hold a referendum in AJK, GB and even in Balochistan.

Why Balochistan? Referendum in AJK will be held at the same time as in IoK.

 

[infinity73]

Our unity is like a cancer to these people. It makes them feel worthless, which is what they are in the bigger scheme of things.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

top writer who is in exile and article posted by Kabira.. a coin with same sides. propaganda on its peak.

 

[Zibago]

In a recent opinion piece penned for the New York Times, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the world to wake up to the conflict in Kashmir because if it does not, there is a risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Like previous Pakistani premiers, he sought to present Pakistan as a champion of the Kashmiri cause.

While the world indeed needs to take action on ongoing crackdown and rights abuses in India, it should not overlook the role Pakistan has played in the Kashmiri tragedy.

Over the past decades, it has shown little commitment to Kashmiri self-determination.

When India and Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Kashmir was a princely state which wanted to remain independent, a choice given by the colonial masters to all such entities and agreed upon by both countries.

Pakistan even signed a standstill agreement with the Kashmiri Hindu ruler of that time, Maharaja Hari Singh, which basically meant it agreed to its status as it was. However, a few months later, Pakistan broke that agreement and helped Pashtun tribesmen invade the region, eventually sending its own security forces to Kashmir in a bid to take over the valley.

In response, the Kashmiri ruler asked India for help to defend his kingdom. New Delhi agreed to intervene but only if Kashmir would agree to accede to it, albeit temporarily. The conflict escalated into what has come to be known as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, which led to the de facto partitioning of the region by Pakistan and India.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution, according to which Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its forces first (as it acted as an aggressor), while India was to maintain a minimum military presence until an independence referendum was held to let Kashmiris decide their own future. However, neither India nor Pakistan abided by that resolution.

Then in 1965, the Pakistani military launched a secret mission called Operation Gibraltar which involved military officials infiltrating the valley and attempting to engineer a rebellion from within by mixing themselves with the locals.

The calculations by General Ayub Khan, the Pakistani dictator who was in power at that time, were that since India had just been exhausted by the Sino-Indian War of 1962, there was a good opportunity to take New Delhi by surprise. However, Operation Gibraltar failed to rouse the local population, and instead India launched a counter-offensive, forcing Pakistan to retreat.

Paradoxically, every year on September 6, Pakistan marks its "victory" over the Indian army attacking its territory in 1965. The official narrative does not mention Operation Gibraltar which effectively triggered the conflict.

Then in the aftermath of the 1987 election in the valley, which was widely perceived as rigged, massive agitations broke out in Indian-administered Kashmir, which Pakistan supported. In the wake of these protests, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had taken centre stage and become the leading voice for Kashmir's armed resistance.

A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.

Then in 1999, Pakistan once again attempted to infiltrate the valley using its military in what came to be known as the Kargil War.

In the following two decades, Pakistan-based groups have been repeatedly accused of carrying out terrorist activities, not just in Kashmir but also in mainland India. From the 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi to the Mumbai attack in 2008, to recent attacks in Pathankot and Pulwama, these aggressive tactics have sealed India's perception of the Kashmiris through the lens of its historic confrontation with Pakistan.

With its past actions and hesitancy to crack down on militant groups in its territory, Pakistan has given India repeatedly the opportunity to present the unrest in Kashmir to the world as nothing more than a Pakistan-backed insurgency. This has effectively undermined the struggle of the local population of Indian-administered Kashmir.

At home, Pakistan has also not been too keen to accommodate Kashmiri people political rights and has targeted pro-independence group like JKLF.

In Pakistani-administered Kashmir, no political parties can contest the general elections if they do not agree to an accession agreement to Pakistan. Because of that, only Pakistan-based political parties end up participating and winning elections in the region.

Also, most of the bureaucracy and civil service is controlled by Islamabad, and a body called the Kashmir Council headed by the Pakistani prime minister oversees all government affairs. Moreover, Pakistan has made efforts to absorb the region into Pakistan by carving out parts of its territory - the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region - and by creating a separate entity for it in the 1970s.

The Pakistani authorities took away GB's special status and until today it is mostly governed by Islamabad directly.

If Pakistan is sincere about the Kashmir cause and cares for the wellbeing of its people, then it must first demonstrate its commitment at home. It can do so only by putting an end to rights abuses and letting Kashmiris decide their own fate. Only then will the world take Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taha Siddiqui
Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-friend-kashmir-190911133539203.html

Taha really?

 

[Trango Towers]

In a recent opinion piece penned for the New York Times, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the world to wake up to the conflict in Kashmir because if it does not, there is a risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Like previous Pakistani premiers, he sought to present Pakistan as a champion of the Kashmiri cause.

While the world indeed needs to take action on ongoing crackdown and rights abuses in India, it should not overlook the role Pakistan has played in the Kashmiri tragedy.

Over the past decades, it has shown little commitment to Kashmiri self-determination.

When India and Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Kashmir was a princely state which wanted to remain independent, a choice given by the colonial masters to all such entities and agreed upon by both countries.

Pakistan even signed a standstill agreement with the Kashmiri Hindu ruler of that time, Maharaja Hari Singh, which basically meant it agreed to its status as it was. However, a few months later, Pakistan broke that agreement and helped Pashtun tribesmen invade the region, eventually sending its own security forces to Kashmir in a bid to take over the valley.

In response, the Kashmiri ruler asked India for help to defend his kingdom. New Delhi agreed to intervene but only if Kashmir would agree to accede to it, albeit temporarily. The conflict escalated into what has come to be known as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, which led to the de facto partitioning of the region by Pakistan and India.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution, according to which Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its forces first (as it acted as an aggressor), while India was to maintain a minimum military presence until an independence referendum was held to let Kashmiris decide their own future. However, neither India nor Pakistan abided by that resolution.

Then in 1965, the Pakistani military launched a secret mission called Operation Gibraltar which involved military officials infiltrating the valley and attempting to engineer a rebellion from within by mixing themselves with the locals.

The calculations by General Ayub Khan, the Pakistani dictator who was in power at that time, were that since India had just been exhausted by the Sino-Indian War of 1962, there was a good opportunity to take New Delhi by surprise. However, Operation Gibraltar failed to rouse the local population, and instead India launched a counter-offensive, forcing Pakistan to retreat.

Paradoxically, every year on September 6, Pakistan marks its "victory" over the Indian army attacking its territory in 1965. The official narrative does not mention Operation Gibraltar which effectively triggered the conflict.

Then in the aftermath of the 1987 election in the valley, which was widely perceived as rigged, massive agitations broke out in Indian-administered Kashmir, which Pakistan supported. In the wake of these protests, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had taken centre stage and become the leading voice for Kashmir's armed resistance.

A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.

Then in 1999, Pakistan once again attempted to infiltrate the valley using its military in what came to be known as the Kargil War.

In the following two decades, Pakistan-based groups have been repeatedly accused of carrying out terrorist activities, not just in Kashmir but also in mainland India. From the 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi to the Mumbai attack in 2008, to recent attacks in Pathankot and Pulwama, these aggressive tactics have sealed India's perception of the Kashmiris through the lens of its historic confrontation with Pakistan.

With its past actions and hesitancy to crack down on militant groups in its territory, Pakistan has given India repeatedly the opportunity to present the unrest in Kashmir to the world as nothing more than a Pakistan-backed insurgency. This has effectively undermined the struggle of the local population of Indian-administered Kashmir.

At home, Pakistan has also not been too keen to accommodate Kashmiri people political rights and has targeted pro-independence group like JKLF.

In Pakistani-administered Kashmir, no political parties can contest the general elections if they do not agree to an accession agreement to Pakistan. Because of that, only Pakistan-based political parties end up participating and winning elections in the region.

Also, most of the bureaucracy and civil service is controlled by Islamabad, and a body called the Kashmir Council headed by the Pakistani prime minister oversees all government affairs. Moreover, Pakistan has made efforts to absorb the region into Pakistan by carving out parts of its territory - the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region - and by creating a separate entity for it in the 1970s.

The Pakistani authorities took away GB's special status and until today it is mostly governed by Islamabad directly.

If Pakistan is sincere about the Kashmir cause and cares for the wellbeing of its people, then it must first demonstrate its commitment at home. It can do so only by putting an end to rights abuses and letting Kashmiris decide their own fate. Only then will the world take Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taha Siddiqui
Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-friend-kashmir-190911133539203.html

Author looks like a retard and that's his best pic

 

[Imad.Khan]

Why Balochistan? Referendum in AJK will be held at the same time as in IoK.

In Balochistan so that we can finish this propaganda once and for all. By doing referendum now in AJK and GB we can also bury the issue on our side and also show the world, while Indian refusing to conduct referendum will also benefit us

 

[Pak_Sher]

In a recent opinion piece penned for the New York Times, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the world to wake up to the conflict in Kashmir because if it does not, there is a risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Like previous Pakistani premiers, he sought to present Pakistan as a champion of the Kashmiri cause.

While the world indeed needs to take action on ongoing crackdown and rights abuses in India, it should not overlook the role Pakistan has played in the Kashmiri tragedy.

Over the past decades, it has shown little commitment to Kashmiri self-determination.

When India and Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Kashmir was a princely state which wanted to remain independent, a choice given by the colonial masters to all such entities and agreed upon by both countries.

Pakistan even signed a standstill agreement with the Kashmiri Hindu ruler of that time, Maharaja Hari Singh, which basically meant it agreed to its status as it was. However, a few months later, Pakistan broke that agreement and helped Pashtun tribesmen invade the region, eventually sending its own security forces to Kashmir in a bid to take over the valley.

In response, the Kashmiri ruler asked India for help to defend his kingdom. New Delhi agreed to intervene but only if Kashmir would agree to accede to it, albeit temporarily. The conflict escalated into what has come to be known as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, which led to the de facto partitioning of the region by Pakistan and India.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution, according to which Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its forces first (as it acted as an aggressor), while India was to maintain a minimum military presence until an independence referendum was held to let Kashmiris decide their own future. However, neither India nor Pakistan abided by that resolution.

Then in 1965, the Pakistani military launched a secret mission called Operation Gibraltar which involved military officials infiltrating the valley and attempting to engineer a rebellion from within by mixing themselves with the locals.

The calculations by General Ayub Khan, the Pakistani dictator who was in power at that time, were that since India had just been exhausted by the Sino-Indian War of 1962, there was a good opportunity to take New Delhi by surprise. However, Operation Gibraltar failed to rouse the local population, and instead India launched a counter-offensive, forcing Pakistan to retreat.

Paradoxically, every year on September 6, Pakistan marks its "victory" over the Indian army attacking its territory in 1965. The official narrative does not mention Operation Gibraltar which effectively triggered the conflict.

Then in the aftermath of the 1987 election in the valley, which was widely perceived as rigged, massive agitations broke out in Indian-administered Kashmir, which Pakistan supported. In the wake of these protests, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had taken centre stage and become the leading voice for Kashmir's armed resistance.

A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.

Then in 1999, Pakistan once again attempted to infiltrate the valley using its military in what came to be known as the Kargil War.

In the following two decades, Pakistan-based groups have been repeatedly accused of carrying out terrorist activities, not just in Kashmir but also in mainland India. From the 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi to the Mumbai attack in 2008, to recent attacks in Pathankot and Pulwama, these aggressive tactics have sealed India's perception of the Kashmiris through the lens of its historic confrontation with Pakistan.

With its past actions and hesitancy to crack down on militant groups in its territory, Pakistan has given India repeatedly the opportunity to present the unrest in Kashmir to the world as nothing more than a Pakistan-backed insurgency. This has effectively undermined the struggle of the local population of Indian-administered Kashmir.

At home, Pakistan has also not been too keen to accommodate Kashmiri people political rights and has targeted pro-independence group like JKLF.

In Pakistani-administered Kashmir, no political parties can contest the general elections if they do not agree to an accession agreement to Pakistan. Because of that, only Pakistan-based political parties end up participating and winning elections in the region.

Also, most of the bureaucracy and civil service is controlled by Islamabad, and a body called the Kashmir Council headed by the Pakistani prime minister oversees all government affairs. Moreover, Pakistan has made efforts to absorb the region into Pakistan by carving out parts of its territory - the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region - and by creating a separate entity for it in the 1970s.

The Pakistani authorities took away GB's special status and until today it is mostly governed by Islamabad directly.

If Pakistan is sincere about the Kashmir cause and cares for the wellbeing of its people, then it must first demonstrate its commitment at home. It can do so only by putting an end to rights abuses and letting Kashmiris decide their own fate. Only then will the world take Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taha Siddiqui
Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-friend-kashmir-190911133539203.html

Stay in exile and use lots of burnol.

 

[fitpOsitive]

Nothing wrong in saying that Pakistan doesn't want GB and AJK to go away and become independent. From our POV GB people have no issues, they want to become province eventually. There are some elements in AJK which are pro independence but how many is yet to be seen.

Now we are left with IoK who will likely to vote for independence if India ever gives them this option. Which is unlikely anytime soon.

We are with the people of Kashmir. GB is already ours.

 

[Krptonite]

As someone who faces nearly daily barrage of critical threads about India (perceived or real) I'd like to ask the Pakistani members here which publication or author would be an acceptable source of criticism (constructive or otherwise)

Some members advocated assassination on the basis of an article or the author and that got me thinking, is criticism allowed at all or does anything that deviates from the official forum narrative is discouraged.

Every single critical article posted here is either outright dismissed for having the merest Indian links or simply labelled biased or traitorous. What's allowed ? What's not?

 

[H. Dawary]

What an as^hole!

Sorry if I offended as that was not in my intent, I was simply asking to see what possible options Pakistan has.

There are 3 ways to deal with situations some voices of independence arise.

The first way is UK way, hold a referendum and let the people decide. This way whatever the outcome, atleast the picture will be clear and there will be no room for speculation. Things will quite down itself and there will be no bloodshed or human rights violations. The country's standing will rise among nations.

The 2nd way is the Indian way. send in the military, commit massive human right's abuses, and even after decades the situation will not change. Get the title of occupiers and lose standing among other countries

The 3rd way is the Pakistani way. Do nothing and keep living amidst speculations. Keep providing material for anti-state actors and be a punching bag for the enemy countries.

So if we are confident enough we should hold a referendum in AJK, GB and even in Balochistan.

Perhaps I can add my two cents on this if it will mean anything. Right now the biggest advantage Pakistan has is that the people of Kashmir stand with Pakistan while they are heavily opposed to India, Pakistan should try to press this advantage by trying to help the people of Kashmir. It can do this in two ways,

The first is giving asylum to the Kashmiris who are very heavily affected by India's occupation, the numbers shouldn't go above 50,000-100,000 people as it maybe may have a negative impact on PAK's economy if they take in too many people and also taking in way too many people might make India bold in getting Pakistan to accept more thus making Pakistan lose their claim on Kashmir as the people would have been enough and India could make propaganda out of this. The second is by getting the international community to do something for the Kashmiris in terms of basic resources if the first option is too bold, and Pakistan should try to be at the front of it thus tying themselves even more to IOK and themselves. The world needs to see that Pakistan cares about the Kashmiri people, and thereby discrediting Indias claims to it. What do you all think? I know this suggestion may not be perfect, but it is the best I could come up with.

 

[Clutch]

living in exile in France

Lol... Why?... All the traitors live in Pakistan... Is he more special than Zardari?