The Neelam Plan

[dadeechi]

Did India ever consider this plan?


The Neelam Plan

June 20, 2003

You've started hearing this constant nag of something called the Chenab plan to solve the Kashmir imbroglio.
In its essence, it is a plan being sponsored by Islamist extremists from Pakistan and some of their friends in the US. This generous 'Pakistan keeps whatever it has, but let's negotiate over what India keeps' plan aims to give all of the Indian Kashmir valley independence, while letting Pakistan keep all the territories it now illegally and forcefully occupies.
In other words, this is the same kind of odious thinking that has led to the ethnic cleansing of all minorities from Pakistan -- Kashmiri Muslims cannot live with the infidels, hence they have to cleanse their territory and must make it a different country. You might prefer the more politically correct rendition -- division along ethnic lines -- but make no mistake about its intent.
Unfortunately, it would seem this jihadi Islamist plan has gathered support within some US circles. Saleem Shehzad seems to confirm this report in Asia Times. 'Sources in the Foreign Office familiar with the agenda say that key decisions likely to be agreed on by Musharraf and Bush at Camp David include the following: A clear road map for resolution of the Kashmir conflict in which the "Chanab" formula, which envisages the division of Kashmir along religious lines, is likely to be adopted. Thus, the Muslim-majority areas would be allowed to join Pakistan, while the areas where Hindus and Buddhists are in the majority would remain with India.'
The reason for such an obnoxious plan seeing the light of day?
Simple. India has never bothered to propose anything better. Pakistan, you see, has consistently defined the Kashmir imbroglio over the last 57 years, they have defined the problem, they have defined the issues, they have taken a lead in actions and they now are defining the solution.
Starting with canards like 800,000 Indian soldiers deployed in Kashmir, to the rancid 'indigenous freedom fighters' -- they have always defined the issues; not us. The Chenab formula is just another step in this direction.
While we Indians have excelled at criticizing anything and everything, and even made grandiose empty statements like 'let the talks begin with Azad Kashmir' or 'let's take over Lahore,' we've never bothered to propose any rational plan that would work in India's interests.
Where are the superior ideas, the better solutions and focused strategic actions?
They don't exist -- only the vacuous flatulence of the extreme right and whimpering connivance of the anarchists accentuate this void.
So, here's a potential starting point -- I'll call it the Neelam plan, as suggested by some friends at Bharat-Rakshak.
Background
First, what is the Neelam valley? It is a 144 km long bow-shaped deeply forested region that makes up much of what Pakistanis call Azad Kashmir. The Neelam River enters Pakistan from India in the Gurais sector of the Line of Control, and then runs west till it meets the Jhelum north of Muzzafarabad.
The mighty Neelam River cuts a breathtakingly beautiful furrow in the land -- the Neelam valley; the valley of death and the valley of hatred. This valley and the region around it are infested with every kind of terrorist vermin that Pakistanis have been able to rustle up, with the buying power of their extortion, drug-running and charity money.
So, when you think Neelam valley, think about 4-year-old Suraj from Nadimarg, who was shot and killed in his mother's arms; think of Sharifa Bi of Mandi, who was first set on fire and subsequently had these flames extinguished, forcing her to die in slow agonizing pain. If there's ever a terrorist brutality in Kashmir, you can bet that the perpetrators were trained, launched or passed through this valley of death.
Second, some description of what's happening in the region called Northern Areas. Simply put, what we call Azad Kashmir, they call 'Azad Kashmir' and Northern Areas. The Northern Areas consist of the Gilgit and Baltistan districts of Jammu and Kashmir. The natives of Gilgit Baltistan are the most oppressed people in the entire Indian sub-continent. They have no economic development, have been occupied by Pakistani Punjabis who ill-treat them, no constitution and few, if any human rights. Unlike the people of J&K, who we have treated with special privileges like Article 370, extreme government charity and now even reservations in colleges, the people of Gilgit and Baltistan are truly under brutal occupation.
In fact, our friendly neighborhood dictator Musharraf, first rose to fame in 1988 by massacring people in this region to put down a revolt, with the able help of a then unknown fanatic -- Osama Bin Laden. But, that is another story.
Why don't we know all this about Gilgit/Baltistan? Because depending upon who is in power, our foreign ministry has either been hugging the terrorists or making plans to capture Lahore.
The Plan
While the Chenab plan is based on the bigoted principles of 'division along ethnic lines,' the Neelam plan is focused on clamping down on terrorism and prevention of religious clashes in India. Clearly, these principles only apply to India, since terrorism is revered as freedom-fighting in Pakistan and other religions have mysteriously disappeared (from 20% to about 3% in 5 decades) from the land of the pure. Unlike the Chenab plan, which does nobody any good apart from a few hallucinating generals at GHQ at Rawalpindi, the Neelam plan actually has a sound basis, namely:

• Artificial countries based on religion alone are a hassle -- Britain has already tried that with the creation of Pakistan -- been there, done that; doesn't quite work.
• Any plan that does not explicitly take into account US strategic interests in the area will become road-kill -- so ensure easy US access to the Chinese border.
• Water is the biggest strategic issue in the subcontinent -- talk about it, don't hide it, avoid the next war.
• Terrorism and not the over-hyped repression of the people of Kashmir will cause the next nuclear war -- so, address it.

There are 5 basic principles and 5 associated actions that constitute the Neelam plan:
First, the absorption of integrated areas. India has demonstrated through its fair elections of last year, the enormous dollars spent in economic development ($5 billion) in Kashmir and the special attempts at integration such as reservation in out-of-state colleges, that J&K is well on its way to full-fledged integration with India. For better results, arcane constitutional artifacts, such as Article 370 need to be done away with. Improved industrial investment will follow.
Pakistan has never managed to integrate any part of its country, let alone Azad Kashmir. A vague case may be made that what they call 'Azad' Kashmir has been integrated as an armed camp, but this should be subject to LoC alterations, as described below.
Second, freedom for the oppressed. The brutally oppressed people of Gilgit and Baltistan have faced complete abrogation of their constitutional and human rights, with hardly any economic development for the last 55 years. Their lands have seen murderous occupation and their standard of living makes the sub-Saharan Africans feel mighty privileged.
According to the Neelam plan, the Northern areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) will become a free country and Pakistani garrisons currently encamped there, will have to depart. Naturally, the Pakistani Punjabis currently usurping people's rights in this land, will immediately become illegal aliens and over a period of time, will have to obtain appropriate work visas to remain there.
Both India and Pakistan need to officially obtain transit rights through this land. This will bring about a demilitarization of the Deosai Plain and thus effect a natural stabilization in places like Siachen, Kargil and Drass.
From the perspective of the main interlocutor, the US, direct access to the Deosai plains could be a strategic coup in its oncoming superpower battles with China. There possibly is no better strategic location for US forces in the northern regions of South Asia -- certainly, far better than being located in the Kashmir valley. All this comes with the added benefit of not having to upset relations with a potential strategic partner -- India.
Third, clamping down on terrorism. The only terrorism of consequence in South and Central Asia seems to originate from Pakistan. There are two problems here -- first, the Neelam valley has become the launching pad and terrorism training grounds; second, Pakistan views terrorism as a legitimate instrument of State policy.
For the first problem, the solution is quite clear -- reduce drastically, the scope of the Neelam valley to act as the biggest terrorist training camp in the world. This is achieved by moving the LoC into the Neelam valley and better international mediation. The specific steps are:
1. Move the LoC north of Gurais till it covers the all infiltration routes emerging from the Burzil Pass.
2. Move the LoC in the Kupwara area to enclose the Neelam valley segment north of Muzaffarabad.
3. Move the Haji Pir Pass within India, since it is the entrance point for most terrorists in J&K.
4. Move the LoC South of Poonch closer to New Mirpur, perhaps along the Poonch river, this will drastically reduce terrorist breeding grounds.
5. Have UN troops guard the rest of 'Azad Kashmir.'
6. The independence of Gilgit Baltistan to the north will bring about a closure of terrorist training and coordination camps in Gilgit, Astore, Skardu and the Deosai Plains area.
The second issue of Pakistan using terrorism as State policy is a little more difficult. Here, international lenders in return for monetary aid must ask for intrusive UN monitoring within Pakistan to ensure that the ISI and other groups do not engage in terrorism.
Connecting monetary aid directly to stopping Pakistani terrorism is the only way to ensure that there isn't a terrorism-induced nuclear war in the sub-continent. The IMF has always used this policy to open up markets for the West; so why not use a similar approach to contain the scourge of jihadi terrorism in the country that has been referred to as the 'epicenter of terrorism'?
Fourth, equitable distribution of water. The Indus Water Treaty is inherently inequitable -- it does not take into consideration that India's population is about 8 times that of Pakistan and Pakistan has eliminated or pushed into India almost all of its ethnic minorities since independence. This treaty must be declared invalid and must be renegotiated on the basis of the population balance on either side of the border.
An equitable distribution would imply that India gets around 40% of the waters currently earmarked for Pakistan. Pakistan has so far depended upon India's inability to use its water resources aggressively and as a consequence not developed its water resource infrastructures adequately. Without such re-negotiation, Pakistan may not realize the criticality of doing so on its own -- leading to disaster for Pakistan within this decade.
If this issue is not solved, the Indus Water Treaty, and not Kashmir, will lead to the next nuclear war -- water has already become the most precious resource in India.
Fifth, no one-sided guns to anybody's head. The only hope for the Pakistani economy are transit fees from oil pipelines. These pipelines will remain pipe dreams unless India agrees to be the key destination market for this oil. One of the main reasons for US interest in peace in Kashmir is related to the big dollars that would roll into the pockets into US oil giants if these pipelines do not flow through Iran.
Unfortunately if these pipelines become reality, Pakistan just obtains a large economic gun to put to India's head. To be fair, any gas pipelines should only be considered if at the same time, India is allowed to build up the infrastructure required to completely stop water to Pakistan. In other words, if Pakistan has the ability to shut off energy supply to India, then India must have the ability to shut off water supply to Pakistan. No one-way weapons, please.
Plan Summary:
1. Complete and equal integration of J&K into India.
2. Freedom for Northern Areas and removal of all Pakistani garrisons.
3. No international charity for terrorists and permanent clamp down on the valley of death and hatred -- the Neelam valley
a. Incorporate Haji Pir into India;
b. Move the LoC from Gurais to Tithwal northwards until it covers the Neelam valley all the way up to Muzaffarabad
c. Move Naushara LoC to New Mirpur;
d. UN monitoring in 'Azad Kashmir';
4. Renegotiate the Indus Water Treaty according to population distributions.
5. No pipelines through Pakistan without equal water shut off capabilities for India.
Where do we go from here?
Division along ethnic lines is pure bigotry. Even if such a strategy makes some twisted short-term strategic sense for the superpowers of the day, in time such a division will lead to the same kind of problems that Palestine and Pakistan cause today. Thousands and hundreds of thousands will die -- we must therefore learn from the historical mistakes of the British. Why repeat the greatest mistakes of the last century?
Remember, the problem is not Kashmir, it is and has always been terrorism -- just take a look at the hordes of Pakistan-based Talibanis beginning to kill Germans, Afghans and Americans in Afghanistan at regular intervals. Nobody believes that the solution to this problem is to give back Afghanistan to the Taliban. Thus, no problem in Kashmir will be solved by rewarding the jihadi terrorists or the Islamist fanatics. Clamping down on terrorism and preventing it permanently, has to be the basis for any peace in the Indian continent. This is the goal of the Neelam plan and should be the basis of any settlement that is reached.
As I finish this article, there are reports on India being pushed towards the Chenab plan. The main protagonists seem to be Pakistani-Americans with only Pakistani strategic interests at heart. For the sake of India and the rest of the world, I hope that the editors of Kashmir Telegraph are wrong when they say:
'Kashmir Telegraph has reasons to believe -- beyond any shadow of doubt -- that United States is 'arm-twisting' Pakistan -- more specifically, India, in accepting the 'Chenab Plan.' A 'sinister plot', which if America has its way, brings about the division of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir on religious lines -- with Muslim-majority areas accorded a quasi-sovereign status. BJP -- the ruling party -- it seems, has all along been clandestinely involved in this sinister plot, which undermines the basis principle -- rejection of the two-nation theory -- on the basis of which India was founded. It is in this context that one must examine the remarks of General Jay Garner, setting December 2004 as the American deadline for resolving the Kashmir issue.'
In the past, India has happily given away precious water of the Indus, the Coco islands, the Tibetan buffer, control of the Haji Pir pass, 90,000 Pakistani PoWs and other strategic advantages without any payback at all. This time, the hope is that our leaders will not give away strategic strangleholds, for minor personal or political gains.
The Neelam plan represents the beginnings of a proposal that represents Indian interests as opposed to placing India in a position of constantly fighting off Pakistani expeditions. Let us at least start here.
Arindam Banerji (arindam_banerji@yahoo.com) took the usual route of going from the IITs, through a PhD in the US, to finally working at sundry research labs. He describes himself as a scientist, entrepreneur, and political thinker on South Asian geo-political issues.

The Neelam Plan

 

[dadeechi]

Why India Insists on Keeping Gilgit Baltistan Firmly in the Kashmir Equation

New Delhi’s move to raise objections to Pakistan’s plan of holding an election in Azad Kashmir’s Gilgit-Baltistan region may appear to be an afterthought, but it is, in fact, the belated assertion of a simple principle: In a dispute, express your maximal position, rather than the one you will compromise on.
For long years, indeed, beginning in 1947 itself, India had tended to play down, if not ignore, its own legal claim over what Pakistan used to term as the Northern Areas and now calls Gilgit Baltistan. As a result, the world assumed the ‘Kashmir problem’ only pertained to the Kashmir Valley which was in India’s possession. Thus, when it came to compromises, it put the onus on New Delhi.
It is this principle that informs Beijing’s tough stand on the Sino-Indian border. In 1960 and 1980 they were agreeable to swapping claims and broached the idea with New Delhi. However, India rejected the proposal, and since it was holding on to Arunachal Pradesh, the area it claimed in the east, it hoped that it could persuade China to part with some 3000 or so sq kms in the Aksai Chin area. However, beginning 1985, China turned tables on the stunned Indian negotiators by insisting that the bigger dispute lay in the east and has since been demanding concessions from India in that sector. It has said it is willing to concede India’s claim to most of Arunachal if India is willing to part with the Tawang tract.
When it comes to Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, India has clearly taken a page from the Chinese playbook.
In 2009 and 2010, India responded sharply to reports of the presence of Chinese soldiers and workers in the region.“India believes that Pakistan has been in illegal occupation of parts of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947. The Chinese side is fully aware of India’s position and our concerns about Chinese activities in Azad Kashmir”, the MEA said in 2009. In 2010 similar concerns were raised.
Last month, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval raised eyebrows when he reminded an audience of BSF officers that “we also have a 106-km-long non-contiguous border with Afghanistan that we need to factor in,” a clear reference to Gilgit Baltistan’s Afghan frontier. Now, in similar vein, Vikas Swarup, the spokesman for the external affairs ministry, said on Tuesday: “India’s position is well known. The entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, which includes the regions of Gilgit and Baltistan, is an integral part of India.”
The election, which is scheduled for June 8, is as an attempt by Islamabad “to camouflage its forcible and illegal occupation of the regions” and to deny its people their political rights; it is being held under a belated effort by Islamabad to give the region a figment of self-rule, the MEA said in a strong statement on Tuesday.
The Gilgit Baltistan area of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan covers 85,793 sq km. It was further divided in 1970 into two separate administrative divisions: Mirpur-Muzaffarabad (which Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or AJK) and the Federally Administered Gilgit-Baltistan.
Gilgit-Baltistan was earlier referred to as the “Northern Areas” in Pakistan. Pakistan illegally ceded the Shaksgam Valley, around 5,180 sq km, to China in a 1963 border agreement.
Swarup said the proposed election in Gilgit and Baltistan under the so-called ‘Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment and Self Government Order’ of 2009 is an attempt by Pakistan to absorb these territories.
“We are concerned at the continued efforts by Pakistan to deny the people of the region their political rights, and the efforts being made to absorb these territories. The fact that a federal minister of Pakistan is also the ‘Governor of Gilgit Baltistan’ speaks for itself,” he added.
Battle for Gilgit
The Gilgit agency was leased by the British from the Maharaja of Kashmir because of its stratgegic location south of Afghanistan and China. It was administered by a British officer and policed by the Gilgit Scouts which were, too, officered by the British. In July 1947, the British decided to terminate the lease and return it to the Maharaja who took over the control of the region as of August 1, 1947, and appointed Brigadier Ghansar Singh as governor. But two officers of the Gilgit Scouts, Major W A Brown and Captain A S Mathieson, along with Subedar Major Babar Khan, a relative of the Mir of Hunza conspired to overthrow the government.

Brigadier Ghansar Singh
On October 31, 1947, after the Pakistan-backed raiders had entered Kashmir, the three conspirators tried to capture the government along with a company of Gilgit Scouts. But the Brigadier got up and engaged the rebels and in the morning Brown asked the governor to surrender, threatening a massacre of non-Muslims in Gilgit. Brigadier Singh surrendered and set up a provisional government under Major Brown and a number of Poonchi Muslims who had killed their Sikh colleagues in the 6 Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry located at Bunji, 50 kms away. The Pakistan flag was hoisted and from here, Pakistani regulars and irregulars launched attacks on the other towns and cities of the region like Skardu, Dras, Kargil and Leh.
No fiction of Azadi
Pakistan did not bother with any fiction of “Azad” Gilgit-Baltistan, nor did it claim that the government represented the will of the people. Two weeks after Brown’s coup, a nominee of the Pakistan government, Sardar Mohammed Alam, was appointed Political Agent and took possession of the territory.
From the outset, India was less than categorical about its desire to resume control of the Gilgit-Baltistan area, though Nehru did insist that as part of the UN resolution requiring the removal of Pakistani forces from J&K, the Pakistani regulars and irregulars ought to be removed from Gilgit-Baltistan as well.
However, when the Dixon proposals came up in 1950, which sought to partition the state, India went along with the proposal for allotment to Pakistan of those areas where there was no apparent doubt about the wishes of the people wanting to go the Pakistan, and Gilgit-Baltistan was one of these areas, along with areas of Jammu west of the ceasefire line. Jammu, Ladakh, and Kargil would go to India and the plebiscite would be held in the Valley and parts of Muzaffarabad. However, this proposal came to nought because Pakistan wanted a plebiscite over the whole state.
Shias targeted
In 1970, Pakistan changed the name of the region to “Northern Areas”, but kept it detached from Azad Kashmir. But while AJK was given a semblance of constitutional government right from the outset, Gilgit Baltistan was in a constitutional limbo, or simply a colony of Pakistan. In 2009, Pakistan finally sought to give some legal cover to this relationship by passing a Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order in the Cabinet and getting presidential assent for it. The order allegedly granted self-rule to the people by creating a legislative assembly and a council, yet did not provide for any constitutional means of linking it to Pakistan. Islamabad believes that this way it is able to maintain its somewhat convoluted stand on Jammu & Kashmir.
Pakistan’s role in the region has not been particularly responsible. According to estimates, some 70 per cent of the population are Shias of various denominations and only 30 per cent or so are Sunnis. However, since the Zia-ul-Haq era, an effort has been made to alter the sectarian balance in the region. In 1988, a huge Lashkar of Sunni extremists was sent in to chastise the Shia population, triggering sectarian strife which has now recurred regularly over the years. And in recent times, the general climate of violence against Shias in Pakistan has taken a toll in the Gilgit-Baltistan region as well. Tuesday’s MEA statement makes a reference to these issues too, for added measure: “Unfortunately in recent times the people of the region have also become victims of sectarian conflict, terrorism and extreme economic hardship due to Pakistan’s occupationary policies.”
China corridor
Since the Pakistan-China agreement in 1963 which saw the transfer of the Shaksgam Valley to China, Beijing has been an important player in the region. Beginning in the mid-1960s, China constructed the Karakoram Highway linking Kashghar in Xinjiang with Gilgit and Abbottabad through the Khunjerab Pass. Though prone to landslides, efforts are on to upgrade this highway and make it an axis of China’s Silk Road Initiative which will link Xinjiang to Gwadar port in Balochistan through the highway, a possible railroad and oil and gas pipeline. China has invested in a number of projects in the Gilgit-Baltistan region and the Chinese connection is an important element of the region’s economy. During his recent visit, President Xi Jinping committed some $46 billion to projects in Pakistan.
China says that it is seeking to stabilise the region as Pakistan melts down and is ensuring that there is no blowback into its vulnerable province of Xinjiang. However, India cannot take that at face value, since the legal title of the region through which the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will run through vests with India. This is the reason the Indian side has protested Chinese activity in Azad Kashmir in the past and again recently. However, this is only a subtext of the larger Indian complaint about the Sino-Pak nexus.
The writer is a Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation.
This article has been edited to add a reference and hyperlink to India’s 2009 and 2010 statements on Gilgit Baltistan.

Why India Insists on Keeping Gilgit Baltistan Firmly in the Kashmir Equation | The Wire

Why this is an opportune moment for India to call for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir

India should immediately hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.
Call it a referendum or plebiscite, but India will win hands down. There will be very few takers for a merger with Pakistan or independence. The resounding verdict will put an end to the debate once and for all. So let’s just get it over and done with.
I must admit that I wasn’t aware of the win-win situation for India in Jammu and Kashmir until 10 August, when I attended the launch of former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief AS Dulat’s book Kashmir: The Vajpayee Years, at the Oxford bookstore in Kolkata. As a result of Dulat’s presence at the event, the strategic community – serving and retired senior RAW, IB and army officers – was also in attendance.

<img class="size-full wp-image-2413586" src="http://s2.firstpost.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Kashmiri-Pandits_Reuters1.jpg" alt="Representational image. Reuters" width="380" height="285" />
Representational image. Reuters
The chief guest of the evening was General Shankar Roychowdhury, retired chief of army staff. After he did the honours, the audience heard with rapt attention a no-holds-barred discussion between Dulat and Sunanda K Datta-Ray, famous columnist who once edited The Statesman, about the book. .
After the tête-à-tête, the discussion was thrown open to the house. Several speakers stood up to ask questions or express an opinion. Without much ado, Lt Gen John Ranjan Mukherjee — the GOC of Srinagar-based 15 Corps in Jammu and Kashmir until 2001 — told the house that a plebiscite is the best solution for the festering problem because the will of the majority of people in Jammu and Kashmir is with India.
Pakistan, according to him, is living in a world of fantasy as 80 to 90 percent of the population of the state stands staunchly behind India regardless of their gripes over the quality of governance for decades.
After these stunning opening remarks, General Mukherjee provided a detailed community-wise break-up of the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions in Indian-administered Kashmir and the southern and northern areas of Azad Kashmir, to bolster his case for a plebiscite.
In the Jammu region, 66 percent of the population is Hindu anyway. Muslims account for 30 percent, in addition to four percent belonging to other ethnic groups. But 65 percent of Jammu’s Muslims are Shias who are bitterly anti-Pakistan because of the treatment meted out to Shias in Pakistan. Between eight and 10 percent of the Muslim population are ethnic Kashmiri Sunni Muslims — representing three to five percent of Jammu’s population. By General Mukherjee’s reckoning, at least 95 percent of Jammu’s population would vote for India in a referendum — barring Kashmiri Sunni Muslims.
In the Kashmir region, the mountain tribes like Gujjars, Bakkarwals, Paharis, Baltis and Shins comprise 20 percent of the population, and are staunchly pro-India. They regard ethnic Kashmiri Sunni Muslims — accounting for 65 to 70 percent of the population — as exploiters. Among the rest, 10 to 15 percent are Hindus and Sikhs, and five percent are Shias.
Among Kashmir’s Sunni Muslims, 20 to 25 percent are pro-India, while five percent are pro-Pakistan. Ten to 15 percent are pro-independence and 50 to 55 percent are fence-sitters, who wish to get on with their lives and are not concerned about who rules, as long as they can live in peace. But at the heart of their requirements is greater autonomy.
General Mukherjee said that if greater autonomy is ensured and if the Hindus, Sikhs, Shias and mountain tribes continue being as pro-India as they are, 70 to 80 percent of Kashmir’s population would passionately vote to remain in India.
In the Ladakh region, the entire population is pro-India, anti-Pakistan and anti-Kashmir as Buddhists and Shia Muslims account for 52 percent and 45 percent of the population respectively.
The General concluded that an objective analysis of ethnicity and religious patterns in the state left no doubt in his mind that India enjoys the backing of a formidable 80 to 90 per cent of the total population.
In Azad Kashmir, barely 10 percent are ‘real’ Kashmiris entitled to vote in a plebiscite. The rest are Punjabi ex-servicemen, Afghans and Mirpuris settled there by the government of Pakistan to engineer a radical change in the region’s demography.
The speech totally blew my mind. It wasn’t Tom, Dick or Harry holding forth but a straight-talking army commander with inside knowledge of what Bill Clinton once called the most dangerous place on earth, addressing a gathering of those in the know of things.
Having always been under the impression that an overwhelming majority in Jammu and Kashmir is pro-Pakistan, I decided to cross-check his assertions with my contacts in the security establishment. They told me that what the General had said was accurate and known to those who dealt with Kashmir on a regular basis, the information-cum-analysis wasn’t in the public domain for obvious reasons.
After having the privilege of listening to such an honest, powerful and logical advocacy of a referendum in the troubled state, I’m convinced that despite three full-blown wars, Kargil incursions and the unending export of terror to India by successive Pakistani regimes, we should still call Islamabad’s bluff and agree to a plebiscite.
SNM Abdi is a Firstpost columnist and former Deputy Editor of Outlook

Are Kashmiri Shias The Next Pandits?
The Shia community has shrunk into small enclaves, gradually taking the shape of ghettos, a sharp contrast to earlier times when Shias and other Kashmiri minorities were scattered all along the interiors of Srinagar city

File photo
Fatima received a fatal injury in police action during sectarian clashes that broke out in Budgam district of Kashmir valley in July this year. According to her relatives, Fatima was looking for her grandson outside her house when she was hit on the head by a policeman. Nearly a week later Fatima succumbed. Usually the killing of a civilian by the police invokes the people’s wrath. People from all walks of life come out on the roads to protest the “brutality”; however, Fatima’s burial was a comparatively silent one. Perhaps the people were apprehensive about the implications their reactions might lead to. In a place where dying for a “cause” is routine, death on sectarian lines does not fit the usual scheme of things. Rather it raises many serious questions and puts forward some ugly challenges before society.
Fatima belonged to a Shia family. Shias are a minority among Muslims in Jammu & Kashmir.
Historically, the flourishing of the Shia sect in the Kashmir Valley is attributed to Mir Shamsuddin Araqi, a saint and religious scholar who came to Kashmir during the reign of the Chak dynasty in the later part of the 15th century. The Chak rule is considered to be the only golden period for Shias in the whole history of Kashmir. However, it was just after the downfall of the Chaks that the persecution of Shias started. After the Mughals, it was the Afghan rule in Kashmir that became a threat for the Shiite community. The hatred for this minority was visible through plunders and massacres. It was during this period that the Shia community started practicing ‘Taqiyah’ (hiding one’s religious beliefs for one’s own safety) for safeguarding their lives and honour. Since then Shiites in Kashmir have seen many highs and lows.
In the year 1947 and after, Shiites took active part in the political affairs of the State. In many instances they were at the forefront of Kashmir’s struggle for independence – a sizeable population from the community also had to suffer at the hands of the State for their pro-Pakistan leanings. Munshi Mohammad Ishaq, a Shia leader was a prominent figure of the historic Plebiscite Movement. And during the armed uprising in Kashmir in the late 80’s the Shia community also had a militant outfit Hizb-ul-Mominoon (the party of the faithful). Many of this group’s ‘boys’ were either killed or arrested.
A scholar from the Shia community Ibne Muhammad (name changed) says, “The Shia community is a strong stake holder in Kashmir and we have been participating fully in the political struggle of Kashmir throughout its history.” Talking about the diversity of political thought within the community he says, “You can find a Shia presence across the political spectrum of Kashmir. There is a Shia leader in every major separatist and mainstream political party here.”
In spite of such active participation in Kashmir’s political affairs, many incidents over the last two decades, especially the sectarian violence in Pakistan, have created a serious threat perception among Shias in the Valley.
The Shia population in Kashmir lives in small pockets. In the capital city Srinagar they are mostly confined to Dal (Mir Behri), Zadibal and Shalimar areas. Budgam is the only town in the Valley where Shias form a majority.
But incidents and events over the past two decades have led to a situation where the Shia community has shrunk into small enclaves, gradually taking the shape of ghettos, a sharp contrast to earlier times when Shias and other Kashmiri minorities were scattered all along the interiors of Srinagar city. “The revival of sectarian based politics in Pakistan and Middle East, and the dramatic resurgence of anti-Shia forces there reinforced the fears of the community,” says Masroor Ansari, son of former Hurriyat president Moulvi Abass Ansari and the current president of Itehadul Muslimeen, a constituent of the moderate separatist amalgam Hurriyat Conference. He further says that fears actually worsened after the entry of foreign armed militants in Kashmir in the late eighties, with some militant groups actively supported by the Pakistani Wahabi organisations, perceived by the Shia community to be influenced by anti-Shia hate propaganda.
Although there is not much representation in the legislation, a few Shia politicians including representatives from Kargil are present in the State Assembly. Besides a senior leader of the main opposition party PDP, Moulvi Iftikhaar Hussain Ansari and a young politician Aga Ruhullah who is associated with the ruling party National Conference (NC) had a cabinet rank before the recent reshuffle.
Ansari reiterates that there has been manipulation through delimitation of districts and tehsils because of which eight Shia community majority pockets in Kashmir have now been reduced to only three. Recently, two cabinet ministers from the previous Council of Ministers, Qamar Ali Akhoon from Kargil and Aga Syed Ruhallah from Budgam, were dropped in the reshuffle. Only one member of the community, Firoz Khan from Kargil has been inducted as MoS (Minister of state). This can only be seen as a raw deal given to the Shia community, which has a population of 15 lakh in the state.
There is a perception of discrimination among Kashmiri Shiites on other fronts as well. One of which is the ban on Muharram processions which the community considers as the denial of basic and fundamental rights. Muharram processions have been banned in Kashmir since the armed conflict began in the disputed region in 1989. Only in few Shia-dominated localities, are processions allowed. On the 8th and 10th day of Muharram, streets are blocked and people are asked not to join the processions. Peaceful Muharram processions are attacked by the police; and people taking part in the themare brutally cane-charged, manhandled and whisked away in police gypsies. This denial of basic rights by the state authorities is condemned by many locals and experts as well. “The state authorities say that emotional and religious rituals could be used by separatists to stoke up anti-India sentiments”, says Dr Altaf Hussain, member of a civil society in Kashmir. “Ban on the Muharram procession is totally unacceptable. The police beat Shia Muslims ruthlessly, and for what crime? The procession used to be carried out before ban and it should be resumed now also. They (government authorities) are just using the ‘threat of attacks’ as a means to politicise the issue further,” a member of the local Shia community says. Ibne Muhammad, a local scholar from a Shia majority area in Srinagar refuses to accept the government’s security excuse as a valid argument for the ban on Muharram processions. He says, “If arrangements can be made for the annual Amaranth yatra that lasts for two months and political rallies can be organised, for which the government makes proper security arrangements, why can’t they make it possible to review the earlier route of the Muharram procession? It barely has to cover seven kilometres and involves the city area of Srinagar district only”. Muhammad alleges prejudice in certain quarters of the establishment as a reason to continue this ban.
In Kashmir, religion plays a significant role in society. The ban on any of the religious rights of people adds to the already existing mood of conflict and unrest. “The government cannot deny the people their right to peacefully observe religious rituals just because a few senior Shia clerics happen to be separatist leaders (Maulana Abbas Ansari is former chairman of Hurriyat Conference and Aga Hasan Mosavi, president of Anjuman Sharee Shiaan, is an executive member of the Hurriyat Conference). It indeed needs to be highlighted that the ongoing separatist movement is not a Sunni movement only; the Shias play an equally catalytic role in it and perhaps that’s why the State fails to distinguish between ‘Azaadi’ and ‘Azadari’ (mourning) processions”, says Ansari condemning the ban.
Aga Ruhallah says that he has already taken up this issue with Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and that talks are on. However, nothing seems to have been done on the ground as yet.
The intolerance against the Shias in Kashmir that started decades ago, is still visible today. Some people from the majority communities find it easy to attack and develop insecurity in the minds of Shias. This can be gauged through various social networking websites where hate pages against Shias are created quite often, and where the Shiites face criticism on various fronts. Counter attacks and criticism from the Shiites follow suit. In the backdrop of such vitiated atmosphere, miscreants on Facebook find it easy to drive a wedge between Shia and the Sunni communities by commenting that Shias will have to leave Kashmir like the Pandits. Reacting to it, Ruhullah says, “I would like to die in my own motherland than leave…I was the first one to embrace social media, but now I feel that it should be banned”.
Commenting on this community friction, hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Geelani terms it as the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the Indian government. He says that India has been playing such a divide and rule policy in Kashmir by creating fissures between various communities to deviate the attention from ‘azaadi’. “We tried to sort out such issues by calling a meeting of religious scholars from all shades, including Shia and Sunni leaders, but the authorities did not allow that meeting to happen,” adds Geelani.
Experts say that various agencies are involved in creating the split between the Shia and Sunni communities. ‘‘There are no Shia-Sunni issues in Kashmir, and can never be unless it is engineered by some agencies”, says Professor Sheikh Showkat Hussain, a renowned academician in Kashmir.
What adds more to the plight of Kashmiri Shias is the internal conflict and loopholes within the community itself. Such conflicts give rise to a situation where development remains far from sight. Lack of education and negligence on the part of Shiite leaders are prime reasons that this community is still underdeveloped. The socio-economic condition of the community is a sad chapter in the story of the relatively better-off and actively growing city of Srinagar.
‘‘Shia clerics have kept their community, especially the women folk uneducated”, says Dr Hussain, blaming the clerics for the under development of the community. Ansari says the government is not doing enough for the upliftment of the Shias. ‘‘Generally Shia youth are in the private sector but they don’t get paid well. They only earn 1000 to 2000 rupees per month, which is equal to nothing for a youth who has family load on his head”, Ansari adds.
Thus, the socio-political problems, the backwardness within the community and the events that have shaped the history of Kashmiri Shias on the whole, have ensured that Shias continue to live in a state of dilemma. And Fatima’s family is one among the many Shia families that live out their lives in a state of flux, and fear.
Sakina is still mentally shattered since the day she lost Fatima, her mother-in-law, who was no less than her own mother. Her eyes fail to hide the pain within her as she narrates the story of Fatima’s painful death.


Are Kashmiri Shias The Next Pandits? | Tehelka - Investigations, Latest News, Politics, Analysis, Blogs, Culture, Photos, Videos, Podcasts

 

[WAJsal]

Shias targeted
In 1970, Pakistan changed the name of the region to “Northern Areas”, but kept it detached from Azad Kashmir. But while AJK was given a semblance of constitutional government right from the outset, Gilgit Baltistan was in a constitutional limbo, or simply a colony of Pakistan. In 2009, Pakistan finally sought to give some legal cover to this relationship by passing a Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order in the Cabinet and getting presidential assent for it. The order allegedly granted self-rule to the people by creating a legislative assembly and a council, yet did not provide for any constitutional means of linking it to Pakistan. Islamabad believes that this way it is able to maintain its somewhat convoluted stand on Jammu & Kashmir.
Pakistan’s role in the region has not been particularly responsible. According to estimates, some 70 per cent of the population are Shias of various denominations and only 30 per cent or so are Sunnis. However, since the Zia-ul-Haq era, an effort has been made to alter the sectarian balance in the region. In 1988, a huge Lashkar of Sunni extremists was sent in to chastise the Shia population, triggering sectarian strife which has now recurred regularly over the years. And in recent times, the general climate of violence against Shias in Pakistan has taken a toll in the Gilgit-Baltistan region as well. Tuesday’s MEA statement makes a reference to these issues too, for added measure: “Unfortunately in recent times the people of the region have also become victims of sectarian conflict, terrorism and extreme economic hardship due to Pakistan’s occupationary policies.”

Absolutely absurd. Listen the state isn't stupid to target the majority, this bullshit propaganda should stop. A couple of years isn't recent times. There haven't been any sectarian killings in recent times(a year or so, or more). Army has done well to neutralize elements looking to spark sectarian conflict. This bullshit should stop....

Pakistan did not bother with any fiction of “Azad” Gilgit-Baltistan, nor did it claim that the government represented the will of the people. Two weeks after Brown’s coup, a nominee of the Pakistan government, Sardar Mohammed Alam, was appointed Political Agent and took possession of the territory.

This was inncorrect, as the government did represent the will of the people. All the mir's accepted accession to Pakistan, which was what they were pushing for too, and eventually after driving the Dogra's out this was achieved. for example:

The government set up at the time did represent people's will...

China corridor
Since the Pakistan-China agreement in 1963 which saw the transfer of the Shaksgam Valley to China, Beijing has been an important player in the region. Beginning in the mid-1960s, China constructed the Karakoram Highway linking Kashghar in Xinjiang with Gilgit and Abbottabad through the Khunjerab Pass. Though prone to landslides, efforts are on to upgrade this highway and make it an axis of China’s Silk Road Initiative which will link Xinjiang to Gwadar port in Balochistan through the highway, a possible railroad and oil and gas pipeline. China has invested in a number of projects in the Gilgit-Baltistan region and the Chinese connection is an important element of the region’s economy. During his recent visit, President Xi Jinping committed some $46 billion to projects in Pakistan.
China says that it is seeking to stabilise the region as Pakistan melts down and is ensuring that there is no blowback into its vulnerable province of Xinjiang. However, India cannot take that at face value, since the legal title of the region through which the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will run through vests with India. This is the reason the Indian side has protested Chinese activity in *** in the past and again recently. However, this is only a subtext of the larger Indian complaint about the Sino-Pak nexus

Cry me a effing river. It's road and connectivity for the love of...No shit Indian government couldn't keep insisting on their statement. GB side of the CPEC was completed when Karakorum highway was made, we simply upgraded it. CPEC running through,lol.

Why India Insists on Keeping Gilgit Baltistan Firmly in the Kashmir Equation

Strategically an important region. Then again what is the point as Indians in general and somewhat officially want to end this issue and make the controlled territory international borders. No point in keeping it a part of equation when you are not trying to solve the equation.

The Northern Areas consist of the Gilgit and Baltistan districts of Jammu and Kashmir. The natives of Gilgit Baltistan are the most oppressed people in the entire Indian sub-continent. They have no economic development, have been occupied by Pakistani Punjabis who ill-treat them, no constitution and few, if any human rights.

lol, whatever you say. All this article is based on is simple propaganda. economically, socially, and basic lively hood and etc,e tc.. GB is doing much better compared to the rest of the country, education rate excellent. Stop this bullshit, please. unfortunately for whoever wrote this article people are doing quite well. The government and locals doing a great job.
Hunza Valley: Pakistan's 'real Shangri-La' is a world free from militant Islamists, poverty, pollution and a lacklustre education system | Asia | News | The Independent

I think a local would know if there was any oppression or not. save me the bullshit.

But, but women are oppressed, forced to stay at home, don't get basic education. Save me the bullshit.

Education In The Mountains



@Slav Defence ,@Icarus , @Irfan Baloch i can provide more reasons to close this thread, full of propaganda.