Kashmir Dispute Terrorism and Pakistan

By Dr Shabir Choudhry

The Muslim League, a party which championed the cause of Paksitan was set up on 28 December 1906 in Dhaka, with the following objectives:
1. To promote among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the British government
and to remove misunderstandings;
2. To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Muslims, and to
represent properly their needs and aspirations to the British government; and
3. To prevent the rise of hostility among Muslims toward other communities.
The Muslim League and the rulers of Pakistan, to date, have very sincerely served the British and the American interests in Pakistan and in the region. The bitter fact is that the landed aristocracy, the Generals and the security forces now control Pakistan and its destiny; and sad thing is even they dont know what is the destiny of this unfortunate country and how to reach there.

When the British Raj ended in India on 15 August 1947, the State of Jammu and Kashmir also gained its independence. The Government of Pakistan acknowledged this fact by entering a Standstill Agreement with the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan violated the Agreement and attacked Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October 1947.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse UK
• Release date: Nov 28, 2016
• ISBN: 9781524664213

Dr Shabir Choudhry

DR SHABIR CHOUDHRY is a renowned Kashmiri intellectual, writer, scholar and a senior leader of United Kashmir Peoples National Party. Throughout his adult life, he has championed the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir with secular and liberal society. He has courageously spoken for the rights of minorities and oppressed people, and has been a victim of Pakistani establishment.

Book preview

1. PREFACE

What is the Kashmir dispute?

Kashmir dispute could be different thing to different people, depending on who is saying it. For some people of former State of Jammu and Kashmir, it is struggle to join Pakistan; others say it is struggle for unification and independence. Some others say it is a religious struggle; and we must establish Shariah Laws. Still some others says Jammu and Kashmir is legally part of India; and no part of the State should secede from India, or have any religious laws because Jammu and Kashmir is multi religious and multi ethnic State.

Furthermore, some people say we are part of India, and issue is to get back areas of Jammu and Kashmir under Pakistani occupation, namely Gilgit Baltistan and so called Azad Kashmir. Within the areas under the Indian occupation, people of Ladakh and to some extent people of Jammu don’t want to be part of Kashmir Valley; and want to have direct relationship with New Delhi.

Some voices from the Kashmir Valley are also emerging that if people of Jammu and Ladakh don’t want to be part of our struggle, then the Valley of Kashmir should made independent, where they can establish Islamic laws. Then question arises, what will be the future of Kashmiri Pandits, who have historically lived in Kashmir Valley for centuries and were forced of their homes to live in Jammu or in various parts of India.

Similarly, on the Pakistani side of the divide, majority of the people of Gilgit Baltistan don’t want to be part of the remaining Jammu and Kashmir. They either want to be independent or accession with Pakistan. However, some now even think of joining China; or want to be part of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir State.

Apart from these views, governments of India and Pakistan have their views on the Kashmir dispute; not to mention views held by people of India and Pakistan, and their political and religious parties. Above all what about views and interests of armed forces of both countries? Also what about views of those who have benefited from the Kashmir dispute, either since 1947 or from 1989 onwards?

So one can see, despite claims of some, the Kashmir dispute is not a simple one. Finding an acceptable solution to all stakeholders is a tall order, here we have difficulty in agreeing on defining what is the Kashmir dispute?

So what is the Kashmir dispute?

Before we establish what is the Kashmir dispute and what is the possible solution it is imperative to look at the status of this Princely State at the time of Partition of the British India.

When the British Raj ended in India on 15 August 1947, the State of Jammu and Kashmir also gained its independence. The Government of Pakistan acknowledged this fact by entering a Standstill Agreement with the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir; and India acknowledged it by agreeing to negotiate terms and conditions of the Standstill Agreement.

It was sad that Pakistan violated the Standstill Agreement and attacked the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October 1947. They cleverly used tribesmen from Khyber Pakhtoon Khawa (Frontier) in name of Jihad. Tribesmen were told that in this jihad, all removable items were theirs; and irremovable (land, buildings and trees etc) items belonged to Pakistan. It practically meant that they can loot, plunder, rape and kidnap women. The tribesmen unreservedly killed tens of thousands of innocent people, looted them, burnt their shops and property, raped women and kidnapped them and sold them in Pakistani cities.

Apart from the Tribesmen, Pakistan used sentiments and resentment of the local Kashmiri Muslims who were angry because of harsh taxation and human rights abuses; and instigated a ‘rebellion’ against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Both the local people and the tribesmen were financed and supervised by the military officers of the Pakistan army.

When the tribesmen were knocking the doors of Srinagar, the biggest city and Summer Capital of Jammu and Kashmir, the Maharaja Hari Singh requested help from India. The Maharajah was told to accede to India before any help could be provided. Under the pressure of invasion, and in order to save his State, he acceded to India, which was provisionally accepted.

This unprovoked tribal attack culminated in to first India Pakistan war; and unfortunately it also led to forced division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. All our problems, suffering and miseries could be traced back to this tribal attack that was sponsored by Pakistan which claims to be a big brother and well wisher of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Anyhow, after the provisional accession with India, the matter was between India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. As the accession was provisional and had to be ratified by the people, there were three options available to them. They could have ratified this provisional accession. They could have rejected this provisional accession; or they could have negotiated terms of this provisional accession.

Pakistan was not a party to this dispute at that time. They were perceived as an aggressor in Kashmir. They were made a party when on advice of Mountbatten India approached the UN Security Council; and accused Pakistan of attack. It was natural that the UN Security Council would invite Pakistan to present its case on allegations made by India. From then onwards, Pakistan was seen as a party to the dispute, and all the negotiations took place between India and Pakistan.

Both governments presented the Kashmir case as it suited their perceived national interests. It appears life, liberty and welfare of the people of Jammu and Kashmir was not their priority.

One view is that India wants to get Jammu and Kashmir on the strength of that provisional accession. Pakistan wants to get Jammu and Kashmir because it has a Muslim majority; even they know the Two Nations Theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created, did not apply to the Princely States. This fact was acknowledged by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan and Mountbatten. They both agreed that after the lapse of the British Paramountcy the Princely States were legally and constitutionally sovereign states. Mohammed Ali Jinnah clarified Muslim League viewpoint in New Delhi on 17 June 1947:

‘With the termination of Paramountcy, Indian states would be free either to join Hindustan Constituent Assembly, Pakistan Constituent Assembly or to remain independent’.

Although Jammu and Kashmir dispute has been transformed to a territorial dispute, fact is that it is a human dispute. It is a dispute which concerns families which are forcibly divided since 1947. It concerns our future and aspirations as a nation, which has more than 5 thousand years long history. It is a dispute of a nation which is forcibly divided and which is denied its inherent right to determine its future.

We are not asking India, Pakistan and China for any favours. We are merely demanding our rights, including a right to determine our future and live as a nation.

Our mighty neighbours have territorial aims on our territory and they are aware of our great strategic importance and resources. They are very strong; and we are weak and divided. However, our determination is strong and we will endure all the troubles associated with the struggle of unification and independence.

Then question arises, what is happening now or what has happened over the past decades could that be called an independence struggle? Or is it a proxy war of Pakistan and some Muslims of the Valley and Pakistani occupied Kashmir are fooled by the Pakistani secret agencies and religious groups in name of religion?

Critics question if it was a genuine struggle for independence then why non Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir were not consulted or even told? Why Muslim leaders of Jammu and Kashmir were not taken on board? Above all, why accept guns, bullets, training and money from one occupier to use it against the other occupier?

Moreover, if it was a genuine struggle for the independence of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, why its area of action was limited to the Valley of Kashmir? Why Jihadis or militants killed and intimidated non Muslims of the Kashmir Valley, and forced them to leave their homes where they had lived for centuries?

In view of the above analysis, many critics, including some Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir call this a proxy war of Pakistan, aim of which was not independence of Jammu and Kashmir but to keep India engaged in Kashmir and keep India bleeding. To these critics, it is not a freedom struggle, but naked terrorism and a proxy war.

Commenting on the situation of Jammu and Kashmir, Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former Ambassador to America says:

Basically, the people of Kashmir have been a football between Pakistan, the state policy of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian central government. Kashmir is one of the most highly militarised zones of the world. People are unhappy on both sides of the Line of Control and it is not a happy situation. Human rights violations are a reality… Kashmiris could end up being the Palestinians of South Asia. But, we know that even the Palestinians with all the international support that they had could not get what they wanted. And in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, there is not even that level of international support that exists in the Palestinian question. 1

No matter how strong is our desire and how hard we are struggling, but we will never achieve our goal if we are marching in the opposite direction. Yes, we have suffered. We are forcibly divided since 1947. Yes, we are killed and tortured; and we are imprisoned too. Be honest with yourselves, is it your struggle? Have we ever been part of any talks on Kashmir? Has it ever been our struggle? Or are we simply exploited in name of religion.

Is there any country in the world which supports Pakistan’s Kashmir policy? Is Pakistan helping people of Kashmir or creating problems for us? Is Pakistan supporting our right of self determination, or trying to make Kashmir part of Pakistan, I am sure people can differentiate between the two. People of Jammu and Kashmir should know that it was Pakistan which curtailed our right of independence and changed it to a right of accession in the UNCIP Resolution of 5 January 1949.

Under the UN Resolutions we can either join Pakistan or India; and there is no right to independence. This change was adopted on the request of Pakistan. In other words, Pakistan agrees that people of Jammu and Kashmir can join India. Then question arises, why those who want to join Pakistan are projected as patriots; and those who don’t want to join Pakistan are projected as traitors? Who has given this right to Pakistan to play with our sentiments and perpetuate our miseries? Who are they to decide so and so is a patriot and so and so are traitors.

People of Jammu and Kashmir must analyse the Kashmir history after 15 August 1947; and see who has done what. They must decide who is a friend and who is a foe. If they cannot do that then I am afraid they can continue paying sacrifices in the web set up by Pakistan; and continue to suffer. Sadly, in my opinion, they will never get independence.

Bitter fact is we are in this mess because of Pakistani obsession to capture Kashmir. It all started with Pakistani sponsored invasion of Kashmir on 22 October 1947, in which our shoulders were also used to target the non Muslim Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. This Pakistani violation of the Standstill Agreement and unprovoked aggression against Jammu and Kashmir resulted in the Provisional accession with India; and forced division of our motherland.

Since that date Pakistan has been calling the shots on Jammu and Kashmir. We have suffered, but sad fact is we are not even perceived as part of the dispute. International community and India and Pakistan see it as a matter between India and Pakistan. They will decide what is good for us. Do you still call this a Kashmiri struggle? Do you still call it a struggle to liberate Jammu and Kashmir? If some people want to live in a fantasy world and fool themselves, I can’t help them.

Dr Shabir Choudhry London 25 September 2016

Reference

1 The wire, India, BY DEVIRUPA MITRA ON 06/08/2016 Pakistan’s Military Perpetuates ‘Anti-India’ Narrative

2. DEBATE ON TWO NATIONS THEORY

Pakistan will be 69 years old in August, but still people are not sure what the purpose of establishing this new country was. Moreover, what is the future of this unfortunate country, which suffered humiliating defeat in 1971 and a break up of its Eastern wing, now known as Bangladesh?

Growing body of opinion now believe that Pakistan was not created to serve Islam or for the benefit of Muslims of united India, if anything, the partition of India divided Muslims of the Indian Sub Continent. Also it resulted in death of more than half million innocent people, rapes, destruction and unending hatred and extremism.

Some critics even say that creation of Pakistan was designed to serve the British interests after their departure from South Asia. The British Generals in India proposed a creation of a buffer state between India and Afghanistan, stretching from Gilgit Baltistan to Balochistan. Idea was to protect India from Soviet Russia. The British also wanted to reward the landed aristocracy and the men in uniform who helped the British Raj to expand and survive in the Indian Sub Continent.

Muslim League under the unyielding command of Mohammed Ali Jinnah apparently championed the cause of Pakistan in name of Islam. Before we analyse what Mr Jinnah wanted to do with his new country, let us look at what were the aims and objectives of the Muslim League, the party that spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan. The Muslim League was set up on 28 December 1906 in Dhaka, with the following objectives:

1. To promote among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the British government and to remove misunderstandings;

2. To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Muslims, and to represent properly their needs and aspirations to the British government; and

3. To prevent the rise of hostility among Muslims toward other communities. 1

The Muslim League and the rulers of Pakistan, to date, have very sincerely served the British and the American interests in Pakistan and in the region. To accomplish this task, the landed aristocracy and the men in uniform also played their part brilliantly, and benefited immensely.

The bitter fact is that the landed aristocracy, the Generals and the security forces now control Pakistan and its destiny; and sad thing is even they don’t know what is the destiny of this unfortunate country and how to reach there. Another bitter fact is, service to Islam and welfare of the Muslims is no longer priority of those who control and run Pakistan. I have heard Muslims of other countries saying that they feel sorry for the Pakistani Muslims, as they are not safe even in their own country.

Was Two Nations Theory a political stunt?

Of course millions of Pakistanis still believe that the Movement for Pakistan was to advance the cause of Islam. In reality that is not true. Some analysts believe there was a competition between two brilliant Gujrati lawyers – Mr Jinnah and Mr Gandhi for supremacy in the Indian Congress and in the Indian politics. Both had charisma and brilliance, and both had great influence in the Congress. However, gradually Jinnah felt he was outmanoeuvred by politics of Nehru and Gandhi; and in frustration he shifted to Britain.

Critics ask, if he was such a staunch Muslim and true and dedicated soldier of Islam who wanted to advance the cause of Islam, then why did he accept the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946, which provided a unitary State within India?

Jinnah was not a fool. Indeed he was a shrewd politician. He knew he could not take all Muslims to his new country – Pakistan. He knew millions of Muslims will stay behind in India. He also knew that nearly all Islamic scholars opposed his idea of dividing India in name of religion. Then question arises why he was bent upon to get India divided. Was it because of his pride and ego; or was there some other agenda?

Mountbatten had a meeting with Mohammed Ali Jinnah on 17th April 1947; and told him that if he insisted on dividing India in name of religion, then the provinces of Punjab and Bengal should also be divided on religious lines. This, Mountbatten asserted, would mean you will have ‘Very moth-eaten Pakistan, the eastern and north-west parts of which were unlikely to be economic propositions, and which would still have to come to some centre for general subjects for a long while after we had left’.

To this Mr Jinnah replied by saying: ‘I do not care how little you give me as long as you give it to me completely’. 2

These words of Mr Jinnah ‘I do not care how little you give me’, makes it clear that his project did not have service to Islam or welfare of the Muslims of India as his top priority. However, he and his team skilfully used the name of Islam as the slogan to motivate Muslims, millions of whom were illiterate. Smaller and truncated Pakistan meant a weaker Pakistan, separated by one thousand miles. This kind of Pakistan did not have a bright future. Moreover, millions of Muslims would be left outside of this Pakistan. Did he not think for a minute, what would be the fate of the Muslims left back in India, especially when the Two Nations Theory unleashed a genie of hatred and violence?

It leads people to only one conclusion: Mr Jinnah wanted the division of India at any cost, and become a Governor General of the new country that he could be at par with Mountbatten who would be the Governor General of India after independence.

Furthermore, before the creation of Pakistan Mr Jinnah forcefully asserted that Muslims and non Muslims cannot live together. However soon after the creation of Pakistan he asserted:

‘You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State……….. Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State’. 3

Question arises, if it was not possible for Muslims and non Muslims to live together because of strong differences and bitterness, then how could all this changed soon after Pakistan was established? Is it because his agenda of dividing united India was accomplished with disastrous outcome? Or Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s ego was satisfied and he had become the Governor General of Pakistan.

Why Jogendra Nath Mandal was appointed first Law Minister of Pakistan

Critics argue if the purpose of establishing Pakistan was to serve Islam and have Islamic laws in Pakistan, then why he made the above statement in the Constituent Assembly? His speech clearly shows he wanted to have some kind of a secular Pakistan. Furthermore, if he wanted to serve Islam and have an Islamic Pakistan then he should have appointed a Mufti or a religious scholar as a Law Minister of Pakistan.

Instead of appointing a Muslim Scholar as a Law Minister he appointed Jogendra Nath Mandal, a Hindu, as the first Law Minister of Pakistan. Surely he did not expect Jogendra Nath Mandal to enact and implement Islamic laws. People of Pakistan have been fooled for too long in name of religion. Time has come to call spade a spade, and understand what was done in name of Islam.

Many people might not know that Mr Jinnah appointed Jogendra Nath Mandal the first Chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. He presided over the historic session of the Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1947, where Mohammed Ali Jinnah was sworn in as the first Governor-General of Pakistan. Apart from being the Law Minister, Jogendra Nath Mandal was also the Minister of Labour, and Second Minister of Commonwealth and Kashmir Affairs.

On the role of Jogendra Nath Mandal, Ahmed Saleem notes:

"The fact that one of the minority members was elected to preside over the session hints at the progressive attitude of the new state, and it augurs well for the future. Pakistan itself was brought into existence by the unrelenting efforts of a minority of the Indian Subcontinent. 4

After the death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Jogendra Nath Mandal was disgraced; and he was left with no choice but to resign. Chaudhry Mohammad Ali sincerely served the British Raj before the emergence of Pakistan. After becoming Secretary-General of the Pakistani Cabinet Secretariat, he thought Mr Mandal was not a sincere Pakistani, and perhaps Mohammed Ali Jinnah made an error of judgement in appointing Mr Mandal to this key Ministry. On this topic, Pir Ali Mohammed Rashidi wrote:

‘Consequently, he tried to keep many cabinet documents away from the Law Minister. It was too much for Mandal. His pride was hurt. Hitherto, he had lived as a self reliant man, who knew his self-worth. Before becoming a minister, he had offered huge sacrifices and as a Hindu, swum against the tide to support our Quaid in the Pakistan Movement. How could he possibly pocket the insult from a cabinet secretary, who had taken it upon himself to judge a Hindu minister for his political character and loyalty to his country? Mandal quit as minister and went back to Calcutta to spend the rest of his life being taunted by Hindus.’ 5

Frustrated and humiliated Jogendra Nath Mandal, on 8th October 1950, wrote 18 pages long letter to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, and narrated his services to Pakistan Movement and Pakistan; and explained why he had to resign. In the last paragraph of his long letter he wrote:

‘Leaving aside the overall picture of Pakistan and the callous and cruel injustice done to others, my own personal experience is no less sad, bitter and revealing’. 6

Plight of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was the man who first coined the word Pakistan. He arranged a reception in honour of Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Waldorf Hotel, London; and explained to him his idea of Pakistan. He presented him his booklet ‘Now or Never, We