Pak1stanFirst.com

SECULAR JINNAH & PAKISTAN: WHAT THE NATION DOESN'T KNOW

Reports

Last Updated on Sunday, 25 March 2012 03:27 Sunday, 25 March 2012 02:47

User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

Lahore 1940: Deferred Secession
Saleena Karim

Decades before India's partition, Muslims were accused of having 'separatist' aspirations. Of course until the end of the 1930s most Muslim leaders - particularly those from the Muslim-majority provinces - really viewed political 'separation' in strictly all-India terms. They pushed for strong provinces, a weak federal centre, and separate electorates. Yet it is that true they also sought to be treated as more than a minority community. The Lucknow Pact (1916), Jinnah's major contribution to Hindu-Muslim unity, was drafted with this in mind (by Jinnah's own admission).[1] Before the third Round Table Conference (1932), Muslims even called for 'completely autonomous Federal States of equal status',[2] based on their opinion that they were not a community but a 'nation'.[3]

Several events served to harden the Muslim stance: 1) The All India National Congress' support of Gandhi's revolutionary politics that gradually alienated, rather than united, Muslims from their Hindu compatriots. 2) Congress' refusal to compromise on the Nehru Report (1928), which rejected separate electorates and offered Muslims a quarter of seats at India's centre instead of a third. 3) The failed Round Table Conferences of 1930-2 (London), which ended in political deadlock owing to persisting communal tensions. 4) The period between 1937-9. Congress came into power for the first time in British India, and made heavy-handed attempts to secure political and communal dominance, heightening fears of a 'Hindu raj' in a future independent India. Embittered by these experiences, Muslims developed a more hardliner stance than before. Still, many provincial leaders joined the League chiefly out of political expediency, and well into the 1940s some remained willing to cooperate with the Congress when it suited their own interests.

Separatism vs. secessionism

Two distinct strains of Muslim 'separatism' emerged by the early 1930s. Here we will refer to 'separatism' as a demand for provincial autonomy, separate electorates and a weak centre within an all-India context. 'Secessionism' will mean partition where the Muslim state(s) and Hindu states(s) would become fully independent, and their relationship restricted to international treaties, i.e. no centre. ('Balkanisation' - the creation of two mutually hostile states - was never on the agenda.)

Muhammad Iqbal and Choudhuri Rahmat Ali represent early calls for secession. In 1930, whilst Muslim leaders fought for provincial autonomy in London, Iqbal said at Allahabad that he would prefer to 'go farther than the demands' of his peers. He wanted to see the Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Baluchistan 'amalgamated into a single State'. He said this was likely to be the 'final destiny' of Muslims at least in North-West India.[4] Iqbal also acknowledged that this was less a 'demand' and more a prediction about the long-term outcome of Muslim separatism, based on the circumstances of his time.

Cambridge-based Choudhuri Rahmat Ali was arguably the earliest activist for partition. He coined the name PAKISTAN: an acronym of the provinces Punjab (P), NWFP (Afghan - A), Kashmir (K), Sindh plus the last few letters of Baluchistan (-STAN). It also happens to mean land of the pure. In a 1933 pamphlet Rahmat Ali called for the creation of a 'Pakistan'.[5] He described Hindus and Muslims as heterogeneous societies and demanded their immediate separation. Later he proposed a 'Pakistan Commonwealth of Nations', to include Muslims in zones of North-East India and also Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Bengal. Rahmat Ali declared that his scheme differed from Iqbal's relatively modest idea. Whereas Iqbal had suggested that just the north-western and eastern Muslim-majority zones be 'amalgamated' into a single state, Rahmat Ali sought a 'separate federation' in which his 'Pakistan', aside from being more candidly secessionist, covered much more territory. As he also proposed some serious territorial adjustments to make this happen, his scheme was deemed unrealistic.

Whilst Muslim minority provinces accepted the idea of partition sooner, some leaders from the biggest Muslim-majority areas were less enthusiastic, as they felt more secure where they lived and had fewer complaints regarding the political status quo. Since their provinces also had narrow Muslim majorities, these leaders faced pressure to prove their provincial loyalties on cultural, tribal and linguistic grounds. They were aware of non-Muslim fears about a 'Muslim Raj', and perhaps felt obliged to deny all talk of Muslim separatism. This may explain the claims made by some Muslim Leaguers that Jinnah did not really want partition. Some provincial leaders were so attached to provincial autonomy that they were unwilling to surrender it at all, whether within India or in Pakistan. These are the factors to bear in mind when reviewing the Lahore Resolution.

Background to the Lahore Resolution

The Lahore Resolution is often described as 'vague'.[6] In fact it reflects the lack of consensus in Muslim opinion on the Indian constitutional crisis, and so is better described as an open-ended document.

From 1939 the League considered alternative constitutional schemes to the Government of India Act of 1935. The schemes ranged from separatist to secessionist. Nine schemes were finally reviewed in February 1940, and the Working Committee considered the 'Muslim demands and the future constitution of India', in view of the following 'broad outlines':

• Muslims are a nation
• The British democratic parliamentary system is not suited to the genius and people of India
  
• Muslim majority zones in India should be constituted into Independent Dominions in relationship with Britain
• Muslims in Hindu majority zones must have their rights safeguarded and vice versa
  Units in each zone shall form component parts of the Federation of their respective zones as autonomous units[7]

The Lahore Resolution was drafted a few weeks later, and the above principles as well as elements of some of the nine schemes were incorporated into it.

Substance of the Lahore Resolution

The Lahore Resolution called for the creation of 'Independent States' (presumably two: Bengal and Punjab) out of the 'North-Western and Eastern zones' of India. It excluded the Muslim-minority provinces and the Princely States. The provinces ('constituent units') in each of these 'States' would be 'autonomous and sovereign' (i.e. they would have residual powers). This line was evidently included for those provincialist leaders who wanted to remain 'separate' whether within or outside India. One of Jinnah's earliest statements explaining the Resolution also suggests that it was included to attract minorities such as the Sikhs in the Punjab. Promising them provincial autonomy would perhaps reassure them and make them less apprehensive of joining a federation of Muslim states.[8]

It wasn't explicitly stated what relationship these Muslim 'States' would have with each other, but a reference to the 'constitution' for the 'regions' implied that they were expected to co-exist either in federation or confederation. The word 'constitution' appeared twice, meaning separate constitutions for the 'Muslim' regions and 'Hindu' regions; and this point would be further clarified at a later League session.[9] No provinces were mentioned by name; these would be discussed as and when the overall Muslim position became clearer. Provincial borders would generally remain as they presently stood, including those of Bengal and Punjab. The 'adjustment' of borders would be restricted to wherever practicable; small pockets of Muslim-populated areas lying in Hindu-majority zones could be separated and joined to adjacent Muslim zones, e.g. Sylhet could be separated from Assam and joined to Bengal.

Nothing was said about any relationship between these Muslim 'States' and the rest of India. Instead the resolution demanded reciprocal safeguards for minority groups in the respective constitutions of the Muslim and Hindu regions. There was no reference to a 'centre'. Sikandar Hayat Khan, then Punjab's Premier and a staunch provincialist, later complained that he had originally drafted the Lahore Resolution but that the League removed his references to the centre.[10] Indeed the League adopted the official stance that the 'Pakistan scheme does not visualize any kind of Central Government'.[11]

Partition was implied in the final paragraph. The League's Working Committee was authorised to frame a 'scheme of constitution providing for the assumption finally, by the respective regions of all the powers, such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs [etc.].' The word 'finally' obviously implied a transitional period in which to get on with constitution-making whilst the British gradually handed over power, and by the same token secession was implied to follow.[12] The form of government for this transitional period was again a matter for negotiation.[13]

The go-slow method

Thus the Resolution neither made an immediate secessionist demand, nor was it a 'bargaining counter' as alleged by the League's opponents at the time. We might describe it as a deferred or open secessionist demand, since it was written when Indian Muslims were not single-minded in their purpose. Nevertheless the Resolution focused on the two largest Muslim zones, and the League demanded its recognition as a prerequisite to further negotiations. Once this was conceded by the British and Congress, it would be easier to bring indecisive Muslims across the subcontinent round to the idea.[16] This 'go-slow' approach is consistent with Jinnah's methodology throughout his life, as well as that of Dr. Iqbal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

1 See Jinnah's speech at the Aligarh University Union, Aligarh, 6 March 1940. 

2 Resolution of the Executive Board of the Muslim Conference, Delhi, 21 August 1932 (chaired by Dr. M.Iqbal). Cited in W. Ahmad, 'Choudhury Rahmat Ali and the Concept of Pakistan' in Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, January 1970, p.19.

3 Aga Khan, Presidential speech at the All-Parties Muslim Conference, Delhi, 31 December 1928 (Ibid.)

4 Iqbal's Presidential address at the Annual Session of the Muslim League, Allahabad, 29 December 1930.

5 Ali, Ch. Rahmat (1933) Now or Never: Are we to Live or Perish for Ever?

6 See for instance, Jalal, A. (1994 reprint) The Sole Spokeman; S.R. Mehrotra, 'The Congress and the Partition of India' in Philips & Wainright (eds.) (1970) The Partition of India Massachusetts: MIT Press. See also S. Mujahid (1981) Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation Karachi: Quaid-i-Azam Academy, p.397, where he mentions that Jinnah removed 'ambiguity in the Lahore Resolution' in his correspondence with Gandhi in 1944.

7 For complete text, see resolution no. 14 at Working Committee meeting, Delhi, 3-6 February 1940, presided by Jinnah.

8 See statement on the Lahore Resolution, New Delhi, 31 March 1940, in which Jinnah assured Sikhs that Punjab would be an 'autonomous sovereign unit'.

9 See proceedings of the Annual League Session at Madras, April 1941, in which the League's Rules were altered to incorporate the Lahore Resolution.

10 See Sikandar Hayat Khan's speech, extracted from a Report of the Punjab Legislative Assembly Debates, 11 March 1941, as reproduced in Menon, V.P. (1957) The Transfer of Power in India Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.444

11 See letter of Liaquat Ali Khan to Sikh leader Sir Jogendra Singh, 14 January 1942; as reproduced in full in Ahmad, W. (ed.) (1992-2003) Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: The Nation's Voice (7 vols.) Karachi: Quaid-i-Azam Academy Vol. II, p.4 fn; see also Dr. M.A.H Qadri's letter to Abdullah Haroon, 23 February 1941 (in Latif, S.A. (1943) The Pakistan Issue Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, p.95)

12 Jinnah confirmed this himself. See statement on the Lahore Resolution, New Delhi, 31 March 1940, in which he points directly to the final clause of the Resolution when asked about the Muslim states' relationship with Britain (Nation's Voice Vol. II, p.4). See also record of interview between Jinnah and the Cabinet Delegation, 16 April 1946. (Nation's Voice Vol. IV, p.647)

13 Jinnah confirmed this himself in his letter to Gandhi, 17 September 1944 when he wrote that the Resolution 'does give basic principles and when they are accepted then the details will have to be worked out by the contracting parties'. (C. Rajagopalachari (ed.) (1944) Gandhi-Jinnah Talks New Delhi: Hindustan Times, p.17)

14 M. Afzal Husain Qadri, 'The Problem of Indian Muslims and its Solution', 2 February 1939 (Quaid-i-Azam Papers, File no. 135)

15 'A Punjabi' (Ali, Kifait) (1939) Confederacy of India Lahore: Nawab Sir Muhammad Shah Nawaz Khan of Mamdot, p.227

16 See record of interview between the Cabinet Delegation and Jinnah on 16 April 1946: 'Mr. Jinnah said that once the principle of Pakistan was conceded the question of the territory of Pakistan could be discussed. His claim was for the six provinces but he was willing to discuss the area.' (Nation's Voice Vol. IV, p.642) See also Jinnah's interview with theDaily Herald, 5 April 1946: 'The new nation must include all the six provinces with their present boundaries subject to any necessary territorial adjustments on both sides'. (Nation's Voice Vol. IV, p.592)

(Appeared in Dawn, Special Report 'Lahore Resolution' supplement, 23 March 2012)
___________
Saleena Karim

I ‘Beg’ to differ

Reports

Thursday, 15 March 2012 11:16

Former army chief Gen Aslam Beg apparently broke the law two decades ago. He tried to financially strengthen political parties weakened by a decade of military rule so they could counter the PPP and its policy at the time in Kashmir and Sri Lanka, where vital Pakistani interests are involved. But if he broke the rules, so did the political party in question. If someone is not playing by the rules, others won’t too.

I will explain this. But first, there is little doubt that the Pakistani military and ISI’s reputations are being systematically destroyed from the inside. But before blaming anyone, the military itself shares the biggest blame. Our national security institutions have failed to counter the demonization they face from foreign allies and their local offshoots. Under the military’s watch, a secret foreign-brokered deal was negotiated to decide the shape of the future government in Islamabad. That deal has spun Pakistan out of control. It is a source of constant political instability since 2007.

Foreign governments maintain direct contacts with some of our political parties. Insurgencies are being encouraged. Water and trade warfare has intensified. There is foreign meddling in our media. A failed political system is getting stronger and is steadily pushing Pakistanis to war based on manufactured linguistic divides. Our supposed friends and allies are sponsoring events that openly advocate the country’s break up. At least one ally has moved separatist terrorists from Afghanistan to Switzerland, shielding them for future use. Another country is getting trade concessions from us while it supports a ‘Sindh liberation army’ after sponsoring another one in Balochistan.

The cases of the missing persons, Balochistan and now the Mehran Bank were manipulated recently to pay back the Pakistani military and ISI for the Raymond Davis case, for blocking US and Nato supplies, and for the Husain Haqqani case. The three – missing persons, Balochistan and Mehran Bank – are genuine cases that deserve attention. But they have been used for exaggerations and motivated anti-military propaganda. The sudden government interest in arresting a former army chief and bringing him to Pakistan from England also appears to be designed to blackmail the military.

The message to our military is clear: if you escalate, we will too. Our military’s foreign detractors have one distinct edge now: they have local allies that look Pakistani and talk Pakistani.

In the Mehran Bank case, a key point is missing and one that the honourable judges and ordinary Pakistanis should consider. That point is: Why the then army chief and the ISI felt the need to intervene indirectly against a political party? Gen Aslam Beg was not trying to buy politicians or loyalties. He was desperate. He apparently didn’t want to mount a coup but felt our political parties were weak after a decade of military rule. He thought it would be good to strengthen these parties to counter the PPP. But why?

The issue at the time was to stop the PPP from coming to power so it wouldn’t continue its policy of surrender in Kashmir and Sri Lanka. The Americans were deeply interested in this policy. The PPP betrayed the Pakistani voters by embarking on a foreign policy that was never discussed in public. Why did the PPP allegedly make a secret deal with India’s Rajiv Gandhi on Kashmir without telling the Pakistani nation? If the PPP did it, was it right for the military to try to stop it? What options did the military chief have?

Beg was trying to deal with a perceived threat to national interests without mounting a coup. That’s the real problem that forced him to intervene in the way he did. The real problem lies elsewhere. Solve that problem and the military will never feel the need to intervene. One way of solving it is by introducing laws that ban political parties from opening secret channels with foreign countries that undermine our national interest. Of course, our politicians will never introduce such a law.

The Mehran Bank case has no relevance to the challenges Pakistan faces now. The military is no longer meddling in politics since 2008. Who benefits from creating a hyper anti-military environment when we are facing serious threats?

The writer works for Geo television.

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
_________________

Ahmed Quraishi

How Our Media Failed Us on Baluchistan

Reports

Wednesday, 14 March 2012 01:50

I once read somewhere that the politician is like an acrobat; he keeps his balance by saying the opposite of what he does. These days this statement also applies to journalists; specially the new breed of ‘Patriots’ on electronic and social media.

I received an interesting call from one of my journalist friends very recently. This particular gent always seems to be searching for sensational stories, like many others in his profession. Be it in society, in his locality, in his friend’s circle or in the media. He has a certain ability to squeeze others for scandals and breaking news, and due to his links in some media houses, people often fall prey. It is in his nature to spread rumours in a way that one becomes curious and starts speculating about the content of the rumour, or news, and not the source.

On answering, I noticed how his voice was quivering with excitement. Now this is rare, even for him. The excitement betrays the specialty of the occasion, or the news he would undoubtedly be sharing imminently.

‘Do you know what happened at Serena Hotel today?’, he asks, excited.

I replied in negative, as I’d not come across anything from my usual sources of information. He laughed back and said. “Your favorite army and your premier agency of the country are planning a genocide in Balochistan”. ‘What on earth are you on about’, I asked, feeling a little uncomfortable by now.

“I know that you are not very fond of negative image building of your army, but get ready, as you’ll reach home, you may want to go to sleep straight away, and my brotherly advice is to avoid twitter, facebook, newspapers, international media and local channels for at least next three weeks”. He was teasing me with his tone. I dropped the call and rushed towards home. What I found at Channels and social media was exactly the same of which my friend warned me. All I see was the breaking news and analysis with the entire bigotry and hate and this I knew would remain the hot topic of the month.

Apparently, a Baloch Sardar met with some army officials in Serena hotel. This was the entire story, but due to some blunders of army personals in past 10 years, in this age of dis-information, this simple meeting was taken and portrayed as if the army is going to apply full force on ‘innocent’ Balochis and other self-exiled baloch sardars, thus will do exactly Americans did with Iraqis and Afghanis. List of missing persons will shoot up and this particular baloch sardar will enjoy all the benefits of life by ‘betraying’ his own people. Examples of Bengalis and other minorities were being cited to justify their arguments. Many religious commentators and ‘rightists’ also joined the chorus. My friend was right. I would have to adapt a hibernation mode for complete next month and this is exactly what I did.

Hang on a minute though. Let us assume that the aforementioned story is a figment of my imagination. What happens if such a scenario did infact take place. Do you think that the reaction of our media power houses, anchors, bigots and army haters will be any different from what I explained above? Would all the factions of our ‘liberal’ classes alongwith right-wingers join in the cause of ‘reigning’ the army? The international media would do its bit by publishing exclusive stories and making documentaries on such a massive travesty and conspiracy against the ‘innocent people of Balochistan’.

Luckily, the above story isn’t true.

What happened was the opposite. A baloch Sardar named Shahzain Bugti met with the American political advisor at the Serena Hotel Islamabad. The encounter was captured by a journalist of ARY on his cellphone. Upon being spotted filming the Americans meeting with Bugti, the journalist was assaulted by Shahzain Bugti’s armed guards who smashed his cell phone and held him against his will for hours, torturing the poor lad.

What happened next was a complete shocker. The journalist and his media house were the only ones who reported this crime in their news bulletins and demanded action. None of their journalist and media friends shared his pain. No one bothered to call him on his/her program to inquire what actually happened.

Shahzain Bugti is still being presented like a hero by the media, despite his anti-state statements and activities and despite the fact that he was caught red handed smuggling weapons from Afghanistan, despite what our ‘hero’ and others from his clan have done with the billions of rupees in royalty they have enjoyed for so many long years. Social media timelines are painfully silent on this. Our ‘awam’ doesn’t even know the story of Serena as it hasn’t been reported to them by the guardians of free speech. How could they know the actual facts of Balochistan?

I am a foolish-patriot (that’s what my friends call me) and a diehard lover of my Army. Though; I do appreciate positive criticism on any of the blunders made by this institution. But I also believe that Army is one of those institutions which has a glittering history that is being purposely defamed by malicious rumours and lies spread by some of our friends inside and outside the country. Conspiracy theorists are a label often used for the people who defend Pakistan’s army and believe in a strong bonding between civil-military relationships.

Pakistan army being systematically put under pressure these days. Cases of missing personal, blames of supporting Afghan militants, alleged interference in politics – to name a few. On the other hand the ban on NATO supplies and confronting American plans is a huge front that had been opened by army. As in the backdrop of NATO supplies ban, Americans are trying to twist Pakistan’s arm and by creating trouble in Balochistan by supporting terrorist organizations and failed, rejected tribal leaders who have for years been on the run. The international media is singing along the same tune while the Dana Rohrabacher’s bill, according to South Asia expert Christine Fair, was intended to purely put pressure on the Pakistan army which has ‘allegedly been involved in killing Americans for the last ten years in Afghanistan’. The most unfortunate bit of all this is the sickening role our local media and die-hard defenders of ‘liberty’ have joined in the chorus, and they are doing so while wearing the badges of patriotism and Pakistan.

News, analsysis, talk shows and social media is being used to spread the US propaganda and lies. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions as long as the right questions are being asked. And the right questions in this case are: Why are terrorists attacking settlers, killing non-balochi residends including women and children? Why are the voices of pro-Pakistan journalists and bloggers being suppressed? Why has gwadar been virtually paralyzed for the last few years? Why are neighboring countries and some western ones giving refuge to terrorist leaders? What percentage of Balochi citizens do these Sardars represent? And why our mainstream media, anchors, and analysts are not demanding BLA, BRA, BLF and others cease fire if they want dialogue, or stop complaining if they want a fight.

Our media is the biggest security threat our nation faces today. The standards of patriotism are being redefined; ‘Winds of change’ is the new deception for our poor awam. These liars chant slogans of peace and harmony, aman ki asha, and media freedom – while trying to create further distances between our armed and our people. They are the ones betraying case of Balochistan and Baloch people. They are the ones who have failed to deliver this case to the awam with honesty. They have lied and deceived our people for far too long.

Salah-ud-Din Ayyubi, one of the greatest muslim warriors, was once was advising his civil and military administration and told them to never allow anything to weaken the relations between the civilians and the military men. If this relation is broken, he said, the destinies nations are lost in darkness with slavery and disgrace.

PKKH Exclusive | Salman Javed

Pakistan must highlight Indian atrocities in Kashmir

Reports

Last Updated on Thursday, 15 March 2012 05:48 Saturday, 10 March 2012 04:19

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

Asif Haroon Raja

Muslim Kashmiris in Indian held Kashmir (IHK) were quietly undergoing the injustices and high-handedness of India’s handpicked Kashmiri leaders and atrocities of Indian security forces for over four decades.  Their patience broke down when state elections in 1987 were blatantly rigged. It triggered mass agitation and within two years street protests turned into armed resistance. India pumped in 700,000 regular and paramilitary forces in the valley of Kashmir to quell the uprising but failed to do so. When terrorism became the chief concern of USA and the west in the aftermath of 9/11, it gave an opportunity to India to paint Kashmir freedom movement as terrorism duly abetted by Pakistan. Under pressure from the US and India, Gen Musharraf withdrew Pakistan’s moral, diplomatic and political support to the Jihadis in occupied Kashmir and in Azad Kashmir under the misplaced hope that the Kashmir dispute would be resolved through composite dialogue. Pakistan’s laidback approach towards Kashmir diluted the movement to quite an extent, which greatly disillusioned the Kashmiris, particularly the youth.

After a lull of few years, the Amarnath Shrine Board dispute in the summer of 2008 gave a reason to the Kashmiri youth in occupied Kashmir to give vent to their pent up rage. The situation became so explosive that RAW had to engineer Mumbai attacks in November 2008 to divert the attention of the world from IHK. After putting Pakistan in a tight corner, Kashmir State Assembly elections were held in December 2008, which had a higher voter turnout and led to pro-India J & K National Conference led by Omar Abdullah forming the government. It encouraged New Delhi to claim that people of Kashmir had endorsed Indian rule in the state. Indian leaders propagated that movement in Kashmir was entirely Pakistan supported and since movement of foreign militants across the Line of Control had been blocked with the help of fencing, mining and other means, terrorist movement had been successfully quashed. Despite the relative calm, India didn’t deem it fit to reduce its extraordinary heavy military presence in Kashmir and didn’t let go its brutal policies against hapless Kashmiris aimed at stifling their voices by force.

The second round of unarmed movement in IHK took place in 2009, which upturned the claims made by India that Kashmiri movement had been effectively quelled. The third wave of protests in the summer of 2010 which got converted into a mass movement spread over the entire valley including Muslim majority parts of Jammu. These protests were led by teenagers with stones in their hands. These children belonged to the third generation that had grown up amidst violence and have no jobs or future as long as they are ruled by India. So high was their morale and level of motivation that they didn’t care for the bullets and tear gas shells rained by occupation forces. No amount of savagery committed by security forces frightened or intimidated them. They braved the bullets and hardships boldly without caring for their lives. Each day they saw several of their comrades dying or getting severely injured as a result of bursts fired by soldiers and police. But so high was their level of motivation and commitment to the cause that they were not prepared to give in. Each fatality further fueled their anger and animus against India and they chanted slogans of ‘go India go’, quit Jammu & Kashmir’, and ‘we want freedom’ more vociferously.

Finding the baton holders of largest civilian unrest since 1989 in no mood to listen to age-old tricky offers of talks and incentives, Indian Home Minister Chindabaram led an All-Party mission to IHK on 20 September 2010 and tried to placate them. He got a shock when APHC leaders in keeping with the aspirations of the people refused to meet the visitors. He then came forward with an eight-point formula to defuse the popular revolt demanding separation from India. He offered sustained dialogue and agreed to include representation of the youth in the dialogue process. Having said that, whatever little goodwill he demonstrated was washed away by SM Krishna when he repeated the old stance in New York that Jammu & Kashmir (J & K) is an internal matter of India and that Pakistan is in illegal occupation of some parts of Kashmir. Sending of a delegation to IHK was seen by him as a huge step towards addressing grievances of Kashmiris.

Srinagar in particular became a barricaded city where check points were established in hundreds and soldiers roamed the roads in armored cars fitted with loaded heavy guns routinely. Standing soldiers in moving vehicles had their fingers on the trigger ready to press at slightest provocation. Police and CPRF laced with automatics and grenades were seen in every street. All pedestrians, cyclists and others moving on the roads were subjected to long and humiliating search at each check point and on slightest suspicion the suspects were forcibly pushed into a waiting van and taken to unknown destination. Those taken away seldom returned since they were bumped off in stage-managed encounters. Thousands have been killed in fake encounters. Those returning home after prolonged illegal custody in dungeons are mostly disabled or mental wrecks.

Stones hurled by teenagers were responded by bullets by police and paramilitary forces. They got so provoked by stone-pelters that they resorted to indiscriminate firing. When the situation could still not be controlled after killing scores of tender age boys and young men, Indian Army was given the charge, which was itching to take over from police and paramilitary forces to upgrade level of cruelty. Failing to suppress the unarmed protestors through frequent curfews and excessive use of force, Indian military contemplated use of special weapons like ‘Lazer Dazzlers’ to control the mobs. These weapons cause permanent blindness and not temporary blindness as claimed by the manufacturers of the weapon. Their use will be in contravention to UN and International Red Cross regulations.

A15-year old schoolboy Tufail Ahmad Matoo was killed on June 11, 2010 when police fired a rubber bullet at him, drilling half an inch hole in his skull. In June 2010 alone 33 civilians including four children were gunned down, 572 detained and tortured and eight women were molested. 110 innocent unarmed civilians were killed between 11 June and 26 September 2010 and thousands were injured. Twenty people were killed on 2-3 August 2010. Majority of killed and injured were children and women. 30-year old Irshad Ahmad Latoo was killed in Anantnag on 14 August. 15 year old M. Umar Dar was killed on 15 August. In Shopian, seven persons got injured as a result of indiscriminate firing by police. It had got provoked after seeing a Pakistani flag hoisted in the town. All-told, the number of martyred exceeded the figure of 1100, which included a small boy aged 8 years.

The J & K regime stood paralyzed while Chief Minister Omar Abdullah instead of coming to the rescue of victims of state terrorism sprinkled salt on their wounds by saying that stone throwers were provoking security forces and compelling them to open fire. Instead of restraining trigger happy soldiers and comforting the families who lost their sons, he blamed Kashmiri opposition leaders that they were fomenting protests. Indian leaders flabbergasted by the new wave of non-violent strikes and protests found Pakistan as a convenient scapegoat and started singing old tunes of cross border terrorism. They leveled allegations that infiltration across line of control had increased and Pakistan had a hand in riots. Even the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba was blamed for orchestrating the protests.

As long as freedom fighters were holding guns in their hands and fighting over seven lacs Indian occupation forces, it suited Indian politicians since it helped them in befooling the world that there was no freedom movement in Kashmir but a terrorist movement fully aided by Pakistan. This theme was bought by USA and western world. Protests by unarmed teenagers left the Indian propagandists speechless and dumbfounded. Their blatant lies got fully exposed prompting many Indian human right activists and intellectuals to candidly suggest to the Indian government to stop the bloodshed and to give the right of self-determination to the people of Kashmir.

Pakistan’s National Assembly and Senate passed resolutions on J & K calling upon world community to take note of the oppression perpetrated upon people of IHK and urged the UN to ensure implementation of UN resolutions. It angered India and again harped on its unchanged stance that Kashmir is an internal affair of India. Pakistan was reminded of its commitment of not allowing its territory under its control to be used for terrorism. Our Foreign Affairs Ministry should have reminded India of the resolution of Indian Lok Sabha passed in March 1971 supporting the cause of Bengali rebels in former East Pakistan and a similar resolution in1983 to support the cause of Movement of Restoration of Democracy spearheaded by PPP in Sindh.

India had again expressed its serious concerns over human rights violations against the Baloch rebels in Balochistan by counter terrorism forces in 2006 and expressed its full sympathies for the cause of the rebels. After the successful Swat operation in 2009, Indian propagandists had joined hands with western Pakistan bashers to cook up stories to malign Pak Army of gross human rights violations. Those were in reality purely internal matters but India had the audacity to meddle in our internal affairs blatantly. Dr Wahid Baloch on whose briefing the three US Republicans moved a resolution in House of Representative in February 2012 is a regular visitor of India and is on its payroll. India is investing huge amounts to support the separatist Baloch Sardars.

With such a dismal track record, it was strange that India felt offended and termed moral and political support rendered to Kashmiris fighting for their right of self-determination as interference in India’s internal affairs, knowing full well that Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory. It is indeed most unfortunate that India doesn’t miss any opportunity to accuse Pakistan of human rights violations on issues which are entirely internal, but Pakistan somehow remains reticent in highlighting India’s excesses in occupied Kashmir and its intransigence to resolve the oldest dispute. This is bare minimum Pakistan can do for hapless Kashmiris languishing in open prison for over six decades.

The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it