The Kashmir

April 23, 2011

Peace-Process- Hidden Agenda

Filed under: Accords, Kashmir, Nationalism — Tags: , , , , — TheKashmir @ 4:40 am

 By Dr. M.K. Teng

Now that the Government of India has repeated its Sharam-ul-Sheikh performance at Thimpu and offered to resume the composite dialogue with Pakistan, virtually jumping over the stand it had taken in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, there is much more that the Indian Government has to explain about what it intends to do in Jammuand Kashmir. Evidently the climb-dam by the Government of India on crucial issues involved in its policy in respect of Jammu and Kashmir, reflects a willful surrender. This perhaps eminates from its inability to face political blackmail and pressure brought to bear on the Indian leaders in the name of economic development and under the cover of peace and security of the region.

The Indian policy reflects a strange sense of helplessness, which pervades the outlook of the Indian political class and which acts as an impelling force to drive those in power to invite Pakistan to the conference table again and again, after every small and major misdemeanor Pakistan has committed. Every time, Pakistan has returned to the conference table, grumbling and growling at the inability of the Indian Government to make the composite dialogue purposeful and result oriented. The cause of concern is not the abrasive attitude of Pakistan, but the uneasiness with which the Indian political class reacts to it.

The Indian Government has rather, with deliberate intent, tried to play down the way Pakistan has expressed its dissatisfaction with the purpose and the pace of the peace-process. It is mainly because the Indian leadership has shown reluctance to face the prospect of laying down a baseline of its policy on the Kashmir issued In fact, the Indian political class has so far evaded the crucial decision of fixing the “irreducible minimum”, beyond which it would not go to reach a settlement with Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir. Its exhortations to urge upon the Indian Government” to walk an extra-mile” from its “stated positions” in order to be able to reach an “out of the box” solution of the Kashmir problem and its extravagant eagerness to nudge the Indian Government “to go far enough in its engagement with Pakistan, to reach, a settlement on Kashmir”, are idle expressions used to camouflage the subterfuge it has indulged in so far. The truth is that the Indian political class has never mustered courage to stand upto its neighbors. In fact, the Indian political class has never shared with the Indian people the import of defending their borders.

 

Muslim outlook

The Government of Pakistan, its military establishment as well as the civil society in Pakistan, are, all agreed upon the baseline of their stand on Jammu and Kashmir. The civil society in Pakistan has, on no occasion, found it necessary to urge upon the Government of Pakistan, “to walk an extra-mile” in order to reach an “out of the box settlement” on Kashmir. Pakistan has stuck to its stated position that : (a) the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir are apart of the Muslim nation of Pakistan (b) the Muslims of the state of Jammu and Kashmir acquired the right to unite the State with the Muslim homeland of Pakistan from the partition of India, (c) the Muslims of the State were denied their right to unite the state with Pakistan in 1947, when the ruler of State Maharaja Hari Singh acceded to India, against their wishes and (d) India, which pledged itself to implement the United Nations resolutions, envisaging a plebiscites to enable the Muslims of the State exercise their choice to determine the final disposition of the State in respect of accession, has not redeemed its promise.

From the very inception of the peace-process, which was primarily an Indian initiative, Pakistan has unflinchingly stuck to its self-righteous commitment that its claim to Jammu and Kashmir, based upon the Muslim majority composition of the population, is non-negotiable. Pakistan has stressed time and again that its claim to Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the Muslim majority composition its population underlines the principle on the basis of which India was divided in 1947 and the Muslim homeland of Pakistan was created. Pakistan has repeatedly stated that the partition of India marked the culmination of a historical process which underlined the Muslim struggle for a separate Muslim homeland in India, comprising the provinces and the regions of the British India populated by the majority of Muslims and Muslim princely states. Pakistan has consistently held that the partition of Indian recognized the Muslim majority composition of the population of the British India and the princely States as the basis on which the territorial jurisdiction of the Muslim homeland was determined. The Kashmir dispute, Pakistan has claimed in unequivocal terms, is a manifestation of the unfinished agenda of the partition of India.

 

The Muslim League laid claim to the Muslim ruled princely states as well, on the basis of prescription and conquest because it could nor bring itself round to accept the exclusion of the Muslim ruled states from the Muslim homeland of Pakistan. The Muslim League leaders considered the Muslim ruled princely states to be the citadels of the Muslim power in India, which had survived the establishment of the British rule inIndia. The insistence of the Muslim League on the lapse of the Paramountcy was used by it to isolate the Muslim ruled states. Except that the lapse of the Paramountcy caused the Muslim League some tactical disadvantage in the Jammuand Kashmir, its acceptance by the Congress brought India to the verge of disintegration. Were it not for the people of the Muslim ruled States, who defeated the designs of the Muslim League and the Muslim rulers, India would have been divided further. The ideological commitment of the Muslim struggle for a separate Muslim homeland in India to secure the Muslims in India, a separate freedom which ensured them the realization of their Islamic destiny was fundamentally Muslim in outlook. The territorial claim to a Muslim India, comprising the Muslim majority provinces of the British India and the Muslim ruled States the Pakistan Resolution envisaged, was also Muslim in outlook. The claim that the unification of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan is the unfinished agenda of the partition of India is also Muslim in outlook.

 

Irreducible Minimum

Pakistan has not allowed its stand on Jammu and Kashmir to be wrapped in any ambiguity. In fact it has spelt out the baseline of its stand on Jammu and Kashmir in unmistakable terms. It has refused to deviate from its stated position that the Muslim majority composition of the population  of the State is basic to any settlement on Jammu and Kashmir. It has refused to delink the Muslim majority composition of the state from the right of self-determination, which it has consistently maintained, flowed from the partition of India. Exactly, as the Muslim League agreed to divide the Muslim  majority provinces of the Punjab and Bengal and the Hindu majority provinces of Assam, on the basis of population, Pakistan has offered to accept the division of the State on the basis of population, as a basis for a settlement on Jammu and Kashmir. It has proposed the separation of the Muslim majority regions of the State, comprising the Muslim provinces of Kashmir, the Muslim majority districts of the Jammu province and the Muslim majority district of Kargil in the frontier division of Ladakh and their unification with the Muslim homeland of Pakistan, as the irreducible minimum which it is ready to accept as the basis of a solution of the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. The participation of Pakistan in the peace-process, in the ultimate analysis, is aimed to persuade  the Indian people to accept the application of the principle which underlined the partition of India, as a basis of a settlement on Kashmir.

 

Interestingly the peace-process carried on between the Vajpai Government and the Government headed by NawazSherrif; followed by negotiations between the Bajpai Government and themilitary regime headed by General Musharraf; the long and atrocious talk held at the Track Two level, largely a framework of conflict resolution, fabricated by the American diplomacy and the Manmohan Singh-Musharraf parleys leading to the so-called “non-territorial settlement” on Kashmir; reveal a continuity in the stand taken by Pakistan. The stand taken by Pakistan has underlined; the separation of the Muslim majority regions of the State, on the Indian side of the Line of Control with their eventual disengagement from the Indian Union and their re-integration within a framework of political imperatives evolved by the two countries India and Pakistan, with the consent of the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

The Musharraf plan lay bare theperfidy. It recognized the separation of the Muslim majority regions of the State and their reorganization into a new political entity on the territories of India which was governed by Pakistan. The Musharraf plan envisaged the division of the State into six geographical zones of which five were Muslim majority zones, the transfer of power in the state to the Muslim separatist regimes under the garb of self-rule; withdrawal of the Indian armed forces from the State in the name of demilitarization; the unification of the Muslim majority zones situated on the Indian side of the Line of Control with theoccupation territories of Azad Kashmir under the cover of “irrelevant borders” and the placement of the State under the joint-control of India and Pakistan. Manmohan Singh cried aloud, undoubtedly to attract the attention of the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and perhaps, the Muslims in India, to the historical task, he had accomplished by putting Jammu and Kashmir on a ten year long journey tojoin Pakistan. The Musharraf plan provided for the revaluation of the arrangements made in accordance with its provisions after ten years a stipulation which the Indian Government tried to underplay.

 

 

Greatest Betrayal

 Pakistan appears to have convinced itself that India has finally accepted the principle of the partition of India as the basis of a settlement of Jammu and Kashmir. Evidently the impatience and the urgency, the Foreign office of Pakistan has exhibited about the progress of the peace-process, arises out of  its eagerness to evolve a procedure for the separation of the Muslim majority regions of the State, their disengagement from the Union of India and the eventual integration with the Islamic power-structure of Pakistan.

The territorial boundaries of Pakistan, laid down by the partition of India in 1947, were confined to the territories of the British India. The Indian princely states were not brought within the scope of the partition of India. The claim Pakistan has laid to Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the Muslim majority composition of its population did not from a part of the process of the partition and the transfer of power in India. The right of the self-determination of the colonial peoples was an expression of the historic process of decolonization, the Second World War set into motion. The right of self-determination was never conceived as an instrument of any religious war. India was not divided to ensure the Indian people their right of self-determination.

 

Jammu and Kashmir forms the most crucial part of the northern frontier of India. It continues to be central to the security of the Indian borders in the north. Any prescription for a second partition of India, to disengage the State from the Indian Union will not usher in a State of peace between India and Pakistan. Peace  between the two countries  will always depend upon the mutual respect they have for each other’s strike capabilities. The Indian political class, whatever, the nature of its commitment to the Indian unity, cannot ignore the hard fact that Pakistan has a stock pile of nearly two hundred nuclear weapons in its basement. Pakistan is an ideological state-a fact, which the Indian people can overlook at their own peril.

 

*(The writer heads Panun Kashmir advisory).

Source: Kashmir Sentinel, April 2011 issue

July 26, 2010

Letter to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi – Jagmohan


Jagmohan -Ex Governor J&K

Jag Mohan Malhotra (born 25 September 1927) is a former governor of Jammu and Kashmir in India. During his tenure as the Governor from 1984 to 1989, militancy in Jammu and Kashmir was at his peak and he was credited with providing capable administration to the state. In Jammu & Kashmir], Jagmohan is credited with bring order to one of the most revered shrines of Hindus, called Mata Vaishno Devi. He created a board that continues to provide administration for the shrine. Infrastructure was developed and that continues to facilitate pilgrims.

[The letter is being reproduced as this letter is of prime importance for readers to understand the callous attitude of central Govt in handling the terrorism in it’s initial stage ]


Letter to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi

Rajiv Gandhi - Ex Prime Minister of India

By Jagmohan
April 21, 1990

Dear Shri Rajiv Gandhi,

You have virtually forced me to write this open letter to you. For, all along, I have persistently tried to keep myself away from party politics and to use whatever little talent and energy I might have to do some creative and constructive work, as was done recently in regard to the management and improvement of Mata Vaishno Devi shrine complex and to help in bringing about a sort of cultural renaissance without which our fast decaying institutions cannot be nursed back to health. At the moment, the nobler purposes of these institutions be they in the sphere of executive, legislature or judiciary etc. have been sapped and the soul of justice and truth sucked out of them by the politics of expediency.

You and your friends like Dr. Farooq Abdullah are, however, bent upon painting a false picture before the nation in regard to Kashmir. Your senior party men like Shiv Shankar and N.K.P. Salve have, apparently at your behest, been using the forum of the Parliament for building an atmosphere of prejudice against me. The former raked up a fourteen-year old incident of Turkman Gate and the latter a press interview an interview that I never gave to hurl a barrage of accusations of communalism against my person. Mani Shankar Iyer, too, has been dipping his poisonous darts in the columns of some magazines. I, however, chose to suffer in silence all the slings and arrows of this outrageous armoury of disinformations. Only rarely did I try to correct gross distortions by sending letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. My intention was to remain content with a book, an academic and historic venture which, I believed, I owed to the nation and to history.

But the other day some friends showed to me press clippings of your comments in the election meetings in Rajasthan.

That, I thought, was the limit. I realised that, unless I checked your intentional distortions, you would spread false impression about me throughout the country during the course of your election campaign.

WARNING SIGNALS: Need I remind you that from the beginning of 1988, I had started sending “Warning Signals” to you about the gathering storm in Kashmir ? But you and the power wielders around you had neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the vision, to see these signals. They were so clear, so pointed, that to ignore them was to commit sins of true historical proportions.

To recapitulate and to serve as illustrations, I would refer to a few of these signals. In August 1988, after analysing the current and undercurrents, I had summed up the position thus: “The drum-beater of parochialism and fundamentalism are working overtime. Subversion is on the increase. The shadows of events from across the border are lengthening. Lethal weapons have come in. More may be on the way”. In April 1989, I had desperately pleaded for immediate action I said: “The situation is fast deteriorating. It has almost reached a point of no return. For the last five days, there have been large-scale violence, arson, firing, hartals, casualties and what not. Things have truly fallen apart. Talking of the Irish crisis, British Prime Minister Disraeli had said: “It is potatoes one day and Pope the next”. Similar is the present position in Kashmir. Yesterday, it was Maqbool Bhat; today it is Satanic Verses; Tomorrow it will be repression day and the day after it will be something else. The Chief Minister stands isolated. He has already fallen-politically as well as administratively; perhaps, only constitutional rites remain to be performed. His clutches are too soiled and rickety to support him. Personal aberrations have also eroded his public standing. The situation calls for effective intervention. Today may be timely, tomorrow may be too late”. Again, in May, I expressed my growing anxiety: ‘What is still more worrying is that every victory of subversionists is swelling their ranks, and the animosity is being diverted against the central authorities”. But you chose not to do anything. Your inaction was mistifying. Equally mistifying was your reaction to my appointment for the second term. How could I suddenly become cammunal, anti-muslim and what not ?

When I resigned in July 1989, there was no rancour. You wanted me to fight, as your party candidate, election for the South Delhi Lok Sabha seat. Since I had general revolusion for the type of politics which out country had, by and large, come to breed, I declined the offer. If you had any serious reservation about my accepting the offer of J and K Governorship for the second term, you could have adopted the straightforward course and apprised me of your views. I would have thought twice before going into a situation, which had virtually reached a point of no return. There would have been no need for you to resort to false accusations.

May be you do not consider truth and consistency as virtues. May be you believe that the words inscribed on our national emblem – Satyameva Jayate – are mere words without meaning and significance for motivating the nation to proceed in the right direction and build a true and just India by true and just means. Perhaps power is all that matters to you – power by whichever means and at whatever cost.

REALITY: In regard to the conditions prevailing before and after my arrival on the scene, you and your collaborators have been perverting reality. The truth is that before the imposition of Governor’s rule on January 19, 1990, there was a total mental surrender. Even prior to the day (December 8, 1989) of Dr. Rubaiye Sayeed’s kidnapping, when the eagle of terrorism swooped the state with full fury, 1600 violent incidents, including 351 bomb blasts had taken place in eleven months. Then between January 1 and January 19, 1990, there were as many as 319 violent acts – 21 armed attacks, 114 bomb blasts, 112 arsons, and 72 incidents of mob violence.

You, perhaps, never cared to know that all the components of the power structure had been virtually taken over by the subversives. For example, when Shabir Ahmed Shah was arrested in September 1989, on the Intelligence Bureau’s tip- off, Srinagar Deputy Commissioner flatly refused to sign the warrant of detention. Anantnag Deputy Commissioner adopted the same attitude. The Advocate-General did not appear before the Court to represent the state case. He tried to pass on the responsibility to the Additional Advocate General and the Government council. They, too, did not appear.

Do you not remember what happened on the day of Lok Sabha poll in November 22, 1989 ? In a translating gesture, TV sets were placed near some of the polling booths with placards reading “anyone who will cast his vote will get this”. No one in the administration of Dr. Farooq Abdullah took any step to remove such symbols of defiance if authority.

Let me remind you that Sopore is the hometown of Gulam Rasool Kar, who was at that time a Cabinet Minister in the State Government. It is also the hometown of the Chairman of the Legislative Council, Habibullah, and also of the former National Conference MP and Cabinet Minister, Abdul Shah Vakil. Yet only five votes were cast in Sopore town. In Pattan, an area supposedly under the influence of Iftikar Hussain Ansari, the then Congress (I) Minister, not a single vote was cast. Such was the commitment and standing of your leaders and collaborators in the State.

And you still thought that subversion and terrorism could be fought with such political and administrative intruments.

Around that point of time, when the police set-up was getting rapidly demoralised, when intelligence was fast drying up, when inflitration in services was bringing stories of subversives plan like TOPAC, your protage, Dr. Farooq Abdullah was either going abroad or releasing 70, hardcore and highly motivated torrosists who were trained in the handling of dangerous weapons, who had contacts at the highest level in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, who knew all the devious routes of going to and returning from Pakistan and whose detention had been approved by the three member advisory board presided over by the Chief Justice. Their simultaneous release enabled them to occupy key positions in the network of subversion and terrorism and to complete the chain which took them again to Pakistan to bring arms to indulge in killings and kidnappings and other acts of terrorism. For example, one of the released persons, Mohd. Daud Khan of Ganderbal, became the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of a terrorist outfit, Al-Bakar, and took a leading part in organising a force of 2,500 Kashmiri Youths. Who is to be blamed for all the heinous crimes subsequet}y committed by these released 70 terrorists ? I would leave this question answered by the people to whom you are talking about the “Jagmohan Factor”.

The truth, supported by preponderence of evidence, is that before January 19, 1990, the terrorist had become the real ruler. The ground had been yielded to him to such an extent that dominated the public mind. He could virtually swim like a fish in the sea. Would it matter if the sea was subsequently surrounded ?

LABELLING ANTI-MUSLIM: In your attempt to hide all your sins of omission and commission in Kashmir and as a part of your small politics which can not go beyond dividing people and creating vote banks, you took special pains to demolish all regards and respects which the Kashmiri masses, including the Muslim youth, had developed for me during my first term from April 26,1984, to July 12,1989. Against all facts, unassailable evidence, and your own precious pronouncements, you started me labelling me as anti-Muslim.

May I, in this connection, also invite your attention to three of the important suggestions made in my book, Rebuild- ing Shahjahanabad: The Walled City of Delhi. One pertained to the creation of the green velvet between Jama Masjid and Red Fort; the second to the construction of a road linking Parliament House with the Jama Masjid complex, and the third to the setting up of a second Shahajhanabad in the Mata Sundari road-Minto road complex, reflecting the synthetic culture of the city, its traditional as well as its modern texture. Could such suggestions I ask you, come of an anti-Muslim mind ?

FORUM OF PARLIAMENT: How you and your associates use the fonum of Parliament undermine my standing amongst the Kashmiri Muslims, was evident from what N.KP. Salve, MP ?, did in the Rajya Sabha on May 25, 1990.

Referring to the so called interview to the Bombay Weekly, THE CURRENT – an interview which I never gave – Salve chose wholly unjustified expressions; “There was a patent and palpable attitude if very disconcerting communal bias and, therefore, he (Governor) was happy under the garb of eliminating the terrorist, the saboteurs and the culprits, in eliminating the whole community as it were; now the Governor has himself given profuse and unabashed vent to his malicious malignity, hate and extreme dislike, branding every member of a particular community as a militant”.

I know Salve. I do not think, if left to himself, he would have done what he did. Clearly, he was goaded to say something which was against his training and background. But the elementary precaution which any jurist, at least a jurist of Salve’s imminence, would have taken, was to first check up whether any such interview weekly had been given by me, and if so, whether the remarks attributed to me were actually made. The unseemly haste was itself revealing. The issue was raised on May 25, while the weekly was dated May 26 June 2, 1990. You yourself rushed a let to the President on May 25, on the basis ofthe interview that in reality did not exist. You explained that V.P. Singh had appointed a person with “Rabid Communalist Opinion as Governor. You also got your letter widely published on May 25 itself.

Since your party men did not allow me to have my say in the Rajya Sabha, even when an opportunity came my way to speak on the subject, I was left with no other option but to file a 20 Lakhs damage suit against the Current Weekly in the Delhi High Court. The case may take a long time and I may donate the damages, if and when awarded, to charity, but I intend sparing no effort to expose all those who have played dirty roles in the disinformation-drama.

ARTICLE-370: You created a scene on March 7, 1990, at the time of the visit of the All Party Committee to Srinagar, and made it a point to convey to the people in 1986 I wanted to have Article 370 abrogated. At that critical juncture, when I was fighting the forces of terrorism with my back to the wall beginning to turn the corner after frustrating the sinister designs of the subversives from January 26, 1990 onwards, you thought it appropriate to cause hostility against me by tearing the facts out of context. Whether this act of yours was responsible or irresponsible, I would leave to the nation to decide.

What I had really pointed out in August-September 1986 was: ‘Article 370 is nothing but a breeding ground for the parasites at the heart of the paradise. It skins the poor. It deceives them with its mirage. It lines the pockets of the “power elites”. It fans the ego of the new sultans, in essence, it creates a land without justice, a land full of crudities and contradictions. It props up politics of deception, duplicity and demagogy. It breeds the microbes of subversion. It keeps alive the unwholesome legacy of the two-nation theory. It sufficates the very idea of India and fogs the very vision of a great social and cultural crucible from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. It could be an epicentre of a violent earth-quake, the tremors of which would be felt all over the country with unforeseen consequences.

I had argued, ‘The fundamental aspect which has been lost sight of in the controversy for deletion or retention of Article 370 is its misues. Over the years, it has become an instrument of exploitation in the hands of the ruling political elites and other vested interests in bureaucracy, business, judiciary and bar. Apart from the politicians, the richer classes have found it aonvenient to amass wealth and not allow healthy financial legislation to come to the State. The provisions of the Wealth Tax, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Gift Tax etc, and other beneficial laws of the Union have not been allowed to be operated in the State under the cover of Article 370. The common people are prevented from realising that Article 370 is actually keeping them impoverished and denying them justice and also their due share in the economic advancement.’

My stand was that the poor people of Kashmir had been exploited under the protective wall of Article 370 and that the correct position needed to be explained to them. I had made a number of suggestions in this regard and also in regard to the reform and reorganisation of the institutional framework. But all these were ignored. A great opportunity was missed.

Subsequent events have reinforced my views that Article 370 and its by product, the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir must go, not only because it is legally and constitutionally feasible to do so, but also because larger and more basic considerations of our past history and contemporary life require it. The Article merely facilitates the growth and continuation of corrupt oligarchies. It puts false notions in the minds of the youth. It gives rise to regional tensions and conflicts and even the autonomy assumed to be available is not attainable in practice. The distinct personality and cultural identity of Kashmir can be safeguarded without this Article. It is socially regressive and causes situations in which women lose thier right if they marry non-State subjects and persons staying for over 44 years in the State are denied elementary human and democratic rights. And, above all, it does not fit into the reality and requirement of India and its vast and varied span. What India needs today is not petty sovereignties that would sap its spirit and aspirations and turn it into small “banana-republics” in the hands of ‘tin-pot dictators’, but a new social, political and cultural crucible in which values of truth and rectitude, of fairness and justice, and of compassion and catholicity, are melted, purified and molded into a vigorous and vibrant set- up which provides real freedom, real democracy and real resurgence to all.

I must also point out that when other States in the Union ask for greater autonomy, they do not mean separation of identities. They really want decentralization and devolution of power, so that administrative and development work is done speedily and the quality of service to the people improves. In Kashmir, the demand for retaining Article 370 with all its ‘pristine purity’, that is, without the alleged dilution that has taken place since 1953, stems from different motivation. It emanates from a clever strategy to remain away from the mainstream, to set up a separate fiefdom, to fly a separate flag, to have a Prime Minister rather than a Chief Minister, and Sadr-i-Riyasat instead of a Governor, and to secure greater power and patronage, not for the good of the masses, not for serving the cause of peace and progress or for attaining unity amidst diversity, but for serving the interests of ‘new elites’, the ‘new Sheikhs’.

All those aspiring to be the custodians of the vote-banks continue to say that Article 370 is a matter of faith. But they do not proceed further. They do not ask themselves: What does this faith mean? What is its rationale ? Would not bringing the State within the full framework of Indian Constitution give brighter lustre and sharper teeth to this faith and make it more just and meaningful?

In a similar strain, expressions like ‘historical necessity’ and ‘autonomy’ are talked about. What do these mean in practice ? Does historical necessity mean that you include, on paper, Kashmir in the Indian Union by one hand at a huge cost and give it back, in practice, by another hand on the golden platter ? And what does autonomy or so called pre-1953 or pre- 1947 position imply? Would it not amount to the Kashmiri leadership say in: ‘you will send and I will spend; you will have no say even if I build a corrupt and callous oligarchy and cause a situation in which Damocles’ sword of secession could be kept hanging on your head’?

KASHMIRI PANDITS: You and the like of you have made India a country which has lost capacity to be true and just. Anyone trying to be fair is dubbed communal. The case of the Kashmiri Pandits bears eloquent testimony to this fact.

Whatever be the vicissitudes of the Kashmiri Pandits’ history and whatever unkind quirks their fate might have brought to them in the past, these all pale into insignificance in comparison to what is happening to them at present. The grim tragedy is compounded by the equally grim irony that one of the most intelligent subtle, versatile, and proud community of the country is being virtually reduced to extinction in free India. It is suffering not under the fanatic zeal of mediaeval Sultans like Sikander or under the tyrannical regime of Afghan Governors, but under the supposedly secular rule of leaders like you, V.P. Singh and others who unabashed search for personal and political power is symbolized by calculated disregard of the Kashmiri migrants’ current miserable plight and the terrible future that stares in their eyes. And to fill their cup of pain and anguish, there are bodies like ‘Committee for Initiative on Kashmir’ which are over-anxious and over active to rub salt into their wounds, and to label anyone who wants to stand by them in their hour of distress as communal.

In a soft, superficial, permissive and, in many ways, cruel India which has the tragic distinction of creating over one lakh refugees from its own flesh and blood and then casting them aside like masterless cattle to fend for themselves on the busy and heartless avenues of soulless cities, chances for Kashmiri Pandits to survive as a distinct community are next to nothing. Split, scattered and deserted practically by all, they stand today all alone, looking hopelessly at a leaking, rudderless, boat at their feat and extremely rough and tumultuous sea to face before they can reach a safe shore across to plant their feet firmly on an assured future.

The deep crisis through which the Kashmiri migrants, or for that matter, the entire Kashmir, is passing is really the crisis of Indian values – the perversion, in practice, of its constitutional, political, social and moral norms. If I visited the camps of the refugees and tried to extend the firm hand of justice to a community in pain, if I instructed that, instead of cash doles, the migrant Government servants should be given leave salary, and if I conceded the demand of a widow of the person brutally killed by a terrorist, for allotment of a house on payment, I became communal, a known anti-Muslim, about whom concocted stories were planted in the press. If, on the other hand, someone falsely accused the Indian Army and the Governor’s administration, if he assailed Jagmohan in particular, of giving inducements through provisions of plots and trucks, without giving particulars either of plots or of trucks, his accusations got published all over the press, his reports were flaunted in national and international forums and were copiously quoted in Parliament by the members of your party and he was labeled as secular and progressive and champion of human rights and what not. Hard Evidence about ‘Jagmohan Factor’. I do not like to refer to anything that looks like indulging in self-praise. But not to let you get away with your calculated campaign of disinformation, about Jagmohan communal factor, I must invite attention to some hard evidence about what the people of the Valley actually thought about me before you and your proteges started the smear campaign on my appointment for the second term.

Your principal prop of current politics of Kashmir, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, was not to be left behind in the drive launched to create an ‘anti-Muslim’ image of mine. In his interview published in the Times of India of August 30, 1990, he said, “A known anti-Muslim was appointed as Governor of a Muslim majority state”. How untrue, how unfair, was the propaganda, should be obvious from the fact that on November 7, 1986, at the time of his swearing-in-ceremony, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, in a public speech for which the records exist, said: “Governor Sahib, we should need you very badly. It is, indeed, amazing that such remarkable work could be done by you in a short time through an imbecile and faction-ridden bureaucracy. If today three ballot boxes are kept – one for the National Conference, one for the Congress and one for you, your ballot box would be full while the other two ballot boxes would be empty”.

The misfortune of our country is that we have leaders like Dr. Farooq Abdullah who have no regard for facts or truth and whose superficiality is matched only by their unprincipled politics.

Incidentally, did it not strike you that Dr. Farooq was virtually accusing your late mother of being anti-Muslim because she was the Prime Minister when, in April 1984, a ‘known anti-Muslims’ was appointed for the first term, as ‘Governor of a Muslim majority State”?

Apparently in consultation with you, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, on February 15, 1990, issued a written statement to the press in Urdu in which he inter alia, said, “The Governor, in the personification of ‘Hallaqu’ and ‘Changez Khan’, is bent upon converting the valley into a vast graveyard. On account of continuous curfew since January 20, it is difficult to say how many hundreds of people have become victim of the bullets of the army and paramilitary forces, and in this general slaughter how many hundreds of houses have been destroyed. At this moment, when Kashmiris are witnessing their beloved country being converted into a vast graveyard. I appeal to the national and international upholders of humanity to intervene in Kashmir and have an international inquiry made into the general slaughter of Kashmiris at the hands of army and paramilitary forces”.

Here is your ‘patriot’ calling Kashmir “Aziz Wattan”, suggesting a separate country. Here is your ‘national leader’ asking for an international inquiry into the general slaughter of the Kashmiris by the Indian Army and paramilitary forces. Here is your ‘responsible friend’ speaking about the continuous curfew for 25 days in the valley and his consequent inability to find out many ‘hundreds of innocent and unarmed Kashmiris’ had been massacred and how many hundreds of Kashmiri houses razed to the ground, although he knew perfectly well that there had been a number of days when there was no day- curfew, partially or wholly, and the authorities had brought out the list of casualties, about 40 upto February 16, and were daily asking the public to provide with the additional names, if they had any, so that correction in the official list could be made. Here is an erstwhile Chief Minister who did not care to explain how ‘innocent and unarmed’ people were ruthlessly shooting down IAF officers, BSF jawans, senior officers of the Television and Telecommunications Department and young men in the streets; and how, while inciting people through lengthy and fiery statements, he did not find a single word to condemn such brutal murders.

Is the nation not entitled to know why you have not disowned such unfortunate behaviour on the part of Dr. Farooq Abdullah? And how do you account for his recent statement as published in The Times of India of February 7, 1991: ‘I directed my party men to lie low, go across the border, get training in arms handling; do anything but not get caught by Jagmohan’ ?

Stabbing me in the back at personal level, perhaps, did not matter. But by keeping the pot boiling, you your proteges prolonged the agony of Kashmir and caused many more deaths and much more destruction. The politics of unscrupulousness was brought to its lowest depth.

ROOTS: You once said, ‘I do not read history; I make history’. Apparently, you do not know that those who happen to make history without reading it, usually make bad history. They cannot understand the undercurrents and the fundamental forces that really shape the course of events and determine the ultimate destiny of a nation.

In the absence of historical perspective, you and the like of you never perceived the roots and tendrils, which gave rise to the current crop of separatism and subversion in Kashmir. Poisonous seeds were persistently planted in the Kashmir psyche. And these were liberally fertilised. Those of you whose obligation it was to stop these plantations and their fertilization, were not aware of even the elementary lesson of history; to compromise with the evil was only to rear greater evil; to ignore the inconvenient reality  was only to compound it; to bow before the bully was only to invite the butcher the next day.I could cite scores of cases to support my contention. Here I would restrict myself to only two examples.

Softness and Surrender. On October 2, 1988, Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday his statue was to be installed in the new High Court complex at Srinagar. The function had been announced. The Chief Justice of India, R.S. Pathak, was to do the formal installation. But a few Muslim lawyers objected. They threatened to cause disturbance at the time of the function. The Chief Minister gave in, almost willingly, to the bullying tactics. The function was cancelled.

What are the implications of what happened ? A secular Kashmir, part of a secular India, could not have, even in its highest seat of justice, a statue of the Father of the Nation, of a sage, who laid down his life for communal harmony. Who was the person spearheading the move against the installation ? It was none other than Mohd. Shafi Bhat, an advocate of the J and K High Court and an active number of the National Conference, who was later on given party ticket for Srinagar Lok Sabha seat in the elections held in November 1989 and with whom you kept warm company during your visit to Srinagar on March 7, 1990, to create as many difficulties as possible for Governor’s administration.

At that time there was National Conference (F) Congress (I) Ministry in office. Such was its lack of adherence to principles, such was the character of Congressmen who formed part of the Ministry and such was its disposition to cling to power that not even a little finger was raised when the function was cancelled.

The bully’s appetite could not have been whetted better. Intimidation could not have secured better results. The troublemakers could not have perceived a more casual and non- committed adversary. Was it not natural for them to nurture higher ambitions and think that more spectacular results could be achieved by deploying a more aggressive and threatening strategy ? Only a naive would believe that in the context of the Kashmir situation, softness and surrender on basic principles would not act as an invitation to terrorism and militancy.

The Union Government enacted the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. It was made applicable to all the States of the Union except J and K. Because of Article 370, concurrence of the State Government was needed for extension of this law to the State. But the same was not given. Why ? Because J and K is different what an argument for having a law which aimed at eradication of misuse of religious premises for political purposes.

Nowhere was this law needed more than in the State of J and K. Nowhere were religious places misused more than here. Nowhere were seeds of fanaticism and fundamentalism sown every Friday more assiduoulsy than from the pulpits of the mosques here. Nowhere was it preached more regularly than here that Indian democracy was un-Islamic, Indian secularism was un-Islamic and Indian socialism was un-Islamic. And yet, neither the State Government which was ruled by two supposedly secular parties, nor the Union Government took the matter seriously. What intrigued the most was that the law which was considered good for 100 million Muslims in other parts of India, was not considered good for 40 lakh Muslims of Kashmir.

What was the use of the nationalist forces ruling the country when they would not act in national interest at all, when they remained mental slaves of the politics of communalism; when they were inclined to place reliance on words and not on deeds; when they did not lead, but succumbed; when they encouraged, and not defeated, separatist elements; when, instead of building a new society strong in human and spiritual values, they did everything, wittingly or unwittingly, to repair, renovate and strengthen the old decaying and smelly sitadel of obscurantism; and when they invariably gave precedence to expediency over the basic goals and principles of our Constitution ? What could be the result of all this? Did it require any unusual insight to understand where such imperious forces would take us?

I leave it to the well-wishers of the nation to consider, without any political or personal bias, a basic question. How was it that Dr. Farooq was calling me Hallaqu and Changez Khan, and you were travelling all the way to Srinagar to ‘expose’ me as anti-Article 370, anti-Kashmiri and anti-Muslim and, at the same time, Miss Benazir Bhutto was vowing to tear me to pieces – ‘Jagmohan ko Bhag-Bhag Mohan Kar Denge’ ?

There are many other facets of Kashmir’s truth which lie buried underneath the heaps of disinformation and also of superficiality and shallowness. These days I am busy in an attempt to remove some of these heaps. One day, I hope, the country will acquire the true perspective of the problem. The Kashmiri masses would also realise that I was their greatest well-wisher. I wanted to save them permanently from the exploitative oligarches and also from the machinations of religious ‘Czars’ and forces of obscurantism.

You have already committed the sin of letting down the Bharat Mata in Kashmir. Now do not add to it another sin of letting down the other Mata also. There is, after all, some power above. Conscious of her. She may condone your negligence. But she would not condone your sin of blaming an innocent person for what were your own faults, particularly when he had been persistently reminding you of your obligations.

So far as I am concerned, I am content with my gloomy pride of having done the correct thing in Kashmir. True, I seemingly and, perhaps, temporarily, lost the goodwill of some of the locals. But I was not seeking a certificate from anyone. I had gone for the second term to do a national duty.

The country’s polity and administration have assumed such a character that it has become incapable of solving from its roots, any serious problem. Elections have virtually lost all meaning. And these would continue to be meaningless until and unless Indian democracy and its constitutional structure acquires a healthy cultural base, a pure soul and soil, from which the seed of justice, truth and selfless service could sprout and blossom into a Great Tree providing shade and shelter from Kanyakumari to Kashmir. Currently, the inner light is gone, and we are being led virtually by blind men with lanterns in their hands. We stumble from one crisis to another. As a poet says:

It has happened
and it goes on happening
and it will happen again.

With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Jagmohan

Reproduced from:
Converted Kashmir – Memorial of Mistakes
A Bitter Saga of Religious Conversion
Author: Narender Sehgal
Utpal Publications, 1994

Source :Kashmir Information Website

December 23, 2009

My name is not Khan, I am Mr Kaul


By Tarun Vijay

Tarun VijayI am not Khan. My name bears a different set of four letters: K A U L. Kaul. As those who know Indian names would understand I happened to be born in a family which was called Hindu by others. Hence, we were sure, we would never get a friend like KJ to make a movie on our humiliations, and the contemptuous and forced exile from our homeland. It’s not fashionable. It’s fashionable to get a Khan as a friend and portray his agony and pains and sufferings when he is asked by a US private to take off his shoes and show his socks. Natural and quite justifiable that Khan must feel insulted and enraged. Enough Masala to make a movie.

But unfortunately I am a Kaul. I am not a Khan.

Hence when my sisters and mothers were raped and killed, when six-year-old Seema was witness to the brutal slaughtering of her brother, mother and father with a butcher’s knife by a Khan, nobody ever came to make a movie on my agony, pain and anguish, and tears.

No KJ would make a movie on Kashmiri Hindus. Because we are not Khans. We are Kauls.

When we look at our own selves as Kauls, we also see a macabre dance of leaders who people Parliament. Some of them were really concerned about us. They got the bungalows and acres of greenery and had their portraits were worshipped by the gullible devotees of patriotism.

They made reservations in schools and colleges for us. In many many other states. But never did they try that we go back to our homes. They have other priorities and ‘love your jihadi neighborhood’ programmes. They get flabbier and flabbier with the passing of each year, sit on sacks of sermons; issue instructions to live simply and follow moral principles delivered by ancestors and kept in documents treated with time-tested preservatives.

They could play with me because my name is Kaul. And not Mr Khan. I saw the trailer to this fabulous movie, which must do good business at the box office.

There was not even a hint that terror is bad and it is worse if it is perpetuated in the name of a religion that means Peace. Peace be upon all its followers and all other the creatures too.

So you make a movie on the humiliation of taking off shoes to a foreign police force which has decided not to allow another 9/11.

The humiliation of taking off the shoes and the urge to show that you are innocent is really too deep. But what about the humiliation of leaving your home and hearth and the world and the relatives and wife and mother and father? And being forced to live in shabby tents, at the mercy of nincompoop leaders encashing your misery and bribe-seeking babus? And seeing your daughters growing up too sudden and finding no place to hide your shame?

No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie, a telling, spine-chilling narration on the celluloid, of five-year-old Seema, who saw her parents and brother being slaughtered by a butcher’s knife in Doda. Because her dad was not Mr Khan. He was one Mr Kaul.

Sorry, Mr Kaul and your entire ilk. I can’t help you.

It’s not fashionable to side with those who are Kauls. And Rainas. And Bhatts. Dismissively called KPs. KPs means Kashmiri Pandits. They are a bunch of communalists. They were the agents of one Mr Jagmohan who planned their exodus so that Khans can be blamed falsely. In fact, a movie can be made on how these KPs conspired their own exile to give a bad name to the loving and affectionate Khan brothers of the valley.

To voice the woes of Kauls is sinful. The right course to get counted in the lists of the Prime Minister’s banquets and the President’s parties is to announce from the roof top: hey, men and ladies, I am Mr Khan.

The biggest apartheid the state observes is to exclude those who cry for Kauls, wear the colours of Ayodhya, love the wisdom of the civilisational heritage, dare to assert as Hindus in a land which is known as Hindustan too and struggle to live with dignity as Kauls. They are out and exiled. You can see any list of honours and invites to summits and late-evening gala parties to toast a new brand. All that the Kauls are allowed is a space at Jantar Mantar: shout, weep and go back to your tents after a tiring demonstration. Mr Kaul, you have got a wrong name.

A dozen KJs would fly to take you atop the glory – posts and gardens of sympathies if you accept to wear a Khan name and love a Sunita, Pranita, Komal or a Kamini. Well, here you have a sweetheart in Mandira. That goes well with the story.

And you pegged the movie plot on autism.

I wept. It was too much. I wept as a father of a son who needed a story as an Indian. Who cares for his autistic son, his relationship with the western world, his love affair with a young sweet something as a human, as someone whose heart goes beyond being a Hindu, a Muslim or a proselytizing Vatican-centric aggressive soul. Not the one who would declare in newspaper interviews: “I think I am an ambassador for Islam”. Shah Rukh is Shah Rukh, not because he is an ambassador for Islam. If that was true, he could have found a room in Deoband. Fine enough. But he became a heartthrob and a famousl star because he is a great actor. He owes everything he has to Indians and not just to Muslims. We love him not because he is some Mr Khan. We love him because he has portrayed the dreams, aspirations, pains, anguish and ups and downs of our daily life. As an Indian. As one of us.

If he wants to use our goodwill and love for strengthening his image as an ambassador for Islam, will we have to think to put up an ambassador for Hindus? That, at least to me, would be unacceptable because I trust everyone: a Khan or a Kaul or a Singh or a Victor. Who represents India represents us all too, including Hindus. My best ambassadorship would be an ambassadorship for the tricolour and not for anything else because I see my Ram and Dharma in that. I don’t think even an Amitabh or a Hritik would ever think in terms Shah Rukh has chosen for himself. But shouldn’t these big, tall, successful Indians who wear Hindu names make a movie on why Kauls were ousted? Why Godhra occurred in the first place? Why nobody, yes, not a single Muslim, comes forward to take up the cause of the exiled and killed and contemptuously marginalized Kauls whereas every Muslim complainant would have essentially a Hindu advocate to take on Hindus as fiercely as he can?

If you are Mr Khan and found dead on the railway tracks, the entire nation would be shaken. And he was also a Rizwan. May be just a coincidence that our Mr Khan in the movie is also a Rizwan.

Rizwan’s death saw the police commissioner punished and cover stories written by missionary writers. But if you are a Sharma or a Kaul and happened to love an Ameena Yusuf in Srinagar, you would soon find your corpse inside the police thana and NONE, not even a small-time local paper would find it worthwhile to waste a column on you. No police constable would be asked to explain how a wrongly detained person was found dead in police custody?

Because the lover found dead inside a police thana was not Mr Khan. No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie on ‘My name is Kaul. And I am terror-struck by Khans’.

Give me back my identity as an Indian, Mr. Khan and I would have no problem even wearing your name and appreciating the tender love of an autistic son.

Source : Times Of India

Tarun Vijay’s Blog : http://tarun-vijay.blogspot.com/

November 7, 2009

Fatwa Against Vande Mataram


Flag

               

untitled

 

 

 

Vande Mataram. Welcome, minorities. The helpless, disadvantaged, poor, famished, persecuted, religious minorities of India. Population-wise constituting nearly one-fifth of India, they qualify to be a minority in a country which, because of their sheer numerical strength, earns the solemn distinction of being the world’s second-largest home, after Indonesia, to a faith which knows no boundaries. And those belonging to, rather longing for, the faith zealously claim — or proclaim by firman or fatwa — to abjure violence that they perceive inherent in the Bankim Chandra Chatterjee-composed national song “Vande Mataram”. The logic: if they simply mutter it, it is tantamount to apostasy.

No wonder, the country is thankfully indebted to them for their humility not to reject the national anthem “Jana Gana Mana” as perfidious to their creed. Who knows, they may jettison it, tomorrow.

Probably, it is a matter of time before they so choose. A few years ago the same “minority clan” of India raised a hue and cry over the recitation of “Saraswati vandana” as a prologue to school prayers. And, the country’s “liberal class”, cutting across the barrier of colour and creed, lent its unqualified support to them, justifying the inclusion of such a religious intonation as repugnant to the secular spirit of the Constitution.    

The volte-face by Union home minister P Chidambaram that “he was not present” when the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind adopted a resolution at its 30th general session at Deoband a couple of days ago, asking Muslims not to recite “Vande Mataram”, betrays a sense of vacillation, nervousness and indecision on the part of the country’s talking-tough-and-acting-firm home minister.

As a party person — Congressman — his stance of “not being present that moment” may be politically correct but as India’s “internal security” minister it simply does not hold water. More so, it comes at a time when such “Jamaats” hold the world to ransom by the insidious propagation of their bigotry in belief of the divine sort and a violently virulent streak of such an extremist school of thought has been wreaking unprecedented havoc on Indian society and nationhood.

If religious belief is in conflict, even remotely, with what defines nationhood, the latter expressly supersedes the former. Any edict by a religious minority — or for that matter any religion-based dispensation — if it generates or has the potential to generate a conflict of interest between what is mandated by the state or the statute and what the edict seeks to attain has to be treated as null and void.

Such “commands” do not carry the sanction of law and no immunity can be sought under the exclusivity of a “separate” personal law. Any personal law guaranteed by the Constitution for the protection of socio-religious rights of a section of the population is by no means a carte blanche for sowing the seeds of separatism. If it brooks disaffection, which in turn may lead to the fragmentation of a secular society, it ought to be dispensed with before it runs riot with the quasi-federal notion of the Indian state.       

What assumes seriousness in the context of the turmoil the country is facing at present owing to the deviant nature and deviousness of a particular faith needs no reiteration. The flip to the fissiparous tendency by such edicts — emanating from the extremist Islamic school of thought as represented by institutions like Deoband — is of far-reaching consequences and seditious in nature.

Such tendencies, and actions that follow from them, if allowed to go unchecked by the state, will eventually reverberate — on religious fault lines — into a call for separatism from the Union of India.

Such an eventuality may seem to be far-fetched at the moment and dismissed as a figment of imagination but the Khalistan movement and Kashmiri separatism, too, germinated in a similar fashion until they near-consumed the whole nation. Better nip the evil in the bud. It is better late than never. The state must show it has the will to exercise the hard option in a similar vein as it has now woken up to the twin challenges of Naxalism and militancy

Written By : Ramesh Khazanchi

Original Source : Times Of India

Also Visit an earlier Post HERE

September 24, 2009

Temples of Kashmir – Looted & Plundered


No matter how much the media tried to hide the facts , the truth is there for everyone to see.

The Temples of Kashmir having been looted and destroyed by Islamic fanatics even in the capiltal city Srinagar . One of the temple is just a stone throw away from the ‘secure’ area near world famous Dal Lake.

And the world continues to remain silent !!!

July 27, 2009

MP Assembly passes historic resolution on ‘Panun Kashmir’


The Madhya Pradesh Assembly passed a resolution unanimously today expressing support to the demand of Union Territory for Kashmiri Pandits in the valley of Kashmir. The resolution was moved by Mr. Umashankar (MLA) and supported by Mr. Deshraj Singh (MLA) and state Parliamentary Affairs Minister Mr. Kailash Vijay Wargi. The resolution was passed at 6:15pm today after an hour long discussion on the subject. The resolution besides other things demanded that the Government of India should in the meanwhile establish a commission of enquiry to find reasons for the plight of Kashmiri Pandits which includes their exodus from Kashmir. It also demanded that Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) including an economic package be announced for the community. It also demands that a bill to protect temples and shrines of Kashmiri Pandits be introduced with the concurrence of Kashmiri Pandit representatives for which a dialogue should be initiated with ‘Panun Kashmir’ the representative body of the community. The resolution further demanded that the Government of the country should take all necessary measures to ameliorate the sufferings for the community.

Panun Kashmir

When the bill was introduced, discussed and passed in the Madhya Pradesh Assemby; a team of community members was present in the Speaker’s Gallery of the Assembly, besides others who were present included Dr. Agnishekhar, Convener, Panun Kashmir and Shri Ashwani Kumar Chrungoo, President, Panun Kashmir.

Source : PTI , Yahoo , Hindustan Times , Zillr ,

Pls download the day actvity of Madhya Pradesh assembly MP – PK Resolution  HERE

July 18, 2009

Why Kashmir has no case for self-determination – Vivek Gumaste


Self-determination is a lyrical, mesmerising phrase that sparks the fire in a revolutionary and excites the cerebral neurons of a libertarian, galvanising both into frenzied activity. But self-determination shorn of its prerequisites and mindless of its implications can prove to be a toxic, self-mutilating instrument with deleterious consequences for its protagonists and antagonists. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Kashmir where it holds an uncertain future for its proponents in the Valley and can be the axiom that seriously erodes the basic fabric of India’s Constitution.

Self-determination in quest of a new nation-State cannot be a whim but must be a proposition grounded in solid reason. There must be justifiable cause to advocate separation. Do Kashmiri Muslim aspirations qualify for legitimate independence or is this brouhaha nothing more than a devious design by a majority to establish its hegemony?

The recent events in Kashmir are a microcosm of the movement itself: much ado about nothing. Acutely conscious of its waning influence and sensing a general apathy towards separatist fervour, as evidenced by the successful conduct of the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, the Hurriyat is in a tizzy, resorting to obfuscatory tactics to remain relevant. How else can you explain its tendency to impart an anti-Indian hue to each and every untoward incident that occurs in the Valley?

COURTSEY-ap

Courtesy - AP

The immediate trigger for the latest spate of protests in Srinagar  appears to be the alleged murder of Asrar Mushtaq Dar, a 20-year-old student who went missing on July 3 and whose mutilated body was found in a city graveyard on July 8. Details of the murder are still sketchy and the identity of the culprits is yet to be ascertained. But that really doesn’t matter.

“Asrar was later found to be murdered by his friends . The cause was a love traingle ..Ref : Indian Express

For in the charged and biased atmosphere of the Valley, any unnatural death becomes a cause celebre to whip up anti-India sentiments and implicate the security forces, ethics being an expendable appendage in the process.

Prior to this was the Shopian incident in which two young women, Neelofar Jan and her sister-in-law Asiya Jan, were found raped and murdered on May 30. While a judicial inquiry called for an ‘in-depth investigation’ and stated that ‘there is material on file to hold that the involvement of some agency of the J&K police cannot be completely ruled out’, it went on to give details of a possible family angle to the twin murders as the following news excerpt with verbatim quotes from the commission’s report indicates (Shopian panel even suspects victim. Majid Jahangir. Kashmir Live, July 11):

The police isn’t the only target. The report calls for a probe into the “rift” between the family of Neelofar and her in-laws. The fact that Neelofar, a woman from the upper-caste Peer family, eloped with Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar — who belongs to a family of blacksmiths — is also cited as a subject for further probe.

The report calls for a detailed investigation into the possible role of Neelofar’s estranged brother, Zeerak Shah, a police constable. “It is required that sustained questioning/interrogation of Zeerak Shah, his associates and relatives, be carried out so as to work out the possibility of their involvement in rape and murder of Neelofar and Asiya Jan”.

The commission also puts a question mark on the conduct of Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar, Neelofar’s husband and Asiya’s brother. Claiming that he is ‘known for his immoral activities’, the report says: ‘His assets are quite disproportionate to his known source of income, thus requiring in-depth investigation to work out the possibility of Shakeel and his friends/associates in the present incident’.

Then the report goes on to even suspect the victims themselves. ‘Spot inspection of the orchard reveals that the orchard is fenced with CGI sheets from three sides and there is no proper gate for entry into the orchard. There are about 35 small and big fruit trees, without any pruning/cutting and ground is full of weeds. The purpose of their regular and frequent visit to the orchard could not be established so far… It is quite possible that during these frequent visits to the orchard in last six/seven months, they (but more particularly Neelofar Jan) might have developed some relation with other persons.’

(more…)

April 13, 2009

Dr.Agnishekhar – Convenor Panun Kashmir


agni3

February 22, 2009

Vir Sanghvi finally speaks up against ‘Islamic blackmailers’


August 16th, a day after india celebrated yet another Independance day,while as Kashmiri Pandits continued to live as refugees in this great country, Vir Sanghvi in his editorial, Think The Unthinkable’, for Hindustan times wrote the following in his controversial article

………The exception to this trend has been Kashmir. Contrary to what many Kashmiris claim, we have tried everything. Even today, the state enjoys a special status. Under Article 370 of our Constitution, with the exception of defence, foreign policy, and communication, no law enacted by parliament has any legitimacy in Kashmir unless the state government gives its consent. The state is the only one in India to have its own Constitution and the President of India cannot issue directions to the state government in exercise of the executive power of the Union as he can in every other state. Kashmiri are Indian citizens but Indians are not necessarily Kashmiri citizens.  We cannot vote for elections to their assembly or own any property in Kashmir. ……..

In the above para Vir Sanghvi writes what every other Indian thinks,but is hesitant to demand a change to overcome this. Vir Sanghvi as a ‘sickular’ writer is also from the same bloc, which is no surprise. He continues with statements and writes further..

Then, there is the money. Bihar gets per capita central assistance of Rs 876 per year. Kashmir gets over ten times more: Rs 9,754 per year. While in Bihar and other states, this assistance is mainly in the forms of loans to the state, in Kashmir 90 per cent is an outright grant. Kashmir’s entire Five Year Plan expenditure is met by the Indian taxpayer. In addition, New Delhi keeps throwing more and more money at the state: in 2004, the Prime Minister gave Kashmir another $ 5 billion for development. ……

Given that Kashmir has the best deal of any Indian state, is there anything more we can do? Kashmiris talk about more autonomy.  But I don’t see a) what more we can give them and b) how much difference it will make. …..

The write up of Vir Sanghvi was almost a surrender to the people who have a nonsense value. People who use violence to make a state surrender to their idiotic demands which are backed by Islamic fanatics . Vir Sanghvi seemed to be saying, lets give up Kashmir and buy peace.

It discouraged me and many like me who eagerly wait every Sunday to read Virs editorial. I hated Vir & Hindustan times, i hated it for indirectly supporting those people who made me homeless.

And then i read todays Hindustan times ,six months later,and reluctantly opened the editorial . It reads “Stand up to the Mullahs“……It was a strange heading coming from a ‘sickular’ editor who are not supposed to write against Islamic might and mullahism , else they risk being called ‘hindu communalist’.

As i read the artcile i wondered where the hell is Vir going to run ? Is he going to be another Salman Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen ? How has he dared to take on mullahs ? How has he rebuked even the moderate muslims ?

Just read the following excerpts from the article by Vir Sanghvi

The rioters said they were offended by a passage in the article where Hari referred to the Prophet’s marriage to a much younger woman and his directive to burn Jewish villages. (In all fairness, he was as critical of other religions and of the Israeli assault on the West Bank.)

The rioters say that nobody can criticise any aspect of the Prophet’s life.

Why?

There’s no shortage of books and articles criticising Jesus, suggesting that he might have been secretly married (as in The DaVinci Code), arguing that the resurrection was a hoax or that Mary was never a virgin.

Vir Sanghvi questions the might of fanatics and gets even bolder and writes

 And yet, it is an article of faith with Muslims — even moderate ones — that the Prophet’s life is beyond reproach.

Does this make any sense?

Vir continues with much more reasonable arguments and makes a quick comparison of how tolerant Islami fanatics and moderates are , he writes

It is now clear that the liberal society has been suckered into relaxing its standards for free speech by militant Islamists.

Let’s take the most obvious example. Every liberal I know is outraged by the attacks on MF Husain. Why shouldn’t he paint nude Saraswatis? That’s his right. If people are offended by the paintings, they shouldn’t see them.

So far, so good. But now imagine that Husain had painted an extremely reverential portrait of the Prophet. (Never mind cartoons, nude pictures etc.)

There would have been riots. And even secular liberals would not have supported him.

We would have said: Islam prohibits any visual representation of the Prophet so Husain has committed a great crime.

But so what if Muslims cannot visually represent their Prophet? Why should non-Muslims be bound by their religious edicts? Why should non-believing Muslims be forced by liberal society to obey the restrictions of their religion?

Believers should follow what the Holy Book and the mullahs say. But why should the rest of us? Why should we abandon our right to free expression?

Nobody I know has ever explained why the double standards are justified.

In his concluding argument Vir Sanghvi accepts that we surrender to islamic fanatics …just read what he writes…

The real reason we give in to Islamic fanatics is the desire for a peaceful life or, to put it another way, cowardice.

Every one of their objections is always framed in terms of violence. Ban The Satanic Verses or we will kill Salman Rushdie. Apologise for the Danish cartoons or we will offer a reward for the head of the cartoonist. Arrest the editor of the Statesman or we will shut Calcutta down by rioting in the streets.

Faced with these threats, we abandon our principles and say things like, “Come on, is a single article worth the death of so many people?” or “Let’s just ban the book, otherwise these guys will keep rioting.”

The fanatics know this. They have identified the cowardice at the heart of our liberalism. So every demand is a) pitched in terms of protecting the religious sentiments of the Muslim community or b) facing murder, mayhem and more.

Almost every single time, we cave in.

Either we say that Islam is a peaceful religion

Or we get death threats.

…. Isn’t it time to finally stand up to these thugs and blackmailers?

It is good that Vir Sanghvi has finally spoken what is truth, spoken about being blacmailed by Islamic hardliners.

It wont be late when taliban , which are already knocking our doors, would be trying to rule us. Making our life miserable.

Today is it only the Kashmiri Hindus which have suffered and non speaks about them . Tommorow rest of Indians are likely to suffer from the same fate and that would perhaps make some ‘sickulars’ speak….

Perhaps it would be late then……..Its time Pronoy Roy, Barkha , Karan Thapar, Rajdeep , Sagarika and the rest wake up.

Wake up , speak the truth to save our India.

September 7, 2008

“Mr. Prime Minister …Pay attention to Kashmiri Pandits” -Jayalalitha


Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and AIADMK General Secretary J Jayalalithaa today asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to turn a Nelson’s Eye to the plight of Kashmiri Pandits, 3.5 lakh of whom have been displaced from homes due to terrorism.

In a statement here, she said, ”the displaced pandits lived in abominable conditions in make-shift camps in Jammu and Delhi despite being the original inhabitants of an idyllic paradise with a 5,000-year-old well-documented history.” She added that known for their highest literacy rate among all groups in the country the pandits’ liberal, broad-minded and secular views made them good teachers, but their small numbers and polite and passive temperament made them easy to be ignored and overlooked. 

In the 90s’ militant groups destroyed or took away their property and thousands brutally killed and they became refugees in their own motherland.

As many as 1,800 Kashmiri Sikhs also became the targets of Islamic militancy as well, she claimed and said they deserved to be viewed with the same sympathy as the Christian victims of Orissa violence.

While appreciating the Prime Minister for announcing a package of assistance for victims of Kandhamal violence in Orissa, she requested him to declare the Kashmiri Pandits as victims of religious extremism and provide them with rehabilitation package similar to that offered to the Orissa victims.

Source :News Kerela : Sept4.,2008

September 3, 2008

Indian Army In Kashmir

Filed under: History Of Kashmir, Human Rights, India, Jihad, Kashmir, Nationalism, Pakistan, Quotes for Thought — Tags: , , — TheKashmir @ 11:27 am

 

An Indian Army Doctor Treating an Old Muslim Lady

An Indian Army Doctor Treating an Old Muslim Lady in Kashmir

 

Despite the propaganda unleashed in Kashmir by pro separatists, terrorists and Pakistan based support groups and the pseudo secular supporters in India, the humanitarian Indian Army continues its good work in the Kashmir valley. Not only have they established schools and orphanages, but give free medical consultation and treatment to muslim citizens of the Kashmir valley.

These are facts that the Islamic fanatics would never like the world to know.

August 9, 2008

All politics, no blockade


The mainstream and separatist Kashmiri leaders may be crying themselves hoarse over the issue of ‘economic blockade’, but the ground reality is totally different.

While helicopters are hovering over the Pathankote-Jammu-Srinagar highway, the army has effectively sealed all the roads leading to this lifeline of supplies to Jammu & Kashmir. Meanwhile, hundreds of trucks laden with sheep, poultry, medicines and foodgrains are running smoothly toward their destinations, uninterrupted by protesters.

“It is our single-minded focus to keep the highway through and ensure supplies to Kashmir,” Chief Secretary S.S. Kapur said.

After some incidents of violence in the Jammu region — as also in Anantnag in the Valley — there were protests and blockade for a few hours in Punjab. These incidents — not entirely targeted against Kashmiris — were played up in the Valley as “economic blockade” even after the Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarash Samiti leading the Jammu agitation categorically denied any such move.

Hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani was the first to do so; thereafter, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, Yasin Malik, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed and Farooq Abdullah followed the suit, threatening they would look at the option of trading through the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road. They were exploiting the loose statement of state BJP president Ashok Khajuria, who had used the terms like “blocking supplies” and “quit Jammu”.

Meanwhile, Governor N N Vohra declared that whatever had happened on the roads leading to Kashmir were “traffic disruptions” and “not the economic blockade”. He made it clear that there was “no planned economic blockade”.

“They are apparently trying to out do each other in the similar fashion as they first did on the land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, for they view electoral gains in it,” said Mohammad Aslam Khan, a retired employee.   

The column had appeared in Hindustan Times.

Meanwhile a defence spokesman said :

The 300-km Pathankot-Jammu-Srinagar highway, the only road connecting Kashmir with the rest of the country, has been completely reopened to traffic and over 900 vehicles, including trucks and tankers, have ferried essential supplies in and out of the valley.”The highway is totally restored for vehicular traffic between Kashmir and the rest of the country. There is no economic blockade and traffic is plying as normal today,” defence spokesman said.

 

While the main shortage of medicine and essential supplies is in Jammu, where the officials have clamped curfew, the valley as ever have been able to portray themselves as “cry baby”. When one of my colleague called up his muslim friend in the valley and enquired about the situation , pat came the reply ” Koker Ha vaty”……..Meaning the “chickens have arrived”.

Meanwhile Jammu continues to suffer, with no let up in curfew.

 

August 3, 2008

‘Dictator’ Vohra imposes Un-announced Emergency in Jammu


Hindus targeted by Police in Jammu province. These pictures speak for themselves. TV Cable services have been snapped. SMS services on Mobile phone stopped and media banned. Governor Vohra is behaving like a dictator . 

Cane Charge on innocentsin Jammu

Cane Charge on innocentsin Jammu

Is being Indian a crime in Jammu & Kashmir ?

Is being Indian a crime in Jammu & Kashmir ?


Police brutality against Hindus in Jammu

Police brutality against Hindus in Jammu

Police acting like Barbarians

Police acting like Barbarians

Amarnath Land – A fight for Justice ,Honor and Equality


 

Martyr for Amarnath- Shaheed Kuldeep Kumar

Martyr for Amarnath- Shaheed Kuldeep Kumar

“Bigul Baj Raha Hain Andolan Ka Gagan Goonjta Hain Naroon Sai.” 

“Mila Rahi Hain Aaj Jammu Ki Miti Nazar Sitaroon Sai.” 

“Ek Baat Kehni Hain Laikin Aaj Desh Key Piaroon Sai.” 

“Janta Sai, Loogoon Sai, Foojiyoon Ki Khadi Kataroon Sai.” 

“Sambal Kai Rehna Apnay Ghar Main Chupay Huyay Gadaroon Sai.” 

“Jhank Rahai Hain Apnay Dushman Apnay Hi Devaroon Sai.” 

“Sanbal Kai Rehna Apnay Ghar Mian Chupay Huyay Gadaroon Sai.” 

“Jago Tumko Dogron Ki Jagir Ki Raksha Karni Hain.” 

“Jago Tumko Lakhoon Ki Takdir Ki Raksha Karni Hain.” 

Abi Jo Bani Hai Us Tasveer Ki Raksha Karni Hain.’

 

The message of the above poem is : Be Alert! Be Careful about the traitors who are hiding in your house. These traitors are peeping like sly criminals through our own walls.  Wake Up! Be Awake! You have to rise to protect the free hillock that has been given to you by the nation’.

July 27, 2008

Speech, Blog, Iphone & Lies of Mr. Omar Abdullah


It took me quite a while to decide about the subject of this post. I did not want to be as blunt in the subject-line as I ended up doing. The reason being that not much long ago i still believed that Omar was a bit different from the rest of Kashmir leadership. Finally I decided the subject as I have chosen would still do the least of justice to this post.

Last one week, India has witnessed and discussed the recent speeches made in parliament of India,which also happens to be the black day of Indian democracy.

Omars speech was admired for the passion and Barkha Dutt even went ahead to write in a newspaper column that her”Oscar” goes to Omar for his speech. I still fail to understand of what makes people of Indian subcontinent  to admire a speech ? Is the leader supposed to hold a comedy show to make the parliament of India laugh or resort to rhetoric to get noticed finally ? For me the speech was  all sound and fury but woefully short of substance.

Omars speech had been full of lies and self contradictions.And i feel ashmed that the “educated” people of India falied to notice it.  Here it goes ………

AMERICA : FRIEND or FOE OF MUSLIMS ?

The US is no friend of the Muslim world that is a point well ” – Omar Abdullah in his Blog on 4th July

That Comment made me think that was it right for a leader to make who has been the MOS for External Affairs in Govt of India and who still holds chance to become a minister again. I asked him through his blog if his opinion is based on Omar’s experience of having been the former minister in external affairs ministry or because of you being a Muslim  ?

Though not expected Omars reply came and he said “Why does it have to based on one of the other? Why not because of both or because of a completely different reason? Perhaps its based on what I see, read and understand.

 

the enemies of Indian Muslims are not the Americans, and the enemies of the Indian Muslims are not ‘deals’ like this” – Omar Abdullah in Parliament

Which Omar Abdullah do we trust. The Omar Abdullah who considers America not a friend of Muslim world or the Omar Abdullah who admits in parliament that America is not the enemy of Indian Muslims ? Is he playing to different galleries at different times in short span ?

Mr Abdullah , Would you care to clarify ? What exactly do think America is …a friend or a foe of muslims ?

 

ON AMARNATRH YATRA :

You show me one place where Kashmiris have attacked Amarnath Yatra Pligrims“- Omar Abdullah in Parliament

Omar , though aspiring to be the next Chief Minister of the troubled state of Jammu & Kashmir is so away from facts and news and it is something I find it hard to believe.  I find it hard to believe that Omar who plans to blog through his Iphone can not care to google the history of number of attacks which have happened on Amarnath Pligrims in last 19 years …atleast.. A simple google can refer him dates when 10 people were killed and when two got killed in grenade balsts and it seems he has been so involved with parliament trust vote that he is not even aware of the blast in Srinagar on Amarnath pilgrims when 5 people got killed , though unfortunately the victims turned out to be migrant labourers. In 2008 atleast four major attacks have happened to Amarnath Yatra piligrims at Banihal, Gulmarg, Ganderbal and Batmaloo. 

Omar. Wake up …your Iphone can google as well !

 

ON AMARNATH …. FIGHT OF NATIVES ……. & KASHMIRIS NOT BEING COMMUNAL…ON KASHMIRIS NOT BREAKING TEMPLES ETC ETC .

Omars Speech in parliament  was probably to convey a message to people of valley that he can be as communal as Ms Mehbooba Mufti or Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

How can Omar decide for Amarnath Yatra land to be handed over for Yatris or not . Amarnath Yatra is linked to Kashmiri Pandits for thousands of years.What Omar has tried to alter the history. His knowledge about Amarnath goes only as back as communal elements of Kashmir want him to Know . What he does not know is that Amarnath Yatra has been happening since almost 2000 years , even before Islam came to Kashmir . Linking Amarnath to “false” benevolence of Kashmiri muslims . Omar needs to read this article or Rajtangini to know about the history of Amarnath Yatra if at all he has to speak about this Amarnath Yatra.

He speaks about Kashmiris not having destroyed temples is again a gesture to mislead the people of the country. In a place where only temples have been destroyed, his memory fails to recollect it. For his memory here is the partial list of attacks on Temples in Kashmir  ,if he ever tries to speak truth again. For a little more detailed list of destruction of temples , Omar may visit this link.

No wonder this comes from the president of the party whose activist was one of the founder of terrorism in J&K and was a National Conference man and later become commander in chief of JKLF . The person who was H in HAJY gang was non other than Hamid Sheikh .

 Mr Omar Abdullah also said in Parliament that he was a Muslim and was an Indian too and that he found no difference between the two. I wonder why Omar preferred to issue no statement on this issue when threats were served to the non Kashmiris ( labourers) to leave the valley ?

ON his blog when he was confronted by a reader  (soulinexile) that his Iphone is illegal in India, Omar had come to his own defence by stating that he has bought the Iphone in France where it was illegal for Apple to sell locked phone . Though it was quick one from Omar , but what he missed out was by stating this he has once again lied to his readers . What he does not know is that even the unlocked Iphone bought in France wont work in India . iPhone sold in France— is not really unlocked. It retains a country lock, meaning the device will only allow use of SIM cards for carriers that operate in France. In other words, you can’t take your French, “unlocked” iPhone to Spain, the United States, or anywhere else, pop in a foreign SIM card, and make calls on a local carrier — you’re still stuck paying international roaming fees to your French carrier. Check here for details.

Do you Omar , still have the guts to admit that you have been lying ? Whether it is Amarnath , Kashmir or Iphones ?

 

 Hate Me As you would …..but the fact remains  !! Satymeva Jayate !!

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: