:: Kashmir Is Burning Muslims Are Dying And Blind UNO & Human Rights Are Enjoying ::

.:: Wake Up Call For World, UNO And Human Rights Organisations ::.




Indian State Terrorism Update
Jan-1989 - December-2010
Total Killings * 93,544
Custodial Killings 6,982
Civilians Arrested 118,874
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 105,901
Women Widowed 22,749
Children Orphaned 107,400
Women gang-raped / Molested 9,987


Indian State Terrorism Update
January 2010
Total Killings * 22
Men 19
Women 0
Children 3
Custodial Killings 1
Tortured/Critically Injured 277
Civilians Arrested 41
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 9
Disappeared 1
Women Widowed 7
Children Orphaned 15
Women gang-raped / Molested 0


Indian State Terrorism Update
February 2010
Total Killings * 23
Men 22
Women 0
Children 1
Custodial Killings 0
Tortured/Critically Injured 458
Civilians Arrested 204
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 54
Disappeared 3
Women Widowed 4
Children Orphaned 13
Women gang-raped / Molested 1


Indian State Terrorism Update
March 2010
Total Killings * 31
Men 30
Women 1
Children 0
Custodial Killings 0
Tortured/Critically Injured 97
Civilians Arrested 46
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 9
Disappeared 0
Women Widowed 0
Children Orphaned 0
Women gang-raped / Molested 5


Indian State Terrorism Update
April 2010
Total Killings * 36
Men 32
Women 0
Children 4
Custodial Killings 1
Tortured/Critically Injured 271
Civilians Arrested 80
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 0
Disappeared 0
Women Widowed 4
Children Orphaned 15
Women gang-raped / Molested 3


Indian State Terrorism Update
May 2010
Total Killings * 32
Men 32
Women 0
Children 0
Custodial Killings 2
Tortured/Critically Injured 209
Civilians Arrested 60
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 4
Disappeared 4
Women Widowed 3
Children Orphaned 6
Women gang-raped / Molested 3


Indian State Terrorism Update
June 2010
Total Killings * 33
Men 29
Women 0
Children 4
Custodial Killings 0
Tortured/Critically Injured 572
Civilians Arrested 228
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 16
Disappeared 0
Women Widowed 2
Children Orphaned 4
Women gang-raped / Molested 8


Indian State Terrorism Update
July 2010
Total Killings * 33
Men 23
Women 2
Children 8
Custodial Killings 2
Tortured/Critically Injured 988
Civilians Arrested 479
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 4
Disappeared 2
Women Widowed 3
Children Orphaned 6
Women gang-raped / Molested 6


Indian State Terrorism Update
August 2010
Total Killings * 72
Men 37
Women 4
Children 31
Custodial Killings 3
Tortured/Critically Injured 1505
Civilians Arrested 226
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 1
Disappeared 0
Women Widowed 3
Children Orphaned 9
Women gang-raped / Molested 20


Indian State Terrorism Update
September-2010
Total Killings * 92
Men 80
Women 3
Children 9
Custodial Killings 1
Tortured/Critically Injured 1116
Civilians Arrested 364
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 11
Disappeared 0
Women Widowed 8
Children Orphaned 16
Women gang-raped / Molested 16


Indian State Terrorism Update
October-2010
Total Killings * 34
Men 33
Women 0
Children 1
Custodial Killings 1
Tortured/Critically Injured 324
Civilians Arrested 183
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 7
Disappeared 0
Women Widowed 2
Children Orphaned 10
Women gang-raped / Molested 18


Indian State Terrorism Update
November-2010
Total Killings * 29
Men 23
Women 1
Children 5
Custodial Killings 5
Tortured/Critically Injured 181
Civilians Arrested 179
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 10
Disappeared 0
Women Widowed 1
Children Orphaned 4
Women gang-raped / Molested 5


Indian State Terrorism Update
December-2010
Total Killings * 10
Men 9
Women 0
Children 1
Custodial Killings 1
Tortured/Critically Injured 78
Civilians Arrested 88
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 7
Disappeared 1
Women Widowed 4
Children Orphaned 4
Women gang-raped / Molested 3

 * Including custody - Last Update 01-January-2011



The State of Jammu and Kashmir has historically remained independent, except in the anarchical conditions of the late 18th and first half of the 19th century, or when incorporated in the vast empires set up by the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Mughals (16th to 18th century) and the British (mid-19th to mid-20th century). All these empires included not only present-day India and Pakistan but some other countries of the region as well. Until 1846, Kashmir was part of the Sikh empire. In that year, the British defeated the Sikhs and sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh of Jammu for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar. Gulab Singh, the Mahraja, signed a separate treaty with the British which gave him the status of an independent princely ruler of Kashmir. Gulab Singh died in 1857 and was replaced by Rambir Singh (1857-1885). Two other Marajas, Partab Singh (1885-1925) and Hari Singh (1925-1949) ruled in succession.

Gulab Singh and his successors ruled Kashmir in a tyrannical and repressive way. The people of Kashmir, nearly 80 per cent of whom were Muslims, rose against Maharaja Hari Singh's rule. He ruthlessly crushed a mass uprising in 1931. In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah formed Kashmir's first political party-the All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference (renamed as National Conference in 1939). In 1934, the Maharaja gave way and allowed limited democracy in the form of a Legislative Assembly. However, unease with the Maharaja's rule continued. According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and ethnic issues.

In Kashmir, however, the Maharaja hesitated. The principally Muslim population, having seen the early and covert arrival of Indian troops, rebelled and things got out of the Maharaja's hands. The people of Kashmir were demanding to join Pakistan. The Maharaja, fearing tribal warfare, eventually gave way to the Indian pressure and agreed to join India by, as India claims, 'signing' the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. Kashmir was provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial plebiscite. This was spelled out in a letter from the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharaja on 27 October 1947. In the letter, accepting the accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the State would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. Having accepted the principle of a plebiscite, India has since obstructed all attempts at holding a plebiscite.

In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir. During the war, it was India which first took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on 1 January 1948 The following year, on 1 January 1949, the UN helped enforce ceasefire between the two countries. The ceasefire line is called the Line of Control. It was an outcome of a mutual consent by India and Pakistan that the UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed several resolutions in years following the 1947-48 war. The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948--one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir-stated that "both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite". Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. UNCIP Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC resolutions.

Nehru's Betrayal

India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a pledge to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with these resolutions. The sole criteria to settle the issue, he said, would be the "wishes of the Kashmir people". A pledge that Prime Minister Nehru started violating soon after the UN resolutions were passed. The Article 370, which gave 'special status' to 'Jammu and Kashmir', was inserted in the Indian constitution. The 'Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly' was created on 5 November 1951. Prime minister Nehru also signed the Delhi Agreement with the then 'ruler' of the disputed State, Sheikh Adbullah, which incorporated Article 370. In 1957, the disputed State was incorporated into the Indian Union under a new Constitution. This was done in direct contravention of resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP and the conditions of the controversial Instrument of Accession. The said constitutional provision was rushed through by the then puppet 'State' government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed. The people of Kashmir were not consulted.

In 1965, India and Pakistan once again went to war over Kashmir. A cease-fire was established in September 1965. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bhadur Shastri and Pakistani president Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Declaration on 1 January 1966. They resolved to try to end the dispute by peaceful means. Although Kashmir was not the cause of 1971 war between the two countries, a limited war did occur on the Kashmir front in December 1971. The 1971 war was followed by the signing of the Simla Accord, under which India and Pakistan are obliged to resolve the dispute through bilateral talks. Until the early 1997, India never bothered to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan even bilaterally. The direct foreign-secretaries-level talks between the two countries did resume in the start of the 1990s; but, in 1994, they collapsed. This happened because India was not ready even to accept Kashmir a dispute as such, contrary to what the Tashkent Declaration and the Simla Accord had recommended and what the UNSC and UNCIP in their resolutions had stated.

The government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, after coming to power in February 1997, took the initiative of resuming the foreign secretaries-level talks with India. The process resumed in March 1997 in New Delhi. At the second round of these talks in June 1997 in Islamabad, India and Pakistan agreed to constitute a Joint Working Group on Kashmir. But soon after the talks, India backtracked from the agreement, the same way as Prime Minister Nehru had done back in the 1950s by violating his own pledge regarding the implementation of UN resolutions seeking Kashmir settlement according to, as Mr Nehru himself described, "the wishes of the Kashmiri people." The third round of India-Pakistan foreign secretaries-level talks was held in New Delhi in September 1997, but no progress was achieved as India continued dithering on the question of forming a Joint Working Group on Kashmir. The Hindu nationalist government of prime minister Atal Behari Vajpaee is neither ready to accept any international mediation on Kashmir, nor is it prepared to seriously negotiate the issue bilaterally with Pakistan.

The Indigenous Uprising

Since 1989, the situation in Occupied Kashmir has undergone a qualitative change. In that year, disappointed by decades-old indifference of the world community towards their just cause and threatened by growing Indian state suppression, the Kashmiri Muslim people rose in revolt against India. A popular uprising that has gained momentum with every passing day-unlike the previous two popular uprisings by Kashmiris (1947-48, first against Dogra rule and then against Indian occupation; and 1963, against Indian rule, triggered by the disappearance of Holy relic), which were of a limited scale.

The initial Indian response to the 1989 Kashmiri uprising was the imposition of Governor's Rule in the disputed State in 1990, which was done after dissolving the government of Farooq Abdullah, the son of Sheikh Abdullah. From July 1990 to October 1996, the occupied State remained under direct Indian presidential rule. In September 1996, India stage-managed 'State Assembly' elections in Occupied Kashmir, and Farooq Abdullah assumed power in October 1996. Since then, the situation in the occupied territories has further deteriorated. Not only has the Indian military presence in the disputed land increased fundamentally, the reported incidents of killing, rape, loot and plunder of its people by Indian security forces have also quadrupled.

To crush the Kashmiri freedom movement, India has employed various means of state terrorism, including a number of draconian laws, massive counter-insurgency operations, and other oppressive measures. The draconian laws, besides several others, include the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), 1990; the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (amended in 1990); and the Jammu & Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, 1990.

Most Densely-Soldiered

The Indian troops-to-Kashmiri people ratio in the occupied Kashmir is the largest ever deployment soldiers-to-civilians ratio in the world. There are approximately 600,000 Indian military forces-including regular army, para-military troops, border security force and police-currently deployed in the occupied Kashmir. This is in addition to thousands of "counter-militants"-the civilians hired by the Indian forces to crush the uprising.

Since the start of popular uprising, thousands of innocent Kashmir people have been killed by the Indian occupation forces. There are various estimates of these killings. According to government of India estimates, the number of persons killed in Occupied Kashmir between 1989 and 1996 was 15,002. Other Indian leaders have stated a much higher figure. For instance, former Home Minister Mohammad Maqbool Dar said nearly 40,000 people were killed in the Valley "over the past seven years." Farooq Abdullah's 1996 statement estimated 50,000 killings "since the beginning of the uprising." The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)--which is a representative body of over a dozen Kashmiri freedom fighters' organisations-also cites the same number. Estimates of world news agencies and international human rights organisations are over 20,000 killed.

Indian human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir include indiscriminate killings and mass murders, torturing and extra-judicial executions, and destruction of business and residential properties, molesting and raping women. These have been extensively documented by Amnesty International, US Human Rights Watch-Asia, and Physicians for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists (Geneva), Contact Group on Kashmir of the Organization of Islamic Countries-and, in India, by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, the Coordination Committee on Kashmir, and the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples' Basic Rights Protection Committee. Despite repeated requests over the years by world human rights organisations such as the Amnesty International, the Indian government has not permitted them any access to occupied territories. In 1997, it even refused the United Nations representatives permission to visit there.

The Only Settlement

For decades, India has defied with impunity all the UN resolutions on Kashmir, which call for the holding of a "free and fair" plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Not just this. A massive Indian military campaign has been on, especially since the start of the popular Kashmiri uprising in 1989, to usurp the basic rights of the Kashmiri people. Killing, torture, rape and other inhuman practices by nearly 600,000 Indian soldiers are a norm of the day in Occupied Kashmir.
The Kashmir problem will be solved the moment international community decides to intervene in the matter-to put an end to Indian state terrorism in Occupied Kashmir and to implement UN resolutions. These resolutions recommend demilitarization of held Kashmir (through withdrawal of all outside forces), followed immediately by a plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the future status of Kashmir. The intervention of the international community is all the more necessary, given the consistent Indian opposition to both bilateral and multilateral options to settle the Kashmir issue. Such an intervention is also urgently required to stop the ever-growing Indian brutalities against the innocent Muslim people of Kashmir, who have been long denied their just right to self-determination.

A Nuclear Flashpoint

If the world community failed to realize the gravity of the Kashmir problem now, there is every likelihood of Kashmir once again becoming the cause of another war between India and Pakistan. And, since both the countries have acquired overt nuclear weapons potential, and since India led by Hindu nationalists has clearly shown its aggressive intentions towards Kashmir after declaring itself a nuclear state, a third India-Pakistan war over Kashmir is a possibility, a war that may result in a South Asian nuclear catastrophe. The world community, therefore, has all the reasons for settling Kashmir, the core unresolved political dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi.

Like many other international disputes, the Kashmir issue remained a victim of world power politics during the Cold War period. When the dispute was first brought to the UN, the Security Council, with a firm backing of the United Sates, stressed the settlement of the issue through plebiscite. Initially, the Soviet Union did not dissent from it. Later, however, because of its ideological rivalry with the United States, it blocked every Resolution of the UN Security Council calling for implementation of the settlement plan.

In the post-Cold War period-when cooperation not conflict is the fast emerging norm of international politics, a factor which has helped resolve some other regional disputes-the absence of any credible international mediation on Kashmir contradicts the very spirit of the times. An India-Pakistan nuclear war over Kashmir? Or, settlement of the Kashmir issue, which may eventually pave the way for setting up a credible global nuclear arms control and non-proliferation regime? The choice is with the world community, especially the principal players of the international system 

Kashmir and the subcontinent has a rich and tumultuous history. We can pick up the pieces in the nineteenth century, but the actual history of Kashmir begins much much much earlier, before Islam or Hinduism was present on the soil of our lands.

Long before the Crescent and Star flew atop Islamabad, long before Mohammed Bin Qasim invaded Sind, long before the Mughals spread prosperity in all the nooks and corners of the subcontinent, long before the Sikh dynasty got Kashmir from the British, long before the Chundra Gupta Vikramadatya ruled India, the people of Kashmir were tied to the people of Pakistan.

Kashmir has been in existence since 5000 years. Its history can be traced to time immemorial. Kashmir has always been a magnet to immigrants.

This is what Edward Desmond has to say about Kashmir in his book Himalyan Ulster:

On a map of the western Himalayas, the valley of Kashmir shows up as a smooth, oval-shaped patch amid a sea of surrounding peaks in what is today Indias Jammu and Kashmir state.

For thousands of years, travellers, freebooters, and empire builders have set down their breathless impressions of this valley the French writer Francois Bernier called it the paradise of the Indies with its towering pine forests, deep lakes, flower carpeted meadows, and fields of iridescent saffron. The seventeenth century Mughal emperor Jehangir sighed on his death-bed that his last wish was to visit Kashmir. Indians today revere the valley as the place they long to visit, and it serves as the setting for countless romantic Indian films.

Prior to Hinduism in the subcontinent, the Kashmir Valley (called Abhasrsa) traded with the Indus Valley Civilisation. In pre-Vedic times the people who lived in the Indus Valley lived in absolute harmony. There is some confusion as to who were the original inhabitants of the subcontinent. Many feel that there was a civilisation BEFORE the Dravidians landed in South Asia. Some have ventured to claim that based on the fact that all of Indias neighbours are Oriental, perhaps the original inhabitants of ancient India were Oriental in ethnic origin. The Dravidians either defeated the original peoples of India or totally assimilated with them. The Dravidians came to the subcontinent and made it their home. This is known: The Dravidians were not Hindu, the Dravidians preceded the Hindu era in the Subcontinent. The peaceful Dravidians were an enlightened and cultured peoples and they formed the Indus Valley Civilisation.

The Aryans came to the subcontinent in many waves, and caused havoc with the local inhabitants. These barbaric hordes came to the subcontinent and totally destroyed the earlier civilisations and formed their own caste systems. After many waves of Aryans had invaded the subcontinent, Hinduism as a later wave to the land now called Pakistan. Hundreds of years were spent in wars between the Dravidians and the Aryans. These wars are noted in pre-vedic literature as Ramayana. After the Aryan Hindus had settled in the land, they started fighting amongst themselves. The Inter-Aryan wars were called the Mahabharta wars. Hindus claim that 650 million soldiers died in the Mahabaharta wars (I didn't make up the numbers, I just reported them !).

The Arayans arrived in South Asia in waves. The Huns, the Rajputs and others were always in conflict. After the Hindu conflicts died down, around the 8th century B.C Buddhism took root in the subcontinent. Buddhist-Hindu wars claimed many lives.

The Kashmir valley was mostly inhabited by many people that included sun worshippers, Zorastarians, and Buddhists. Kashmir became an important centre of Brahman learning. Brahaman art, literature and philosophy flourished unhindered, on the backs of the untouchables, and the lower caste Hindus. After the 8th century the clear and loud message of Islam was heard in the Valley. It was the Sufis who carried the message of Mohamamd to Kashmir. The caste system of the Hindus, the Brahman cruelty, and the practices of Sati, and human sacrifices were fertile grounds for Islam in Kashmir. Slowly but surely, people converted to the message that accorded the Untouchables INSTANT equality among the Muslim brotherhood.

From 1326 to 1819, Muslims improved the lot of the Kashmiris and ruled the Kashmir valley with compassion and honour. The Mughals not only ruled Kashmir, they also brought it art, culture, music, paintings, and architecture that the people had never seen. Wherever the Moghuls lived they brought life with them. The Shalimar Gardens and the Mosques built in the Valley are a testament to the affluence of India in the 16th century. Jahangir was the wealthiest man on the planet and he spent his money to create luxury for his people. Kashmir benefited too. Hindu temples built in the sixteenth century were subsidised, and today they remain in the valley.

Hindus thrived in the Valley. The forefathers of the Nehrus lived and prospered in Kashmir during the Muslim rule. During the regimes of chaos during the Afghan rule (1752-1819) many Muslims lost their lives due to Patel persecution.

Kashmir was sold to the Sikhs following the defeat of Sikhs at the hands of the British in 1846, Gulab Singh, the cruel and dim-witted Dogra ruler of Jammu, acquired Kashmir from the British and ruthlessly tired to rule the state of Jammu & Kashmir.

The period of the Dogra rulers was the darkest in the history of the state. Gulab Singh was a ruthless ruler. He ruled by edict only, the edict of the Kirpan. Thus Jammu & Kashmir became a Princely State and remained so till 1947 until India occupied it.

ABHISARA

Contrary to popular belief, Kashmir is not a monolith. It has been called many names throughout history. The recorded history of Kashmir is more than five thousand years. On the eve of Alexander's invasion, Kashmir was called Abhisara. The great Kashmiri historians, Kalhan and Ratnakar have written beautiful stories about the valley, but the story of Kashmir begins much before that and Rajatarangini of Kalhana records some of it. Ibn-e-Batuta, Al-Beruni and Fa-hien mention Kashmir in their travelogues. Many Mughals, including Akbar mentions Kashmir in their many diaries. Muslim Kashmiri poets have eulogised the beauty of the Valley of Kashmir for centuries. Lalitaditya Avantivarman, Sikander Butshikan, Shamas-u-din Iraqi, Mirza Hyder Dughlat, Faquirullah Kanta, Mir Hazar Khan Zainul-Abedin, Duralabhavardhana, Jiyapida are only a few of the famous kings of the Valley.

Some Indian revisionists have tried to portray the picture that Kashmiri history begins with Maharaja Ghulab Singh. Kashmiri history began a long time before partition, a very long time before Ghulab Singh. It surely began before the very brief Sikha-Shahi of Lahore. To start the history of Kashmir in the nineteenth century is like beginning the history of the subcontinent after the war of independence of 1857 (The Great Indian Mutiny).

Kashmir and the subcontinent has a rich and tumultuous history. We can pick up the pieces in the nineteenth century, but the actual history of Kashmir begins much much much earlier, before Islam or Hinduism was present on the soil of our lands.

Long before the Crescent and Star flew atop Islamabad, long before Mohammed Bin Qasim invaded Sind, long before the Mughals spread prosperity in all the nooks and corners of the subcontinent, long before the Sikh dynasty briefly controlled Kashmir, and long before the Chundra Gupta Vikramadatya ruled India, the people of Kashmir were tied to the people of Pakistan.

The history of the subcontinent pre-dates Hinduism. Some in secular India are pawning off religion as history. Vedic events are religion. Ramayana and Mahabharta are the holy scriptures of Hinduism. These scriptures need to be revered and respected. We learn a lot about our land from these scriptures.

The state of Kashmir was not created by the Sikhs. Various areas of Kashmir were re-incarnated by the Sikhs during the British rule. The British defeated the Sikh leader, and the rule reverted to Hindu (Dogra) maharaja.

Ancient Origins

Some recent historians have portrayed the history of the subcontinent as wars between two monoliths, the Hindus and the Muslims. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The history of the subcontinent is a history of wars between the various peoples who lived the subcontinent and the people who came to the subcontinent. The history of the subcontinent is replete with wars against the foreigners.

Some recent revisionists have portrayed the history of Hinduism as the history of India. The absolute fact is that The Indus Valley Civilisation preceded the Aryans, and preceded Hinduism. IF Islam is a foreign influence in the subcontinent so is Hinduism. The Aryan Swastika was imported from the caucus mountains, and has non-Indian origins. The only original people of the subcontinent were the people who were in the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Stone Age

Though man existed in Palaeolithic, and Stone ages, the first real civilisation in the subcontinent was the Indus Valley Civilisation. The Pakistanis of Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir the Baraouhis tribes of Balauchistan are the true descendants of the Indus Valley Civilisation . The Aryans were invaders who came and destroyed the Indus Valley Civilisation. The Aryans then began creating states in the rest of India. The story of Ramayana is basically a story of wars between the Aryans and the Dravidians. The story of Mahabharta is a story of inter-Aryan wars.

Around 468 B.C. Jainism and Buddhism appeared on the scene. Both competed with the tenants of Hindusim. Gautam Buddha was such a dynamic sage, that many Hindus have adopted him as a God. Even some Muslims consider him a prophet. However the fact remains that Buddhism is different from Hinduism.

Though many Hindus later regard Buddha as God, the Brahmans were always leery of Buddhists because this reduced their power. Buddhism is fundamentally different than Hinduism because it does not believe in the caste system. Because of the lack of the caste system, the Brahmans did not like Buddhists.

Alexander Invades

On the eve of Alexander's invasion, Kashmir was called Abhisara. Abhisara consisted of the districts of Punch and Naushara. One of the few direct results of the Greek invasions of India was the establishment of Greek colonies in the area of Kashmir. One of Asokas edicts refers to the existence of Yavana (Greek) settlers on the fringes of his empire. We now know that he was referring to the area of Hunza. Actually after the fall of the Muyeria (Greek) kingdoms in India, the Bacterians formed a number of Greek kingdoms in the area in and around Kashmir. In fact Chandragupta actually faced Alexander for military help (324-300 BC) but did not secure it.

The foundation of the Maurya empire in the subcontinent saw Kashmir exist on the outer fringes of the empire. Chandragupta Muyara was a Jain. According to the records of Hieun Tsang and Kalhanas Rajaatarangini, Kashmir was included in the empire of Asoka the great (273-232 BC). One of the most brutal massacres of Hindus occurred at the hands of the Muyara kings. Some historians put the number at 300,000 (akin to 3 million in present day numbers).

Contrary to BJP belief, all massacres in India were not committed by Muslims, Persians and Arabs. Asoka renounced violence, and renounced his religion after the Kalinga war, and he became a Buddhist. The Brahmans did not like him, and many historians think the Brahaman opposition to Asoka led to the destruction of the Muyarian dynasty.

With political disunity in the subcontinent, many foreigners invaded India. Alexander's kingdom was divided. The Bacterians invaded India (250 BC). From the ashes of the Muyara empire, Kanishka the conqueror rose to power (78 AD) and began a new era in India. He annexed the Indus Valley and conquered Kashmir. He set up his headquarters in Purushapura (Peshawar). Kanishka was a Zorastrian. His coins display the sun god. Later in life he supported Buddhism (to the ire of the Hindu Brahmans). Kanishka had convened the Buddhist Council of Kashmir to spread Buddhism instead of Hinduism in the subcontinent (much to the chagrin of the Brahmans ). During Asoka, Buddhism had become the state religion. Hinduism survived only due to Indian princes like Gautamiputra Satkarni.

With the fall of the Muyara dynasty, the Guptas came to power (beginning of the fourth century AD) with their independent kingdoms. Dr. R.C. Majumdar writes that The empire of Samudragupta included the whole of Northern India EXCEPT Kashmir. During this time Fa-hien visited India to study Buddhism (399 AD). The Gupta period saw the distinct revival of Hinduism in the subcontinent. Buddhism declined, and never did rise in India. Kashmir was either independent at the time or was an insignificant state.

When did Kashmiri History begin

Although some Indians would like it to make it so, the history of Kashmir does not begin with Maharaja Ghulab Singh. Kashmiri history began a long time before partition, a very long time before Ghulab Singh. It surely began before the very brief Sikha-Shahi of Lahore. To start the history of Kashmir in the nineteenth century is like beginning the history of the subcontinent after the war of independence of 1857 (The Great Indian Mutiny).

The recorded history of Kashmir is more than five thousand years. The Sikh Dogras have said wonderful things about the paradise called Kashmir, but the story of Kashmir pre-dates Sikhism. The great Kashmiri historians, Kalhan and Ratnakar have written beautiful stories about the valley, but the beautiful story of Kashmir pre-dates Hindusim. Muslim Kashmiri poets have eulogised the beauty of the Valley of Kashmir for centuries, but the story of the valley pre-dates Islam. Lalitaditya Avantivarman, Sikander Butshikan, Shamas-u-din Iraqi, Mirza Hyder Dughlat, Faquirullah Kanta, and Mir Hazar Khan are only few of the famous kings of the Valley.

The history of the subcontinent pre-dates Hinduism. Some in secular India are pawning off religion as history. Vedic events are religion. Ramayana and Mahabharta are the holy scriptures of Hinduism. These scriptures need to be revered and respected. If these holy scriptures are mistaken for history, than we are all in trouble.

The IVC

Five thousand years ago the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation lived in harmony on the banks of the Indus. Moenjadaro, Harappa and Taxila were all towns on the banks of the Indus. This was one of the original civilisation on the planet. This civilisation is marked as great a civilisation as the Chinese and the Egyptian civilisation. The Indus Valley Civilisation did not extend East of the Indus. Neither did it extend beyond the Western Mountain ranges of Bolan, and Khyber. The Indus Valley Civilisation existed on the banks of the Indus. The Indus valley Civilisation existed in what is today Pakistan. Pakistan is the natural inheritor of the Indus Valley Civilisation, just like modern day China is the natural inheritor of the Chinese civilisation, and modern day Egypt in the natural inheritor of the Egyptian civilisation. Pakistan existed 5000 years ago, even though it was not called Pakistan. This is the geographic two nation theory.

People up the river traded with people down the river. People up in the mountains traded with people down in the plains. For thousands of years, Kashmiris cut down trees and threw them into the river. This was trade at its best. The people of the Indus valley traded with Mesopotamia to the West, but there was no civilisation to the east of the Indus to trade with. There were only monkeys and apes. A human civilisation did exist in the Malaya straits but that was too far for the Indus Valley Pakistanis.

Recent archaeological finds in Kashmir have supported the theory that the Indus valley Civilisation indeed stretched right to the origins of the Indus beyond the Himalayas, into the Karakorums and into Kashmir.

All through the centuries Pakistan and Kashmir were trading partners to the WEST and NORTH-WEST of current Pakistan by land routes and traders with Oman and Gulf state through Arabian sea. In modern times Sindh was part of Bombay presidency and there was hardly any trade across Rajistan desert. Under Mughals, Mirs of Sindh maintained quite an independent administration on current day Sindh Province. The Middle East had always used these Baluchistan, Sarhad, and Kashmir and other areas in current Pakistan to access the main land in India. In fact Gwader is a Pakistani Island port that was owned by Kuwait till the sixties.

Sarhad historically was trading partners with Kashmir, Punjab, Afghanistan and central Asia (including Sinkiang province of present day china). Kashmir did not even have a road link to India except through Muslim dominated portion of Punjab ---through a town called Gurdaspur. (The tragedy of Gurdaspuspur is the tragedy of Kashmir. Today The Muslim town of Gurdaspur is part of India, and so is Kashmir). All its trade of fruits, wood and handicrafts was to its south west and west (Punjab and Sarhad) the wood from its forests flowed down the INDUS to Pakistan and all the administrative services such as electricity/postal/communication etc. were linked from present Pakistan. Punjab was the only province which had major trade eastward. But the trade was also with countries to the west as well as rest of Pakistan. All of North west India east of the Khyber pass, is clearly a totally unique country, naturally allied to Kashmir.

THE ARYAN HUNS INVADE THE IVC

With the decline of the Guptas, the nomadic tribes of Central Asia called the Huns invaded India. Their leader Tormana invaded Kashmir (500 AD).

Jawaharlal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says Skandagupta, the fifth of the Gupta line had to face this Hun invasion...gradually they spread all over Gandhara and the greater part of Northern India. THEY TORTURED THE BUDDHISTS AND COMMITTED ALL MANNER OF FRIGHTFULNESS....There must have been continuous warfare against them, but the Guptas could not drive them away. Fresh waves of Huns came ...

HINDU SAVAGERY

Jawaharlal Nehru says the following about the Hindu Huns ...Torman installed himself king . He was bad enough, but after him came his son Miharagula, who was an unmitigated savage and fiendishly cruel. Kalhana in his history of Kashmir--the Rajatrangini--tells us that one of his Miharagulas amusements was to have elephants thrown over the great precipices into the valley below.

The treatment of men was sometimes worse then that of animals (some of the animals like cows were actually revered because they were Gods). Lower caste Hindus had a miserable life. Other historians have commented that the treatment of women was even worse, specially women of lower castes, they were considered the property of the upper caste Hindus, to be molested and/or raped at will. In many cases the new bride had to stay a night with the village Brahman before she was married off. Kashmir converted to Islam during this time period. It was cruelty like this that led to the whole sale conversion to Islam. The new religion offered them equality and saved them from the Brahmans.

Nehru continues, Soon however the Hun power weakened in India... the Huns have been defeated and driven back, but many remain in odd corners. The Great Gupta dynasty fades away after Balditya.

The next great event for Kashmir was the birth of Harshavardhana (606-647 AD). There are references to Harshas expeditions to Kashmir. According to the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang Kashmir was an independent state at the time. Harshas ancestors were sun worshippers, however he himself was attracted towards the Mahayana form of Buddhism. The Brahmans were very displeased with him and even conspired to kill him. Harsha spent time and money on arts and literature, and drama, and was probably the last great Buddhist emperor of India.

THE RAJPUT HINDU ERA IN INDIA

The death of Harsha ushered in an era of anarchy again. The Rajputs were the invaders this time. This era is called the Rajput era. According to Tod The Rajputs were the descendants of Sakas,Huns, Ushans, Gujaaras etc.

According to Rajatarangini of Kalhana which forms the chief source of our history on Kashmir, Duralabhavardhana founded a new royal dynasty in Kashmir about the middle of the 7th century. Lalitaditya ascended the throne in 724 AD and he conquered large areas of India and brought it under Kashmiri rule. After him (750 AD) the power of Kashmir receded.

Jiyapida, the grandson of Lalitaditya tried to revive the reputation of the Karkota dynasty. The Karkota dynasty in Kashmir was replaced by the Utpala dynasty about the middle of the 9th century. The Rajputs were true Hindus and patronised Hindu religion and culture in all of India.

THE RAJPUT ERA ENDS

The end of the Rajput era created the beginning of the Muslim era in India. Dr. Smith says that this became so prominent that the centuries from the death of Harsha to the Mohammedan conquest of Hindustan, extending in round numbers from the middle of the seventh century to the close of the twelfth century, was the Rajput era . This is 500 years of Hindu rule. This is one of the few periods of history when Hindus ruled India.

On the eve of the Arab invasion of Sind (712 A.D: Quaid-e-Azam said that this is the day the Pakistan movement began in India), Chandrapida, the grandson of Durlabhavardhan was the ruler of the Korkot (Kashmir ) kingdom The most powerful king was Muktipida Lalitadya, brother and successor of Chandrapida. He was a great conqueror, and is said to have conquered Punjab, Dardistan and Kabul .

Mahmud of Gahazni made two attempts between 1015-1021 to conquer Kashmir, but was unsuccessful. Mahmud of Ghazni attacked temples in the subcontinent because the temples were the seats of political power. The Brahaman priests kept all knowledge to themselves. They kept all knowledge away from the population, locked up in temples (including the knowledge to build the temple). To destroy the political and military power of the city, the temple had to be destroyed. Since the high priest controlled the populations, they had to be defeated. The temples also contained all knowledge of the area. Mohammed Ghauri was the founder of the Muslim empire in India (1173 A.D). The slave dynasty lasted from 1206-1290. The Khilji dynasty lasted from 1290-1320. The Tughlaq dynasty lasted from (1320-1412). In 1304 Ibin-e-Batuta visited visited China through Kashmir. The Syed and Lodhi dynasty lasted from 1413-1526. During the reign of the sultans of Delhi the Khokars had established themselves between Lahore and Ghazni on the Southern border of Kashmir.

The caste system, the practice of Sati, human sacrifices, the ostracization of the lowest caste Hindus from society, and the treatment meeted out to them led to the infusion of Islam into the beautiful valley of the safron. Since Islam allowed instant equality to the down-trodden the religion made huge in-roads into the valley.

From the eighth century through Muslims permeated the state of Kashmir even though the rulers were Buddhist. Kashmiri rulers were Buddhist till it was conquered by the Muslims in 1339 AD. Even though Kashmir was inhabited by Muslims, it was still being ruled by Buddhist princes till 1349 when Shah Mirza, after the death of his royal patron, ascended the throne under the title of Samsuddin Shah. Thus began the Muslim era in Kashmir. K.Ali writes that of the rulers of Kashmir, Zainul-Abedin was the best and most liberal ruler under whom people enjoyed a peaceful and prosperous reign. After Abedin, anarchy reigned in Kashmir. At the end of 1540, Haider Mirza a relative of the Mughal emperor Humanyun occupied the state. But the Mirza dynasty was overthrown by the Chakk dynasty in 1561.

From the eighth century till the fifteenth century the population of Kashmir changed. However it was not Arab invasions, or Persian conquest that transformed Kashmir, it was the power of the new religion. For seven hundred years Kashmir was under Buddhist rule. However the rule was autocratic, and people were treated like animals. The general populace was disenchanted with the state machinery, and the state religion. IN droves they converted to Islam. By the middle of the sixteenth century, the accession of a Muslim to the throne was a forgone conclusion.

At the time of Baburs invasion 1526 Kashmir and Sind were independent but they did not play any major role. Around the 3rd part of the sixteenth century Kashmir was passing through disorder. The chaotic condition of the state induced Akbar to interfere in its internal affairs. Moreover the excellent climate of the valley and its natural scenery might have attracted Akbar. Akbar conquered and annexed Kashmir in 1586-1587. Henceforth Kashmir became the summer seat of the Mughal government. During Jahangir, and Shahjahan's reign the Mughals built the magnificent Shalimar Garden in Kashmir. This is long before Ghulab Singh was in Kashmir.

For the next 100 years peace remained in Kashmir. Saddozais (Sikander Butshikan, Shamas-u-din Iraqi, Mirza Hyder Dughlat, Faquirullah Kanta, Mir Hazar Khan ) ruled Kashmir for almost a century before the Sikhs. Peace was broken by the rise of Sikh power. The Sikhs rose to power in 1675 under Guru Gobind Singh. After the death of Gobinda Singh in 1708 the Sikhs established several states in the Punjab. Rajat Singh establish the Sikh empire in the Punjab. The Sikh rule in the history of the subcontinent is a footnote in history. It was extremely brief and was known for its stupidities (hence the word Sikha-shahi, and the jokes about Sikhs). Gulab Singh tried to rule Kashmir by putting together diverse and far-flung areas like Jammu bordering on the Punjab, Ladakh bordering on Tibet and Gilgit bordering on Sinkiang, Afghanistan and Central Asia across the Pamirs. There are many diverse groups in Kashmir. Gulab Sings was a ruthless ruler.

MAHRAJAH HARI SINGH

SEX and FOLLIES OF THE NINCOMPOOP RAJA OF Kashmir

This is what Larry Collins and Dominique Lapiere write about the Sikhs in the Punjab in their book (Freedom at Midnight... the source book for the screen-play Gandhi).The collapse of the Mogul empire gave the Sikhs the chance to carve out a kingdom of their own in their beloved Punjab. The tragedy of the Punjab was that while Moslems, and Sikhs could live under the British, neither could live under each other. The Moslems memory of Sikh rule in the Punjab was one of mosques defiled, women outraged, tombs razed, Moslems without regard to age or sex butchered, bayoneted, strangled, shot down, hacked to pieces, burnt alive. This was the legacy of Gulab Singh and his successors.

This following is what Larry Collins and Dominique Lapiere write about last maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh in their account of the partition of India (Freedom at Midnight... the source book for the screen-play Gandhi).

Hari Singh was a weak vacillating indecisive man who divided his time between opulent feasts in his winter capital in Jammu and the beautiful flower-choked lagoons of his summer capital, Sirinagar, the Venice of the Orient. He had begun his reign with a few timid aims for reform which were quickly abandoned for an authoritarian system that kept his jails filled with his political foes. Their most recent occupant had been none other than Jawarlal Nehru. The prince had ordered Nehru arrested when he tried to visit the state in which he was born. Hari Singh too had an army to defend the frontiers of his state and give his claims to independence a menacing emphasis.

The bonfire (of the accounts of sexual eccentricities of some of India princes were in themselves lengthy enough to stoke a good fire for hours .... were being burnt at the behest of the British government ) consuming the archives dealing with the maharaja of Kashmir destroyed the traces of one of the more unsavoury scandals of the world between wars. The impetuous prince was trapped in fragrant delicto in Londons Savoy hotel by a man he assumed to be the husband of his ravishing bed companion. In fact, the prince had fallen into a gang of blackmailers who proceeded to drain the state of Kashmir, via the princes personal bank account, OF A VERY CONSIDERABLE PART OF ITS REVENUES. The case finally broke when the young lady's real husband persuaded that he had not been properly remunerated for the loan of his wife, went to the police. In the court case that followed, the unfortunate Maharajas infidelity was concealed under the pseudonym of Mr. A. Disillusioned for good with women as a result of his tribulations, Hari Singh returned to Kashmir, where he discovered new sexual horizons in the company of young men of his state. The accounts of his activities had been faithfully reported to the representatives of the Crown, Now whipped by the fresh mountain breeze of Srinagar, they disappeared into the Himalayan sky.

He ( Hari Singh) was a weak vacillating man whose perversions and orgies had given him the reputation of the Himalayan Brogia. Unfortunately, Hari Singh, the man who was Mr. A had titillated the readers of the British penny press before the war, was something else. He was the hereditary Hindu maharaja of the most strategically situated princely state in India.

Logic seemed to dictate that Kashmir join with Pakistan. Its people were Moslem. It had been one of the areas originally selected for an Islamic state by Rehmat Ali when he formulated his impossible dream. The k in Pakistan was for Kashmir.

Hari Singh the last playboy Raja of Kashmir was an abdominal character-less hedonist bi-sexual. His only redeeming quality was that he held out against Patels bullying. Hari Singh was escorted out of the state under the curfew of the Indian army. India claims that next day he signed the so called article of accession to India. According to Alistair Lamb a noted historian of Kashmir, has cast several doubts on the article of accession. India's claim to accession is in dispute. The U.N. recognised the dispute, and treats Kashmir as disputed territory between India and Pakistan.

UNDERSTANDING KASHMIR

A geographic region or an idea?

What is the background of Kashmir ? Pakistan is a country based on the banks on the Indus and its tributaries. All its major cities owe their existence to the rivers originating in the Himalayan mountains. Kashmir lies north of Pakistan, a natural extension to the mouth of the Indus river. It is in the ancient Silk Rout thorough which noted travellers like Ibn-Batuta, and Fa-hein travelled. Pakistan is the size of Texas and Minnesota put together. Kashmir is another Minnesota added to it.

Kashmir means many things to many peoples. The total area of J&K state is 2.22 lakh (222,000) sq. kms. Of this, the Pakistani area accounts for 78,114 sq. kms. Chinese area is 37,555 sq. kms plus another 3,180 sq. kms. ( that was an area adjusted during the boundary agreement with Pakistan ). At present, 35% of the state is Azad Kashmir and 17% is Chinese Kashmir. In a landmark boundary adjustment between Pakistan and China, China received 2.3% from Pakistan (There is no boundary dispute between China and Pakistan. China is today Pakistan's largest arms supplier. India occupies less than half of the original state which belonged to Hari Singh in 1947). The Indian area is 1.01 lakh (101,000)sq. kms. The Indian area is divided into the following divisions: Ladakh, Jammu and the Kashmir Valley. The Ladakh division is 49,146 sq. kms. The Jammu division is 26,293 sq. kms. and the Muslim Kashmir Valley is 15,948 sq. kms.

The population of the state governed by India is 6 million; of this, 64% are Muslims, 32% are Hindus, 2.2% are Sikhs and 1.2% are Buddhists. Another 2 million Muslims live in Azad Kashmir; taken together, Muslims would constitute 75% of the population of the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir, which is roughly 5% of the total Muslim population of India (the number of Muslims in India is more than 100 million). The Indians claim that in 1947 half a million Hindus and Sikhs also lived in Azad Kashmir. When 5 million Muslims were transferred from East Punjab to Pakistan, half a million Muslims fled Kashmir.

The Indian part of the state of Kashmir is divided into 3 main regions: Jammu, Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. In terms of area, Ladakh forms 58%, Jammu 26% and Kashmir valley 16%. Buddhists used to constitute a majority in Ladakh but a few years ago (according to the last Indian census reports) Muslims are in a majority in Ladakh now. Hindus form a majority in Jammu and Muslims form a majority in Kashmir valley. In British India Kashmir was about 95% Muslim. Before 1947, nearly a million non-Muslims -- mainly Kashmiri Hindus called Pundits ruled the Kashmiris with the Dogra ruler Hari Singh. After the Dogra raja left the state in Indian custody.
The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India.

 
The exchange of fire between their forces across the Line of Control, which separates Azad Kashmir from Occupied Kashmir, is a routine affair. Now that both India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons potential, the possibility of a third war between them over Kashmir, which may involve the use of nuclear weapons, cannot be ruled out. Kashmir may be a cause to a likely nuclear disaster in South Asia, which should be averted with an intervention by the international community. Such an intervention is urgently required to put an end to Indian atrocities in Occupied Kashmir and prepare the ground for the implementation of UN resolutions, which call for the holding of a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people. 

Cause of the Kashmir dispute  

India’s forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 is the main cause of the dispute. India claims to have ‘signed’ a controversial document, the Instrument of Accession, on 26 October 1947 with the Maharaja of Kashmir, in which the Maharaja obtained India’s military help against popular insurgency. The people of Kashmir and Pakistan do not accept the Indian claim. There are doubts about the very existence of the Instrument of Accession. The United Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. Except India, the entire world community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian subcontinent was partitioned by the British in 1947 justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: the State had majority Muslim population, and it not only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan but also had essential economic linkages with the territories constituting Pakistan.

History of the dispute

The State of Jammu and Kashmir has historically remained independent, except in the anarchical conditions of the late 18th and first half of the 19th century, or when incorporated in the vast empires set up by the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Mughals (16th to 18th century) and the British (mid-19th to mid-20th century). All these empires included not only present-day India and Pakistan but some other countries of the region as well. Until 1846, Kashmir was part of the Sikh empire. In that year, the British defeated the Sikhs and sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh of Jammu for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar. Gulab Singh, the Maharaja, signed a separate treaty with the British, which gave him the status of an independent princely ruler of Kashmir. Gulab Singh died in 1857 and was replaced by Rambir Singh (1857-1885). Two other Maharajas, Partab Singh (1885-1925) and Hari Singh (1925-1949) ruled in succession.

Gulab Singh and his successors ruled Kashmir in a tyrannical and repressive way. The people of Kashmir, nearly 80 per cent of who were Muslims, rose against Maharaja Hari Singh’s rule. He ruthlessly crushed a mass uprising in 1931. In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah formed Kashmir’s first political party—the All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference (renamed as National Conference in 1939). In 1934, the Maharaja gave way and allowed limited democracy in the form of a Legislative Assembly. However, unease with the Maharaja’s rule continued. According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and ethnic issues. 

In Kashmir, however, the Maharaja hesitated. The principally Muslim population, having seen the early and covert arrival of Indian troops, rebelled and things got out of the Maharaja’s hands. The people of Kashmir were demanding to join Pakistan. The Maharaja, fearing tribal warfare, eventually gave way to the Indian pressure and agreed to join India by, as India claims, ‘signing’ the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. Kashmir was provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial plebiscite. This was spelled out in a letter from the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharaja on 27 October 1947. In the letter, accepting the accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the State would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. Having accepted the principle of a plebiscite, India has since obstructed all attempts at holding a plebiscite.

In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir. During the war, it was India, which first took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on 1 January 1948 The following year, on 1 January 1949, the UN helped enforce ceasefire between the two countries. The ceasefire line is called the Line of Control. It was an outcome of a mutual consent by India and Pakistan that the UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed several resolutions in years following the 1947-48 war. The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948--one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir—stated that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. UNCIP Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC resolutions. 

Nehru’s betrayal

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a pledge to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with these resolutions. The sole criteria to settle the issue, he said, would be the “wishes of the Kashmir people”. A pledge that Prime Minister Nehru started violating soon after the UN resolutions were passed. The Article 370, which gave ‘special status’ to ‘Jammu and Kashmir’, was inserted in the Indian constitution. The ‘Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly’ was created on 5 November 1951. Prime minister Nehru also signed the Delhi Agreement with the then ‘ruler’ of the disputed State, Sheikh Abdullah, which incorporated Article 370. In 1957, the disputed State was incorporated into the Indian Union under a new Constitution. This was done in direct contravention of resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP and the conditions of the controversial Instrument of Accession. The puppet ‘State’ government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed rushed through the constitutional provision and the people of Kashmir were not consulted. 

In 1965, India and Pakistan once again went to war over Kashmir. A cease-fire was established in September 1965. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bhadur Shastri and Pakistani president Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Declaration on 1 January 1966. They resolved to try to end the dispute by peaceful means. Although Kashmir was not the cause of 1971 war between the two countries, a limited war did occur on the Kashmir front in December 1971. The 1971 war was followed by the signing of the Simla Accord, under which India and Pakistan are obliged to resolve the dispute through bilateral talks. Until the early 1997, India never bothered to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan even bilaterally. The direct foreign-secretaries-level talks between the two countries did resume in the start of the 1990s; but, in 1994, they collapsed. This happened because India was not ready even to accept Kashmir a dispute as such, contrary to what the Tashkent Declaration and the Simla Accord had recommended and what the UNSC and UNCIP in their resolutions had stated. 

The government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, after coming to power in February 1997, took the initiative of resuming the foreign secretaries-level talks with India. The process resumed in March 1997 in New Delhi. At the second round of these talks in June 1997 in Islamabad, India and Pakistan agreed to constitute a Joint Working Group on Kashmir. But soon after the talks, India backtracked from the agreement, the same way as Prime Minister Nehru had done back in the 1950s by violating his own pledge regarding the implementation of UN resolutions seeking Kashmir settlement according to, as Mr. Nehru himself described, “the wishes of the Kashmiri people.” The third round of India-Pakistan foreign secretaries-level talks was held in New Delhi in September 1997, but no progress was achieved as India continued dithering on the question of forming a Joint Working Group on Kashmir. The Hindu nationalist government of prime minister Atal Behari Vajpaee is neither ready to accept any international mediation on Kashmir, nor is it prepared to seriously negotiate the issue bilaterally with Pakistan. 
Popular uprising since 1989 

Since 1989, the situation in Occupied Kashmir has undergone a qualitative change. In that year, disappointed by decades-old indifference of the world community towards their just cause and threatened by growing Indian state suppression, the Kashmiri Muslim people rose in revolt against India. A popular uprising that has gained momentum with every passing day—unlike the previous two popular uprisings by Kashmiris (1947-48, first against Dogra rule and then against Indian occupation; and 1963, against Indian rule, triggered by the disappearance of Holy relic), which were of a limited scale. 

The initial Indian response to the 1989 Kashmiri uprising was the imposition of Governor’s Rule in the disputed State in 1990, which was done after dissolving the government of Farooq Abdullah, the son of Sheikh Abdullah. From July 1990 to October 1996, the occupied State remained under direct Indian presidential rule. In September 1996, India stage-managed ‘State Assembly’ elections in Occupied Kashmir, and Farooq Abdullah assumed power in October 1996. Since then, the situation in the occupied territories has further deteriorated. Not only has the Indian military presence in the disputed land increased fundamentally, the reported incidents of killing, rape, loot and plunder of its people by Indian security forces have also quadrupled. 

To crush the Kashmiri freedom movement, India has employed various means of state terrorism, including a number of draconian laws, massive counter-insurgency operations, and other oppressive measures. The draconian laws, besides several others, include the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), 1990; the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (amended in 1990); and the Jammu & Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, 1990. 

Most densely soldiered territory 

The Indian troops-to-Kashmiri people ratio in the occupied Kashmir is the largest ever soldiers-to-civilians ratio in the world. There are approximately 600,000 Indian military forces—including regular army, para-military troops, border security force and police—currently deployed in the occupied Kashmir. This is in addition to thousands of “counter-militants”—the civilians hired by the Indian forces to crush the uprising. 

Since the start of popular uprising, the Indian occupation forces have killed thousands of innocent Kashmir people. There are various estimates of these killings. According to government of India estimates, the number of persons killed in Occupied Kashmir between 1989 and 1996 was 15,002. Other Indian leaders have stated a much higher figure. For instance, former Home Minister Mohammad Maqbool Dar said nearly 40,000 people were killed in the Valley “over the past seven years.” Farooq Abdullah’s 1996 statement estimated 50,000 killings “since the beginning of the uprising.” The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)--which is a representative body of over a dozen Kashmiri freedom fighters’ organizations—also cites the same number. Estimates of world news agencies and international human rights organizations are over 20,000 killed. 

Indian human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir include indiscriminate killings and mass murders, torturing and extra-judicial executions, and destruction of business and residential properties, molesting and raping women. These have been extensively documented by Amnesty International, US Human Rights Watch-Asia, and Physicians for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists (Geneva), Contact Group on Kashmir of the Organization of Islamic Countries—and, in India, by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, the Coordination Committee on Kashmir, and the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples’ Basic Rights Protection Committee. Despite repeated requests over the years by world human rights organizations such as the Amnesty International, the Indian government has not permitted them any access to occupied territories. In 1997, it even refused the United Nations representatives permission to visit there.

Settling the Kashmir Issue

For decades, India has defied with impunity all the UN resolutions on Kashmir, which call for the holding of a “free and fair” plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Not just this. A massive Indian military campaign has been on, especially since the start of the popular Kashmiri uprising in 1989, to usurp the basic rights of the Kashmiri people. Killing, torture, rape and other inhuman practices by nearly 600,000 Indian soldiers are a norm of the day in Occupied Kashmir.

The Kashmir problem will be solved the moment international community decides to intervene in the matter—to put an end to Indian state terrorism in Occupied Kashmir and to implement UN resolutions. These resolutions recommend demilitarization of Kashmir (through withdrawal of all outside forces), followed immediately by a plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the future status of Kashmir. The intervention of the international community is all the more necessary, given the consistent Indian opposition to both bilateral and multilateral options to settle the Kashmir issue. Such an intervention is also urgently required to stop the ever-growing Indian brutalities against the innocent Muslim people of Kashmir, who have been long denied their just right to self-determination.

Averting a Nuclear Disaster

If the world community failed to realize the gravity of the Kashmir problem now, there is the very likelihood of Kashmir once again becoming the cause of another war between India and Pakistan. And, since both the countries have acquired overt nuclear weapons potential, and since India led by Hindu nationalists has clearly shown its aggressive intentions towards Kashmir after declaring itself a nuclear state, a third India-Pakistan war over Kashmir is a possibility, a war that may result in a South Asian nuclear catastrophe. The world community, therefore, has all the reasons for settling Kashmir, the core unresolved political dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi.

Like many other international disputes, the Kashmir issue remained a victim of world power politics during the Cold War period. When the dispute was first brought to the UN, the Security Council, with a firm backing of the United Sates, stressed the settlement of the issue through plebiscite. Initially, the Soviet Union did not dissent from it. Later, however, because of its ideological rivalry with the United States, it blocked every Resolution of the UN Security Council calling for implementation of the settlement plan. 

In the post-Cold War period—when cooperation not conflict is the fast emerging norm of international politics, a factor that has helped resolve some other regional disputes—the absence of any credible international mediation on Kashmir contradicts the very spirit of the times. An India-Pakistan nuclear war over Kashmir? Or a settlement of the Kashmir issue, which may eventually pave the way for setting up a credible global nuclear arms control and non-proliferation regimes? The choice is with the world community, especially the principal players of the international system.

The Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress.

 According to Mr. Justice Yusuf Saraf, author of "Kashmiris Fight for Freedom" the Quaid-e-Azam and his wife seemed to have had visited Kashmir for the first time before 1929. Though this visit was private in nature, yet as a great Muslim leader he felt concerned at the appalling conditions of the Kashmiris at that time too.

The second visit of the Quaid-e-Azam was in 1936 during which he hinted to his first visit, saying that he had visited Kashmir ten years earlier too. In 1936 the Quaid-e-Azam addressed a meeting held in connection with Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of the Holy Prophet (SAW) at the Mujahid Manzil, Srinagar. The Muslim Conference (at that point of time was led by Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and Sheikh Abdullah) in welcome address to Jinnah appreciated his role as lover of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Jinnah reciprocated the sentiments and said that the Muslims were in majority in Kashmir but it was their duty to ensure that the minority community that is, the Hindus of Kashmir would get justice and fair play at the hands of the majority community of Kashmir.

Mr. Jinnah, who was once proclaimed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, had been disillusioned by that time and in his speech regretted that some of the leaders of the majority community in British India had not been able to give such an assurance to the Muslim minority. That showed that the Quaid-e-Azam was not satisfied with the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity in British India.

The Muslim Conference, which represented the Muslims of the State 1936, was converted into National Conference in 1939 as its leaders had come under the influence of Nehru. Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, who had joined hand with Sheikh Abdullah in 1939 to found National Conference, realized his mistake within three years. He returned to the Muslim Conference, which had been revived by 14 other leaders from Jammu and Kashmir. Soon many others joined the revived Muslim Conference and once again it became a force to reckon with.

The main and the last visit of the Quaid-e-Azam to the State of Jammu and Kashmir took place in 1944. During this visit he attended a reception by the National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah had thought that with the help of Dogra administration and the active and crafty Hindus he would suppress the pro-Muslim League elements in the State and assure Mr. Jinnah that the Kashmiris, Hindus as well as Muslims, were believers in One Nation Theory of the Congress. A Hindu nationalist Jialal Kilam presented the address of welcome to the Quaid-e-Azam.

The Quaid-e-Azam thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress.

One Voice With Kashmir

After the reception of the National Conference, the Quaid-e-Azam moved to Dalgate, Srinagar where the reception of the Muslim Conference and Kashmir Muslim Students Union was waiting for him. The Quaid spoke out his heart at this reception. His clarion call was "Oh ye Muslims, Our Allah is one, our Prophet (SAW) is one and our Quran is one, therefore, our voice and PARTY MUST BE ONE".

In the Muslim Conference annual session at Muslim Park, Jamia Masjid, Mr. Jinnah was more explicit. He asked the Muslims of Kashmir to beware of the trap of secularism and nationalism of the Congress brand.

The Quaid-e-Azam stayed in Kashmir for two months and a week, which showed his inveterate interest in the affairs of Kashmir and his belief that Kashmir is a jugular vein of Pakistan. While in Kashmir the Quaid-e-Azam also remained involved with All India politics. The talks between him and Mohan Lal Karam Chand Ghandi were initiated by C Rajagopalacharya when Jinnah was in Kashmir. During his stay in Kashmir the Quaid-e-Azam created an atmosphere of understanding and support for the Muslim Conference and by his departure the Whole State was resounding with his slogans and that of Pakistan.

The Quaid-e-Azam was a principled constitutionalist and in his meetings he made it clear that the scheme of partition pertained to British India and as regards the States some additional formula would have to be envisaged.

Regarding Srinagar visit of the Quaid-e-Azam in 1944, Alastair Lamb says " M.A. Jinnah, unlike Jawaharlal Nehru was extremely reluctant at this period of time to involve himself directly (or the Muslim League which he headed) in the internal affairs of the Princely State; such action would in his eyes have been constitutionally improper. (Page 97 Kashmir Disputed Legacy).

The Quaid-e-Azam’s interest in Kashmir is evident from the fact that he explained the significance of the name of Pakistan to Mountbatten on 17 May 1947 as follows:

"The derivation of the word Pakistan – P for Punjab; A for Afghan (i.e. Pathans NWFP); K for Kashmir; I for nothing because that letter was not in the word in Urdu; S for Sindh and Tan for the last syllable for Baluchistan".

This explanation of the Quaid-e-Azam is contained in the official publication in the United Kingdom between 1980 and 1993 of the four final volumes of a selection of British documents relating to the Transfer of Power in India.

According to Transfer of Power papers TEX No. 473 the whole word Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan then went on to say, meant "Pure Land". The name Pakistan it seems was devised by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali in 1933. Since then the K is the world always bore the same significance: it referred to Kashmir.

Vital Links

The logic behind the partition of the Indian Empire into Muslim and non-Muslim partition clearly suggested that Kashmir ought to go to Pakistan. Firstly the state of Jammu and Kashmir was a region with an overwhelming Muslim majority contiguous to the Muslim majority region of Punjab, which became part of Pakistan.

Secondly the economy of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was bound up with what became Pakistan. Its best communication with the outside world lay through Pakistan and this was the route taken by the bulk of its exports.

Third: The waters of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab all of which flowed through Jammu and Kashmir territory, were essential for the prosperity of Agriculture life of Pakistan. From a strictly rational point of view, based on a study of culture and economy of the region, there can be little doubt that a scheme for the Partition of the Indian subcontinent as was devised in 1947 should have awarded the greater part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan. Thus Jammu and Kashmir is undoubtedly Jugular vein of Pakistan.

The Indus known in the subcontinent as ‘Sindh’ is 1800 miles long and is thus amongst the principal rivers of the world. Rising in western Tibet at the height of 17000 feet, it cuts across the Laddakh range near Thangra and continues its northwesterly course between it and Zanskar range for about 300 miles. Zanskar River joins it about 12 miles west of Leh. Before it enters Hazara, it has already traversed a distance of 812 miles. India has plans to divert the river at a proper point.

The river Jhelum has its source in Verinag in southern Kashmir, at a height of nearly 6000 feet, where it begins in the shape of small stream but by the time it reaches Baramula town, a distance of 102 miles it assumes the shape of a big river on account of having joined by its more important tributaries Sindh and Lidder. The towns of Islamabad, Srinagar, Sopore, Do-ab-gal, Baramula, Uri and Muzaffarabad are towns at its bank in the State. The river passes through Woolar Lake where India plans to construct a barrage, which if completed will starve Pakistan’s irrigated Lands. By the time Jhelum reaches Mangla it has a vertical fall of 4000 feet, which has been made use of by Pakistan by building a multiple purpose Dam Project.

Chanab descends from Lahole in the Chamba range of the Himalayas. It takes leave of the mountains at Akhnoor in Jammu and Kashmir State. It enters Pakistan at Khairi Rihal in Gujrat District.

At Salal, a place 7 miles from Reasi India has constructed a Dam. The Lake thus formed is being used not only for generation of electricity but also for irrigation purpose, which would reduce the quantity of water that flows in Pakistan. In times of War, it can be used to inundate large areas of Land in Sialkot, Gujranwala and Sheikpura. Parts of its water stands already diverted at Akhnoor to feed the Ranbir canal, which irrigates large areas in Jammu, Sambha and Ranbirsinghpura.

Under the Indus Basin Treaty out of five rivers of the Punjab two rivers namely Jhelum and Chanab came to Pakistan’s shared and three namely Ravi, Sutlej and Beas went to India’s. But all the three Pakistan rivers (Indus included) either rise in or traverse the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the agriculture of the Punjab and Sindh to a great extent depends upon the melting snows of its mountains.

The great Mangla Dam, so important to the economy of Pakistan, lies in the territory, which was once part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The valleys of the major Kashmiri Rivers, now so vital to the economy of Pakistan also provided until very recently the main lines of communications between the state and the outside world. The road to Srinagar started at Rawalpindi and followed the course of the Jhelum into the vale of Kashmir. The valley of upper Indus gave access to the hill State of Gilgit region. The Line of the beds of the rivers which created links between the western part of the Punjab (now Pakistan) and Kashmir also made communications between eastern part of (India) and Kashmir extremely difficult. The only road within the State of Jammu and Kashmir, for example, which linked Jammu (the winter capital of the State) with Srinagar (the Jammu capital) involves the crossing of Pir Panjal Range by means of Banihal Pass, over 9,000 feet high and snow bound in winter the easiest route between Jammu and Srinagar lay through west (Pakistan) Punjab by way of Sialkot and Rawalpindi at the moment of Partition in 1947 there existed but one road from India to Jammu, by way of Pathankot (which was again a tehsil of Gurdaspur District, a Muslim majority District with Pathankot tehsil having marginal Hindu majority); and this was then of poorest quality and much of it un-surfaced. Thus Kashmir has been described as the Jugular vein of Pakistan.

Hindu Intrigues

Krishna Menon wrote a private letter to Mountbatten on 14 June 1947 warning him with dire consequences for the future of Anglo-Indian relations, if the State of Jammu and Kashmir were permitted to go to Pakistan. The gist of the argument seemed to be that it might be perceived that British policy, while accepting abandonment of India, was to make Pakistan, strengthened by accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, into the eastern frontier of a British sphere of influence in the Middle East. Such development would not be at all popular in the newly independent India: and it might put at risk the extensive British interests there. It was essential n Menon’s view that the State of Jammu and Kashmir be brought within the Indian fold.

According to British Transfer of Power papers, Menon had asked Mountbatten not to keep this letter; it had however survived among the Mountbatten papers.

About the same time Mountbatten requested Nehru to prepare a Note on Kashmir for him, which Nehru did. Nehru in the Note said: "Kashmir is of first importance to us because of the great strategic importance of the frontier state".

Nehru concluded: "If any attempt is made to put Kashmir into the Pakistan constituent assembly there is likely to be much trouble because the National Conference is not in favor of it and the Maharaja’s position would also become difficult. The normal and obvious course appears to be for Kashmir to join the constituent assembly of India. This will satisfy both the popular demand and Maharaja’s wishes. It is absurd to think that Pakistan would create trouble, if this happens.".

Mountbatten disliked the prospect of independence for the State of Jammu and Kashmir after the Transfer of Power. While publicly declaring that Maharaja was perfectly entitled to accede either to Pakistan or India, he personally favored a solution where Maharaja left the decision to Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference as Nehru’s note suggested, Sheikh Abdullah would surely opt for India.

Sheikh Abdullah along with Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas was in prison. So the first important thing was to get him released. For this Nehru himself was keen to go to Kashmir. It was with great difficulty that Mountbatten was able to dissuade him on the ground that Nehru must " really look to his duty to the Indian people as a whole. There were four hundred million in India and only four million in Kashmir". It was rather irresponsible of the future Prime Minister of India, Mountbatten observed, to spend so much time on what was but one of the many grave problems confronting him.

Mountbatten himself did visit Srinagar but was unable to persuade the Maharaja to discuss serious matters. Alastair Lamb has however, interpreted the record on the discussion as implying that the Maharaja would be well advised to join India if he entertained any hope of retaining his position in the State. The Congress would keep him on his throne. Mr. Jinnah and his Muslim League would make sure that his subjects brought about his overthrow.

Jawaharlal Nehru, was however, disappointed that Mountbatten had been "unable to solve the problem of Kashmir" for he observed, "that the problem would not be solved until Sheikh Abdullah was released from the prison". It was eventually agreed that Mohan Das Karam Chand Ghandi should go to Kashmir in Nehru’s place to take up the "question of Sheikh Abdullah" and Mountbatten wrote to Maharaja to pave the way.

Incidentally Ghandi’s visit was not the only visit to the Maharaja by leading personalities of Indian side on the eve of the Transfer of Power. There were Kashmir excursions by Acharya Kriplani, the then President of Congress and the Sikh rulers of Patila, Kapurthala and Faridkot States of East Punjab which had decided to accede to India. Kapurthala was of course, a State with a Muslim majority (at least until the massacre that accompanied Partition) and a non-Muslim ruler. Jinnah desired to visit Kashmir but Maharaja did not agree. There is no evidence of consultation with Jinnah on Kashmir by Mountbatten as record shows with Nehru.

Mountbatten Bias

According to official British Transfer of Power papers Mountbatten had told the Nawab of Bhopal and the Maharaja of Indore on 4 August 1947, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was so placed geographically that it could join either dominion, provided part of Gurdaspur District was put into East Punjab by the Boundary Commission- in other words only by giving Gurdaspur to India, would the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir be presented with a free chance; to give Gurdaspur to Pakistan was effectively to guarantee that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would sooner or later fall to that dominion.

The geographic and economic links between Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan were better than those with India, particularly if in the actual process of Partition the Gurdaspur District of Punjab with Muslim majority were awarded to Pakistan. A Pakistani Gurdaspur would mean that direct Indian land access to the State (which was by no means ideal even across the Gurdaspur District) would have to be through Kangra District of Punjab (now in Himachal) over extremely difficult terrain provided foot hill of the Himalayas by either direct into Jammu or by way of Pathankot tehsil of Gurdaspur District (where there was a small Hindus majority) if that tehsil alone went to India; and all this would involve new roads which would take considerable time to construct.
The theory of partition was that all Muslim Majority districts contiguous to the Muslim core of Punjab would go to Pakistan. In the event, with the awarding of three out of four tehsils of Gurdaspur District to East Punjab (that is to say the part of Punjab, which was to be Indian) the accession to India of the State of Jammu and Kashmir became a practical as opposed to theoretical, possibility. Because two of these tehsils Batala and Gurdaspur, were with significant Muslim majorities (only Pathankot tehsil then had a small Hindu majority) this award seemed to go against the basic spirit of Partition; and the Gurdaspur decision has consequently been the subject of a great deal of discussion. Mountbatten has been accused, particularly in Pakistan, of deliberate intent to favor the interests of India over these of Pakistan.

Within Pakistan there has been a persistent consensus both among the elites and the masses that the Boundary Commission led by Cyril Radcliffe in 1947 has been responsible for most of the India-Pakistan discords with Kashmir leading the list. Pakistanis have maintained all along that last minute changes were made in the Boundary Award under manipulation by Mountbatten and their associates to suit the Indian geo-strategic imperatives. The cession of Muslim majority areas in Ferozepur and Gurdaspur areas (in former eastern Punjab) to India at the last moment have always been perceived in terms of India’s long time designs on Kashmir itself. Even long after Radcliffe’s Award, such question were raised not only in Pakistani and British press but, as the contemporary classified official documents reveal, inter-departmental concerns dogged the officials in British Foreign Office, Commonwealth Relations Office and their High Commissions in South Asia. In a luncheon meeting arranged by Mountbatten for Radcliffe and attended by Lord Ismay, a close confidant of the Viceroy, drastic changes were made in the Boundary Award. Rao Ayer, the Assistant Secretary to the Commission, the Maharaja of Bikaner and V.P. Menon played a crucial role in influencing the British official decisions at this juncture, denying Pakistan Muslim majority areas in Gurdaspur and Ferozepur Districts Menon, to the knowledge of all, was the trusted confident of Vallabhai Patel and enjoyed closer access to the viceroy whose personal antagonism to Jinnah was publicly known.

On Menon’s being confidant of the both Patel and Mountbatten Chaudhry Mahamood Ali in his book Emergence of Pakistan, has observed: "If a Muslim officer had been in V.P. Menon’s position was known to maintain contact with Jinnah, no Viceroy could have tolerated it without laying himself open to the charge of partisanship; in any case, the Congress would have made it impossible for such an officer to continue in that position". This has also been endorsed by Alan Cambell- Johnson in "Mission with Mountbatten".

A senior Muslim official himself had seen an early version of the map in Ismay’s office in Delhi, which had shown those areas already within India, even before the Award was made public. Radcliffe’s Secretary, Christopher Beaumont, in a detailed expose in February 1992, has further provided first hand substance to such long-held suspicion.

Radcliffe had prepared his Award about the distribution of territories of the Punjab between India and Pakistan by 8 August 1947 by which tehsils of Ferozpur and Zira were allotted to Pakistan. This was done on the basis of population ration – Ferozepur with 55 percent Muslim and Zira with 65 Percent Muslim, but it was Mountbatten’s support for a strong post-independence India against a weakened Pakistan, which made Mountbatten to pressurize Radcliffe to give these two tehsils to India so that India have access to Kashmir. British historian Andrew Roberts comes to believe that "Mountbatten’s action over delaying the announcement of Radcliffe Award after 9 August indicate of him guilty of the errant folly as well as dishonesty". He pleads in his book that Mountbatten deserved to be court-martialled on his return to London".

Pakistan Day Celebrated In Srinagar

Many Pakistanis, and not only the leaders like M.A. Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, once they appreciated the implications of the Award by Radcliffe Commission of the three eastern tehsils of Gurdaspur District to India, felt profound sense of betrayal. It was understandable that some of them should begin to contemplate unorthodox and unofficial course of action.

While Poonch formally became an integral part of Jammu and Kashmir State in 1935-36, its Muslim inhabitants (some 380,000 out of a total 420,000) resented the change and never reconciled themselves to being subjects of that State an attitude, which was to be of great significance in 1947. Traditionally the people of Poonch had little indeed to do with their neighbors in the vale of Kashmir across the Pir Panjal Range, and even less with Jammu: their links had always been across the Jhelum, particularly in the Hazara District of NWFP.

Large number of men from Poonch (mainly Sudhans from Sudhnuti tehsil) had served in the British Indian army during the War; and Poonch men (Poonchis) also constituted the strength of the Jammu and Kashmir State Forces; in 1947 the Jagir of Poonch may have contained as many as 60,000 ex-servicemen who could provide a formidable nucleus for any resistance to the Maharaja. In June 1947 there began in Poonch a "no tax" campaign which rapidly developed into a secessionist movement from the state greatly reinforced throughout much of Poonch (and in Srinagar as well) when on 14 and 15 August people tried to celebrate "Pakistan Day" (which coincided with Kashmir Day which had been observed since 1931) in defiance of Maharaja’s orders by displaying Pakistan flags and holding public demonstrations. Martial Law was introduced. About two weeks after Transfer of Power there were major clashes between the State Troops in this case and Poonch crowds resulting in large number of casualties.

Standstill Agreement

On 12 August 1947 the new Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State, Janak Singh proposed by telegram a Stand Still Agreement both with Pakistan and India. Pakistan agreed on 15 August. India procrastinated, arguing that the matter needed to be negotiated by an official from the State sent to Delhi. No such official was dispatched for this purpose- no Standstill Agreement ever concluded. The Indian response was certainly a departure from the procedure, which Mountbatten had earlier indicated and it suggested that Indian policy after Independence was going to set out in hitherto uncharted waters.

The Maharaja confronted with growing internal disorder (including a full scale rebellion into the Poonch region of the State), sought Indian military help without, if at all possible, surrendering his own independence.

On 25 October 1947, before the Kashmir crisis had fully developed and before Indian claims based on so-called Maharaja’s accession to India (which is alleged to have had been signed on 26 October 1947) had been voiced, Nehru in a telegram to Attlee, the British Prime Minister, declared that:

"I should like to make it clear that (the) question of aiding Kashmir... is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that (the) question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people, and we adhere to this view".

An instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is alleged to have been signed by Maharaja on 26 October 1947 and the acceptance of this Instrument was made by Governor General of India on 27 October 1947.

Another pair of documents consists of letter from the Maharaja to Mountbatten dated 26 October, 1947 in which Indian military aid is sought in return for accession to India (on terms stated in an allegedly enclosed Instrument) and the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to head the interim government of State; and a letter from Mountbatten to the Maharaja dated 27 October, 1947 acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored "the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people".

Fake Instrument of Accession

The recent research based on the material in archives and sources as the memoirs of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Prime Minister Jammu and Kashmir at that time Mehar Chand Mahajan and the recently published correspondence of Jawaharlal Nehru and V.P. Menon’s account (The Integration of Indian States) prove beyond any shadow of doubt that these two documents (a) the Instrument of accession and (b) the letter of the Maharaja to Mountbatten could not possibly have been signed on 26 October 1947. By that time Maharaja had fled from the capital and during October 26, 1947 he was traveling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan who was negotiating with government of India and senior Indian official concerned in the State matter V.P. Menon were still in New Delhi where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication between New Delhi and the traveling maharaja. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about IO A.M. on 27 October and the Maharaja learned from them for the first time the result of his prime minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that date. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have been the afternoon of 27 October 1947.

With regard to exchange of letters between Maharaja and Mountbatten, the former seeking military aid and the latter acknowledging the same and promising plebiscite, Alastair lamb says " It seems more than probable, both were drafted by Government of India before being taken to Jammu on 27 October 1947 (by V.P. Menon and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister M.C. Maharan whose movements, incidentally, are correctly reported in the London Times of 28 October, 1947) after the arrival of Indian troops at Srinagar field. The case is very strong, therefore, that the document i.e. Maharaja’s letter to Mountbatten was dictated to the Maharaja".

Government of India published two documents namely Maharaja’s letter and Mountbatten’s reply on 28 October 1947. But the far more important document- the alleged Instrument of Ascension was not published until many years later, if at all. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharaja. Instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharaja might have signed.

Alastair Lamb writes: "To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharaja has been produced; though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960’s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing".

Indian Intervention & Pakistan's Response

Indian official intervention was decided on 26 October 1947 and a massive airlift was immediately organized to fly two infantry battalions into Srinagar. Over 100 Dakota transport aircraft were assembled at various airfields around Delhi. Obviously this airlift had to have been product of much planning which had been started weeks before. There were surely contingency plans somewhere in the Indian army. The operation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir presented grave logistical problems particularly in winter. Publication of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel correspondence leaves one in no doubt whatsoever that he and his associates had been involved in military planning about Kashmir for more than a month before the operation which could have had hardly escaped the notice of senior British military officers.

On the other hand, when, late on 27 October 1947 the Quaid-e-Azam instructed Pakistani troops to go into the State of Jammu and Kashmir to try and restore order he was frustrated by the acting Commander in Chief of Pakistan Army Lt. Gen. Sir Douglas Gracey. By the same token, it would be seen that British Commanders on the Indian side adopted Nelsoniasn approach to Indian preparations for intervention in Kashmir.

Instead of carrying out orders of the Quaid-e-Azam Gracey telephone to the Supreme Commander Field Marshal Auchinleck in Delhi for instructions. On this Auchinleck flew to Lahore on 28 October. As a result of Auchinleck’s intervention the Quaid-e-Azam invited Mountbatten and Nehru to Lahore the next day to discuss Kashmir crisis. The invitation was accepted on telephone and departure of Mountbatten and Nehru was announced in the afternoon of the same day but four hours after the acceptance it was also declared that the trip had been cancelled. This meeting was then fixed for 1 November 1947, which was also not attended by Nehru. Mountbatten, however, came to Lahore on this appointed date. The Quaid-e-Azam in his three and a half-hour meeting with Mountbatten argued "that the accession was not bona fide, since it rested on violence and fraud and would thus never be accepted by Pakistan".

Quaid-e-Azam impressed upon Mountbatten the need for arranging plebiscite in Kashmir under the joint auspices of Governments of India and Pakistan, a proposal to which Mountbatten showed agreement just to put before the Indian cabinet.

Next day Mountbatten flew to New Delhi from Lahore and placed the proposal before the Indian cabinet. Nehru however, planned a different strategy. In a radio broadcast on 2 November 1947 Nehru declared that the Government of India " are prepared when peace and order have been established in Kashmir to have a reference held ‘not under arrangements to be made by Government’s of India and Pakistan", (as advised by the Quaid-e-Azam), but "under international auspices like the United Nations".

The full Indian presentation was sent to the United Nations on 31 December and put before the Security Council the next day. Since then the Kashmir dispute is on the agenda of the United Nations. The world body has passed numerous resolutions calling for holding UN supervised plebiscite to let the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide their destiny. Both India and Pakistan had accepted the UN resolutions. India’s founding father Nehru had pledged more than once not to go back on it "as a great nation". Pakistan and people of Jammu and Kashmir State are demanding implementation of these resolutions, which India claims to have become redundant with the passage of time.
Mountbatten’s breach of trust and Nehru’s devious policy had an adverse effect on the Quaid-e-Azam’s health. At the time of Partition he had been confident of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan because of its Muslim population and geographical situation. At a public reception at Lahore the Quaid-e-Azam said: "We have been victim of a deep-laid and well-planned plot executed with utter disregard for the elementary principles of honesty, chivalry and honor".

Jugular Vein

In May 1948 the Quaid-e-Azam moved to Ziarat for rest where he remained under medical treatment of a team of doctors including Dr. Riaz Ali Shah till his death in September 1948. According to Dr. Riaz Ali Shah’s Diary (Publishing House, Bull Road publication 1950) the Quaid-e-Azam was stated to have said, "Kashmir is the Jugular vein of Pakistan and no nation or country would tolerate its Jugular vein remains under the sword of the enemy".

Not only the Jugular vein of Pakistan but also that of Kashmiri community in particular has been under the sword of the enemy for the last fifty years. In fact the people of the Indian occupied Kashmir have been pushed to the wall to have this realization. Those who supported the States accession to India or remained indifferent at that time now stand disillusioned. The people of Kashmir particularly the Muslim majority were gradually subjected to economic strangulation. In early years India did pump huge funds for development of the occupied State to show to the world that rapid economic progress was taking place in the area. Several welfare schemes were launched including free education from primary and post-graduate level. This gave temporary satisfaction to both classes of people namely pro-accession and anti-accession. The former saw in it vindication of their stance. The latter thanked Pakistan for keeping the Kashmir issue alive forcing India to siphon more and more money to Kashmir.

Simultaneously with spending funds in the State of Jammu and Kashmir cultural and economic onslaught was let loose in full swing. Hindi was introduced in almost all-educational institutions; in some it was compulsorily taught. Roads and institutions were re-christened after the name of Indian leaders. Wherever there was resistance from the local population, the move was temporarily suspended. Islamabad town founded by Islam Khan, a Subedar of Mughal King in 1640, and known for sulphurous springs and black fish was re-christened as Anantnag (plenty of springs). The local population resisted the official change in the town’s name. All shops and private buses plying to and from the town carried Islamabad signboard. But post Office took pains to correct the mail address to Anantnag. Local people however, persistently post their letters with Islamabad address.

Indian economic tentacles were spread to the farthest corner of the State by opening offices of State Bank of India (which is like National Bank of Pakistan). On the roadside one could see signboards of IFFECO (Indian farmer’s cooperative organization for marketing) and All India handicraft Board.

Economic domination by non-Muslim and non-kashmiris mounted. In 80’s in Srinagar alone 42,000 Muslim families had mortgaged their immovable property to Indian banks at as high rate as 20 percent interest. The Indian banks were liberal in advancing loans for non-productive ventures but very niggardly in case of economically feasible projects. Within years the borrowers were deprived of their belongings through court decrees.

No commercial article reached the consumers without passing through non-Muslim and non-kashmiri agencies. Export business had been monopolized by non-Muslims and non-kashmiris. In 80’s except for one Muslim firm namely Indo-Kashmir Carpet, six other exporters licensed to export carpets from Kashmir were non-Muslim, non-kashmiri firms.

The original industries for which Kashmir was known for namely carpet- manufacturing, fruit cultivation, wood carving, embroidery and paper mache had gone in quandary. After occupation Indian Government made it a point to recruit all leading skilled labor as instructors to train persons in Himachal Pradesh in the same trade. Thus industries like embroidery and fruit cultivation had gradually centered in Himachal Pradesh. With closure of short land routes leading to Pakistan after Indian occupation, fresh fruits of Kashmir could not reach markets. Kashmir type carpets started to be manufactured in Amritsar (Punjab) and Mirzapur (UP). Wood carving on Kashmir pattern had been started in Saharanpur (U.P). Himachal, Saharanpur Mirzapur and Amritsar products elbowed out the Kashmiri products from market on account of being cheaper because of less transport expenses. Patterns of Kashmiri artcraft were fed into Indian machines to make Kashmiri handicrafts uneconomical.

Tourism remained the only industry in the field till the resistance movement was afoot in late 90’s. The clientele was largely Hindu from India. This too posed a cultural threat to Kashmiris. Guides and attendants would say "Nomaskar" with folded hands lest they should be deprived of their tips’. In 90’s a Muslim guide was asked what was his name, he replied ‘X,Y,Z". He did not disclose his name and faith till he found that his addressed was a Muslim.

Even the National Conference elements who supported accession to India in early years are now disillusioned and repentant in their hearts of heart. In early 80’s a National Conference stalwart admitted: " We had apprehended that by merger with Pakistan, Kashmir culture would be eroded under Punjab domination as the Punjabis are of aggressive temperament. But now we feel that Kashmiri culture was to go anyway and our Islamic character would undoubtedly have the Hindu impact. But now that the mistake had been done, its rectification will depend on time and circumstances. " If ballot had been allowed to have a free play Kashmiris would have kept their separate identity intact. But that was not so be so. There may be no immediate reaction on the surface but after fifteen years or so, Kashmir will be a base for Pakistan provided Pakistan is intrinsically strong at that time", he said after regaining self-confidence.

As the Kashmiris are keen to keep their religion and cultural ethos intact, the Hindu minority backed by Indian government is equally enthusiast about not letting the Muslim influence spread in areas where Muslims are not in majority, say Jammu and Laddakh. Administrative arrangements are often made at the instance of Indian Government so that Hindu majority areas, even at district and tehsil level get as much free hand as possible.

In recent years Laddakh Hill Council was constituted to give them an internal autonomy. Hindu Pundits of Kashmir valley also staged a drama of leaving their hearths and homes to shift to Jammu to give communal color to the ongoing struggle for the right to self-determination by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Jammu also has been getting more autonomous as compared to the past. There used to be one Director Education for the entire Jammu and Kashmir State. Now there are two full-fledged Directors of Education separately in charge of Jammu and Kashmir with separate funds of equal amount.

A chairman of Jammu and Kashmir State Public Service Commission had to quit his job, as he did not oblige to recruit a certain percentage of Hindu teachers irrespective of their low merit for appointment in State schools. Sheikh Abdullah had been told by Indian Government that certain percentage of Hindus had to be taken for recruitment as schoolteachers. When a Muslim and Kashmiri Chairman was not obliging he was replaced by a Sikh to do the needful.

Similarly there was no longer any Director of Health for the State. Instead there were two Deputy Directors separately in charge of Jammu and Kashmir. May be the State is ultimately divided into three separate administrative units- Kashmir, Jammu and Laddakh as Indian Punjab was divided into Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab to save Hindu areas from Sikh domination.

Even in the Kashmir valley the Muslim police officers are kept debarred from training in arms handling. The Muslim personnel may be promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police but his subordinate Hindu sepoy would be trained to handle arms while he would remain deficient in this field.

Jammu, culturally and linguistically, is more akin to Himachal Pradesh then to Kashmir valley. The atmosphere of the valley is so different that Hindu tourists returning from Kashmir start feeling at home as soon as they cross Banihal tunnel (now named as Jawaharlal tunnel) and similarly Muslims on entering into Kashmir valley by crossing the tunnel feel a sense of familiarity.

In 80’s this scribe was stationed at New Delhi as A.P.P. correspondent and used PTI (Press Trust of India and Indian counterpart of A.P.P) office for functioning. A friendly PTI Staffer had been seen in office for a week or so in a summer month. On return he said he had been to a hill station. On being asked whether he had gone to Kashmir, he candidly stated, "Who would go to Kashmir? Hatred for us is writ large in the eyes of Kashmiris. Militancy had not surfaced by that time.

Autonomy

Sheikh Abdullah is stated to have had a dream of internal autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir within India. This unrealistic dream could never come true and indeed did not. But in the process of dreaming Sheikh Abdullah put the jugular vein of the entire Kashmiri community under the sword of Hindu India. He walked out of prison to become the so-called Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. His honeymoon with Nehru ended soon and he again went to jail in 1953. And for the rest of his life he had been unsuccessfully clamoring for pre-1953 status for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which was never restored.
Till 1953 a special permission was required for Indians to enter Kashmir. Till 1953 accession was considered to be conditional. In 1953 India claimed the fraudulent accession of Jammu and Kashmir to be final. Till 1953 the chief executive of Jammu and Kashmir was called Prime Minister and not the chief minister.

During his chief minister-ship Sheikh Abdullah did keep senior civil posts in the state to be held by Kashmiris and projected this as decentralization policy. But this was more for his personal convenience rather than by conviction or a matter of policy. Kashmiri bureaucrats obviously desired not to be transferred outside the State. Thus they were more submissive and willing to do any dirty job for the chief minister while Indian Administrative Service officers consulted Delhi before executing any apparently extraordinary orders from the chief minister.

As regards Article 370 of the Indian constitution giving special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it has been amended so many times that it has lost the import it was intended for. Autonomy had been consistently eroding. Earlier this year Hindu nationalist party BJP won parliamentary polls in India with election promises to do away with whatever was left of Article 370 for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, repealing personal Law for Muslims in India, constructing Rama temple in place of Babri Mosque pulled down by Hindu fanatics seven years back in Ayodhya and making India a nuclear weapon state. Within 40 days of coming into power of BJP, India with a series of underground nuclear tests had already become the sixth nuclear power state in the world with BJP redeeming one of the pledges.

Sheikh Abdullah had returned to power in Jammu and Kashmir State in 1976, of course, without winning anything extra for state subjects or repairing any damage done to the State’s autonomy. His duplicity was more than exposed. In Jammu and Kashmir he was described at clever and cunning man and his slogan of State’s self-assertion as mere stunt.

Demographic Changes

The people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir however, remained one and determined to resist any attempt to destroy their distinct Muslim entity. The restrictions imposed by the late Maharaja on granting state subject certificate to any outsider remained in force on paper but with scant respect by the powers that be. In early 80’s Dr. Mehboob Beg, son of Afzal Beg who had founded Inquilabi National Conference after falling apart form Sheikh Abdullah in 1976, alleged that 1500 domicile certificates were issued over signatures of Sheikh Abdullah chief Minister alone. The number of the subjects certificates issued at tehsil level was immensely large. This had upset the ratio of population of Muslims vis a vis non-Muslims. Corruption was rampant in the state and the entire administration from top to bottom was involved in it. Dr. Mehboob, physician by profession had left his job to step into his father’s shoes.

The Congress (I) circles alleged that Sheikh Abdullah and his family members were rolling in millions. There was hardly a metropolitan place in India where Sheikh or his family members did not own real estate, mostly in form of picture houses.

Through various factors, the complexion of population was changing in the State to the disadvantage of the Muslims. According to early 80’s census figures the growth rate in Muslim population was dwindling as compared to Hindus, According to official explanation more Muslims were taking to family Planning.
 
The census (1981) figures were as follows:

Kashmir Valley------27 Lac (Including Hindus)
Jammu ---------------- 24 Lac (there is a Muslim belt in Jammu too)
Laddakh---------------3 lac.

Thus the population of Kashmir valley was equal to that of Jammu and Laddakh put together. So the Muslims have only a thin edge majority.

While attempts were being made to save as many Hindus from Muslim cultural influence, an effort was also being made to cut cultural moorings of the Muslim. Well to do persons particularly upstart families were taking to western type of education, which in any case take the young generation away from its cultural heritage.

New inscription mostly in Hindi were being put on the tombs of old Muslim saints to say that they had equal followings among Muslims and Hindus in a bid to appease and attract Hindu tourists and at the same time inculcate among Muslims a feeling that they had no separate spiritual heritage. A Muslim Malik teamed up with Hindu Pundits to organize "Charri Mubrarak’ and Amar Nath cave pilgrimage and share the offerings. Hindi was replacing Urdu in many educational institutions to be taught along with Kashmiri language. The intention was that with the passage of time Urdu disappears and its elimination might cause a communication gap between Kashmiris and Pakistanis.

Ploy of Resettlement Bill

A private bill Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement (Permanent Return to the State) Bill 1980 piloted by Abdul Rahim Rathor was adopted by the Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir legislature with the support of the ruling National Conference. This was an enabling provision to grant for permit for resettlement in the State of any person who had been a State subject and migrated to the territories now forming Pakistan (it did not apply to Azad Kashmir) between March 1947 and May 14, 1954. Ostensibly it was intended to give a deceptive impression to the general public that there were many Kashmiri Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan were but now being repentant and dissatisfied with living conditions in Pakistan and wanted to return to the State, which was still paradise on Earth. Indeed it was a camouflage in the sense that under its garb the motive was to give permit of residence to those Hindu migrants from Pakistan at the time of Independence and from other places in India subsequently to offset Muslim majority complexion of the state.

According to the some Srinagar citizens the real purpose of the bill was to distribute the property left by Muslims in Jammu among favorites of Sheikh Abdullah. The evacuee property had already been given to Hindus and lacks of rupees were being received by way of rent and the Bill aimed at finally distributing the booty among the favorites.

A provision of the Bill lay down that the applicant for resettlement was to take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India and to undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and India.

In early 80’s militancy was not visible on surface, yet the youth looked conscious and determined to fight their own battle. They admitted that Pakistan had done its outmost for them and had suffered in return. The people in the valley were on the whole Islam-loving and pro-Pakistan. It was a privilege to parade as a Pakistani. They love you. Every body would offer you a cup of tea. You do not have to introduce yourself. Their just coming to know that you are a Pakistani was enough. Even not very bold persons would come to whisper in your ear: We know you. We are pleased to see you here. They did not wait to be introduced or to introduce themselves and would disappear in the crowd.

An attendant in a tourist bungalow said, "We too were very keen on Pakistan. Probably it was not our luck to be Pakistanis". Love for Islam is inexhaustible. On occasion of Shab-e-Bara’t mosques were full for the entire night for what they called "Shab" which included Zikar, Naatkhwani and Waaz.

In early 80’s too there was massive Indian military presence in the State. But even bus drivers were bold enough to defy military officer’s instructions. The bus driver that drove the scribe and family members from Srinagar to Jammu ignored the signals of a military sergeant on a bridge and later talked to him with his head high.

He probably defied the traffic signal in a bid not to waste time since I had told him that we were to catch Jhelum Express train the same evening at Jammu for Delhi.
In spite of the heavy odds created by landslides on the main road and diversions, the driver reached Jammu well in time for the train. At Jammu he saluted me and said "Saab aap ka khadim hen, aap ke kam khadim hen, Pakistan ke ziada khadim hen" (we are your servants, More of Servants to Pakistan that to you).

The people of Kashmir are engaged in a heroic resistance struggle and have lain down and continue to lay supreme sacrifices to relieve jugular vein of Pakistan and that of their own from enemy’s sword as willed by the Quaid-e-Azam.

May Almighty Allah bless them with success- Ameen.

Nehru's reiteration of plebiscite pledge
Telegram to Liaqat Ali Khan on 3rd November 1947:

"I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our Government's policy and made, it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. I further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nations supervising any referendum.
Genesis of Kashmir Dispute
This dispute dates back to the partition of the British Indian Empire in August 1947, into two independent states. Pakistan and India. At that time there were also around 565 princely states, large and small, which were under British suzerainty but were not directly ruled by the British Government Most of these states joined either India or Pakistan taking into account their contiguity to one or the other country and the wishes of their people.

There were, however. some states over which problems arose, primarily because of India's insatiable desire to grab territory. For example, the Muslim ruler of Junagarh, a state with a Hindu majority population, announced his decision to join Pakistan.

India responded by aiding and abetting the establishment of a so-called "Provisional Government" of Junagarh on Indian territory, which attacked Junagarh with Indian connivance and support. Subsequently Indian forces also invaded Junagarh, despite protests from Pakistan, in order to "restore law and order". A farcical plebiscite was organized under Indian auspices, and India annexed Junagarh. Similarly, in Hyderabad, a Hindu majority state, the Muslim ruler of the state wanted to retain an independent status. India responded by attacking Hyderabad and annexed the state by force. India sought to justify its aggression against Hyderabad and Junagarh on the plea that the rulers of Junagarh and Hyderabad were acting against the wishes of their people.

In Jammu and Kashmir state. the situation was the reverse. The ruler of the State was a Hindu. while the population was overwhelmingly Muslim and wanted to join Pakistan. In this case. India consistently pressurized the Hindu Ruler to accede to India Apprehending that the Hindu ruler was likely to succumb to Indian pressure, the people of Jammu and Kashmir rose against him. forcing him to flee from Srinagar. the capital of the State. They formed their own government on 24th October. 1947. On 27th of October. 1947, the Government of India alleged that the ruler had acceded to India on the basis of a fraudulent instrument of accession. sent its forces into the State and occupied a large part of Jammu and Kashmir.


But Indian leaders, including Jawahar Lal Nehru. the Prime Minister and Lord Mountbatten. the then Governor General of India, solemnly declared that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by the people of the State. This declaration was reiterated by India at the UN Security Council when the dispute was referred to that august body, under chapter 6 of the U.N Charter relating to peaceful settlement of disputes. The Security Council adopted a number of resolutions on the issue, providing for the holding of a fair and impartial plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir under UN auspices to enable the Kashmiri people to exercise their right of self-determination and join either Pakistan or India. The UN also deployed the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire line between the Liberated or Azad Kashmir area and Indian held Kashmir till settlement of the dispute.

India, however, thwarted all attempts by the United Nations to organize a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Eventually, India openly resiled from its commitments and declared that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India.

The Indian armed intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was illegal and took place against the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Despite the decision of the UN Security Council for the holding of a plebiscite to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own future, India's own pledges to that effect, and reiteration of their commitment of resolving the Kashmir issue in the Simla Agreement of 1972 signed between Pakistan and India after the 1971 war. India continues to remain in illegal occupation of a large part of Jammu and Kashmir, refuses to allow the Kashmiris to decide their own future and continues its brutal suppression in the territory.

Moreover, India went on to violate other aspects of the Simla agreement, specifically the undertaking that neither side shall change the ground situation, by occupying the Chorbat La, Siachen & Qamar sectors, an area over 2500 sq. kilometers between 1972 to 1988.

After more than four decades of a peaceful struggle against Indian repression, manipulation and exploitation, the Kashmiri people, convinced that India would never honor its commitments, and inspired by similar movements for freedom in other parts of the world, rose against the Indian occupation towards the later part of 1989. Their struggle was, and remains, largely peaceful. India sought to suppress their movement with massive use of force, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children. This led some of the Kashmiri youth to take up arms in self-defense.

Since 1989, more than 83553 Kashmiri people have been killed in a reign of terror and repression unleashed by over 700,000 Indian troops. Many more languish in Indian jails where they are subjected to torture and custodial deaths. There have been numerous cases of gang rapes of Kashmiri women by the Indian forces and the deliberate burning down of entire localities and villages.

These brutalities have been documented by International and even Indian Human Rights Organizations. Organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as Indian human rights NGOs have extensively documented the gross and systematic violation of human rights of the Kashmiri people by Indian military and para-military forces. Extra judicial killings, involuntary disappearances, arbitrary detentions, rapes and torture continue to be reported on a large scale. The Kashmiri leaders have been repeatedly harassed and physically intimidated. They have also been denied travel permission to prevent them from exposing Indian human rights abuses in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The massive suppression by India is clearly designed to silence the people of Jammu and Kashmir through sheer brutality bordering on genocide and ethnic cleansing.

India refuses to acknowledge that the people of Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) have become totally alienated and there is complete rejection of Indian occupation. Several Kashmiri political parties have formed the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to continue the political struggle for self-determination. The APHC, therefore, constitutes the true representative of the Kashmiri people.

Instead of accepting the existing reality, India has sought to blame Pakistan for allegedly promoting the Kashmiri uprising. The fact is that this movement is completely indigenous and enjoys mass support. The Indian allegations against Pakistan are a ploy to mislead the International Community and to create a smokescreen behind which they can continue repression in IHK. Pakistan has offered to enable the UNMOGIP or any other neutral force to monitor the LoC, along which India has deployed several thousands of its troops and has mined the entire area. Indian refusal to accept these proposals, exposes their false allegations.

A peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN resolutions remains on top of Pakistan's foreign policy agenda. To demonstrate its sincerity in finding a peaceful solution to this core issue, Pakistan has always sought a meaningful and substantive dialogue with India. However, the Indians have refused to engage in meaningful talks on Kashmir, claiming the territory as an integral part of India. Only when compelled by extraneous factors or international pressure, such as in 1962-63, 1990-94 and again after May 1998, have the Indians agreed to talks on Kashmir. But this dialogue has been sterile because the Indian objective has never been to find a settlement but to deflect international pressure by creating the facade of talks.

During 1962-63, the Indians agreed to talks on Kashmir under U.S. persuasion at a time when their relations with China had deteriorated and the Sino-Indian war took place and it was necessary for India to protect its western flank with Pakistan. Between 1990-94, India was hard pressed for a dialogue, again due to international pressure following the indigenous Kashmiri uprising which began in the end of 1989. Under pressure from the US, following the mission of the American President's Special envoy, Robert Gates to the region, India engaged in seven rounds of talks at the Foreign Secretary level. Due to continued Indian intransigence, however, this process broke down in January 1994. After a hiatus of three years, talks were resumed at the initiative of Pakistan in march 1997. Following Foreign Secretary level talks in June 1997, an agreed agenda was adopted which includes the specific issue of Kashmir. More importantly, in the meeting between Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India in September 1998, the two leaders agreed that resolution of the Kashmir dispute is essential for peace and security in the region. During Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to Lahore in February 1999, the Lahore Declaration was adopted committing both sides to intensify efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Indian willingness to hold specific talks on Kashmir has been compelled by growing international concern over the Kashmir issue following the nuclear tests by India and in response by Pakistan in May 1998. This nuclearization of South Asia has converted Kashmir into a nuclear flash point and the U. N. Security Council through resolution 1172 as well as the G-8 and P.5 countries, apart from a number of world leaders, have expressed the urgent need for a dialogue to resolve this root cause of tensions between Pakistan and India.

While the first round of talks on Kashmir was held in October 1998 between the Foreign Secretaries, as per the agreed agenda of June 1997, there was no change in the Indian position. India rejected Pakistan's frame work proposal for a structured and substantive dialogue on Kashmir, maintaining its intransigent position that the status of Kashmir was not open for discussion.

Even though India agreed in the Lahore Declaration to intensify efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue, in February 1999, it resorted to delaying tactics for holding the next round of talks. In May 1999, India dealt a severe blow to the dialogue process by launching massive military operations, involving air and ground forces, on the Kashmiri Mujahideen in the Kargil Sector and across the Line of Control on Pakistani controlled areas. The Indians also rejected our efforts to defuse the situation, including the proposal for immediate cessation of hostilities, and resumption of the dialogue process.

At the invitation of President Clinton, on 4-5 July 1999 Pakistan - USA held in-depth discussions in Washington on all aspects of the Kashmir situation. A Joint Statement issued as a result of these talks reflects identity of views on the need to resolve the current situation as well as the larger issue of Kashmir which is central to durable peace and stability in South Asia.

According to the Joint Statement the President of the United States stands committed to his personal involvement to expedite and intensify the process for resolving the Kashmir dispute. This is for the first time that the US has agreed to play a direct role in the search for a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. India continues to rely on brute force to silence the Kashmiri people. Not only has the campaign of repression been intensified in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, but additional forces were inducted in November 1998 as part of the new "pro-active" policy and later in the Kargil operation, Indian forces have now been increased to over 700,000. This clearly points to the failure of the current Indian policy to hold the Kashmiri people against their wishes by force. Public opinion remains deeply incensed with the widespread atrocities committed against the innocent Kashmiri people by Indian military and para-military forces.

The government's policy on the Jammu and Kashmir issue enjoys national consensus. Pakistan maintains its principled stand in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions that call for a plebiscite under UN auspices. It is in keeping with the solemn pledge made to the Kashmiri people by Pakistan, India and the international community. Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s candid visit to New Delhi/Agra in July 2001 speaks of our consistent Policy to settle this old dispute peacefully but at every turn of the event India adopts the same old posture of intransigence.

In order to find an early and just solution to the 55-year old Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan has welcomed offers of good offices and third-party mediation. It has encouraged the international community to play an active role and facilitate the peaceful settlement of disputes between Pakistan and India. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are indebted to Pakistan who continues to extend full political, diplomatic and moral support to the legitimate Kashmiri struggle for their right to self-determination as enshrined in the relevant United Nations resolutions.

We hope that International Community would put pressure on India to join efforts to bring durable peace to the region for the common benefit of all peoples. For half a century our region has remained mired in tensions and conflicts. It is our sincere desire to see South Asia enter the next millennium at peace with itself. 

2700 unmarked graves discovered in IHK Dec 02 2010

Srinagar, December 02 2010(KMS) In occupied Kashmir, 2,700 unmarked graves containing over 2,943 bodies across 55 villages in three districts,  Bandipore,, Baramulla and Kupwara have been discovered.
The Srinagar based human rights group, International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice for Kashmir (IPTJ) in its report claimed that the graves could be of those missing from the custody of Indian troops. Rights groups put their numbers at ten thousand. The report is based on research between November 2006 and November 2009 and has been authored by prominent human rights activists of India and occupied Kashmir, Angana P. Chatterji, Parvez Imroz, Gautam Navlakha, Zahir-Ud-Din, Mihir Desai, and Khurram Parvez.
 
112-page dossier, titled ‘Buried Evidence’ was released at a press conference in Srinagar today by Angna Chatterjee, the convener of the group. The report documents in considerable detail how the actions of Indian military and paramilitary forces in Kashmir inflict terror on the local population, killed through extra-judicial means.
 
The IPTJ said it examined 50 encounter killings. Forty-nine of the victims were labeled as militants or foreign insurgents by the troops. “Forty-seven were found killed in fake encounters; one was identified as a local militant. We don’t know who the remaining two are,” said an IPTJ office-bearer. In one such case, the troops claimed to have killed four foreign Pakistani terrorists on April 29, 2007 and identified them as Abu-Safayan, Abu-Hafiz, Abu-Sadiq and Abu-Ashraf. “Three of the four male bodies were buried in Sedarpora village in the Kandi area, Kupwara district. The three were later identified as residents of Kashmir, killed in fake encounters. The real names of the deceased were Reyaz Ahmad Bhat of Kalashpora, Manzoor Ahmad Wagay of Letar, Pulwama and Sartaj Ahmad Ganai, resident of Tikipora, Shopian district. The identity of the fourth has not been ascertained,” report says.
 
The bodies of Manzoor and Sartaj were exhumed and identified, while Reyaz was identified through a complex process, the report says, adding that Reyaz and Manzoor were ordinary civilians but Sartaj was a militant.
 
Traditionally, all graves in Kashmir are marked and the epitaphs mention the name and residence of those buried.  The findings came a year and a half after the Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP) released a report, titled “Facts under Ground”, that said there were 940 unmarked graves in just one tehsil, Uri, of Baramulla.
 
“A full-scale investigation must be commissioned under provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and/or other relevant laws, to inquire into the disappearances within a stipulated and reasonable timeframe. We also note that certain freedom fighters who have surrendered to the security forces have been disappeared in violation of Habeas Corpus, and that the chain of violations in these cases should be investigated”, the report says.
 
The detailed press note issued in Srinagar at the press conference is as follows:
 
BURIED EVIDENCE is authored by Angana P. Chatterji, Parvez Imroz, Gautam Navlakha, Zahir-Ud-Din, Mihir Desai, and Khurram Parvez.
[Dr. Angana P. Chatterji is Convener IPTK and Professor, Anthropology, California Institute of Integral Studies.
Advocate Parvez Imroz is Convener IPTK and Founder, Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society.
Gautam Navlakha is Convener IPTK and Editorial Consultant, Economic and Political Weekly.
Zahir-Ud-Din is Convener IPTK and Vice-President, Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society.
Advocate Mihir Desai is Legal Counsel IPTK and Lawyer, Mumbai High Court and Supreme Court of India.
Khurram Parvez is Liaison IPTK and Programme Coordinator, Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society.]
 
Findings
The graveyards investigated by IPTK entomb bodies of those murdered in encounter and fake encounter killings between 1990-2009. These graves include bodies of extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions, as well as massacres committed by the Indian military and paramilitary forces.
 
Of these graves, 2,373 (87.9 percent) were unnamed. Of these graves, 154 contained two bodies each and 23 contained more than two cadavers. Within these 23 graves, the number of bodies ranged from 3 to 17.
 
A mass grave may be identified as containing more than one, and usually unidentified, human cadaver. Scholars refer to mass graves as resulting from crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. If the intent of a mass grave is to execute death with impunity, with intent to kill more than one, and to forge an unremitting representation of death, then, to that extent, the graves in Bandipora, Baramulla, and Kupwara are part of a collective burial by India’s military and paramilitary, creating a landscape of “mass burial.”
 
Post-death, the bodies of the victims were routinely handled by military and paramilitary personnel, including the local police. The bodies were then brought to the “secret graveyards” primarily by personnel of the Jammu and Kashmir Police. The graves were constructed by local gravediggers and caretakers, buried individually when possible, and specifically not en mass, in keeping with Islamic religious sensibilities.
 
The graves, with few exceptions, hold bodies of men. Violence against civilian men has expanded spaces for enacting violence against women. Women have been forced to disproportionately assume the task of caregiving to disintegrated families and undertake the work of seeking justice following disappearances and deaths. These graveyards have been placed next to fields, schools, and homes, largely on community land, and their affect on the local community is daunting.
 
The Indian Armed Forces and the Jammu and Kashmir Police routinely claim the dead buried in unknown and unmarked graves to be “foreign militants/terrorists.” They claim that the dead were unidentified foreign or Kashmiri militants killed while infiltrating across the border areas into Kashmir or travelling from Kashmir into Pakistan to seek arms training. Official state discourse conflates cross-border militancy with present nonviolent struggles by local Kashmiri groups for political and territorial self-determination, portraying local resistance as “terrorist” activity.
 
Exhumation and identification have not occurred in sizeable cases. Where they have been undertaken, in various instances, “encounter” killings across Kashmir have, in fact, been authenticated as “fake encounter” killings. In instances where, post-burial, bodies have been identified, two methods have been used prevalently. These are 1. Exhumation; and 2. Identification through the use of photographs.
 
The report also examines 50 alleged “encounter” killings by Indian security forces in numerous districts in Kashmir. Of these persons, 39 were of Muslim descent; 4 were of Hindu descent; 7 were not determined. Of these cases, 49 were labelled militants/foreign insurgents by security forces and one body that was drowned. Of these, following investigations, 47 were found killed in fake encounters and one was identifiable as a local militant.
 
IPTK has been able to study only partial areas within 3 of 10 districts in Kashmir, and our findings and very preliminary evidence point to the severity of existing conditions. If independent investigations were to be undertaken in all 10 districts, it is reasonable to assume that the 8,000+ enforced disappearances since 1989 would correlate with the number of bodies in unknown, unmarked, and mass graves.
 
Allegations
The methodical and planned use of killing and violence in Indian-administered Kashmir constitutes crimes against humanity in the context of an ongoing conflict. The Indian state’s governance of Indian-administered Kashmir requires the use of discipline and death as techniques of social control. Discipline is affected through military presence, surveillance, punishment, and fear. Death is disbursed through “extrajudicial” means and those authorized by law. These techniques of rule are used to kill, and create fear of not just death but of murder.
 
Mass and intensified extrajudicial killings have been part of a sustained and widespread offensive by the military and paramilitary institutions of the Indian state against civilians of Jammu and Kashmir. IPTK asks that the evidence put forward in this report be examined, verified, and reframed as relevant by credible, independent, and international bodies, and that international institutions ask that the Government of India comply with such investigations.
 
We note that the international community and institutions have not examined the supposition of crimes against humanity in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. We note that the United Nations and its member states have remained ineffective in containing and halting the adverse consequences of the Indians state’s militarization in Kashmir.
 
We ask that evidence from unknown, unmarked, and mass graves in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir be used to seek justice, through the sentencing of criminals and other judicial and social processes. As well, the existence of these graves, and how they came to be, may be understood as indicative of the effects and issue of militarization, and the issues pertaining to militarization itself must be addressed seriously and expeditiously.
 
The violences of militarization in Indian-administered Kashmir, between 1989-2009, have resulted in 90,000+ deaths, including through extrajudicial or “fake encounter” executions, custodial brutality, and other means. In the enduring conflict, 6, 67,000 military and paramilitary personnel continue to act with impunity to regulate movement, law, and order across Kashmir. The Indian state itself, through its legal, political, and military actions, has demonstrated the existence of a state of continuing conflict within Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.