Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
Saleema
05/08/01 at 23:51:23
TUE MAY 08 2001 12:05 P.M. G.M.T. Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan SRINAGAR, India, May 8 (AFP) - Indian Kashmir's chief minister Farooq Abdullah on Tuesday said New Delhi should start talks with Pakistan to get back parts of the Kashmir region, now administered by Islamabad. "Kashmir is an integral part of India. There is a need to talk to Pakistan to get back the parts it is holding," said Abdullah. Kashmir, a Himalayan region, is presently divided between Pakistan and India. Pakistan calls its part "Azad (free) Kashmir". India administers the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which represents two-thirds of the region. The two countries have fought three wars since the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947 and came close to a fourth in the Kargil region of Kashmir in 1999. Abdullah said there was no need for New Delhi to talk to Kashmir's main Muslim separatist alliance, the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), for solving the problem of insurgency in the state. "Hurriyat is a part of Pakistan. If we have to talk, we should talk to Pakistan," he said. Abdullah charged again Islamabad with fomenting trouble in Kashmir by arming and funding Kashmiri militants. "If we want an end to this phenomenon, we should talk to Pakistan and not Hurriyat, as militants are coming from Pakistan into Kashmir," he said. Abdullah was speaking to reporters at the state's administrative head office, the civil secretariat, which opened Tuesday in the summer capital Srinagar after functioning from Jammu over the past six months. Hundreds of paramilitary troops and policemen were deployed at and around the civil secretariat following threats of attacks by Islamic militants at the highest seat of the state's administration. Guerrillas have attacked the civil secretariat half-a-dozen times in recent years. Copyright (c) 2001, AFP www.iviews.com
NS

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
bhaloo
05/09/01 at 01:09:19
slm What do you think will happen in the coming months?  Is there anything the Muslims out here can do to help?

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
jehad
05/09/01 at 10:57:12
Do what you can to help the brothers in Pakistan remove the kufr regime that ruling it, that prevents them from doing a real jihad. The best way to do jihad is under a Muslim ruler. The rulers of Pakistan have demonstrated their traitory to Allah and his sharia, time and time again.

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
Saleema
05/09/01 at 15:12:03
[slm] Abdullah is not a pakistani. Abdullah is a Kashmiri who seems to have a thing going on with India. Jehad, please keep your comments to yourself when you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Pakistani government has never tried to stop the people from going to kashmir or afghanistan whether the ruler was banazir or or a dictator. There's no need for jihad in Pakistan. There is a need for jihad in Kashmir. Pakistanis need to learn about Islam and then other things will eventually follow inshallah. [wlm] Saleema

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
jehad
05/10/01 at 08:43:53
asalm walakum The people of idols are using aeroplanes, tanks and artillery. While Muslims are going there as individuals. Real jihad needs a real army. Pakistan has a very good army. Its about time it is properly used. You know Pakistan was winning during the last encounter, but Nawaz pulled out the forces, due to American pressure.

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
Saleema
05/10/01 at 15:12:24
[slm] Jehad, no doubt that Pakistan has the best army from amongst all the Muslim countries. But do you think that the US would stand by and watch? Russia? NATO? There are millions of Muslims at the mercy of Hindus there. That's why Nawaz was told to go by General Musharaf. But the situation is not that simple and it was very complicated. General Musharif isn't all that religious, he's a nationalist and much more likely to succumb to the US and UN. He's good, I like him, but I wish there was someone else sitting there instead of him. He needs to reach out to the Arab countries. The only thing that he has done is reach out to Iran. First Unity. That's the key. If the Muslims don't unite then all the Muslim lands will be in other's hands.   [wlm] Saleema

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
BroHanif
05/10/01 at 17:29:55
A.W.W. Reach out to Iran, and who are these people the Iranians(shias), arnt't they the one who are trying to undermine our Mujahideen brothers in Afghanistan helping Ahmed Shah Masoud and his cronnies. We don't want any leaders,we want leaders who can guide the people out of the depth of ignorance we are in. A couple of people like Hazrat Umar R.A., Ibn Taymiyah, Khalid Bin Walid may allah have mercy on them should sort the situtation out. What the muslims right now is a strong leader, not one who will sway to the forked tongue of the US, UN or NATO. May Allah forgive me

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
Anik
05/10/01 at 23:43:50
asalaamu alaikum I can see the issue gathering steam here... i gotta say that Kashmir is India's and India's alone. How many of you have been to that region before? some people (not all of us) just see, look muslims at war! no questions asked, the other side is wrong first of all, yes a lot of bad things happen there, both sides at fault but to decide who that land belongs to is totally outside of a religious realm. If you think there's some sort of an ethnic cleansing going on by the Indians, PUH - LEASE I hate to bring politics into this board... it's for muslims and non-muslims alike am I right? There are two sides to that opnion that Sr. Saleema has expressed. I've seen lots of propaganda in the past while on Kashmir... Kashmir has nothing to do with an attack on Islam... believe me I don't support the killing of muslims but realize that people and religion often act and must be treated separately. please lemme hear your viewpoint.  I am an imperfect indvidiual and I may be wrong. Allah Subhana forgive me if I sin in writing this. Abdullah,.

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
Saleema
05/11/01 at 02:18:12
Published Thursday May 03, 2001 By Ghulum Fai Background The Kashmir dispute primarily involves the life and future of the people of the land. Because of its impact on relations between India and Pakistan, however, it directly affects the peace and stability of the South-Asian subcontinent. This is a region which contains a large segment of the human race. Two wars have been the harvest reaped from the dispute. The possibility of a third, bloodier, probably nuclear and more extensive one has by no means been eliminated. The dispute is not insoluble through peaceful procedures. It appears to be so only because the obduracy of one of the parties is encouraged by the apathy of the world outside. To cover its 'wrongful occupation of Kashmir', India has skillfully propagated a series of myths about the genesis and nature of the dispute. The United States can, and should, lead the effort to achieve a fair and lasting settlement of the dispute - fair to the people most immediately involved and fair to its own commitments to democracy and human rights. By doing so, our country can strengthen the principles of a just world order. It will also earn the gratitude of generations in Kashmir, in Pakistan and even in India itself. Location and size Kashmir is situated in the extreme north of the India-Pakistan subcontinent and at the southern point of Central Asia. With an area of 86,000 square miles and a population currently estimated at around 13 million, (Census of 1990) it is surrounded by four countries: China, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, with the narrow Wakhan strip (in Afghanistan) separating it from the Tajikistan and Krygstan. Its rivers flow into Pakistan: its traditional highways led there: it is also with Pakistan that it shares the larger part of its border. In its middle is the Vale of Kashmir, famed for its scenic beauty. Compared to the existing 186 sovereign states in the world taken individually, Kashmir is larger than 91 and more populous than 117. Present Status The cease-fire line between the forces of India and Pakistan has currently divided Kashmir into two parts. One is under Indian control: this comprises 63% of the whole territory and includes the Vale; it has a population of around 7.5 million. The other with around 3 million people, includes Azad (free) Kashmir, which is under indirect Pakistani control, and the northern region of Gilgit and Baltistan, which is directly administered by Pakistan. About 1.5 million Kashmiris are refugees in Pakistan: some 400,000 live in Britain and about 250,000 are scattered around the world. The present arbitrary bifurcation of Kashmir has divided thousands of Kashmir families. Modern History A society with a settled historical continuity of its own, Kashmir has been independent over long periods of time spanning centuries. During the colonial era, however, it was one of the principalities called States which were ruled by hereditary feudal chiefs (Maharajahs or Nabobs) and granted internal autonomy by Britain as the paramount power. The Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir (the official name given to the State) was the descendent of a freebooter who obtained the territory from the British East India Company in return for the payment of a sum of money in 1846. The resentment of the people of Kashmir at having been treated as chattel in this sale-deed remained inarticulate during the early colonial period but exploded in a freedom movement in 1931. It led to the 'Quit Kashmir' campaign against the Maharajah in 1946 and to the Azad Kashmir movement which gained momentum a year later. The first armed encounter between the Maharajah's troops and insurgent forces occurred in August 1947. At that time, Britain was liquidating its empire in the subcontinent. The tripartite agreement of Britain, the National Congress (representing Hindus) and the Muslim League (representing Muslims) partitioned British India into two independent countries: one compromising Hindu-majority areas which retained the name 'India' and the other including Muslim-majority areas which named itself Pakistan. As this settlement also meant the end of British paramountcy over the autonomous principalities called States, these were supposed either to merge with one of the two countries in accordance with the wishes of the people and the principle of partition (Hindu-majority States with India and Muslim-majority States with Pakistan). Kashmir was a predominantly Muslim-majority State; besides, it was far more contiguous with Pakistan than with India. It was therefore, expected to accede to Pakistan. But the Maharajah was Hindu and he rejected the first option and could not manage the second. Faced with the insurgency of his people, which had been joined by a few hundred civilian volunteers from Pakistan, he fled the capital Srinagar, on 25 October 1947 and arranged that India send its army to help him crush the rebellion. India, coveting the territory, set one condition on its armed intervention. The condition was that the Maharajah must sign an Instrument of Accession to India. He agreed but India did not wait for his signature to fly its troops into the State. Thus a war-lord in 1846 had acquired Kashmir and his fief through a sale-deed, so his descendent in 1947 transferred Kashmir as a property to India. Though hundred and one years apart, the two acts were identically colonialist in nature, provoking the same popular outrage. One difference, however, was that the first took place in the colonial era and required no legitimacy; the second occurred in the post-colonial age after coming into force of the United Nations Charter. Accession Provisional Though long planned and swiftly executed, the annexation of Kashmir could not be a simple affair for India,. First, there was the incongruity of the act which clearly violated the principle of partition. Secondly, while accepting the instrument of accession from the Maharajah, India did not wish to jeopardize its chances of annexing two other principalities or States (Hyderabad and Junagadh) which, in contrast with Kashmir, had Hindu majorities but Muslim rulers. It had a stake, therefore, in ostensibly preserving the principle that in case of conflict between the ruler's and the people's wishes, the latter must prevail. Under these compulsions, India had to attach a condition to the transaction with the Maharajah: the accession was made subject to "reference to the people." On India's own showing, therefore, the accession had a provisional character; one official representative of India at the United Nations termed it "tentative." Kashmir Question at the United Nations Between October and December of 1947, the Azad Kashmir forces successfully resisted India's armed intervention and liberated one-third of the State. Realizing it could not quell the resistance, India brought the issue to the United Nations in January 1948. As the rebel forces had been undoubtedly joined by volunteers from Pakistan, India charged Pakistan with having sent "armed raiders" into the State and urged that the United Nations call upon Pakistan to withdraw them. This was coupled with the assurance that, once the "raiders" were withdrawn, India would enable a plebiscite being held under impartial auspices to decide Kashmir's future status. In reply, Pakistan charged India with having maneuvered the Maharajah's accession through "fraud and violence" and with collusion with a "discredited" ruler in the repression of his people. Pakistan's counter complaint was also coupled with the proposal of a plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United Nations to settle the dispute. The Security Council discussed the question exhaustively from January to April 1948. It came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to determine responsibility for the fighting and futile to blame either side. Since both parties desired that the question of accession should be decided through an impartial plebiscite, the Council developed proposals based on the common ground between them. These were embodied in the resolution of 21 April 1948 envisaging a cease-fire, the withdrawal of all outside forces from the State and a plebiscite under the control of an administrator who would be nominated by the Secretary General. For negotiating the details of the plan, the Council appointed a five-member Commission (including the United States) which proceeded to the Subcontinent in July. The International Agreement The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) worked out the concrete terms of settlement in close and continuous consultations with both sides. These were crystallized in two resolutions adopted on 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. As both governments formally signified their acceptance of the Commission's proposals, these constituted an international agreement as binding as a treaty. A cease-fire was immediately enforced. The Commission then started negotiations to draw up a plan for the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani armies from the State in a manner and sequence that would not cause disadvantage to either side or imperil the freedom of the plebiscite. Meanwhile, a distinguished American, Admiral Chester Nimitz, was designated as ,Plebiscite Administrator. Cause of stalemate Progress towards a solution was, however, blocked by India's refusal to accept that the withdrawal of forces on the two sides should be balanced and synchronized. When President Truman (of US) and Prime Minister Attlee (of Britain) appealed that the points at issue be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator designate and India turned down the appeal, the Commission terminated its mediatory mission. From 1950-1957, a succession of Presidents of the Security Council or United Nations representatives - General MacNaughton (Canada), Owen Dixon (Australia), Frank Graham (United States) and Gunnar Jarring (Sweden) made intense efforts to secure India's agreement to stage-by-stage demilitarization of the State so that a free plebiscite could be held. They all failed, as did the informal mediators like the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth countries. Impact of the Cold War A development that hardened India's stance was Pakistan's joining military pacts sponsored by the United States. From 1955, India took the position that, in view of this alliance, it could no longer countenance the withdrawal of its forces from Kashmir. To repeated pleas that the withdrawal was not meant to be unilateral in any case but would be coordinated with that by Pakistan, its response remained immovably negative. India found a ready supporter for this position in the Soviet Union which, after 1958, blocked every attempt by the Security Council to unfreeze the situation and implement the peace plan originally accepted by both parties. This caused the paralysis of the Security Council on Kashmir - a condition which lasted from 1958 to this day. Not even two full-scale wars between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 served to shake this imbroglio. The situation in Kashmir India's rule in Kashmir has thus been left undisturbed by the international community, even though its validity has never been accepted. At no stage, however, have the people of Kashmir shown themselves to be reconciled to it. There have been several uprisings, notably in 1953 and 1964, and even the relatively calmer interludes have witnessed continuous peaceful protest met with unrelenting force. Kashmir's record of opposition to its annexation by the Indian Union, can by no standard be reckoned as less genuinely demonstrated than that of countries of Eastern Europe under the dominance of the Soviet Union. But while the popular revolt in the countries of Eastern Europe was observed and reported by the international media, that in Kashmir has remained largely hidden from the world's view.  Some of the facts of the situation are: - India maintains a large and highly visible military presence in Kashmir; the troops stationed there exceed 700,000; including para-military forces, the Central Reserve Police and the Border Security Force, all of whom are thugs in uniform and equipped with state-of-the-art torture machines. - There are 16 Indian secret service agencies operating ubiquitously to spy on the 7.5 million citizens. - The number of those killed exceed 65, 000 and the number of those maimed, tortured, illegally imprisoned or condemned to starvation by being robbed of their living by the Indian authorities runs into the tens of thousands. - It has subverted Kashmir's traditional autonomy by bringing its judiciary and ,administrative services at the higher level under the total control of the Government in Delhi. - Over the 52 years, India has so managed Kashmir's economy as to make it dependent on Indian subsidies and supplies of basic necessities like food; except in a southern pocket adjacent to India, not even a beginning has been made towards industrialization; the object of turning Kashmir into a deficit area is to impose severe economic penalty on its release from Indian rule. - Compared to Azad (free) Kashmir, which has a 56% literacy rate and per capita income of $450, Indian administered Kashmir has a literacy level of 26% and per capita income of $260, even though it is the latter which contains the traditionally more settled and developed parts of the State - To make the Kashmir dispute as un-amendable to a rational solution as it can, India has taken advantage of the un-demarcated frontier with China in the north-east and militarily asserted claims which are challenged by China. The current mass uprising Kashmir could not remain untouched by the tide of freedom which rolled across the world in the late 1980's, sweeping away the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, South Africa's 70-year old rule over Namibia and unpopular establishments in Eastern Europe. Inspired by it and also encouraged by the emergence from limbo of the United Nations as a central peace-making agency, the people of Kashmir intensified their struggle against India. Their uprising entered into its current phase in July 1988. The scale of popular backing for it can be judged from the established fact that, on few occasions in 1990, virtually the entire population of Srinagar came out on the streets in an unparalleled demonstration of protest against the oppressive status quo. The further fact that they presented petitions at the office of the United Nations Military Observers Group shows the essentially peaceful nature of the aims of the uprising and its trust in justice under international law. India has tried to portray the uprising as the work of terrorists or fanatics. 'Terrorists' do not compose an entire population, including women and children; fanatics do not look to the United Nations to achieve pacific, rational settlement. How India has responded to the uprising and is still reacting to it is clear from the following: - From January 1990 to March 2001, the latest date up to which estimates area available - there have been several massacres the death-toll exceeding 70,000. The victims of Indian army atrocities include the aged, women and children. In many cases, Indian troops went on rampage in Srinagar and other villages; as they raided houses without warning, they raped over 6,000 women, including a young bride on her wedding day. - A practice maintained by the Indian troops is that of dumping in government warehouses the bodies of those killed and handing them over to the near of kin at night with strict orders to arrange burials in the dark. But the practice is not consistently observed. In one instance, Indian soldiers killed 25 Kashmiri freedom fighters and tried to destroy the evidence by throwing the bodies into the river. The people, however, recovered 15 bodies. - Since the start of the current uprising, over 10,000 Kashmiris, mostly young men and women, have been imprisoned by the Indian forces. - Fro,m among them, about 3,00 have been kept in torture cells. Those regarded not worthy of the labor and expense of extreme torture are subjected to other kinds of treatment. A favorite exercise of the Indian authorities is to strip young men and women of their clothing and to photograph them naked in order to blackmail their families and extort information about the organization of the uprising. - Dawn to dusk curfews, with shoot-at-sight orders, have been imposed on entire cities and towns frequently; the suffering and hardship resulting from the people's inability to obtain the necessaries of daily life and medical help is easily imaginable. This inhuman policy of virtually turning the homes of people into prisons and banning the freedom of physical movement for the whole population was maintained through a 24-hour curfew lasting as long as 17 days from 3 to 20 April 1990. Countless deaths of the sick and the infirm have been the result. - Those injured by the Indian Army firing are removed to hospitals in Jammu where, under the pretext of lack of medicines, their limbs have been amputated. - India has intensified its scorched earth policy by setting afire more than 28,000 homes and shops in 35 localities in the valley. According to eyewitness accounts, the Indian forces that set the homes afire prevented fire-fighters and other relief personnel from reaching the affected areas. - To give the uprising the color of violent religious strife, the Indian authorities have engineered the evacuation from the vale of Kashmir of a major proportion of the Hindu community by creating a scare and then providing transport and financial aid for their flight to Jammu or Delhi. Parallel to this scheme is the importation into the State of armed gangs of extreme right-wing and Hindu fundamentalist organizations, the Shiv Shena and RSS. The stage has been set for raping and mass slaughter for which the India will be quick to put the blame on the 'Muslim fanatics and militants.' - Some of the actions of the Indian authorities were sketchily reported by the world media in January 1990. India then clamped strict censorship on the news and barred the entry of all electronic media into the area; as many as 30 foreign journalists were expelled from the State. Later, the policy was somewhat relaxed to mollify world opinion. The technique adopted by India is not to deny occurrences completely, but to minimize the deaths resulting from them. Up to the end of December 2000, the Indian version put the recent death toll at 45,000. Much inhumanity, continuous violation of basic rights, frequent massacres, constant fear, hunger and misery - these are the gifts India is bringing to Kashmir. For the populous South Asian sub-continent, the Kashmir situation entails recurrent possibility of disaster and war. The United States must understand that it is implausible to believe that India and Pakistan will either cap or renounce their respective nuclear genies after they have escaped the South Asian bottle unless the chief source of antagonism - Kashmir - is resolved. Towards that end, the United States must assume the position as a leader and take an active role in finding a lasting settlement on Kashmir. Since bilateral India-Pakistan talks can never resolve the Kashmir conflict, that formula has proven utterly bankrupt for more than 50 years, and nothing has changed but the faces, therefore the Governments of India and Pakistan should be persuaded to include the Kashmiri leadership - the All Parties Hurriyet Conference that represents the broader spectrum of the opinion of the people of Kashmir - with t,he peace process. As Northern Ireland required the participation of Sinn Fein in negotiations to succeed, Kashmir is no different. President Bush should appoint a special envoy on Kashmir - a person of an international standing, like President Carter, President George H. Bush or President Mandela. The United States holds unique powers of moral suasion, economic, and other assistance in facilitating enlightened solutions to acute divisions, whether in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, East Timor, Kosovo, or Kashmir. Only the exertion of the necessary moral pressure by the United States will lead the parties to that way. __________________________________________________ Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai is executive director of the Kashmiri American Council.
NS

Re: Indian Kashmir chief minister wants territories from Pakistan
Saleema
05/11/01 at 02:25:00
Indian Government Fears Investigation Will Expose True Cause of Recent Massacre Copyright: http://www.iviews.com Published Monday August 28, 2000 By Muhammad Faheem The Indian Government continues to reject the demand for judicial inquiry into the killings of 100-plus people including 35 Muslims in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir earlier this month. The Opposition, including Congress – I, is leaving no stone unturned in mounting pressure upon the Government for the inquiry. But a top minister is alleged to have told a Congress leader not to press for an inquiry as this would reveal that many of those who died were actually killed by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the state police, by mistake, during crossfire with Kashmiri rebels. The Indian government's official version maintains that two Muslim militants on a suicide mission opened fire at a pilgrim camp and killed people including Hindu pilgrims. But eyewitnesses suggest otherwise, saying that the security forces killed some of the dead. Ram Sehgal, a pilgrim, told reporters that the police resorted to indiscriminate firing as soon as they realized that the camp was under attack. The postmortems conducted on the dead reveal the bullets recovered from at least 33 dead bodies were of the security forces, not of the AK-47 rifles in possession of Kashmiri militants. The massacre took place during the cease-fire announced by the major mujahideen group Hizbullah, which has called it an un-Islamic act. In its history, Hizbullah has never attacked innocent people. Events show that its main targets have been security forces and police personnel. When asked why the government is hesitant to conduct a judicial inquiry into the massacre, a senior BJP leader shot back, "Do I want a report that in any way casts aspersions on our security forces?" After the cease-fire withdrawal by the Hizbullah, it has become clear that Indian government was not serious enough for peace in the valley. India developed cold feet when the Hizbullah called for the tripartite talks including Pakistan and Kashmiri people. After the partition of the sub-continent, India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru had promised a plebiscite in the United Nations and said a vote of people is necessary to determine their fate. "If the people of the J&K join Pakistan, we may feel upset but we cannot check it." The Delhi Agreement between Mr. Nehru and his Pakistani counterpart Liaqat Ali also reaffirmed that Kashmiris would be allowed to decide their fate. However, Indian Prime ministers have always changed their stand on the Kashmir issue. When Congress leader P. V. Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister, he had announced that Kashmir is an integral part of India. The present Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, has also insisted that Kashmir is an integral part of India. But when he went to Lahore with his entourage, he changed his stand in Lahore and said that Kashmir is a disputed territory. India’s double standard was exposed when it offered talks to the National Socialist Council of Nagaland without laying down conditions at the time. "Talks were held in a foreign country. Four different Prime ministers were involved despite the fact that Issac Muviah, a Naga leader, did not accept that Nagaland is an integral part of India. Here in Kashmir that is internationally acknowledged as disputed territory, the government is laying down conditions. Where is the scope for dialogue?’’ said Yaseen Malik, chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). (Muhammad Faheem is a freelance journalist living in New Delhi, India.)
NS
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org