| SocialismToday Socialist Party magazine | |
Kashmir: the roots of the crisisKashmir has been fought over by India and Pakistan ever since British imperialism’s divide-and-rule partition of the subcontinent in 1947. The Kashmiri people have been brutally oppressed, denied democracy and self-determination, and suffered two wars and many military mobilisations. Today a million troops face each other across the Indo-Pakistan border. KEVIN SIMPSON details the historical background to the conflict. KASHMIR’S HISTORY HAS been one of domination by foreign powers: firstly by different feudal regimes, then by British imperialism and, more recently, by Indian and Pakistani capitalism and landlordism. All have used divide-and-rule policies to remain in power, making ethnic, religious and tribal tensions more acute in the process. The failure to build a genuine mass socialist, revolutionary force in the Asian sub-continent, the only force which could appeal to the working class and poor peasants across the communal divide, has held back the struggle for Kashmiri national liberation. The Indian and Pakistani elites had important strategic, territorial and economic interests in Jammu and Kashmir in the period leading up to partition following independence from British imperialism in August 1947. Over the decades the armed conflict between the Indian and Pakistani regimes led to open war in 1947, 1965 and 1971 (in East Pakistan – which soon after became Bangladesh). This embedded the issue of Kashmir into the core of the ideology and strategy of both ruling classes in their approach to politics. In 1947, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the future prime minister of Pakistan, explained to Louis Mountbatten, British imperialism’s last viceroy in India before independence, that the K in Pakistan stood for Kashmir. In 1970, Indian prime minister, Indira Ghandhi, summarised the historical position of the Indian ruling class: "The accession of Kashmir is part of our history, and history cannot be reversed or changed. The Kashmir question has been settled once and for all". For the economic, political and military elite in both countries, the struggle for who controls Kashmir is synonymous with their power and prestige. Both ruling classes have used Kashmir as a propaganda weapon against the other to bolster their own domestic positions. Both have falsely and hypocritically claimed to represent the best interests of the Kashmiri people. Jammu and Kashmir was one of the largest of the 565 ‘princely states’ that were part of British imperialism’s Indian empire. These were semi-autonomous areas ruled by feudal despots but recognising the authority of the British empire. Jammu and Kashmir came into being during the last half of the nineteenth century under the rule of the Hindu Dogra Rajputs. Formerly an ally of the Sikh kingdom, the British sold the Valley of Kashmir to the maharaja of Jammu in 1846. This followed the defeat of the Sikh kingdom by British imperialism during a war in 1845-46. The Valley of Kashmir was taken by the victors as part of the surrender terms. The sale was an attempt to weaken the Sikh kingdom, as well as provide a friendly buffer territory on the empire’s Northern Indian border. It eliminated the need to station a large military force far away from the centres of British rule and over difficult terrain. By the late 1850s, the Dogra dynasty controlled hill kingdoms in Gilgit, Baltistan (with a Tibetan Shia Muslim population) and Ladakh (with a majority Tibetan Buddhist population) to the north and east of Kashmir. It finally won control of Poonch (with a majority Pathan Muslim population) from another branch of the Dogra dynasty in 1936. Part of Ladakh was formally recognised by the British authorities in India as being part of Chinese territory (Aksai Chin) in return for concessions to build economic links with this part of China in 1899. The Northern Frontier areas (Gilgit, Baltistan, and Ladakh) bordered China’s Xinjiang province (dominated in the border areas by Muslim minorities) and Afghanistan. They were also in close proximity to territory into which the Russian Tsarist empire was expanding. This made the Northern Frontier far more important for British imperialism. While the Northern Frontier areas were ringed with huge mountain ranges, the representatives of British imperialism feared that the expansion of the Tsarist empire could lead to economic exploitation of China’s unstable Xinjiang province and even its annexation. It was for this reason that it leased the border areas of the Gilgit Agency from the maharaja to allow British influence over trade, communication, defence and ‘foreign affairs’. The Russian revolution in 1917 and the setting up of the Soviet Union made these border areas even more important for British imperialism in the interwar period. National consciousnessLIKE MANY OF the other feudal despots of the Indian ‘princely states’, the maharaja lived in luxurious splendour while brutally crushing any resistance. Although the Valley of Kashmir was only 10% of the landmass of the state, it was the most populous and economically developed. Its main industries were silk and shawl production as well as agriculture and tourism. The Valley was made up of a Muslim majority with a Hindu Brahmin (high caste) minority. Most Kashmiri Muslims lived in grinding poverty and were barred from education and office in the maharaja’s administration. At various times the maharaja rested on sections of the Brahmin minority to consolidate his rule. The fact that the Valley of Kashmir had existed as a cohesive unit for hundreds if not thousands of years (although often under foreign rule) meant that there was a strong national consciousness when it was sold to the Dogra maharaja. As a result of the autocratic nature of maharaja rule, national consciousness grew. It had its own Kashmiri language and culture – the Kashmiryat. This was a fusion of the Sufi wing of Islam (based less on religious practise and more on the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims alike) and elements of the Hindu religion. Despite attempts by the maharajas to promote the Hindu Brahmin minority in order to foster division and communalism, they failed to divide the population on religious lines. National consciousness was at a lower level in other parts of the state, particularly in the Northern Territories, reflecting less social and economic development there. The population of Poonch resented their incorporation into the Dogra kingdom while communal strains developed periodically in Jammu, encouraged by reactionary parties on both sides of the religious divide and the maharaja’s rule. Under the influence of the Russian revolution and growing independence struggles in the colonial world, movements (centred on the Valley) began to develop against the cultural, political and economic exploitation of the mainly Muslim population. For example in 1924, 5,000 Muslim workers at the Kashmiri State Silk Factory went on strike for more pay. The strike was brutally suppressed by the maharaja’s administration but crystallised demands for an end to discrimination against the Muslim population and for democratic rights. Young Kashmiris, such as Sheikh Abdullah – who had returned from study at Indian universities where he had come into contact with the Congress Party (one of forces leading the struggle for independence) and the Communist Party of India – came to the forefront of this movement, forming the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference. This struggle reached a high point in 1931. A movement developed in the Valley when rumours circulated of religious discrimination by Hindu groups (supported by the maharaja) against Muslims in neighbouring Jammu. The maharaja’s police fired on a mass demonstration in Srinagar, killing 22 demonstrators. The British government in Dehli feared the overthrow of the maharaja if concessions were not made. As a result of its pressure, a constitution allowing for an elected Legislation Assembly was put in place in 1934. However, the Assembly provided the merest wisp of democratic legitimacy to the maharaja’s rule. Elections were intentionally organised on communal lines, thus fostering division. Only 3% of the population participated! In the late 1930s the Muslim Conference leadership grew closer to Jarawahal Nehru’s Congress Party and subsequently formed the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference under the leadership of Abdullah. A more reactionary section of the Muslim Conference however, which favoured moving in the direction of Islam and closer links with Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League government-in-waiting, later revived the Muslim Conference. The National Conference passed what was a radical ‘New Kashmir’ manifesto in 1944 which promised a society whose aim would be to: "perfect our union in the fullest equality and self-determination, to raise ourselves and our children from the abyss of oppression and poverty, degradation and superstition". This manifesto was not socialist. It reflected the character of the National Conference – a petty bourgeois-led radical nationalist movement with wide support amongst sections of the working class and peasantry. The Muslim Conference gained support amongst non-Kashmiri-speaking Muslims who feared persecution by sections of the much larger population of Hindus and Sikhs in areas like Jammu. The period just before partition was one of extreme friction in the Valley. Abdullah’s National Conference launched a ‘Quit Kashmir’ campaign designed to drive the Dogra dynasty from the Valley. Violent partitionBRITISH IMPERIALISM HAD no option but to relinquish its colonial possessions following the second world war. It could no longer hold back the independence movement in India, was politically and economically weakened after the war, and faced a radicalised working class at home. Undoubtedly, British imperialism would have rather kept the sub-continent undivided under a federal structure. However, having developed and exacerbated religious and ethnic tensions during its rule – particularly through the implementation of communal voting constituencies – they were unable to persuade the Muslim League leaders to turn away from their policy of ‘two nations’ (Hindu and Muslim), ‘two states’ (India and Pakistan). Congress leaders were adamant that India should remain whole and be a secular nation. As a result, British imperialism proposed to divide India between Muslim- and Hindu-majority areas. Pakistan was made up of two parts: West and East Pakistan. The western portion consisted of the mainly Muslim areas of Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sind, and Balochistan. East Pakistan was made up of the mainly Muslim area of Bengal. This meant that the two wings of Pakistan were separated by over 1,000 miles of Indian territory at opposite sides of the sub-continent. The maharajas of the ‘princely states’, while theoretically given the opportunity to remain independent, were forced to accede to either India or Pakistan. The new boundaries were drawn up by a commission whose decisions were supposed to be impartial and in secret, with the results only shown to the leaders of the two new states after independence had been granted. However, it is clear that Mountbatten was biased in favour of the Congress leaders, particularly over the question of the status of Kashmir. Nehru, who himself was a Kashmiri Hindu Brahmin, explained that: "What happens in Kashmir is, of course, of the first importance to India as a whole… because of the great strategic importance of that frontier state". On Mountbatten’s behalf, Congress leaders assumed that the National Conference wanted to join the Indian Union and that this represented the mood of all of Kashmir’s people. Future events would show that both these assumptions were incorrect. The Muslim elite suspected that British imperialism and the Congress Party leaders regarded the new Pakistani state to be extremely unstable and unable to survive for long. It feared that the Boundary Commission wanted to award Kashmir and its strategically vital Northern Territories to India to help this process along. The Muslim League argued that Jammu and Kashmir should join Pakistan because of the economic links between the two, the fact that the source of Pakistan’s main water supplies were to be found there, and that a majority of its population was Muslim. All parties involved in partition were agreed on one thing, however: Kashmir would not be allowed an independent existence because of its strategic importance. The Boundary Commission awarded the majority of the Gurdaspur district (which occupied the area where India, Pakistan and the most southerly part of Jammu and Kashmir met) to Nehru’s Indian Union. However, the population of Gurdaspur was Muslim and, under the principles of the commission should have been awarded to Pakistan. But to deny this territory to India would have meant that it would have had no accessible rail and road links with Jammu and Kashmir. Partition brought horror on a truly stupendous scale to India and the biggest migration of people in world history. All areas awarded to the two states had ethnic and religious minorities. Communal bloodletting on an unimaginable scale exploded, particularly in the Punjab, encouraged by reactionary organisations from the Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities. Between ten and 17 million people were uprooted, travelling thousands of miles to an existence of abject poverty in the new Indian and Pakistani states. Up to one million predominantly poor workers and peasants were slaughtered. Whilst the Valley of Kashmir was relatively calm (mainly as a result of a more developed national consciousness), there were serious communal clashes in Jammu leading to up to 500,000 Muslims fleeing the state to Pakistan. Initially, maharaja Hari Singh attempted to argue for an independent status for Jammu and Kashmir. However, events in different parts of Jammu and Kashmir forced him in the direction of accession to India. Demobilised Muslim soldiers returned to Poonch and Mirpur in Jammu and Kashmir to find that the maharaja was refusing to accept them into his army. In the post-war period, the maharaja increased taxes, leading to widespread poverty. This provoked massive protests, particularly in Poonch where, in October 1947, an uprising was led by demobilised soldiers, armed by tribes in the North-West Frontier Province region of Pakistan. On 4 October this uprising gave rise to a provisional government of the Democratic Republic of Kashmir. None of the bourgeois historians mention this development but it undoubtedly represented an attempt to move towards a struggle for an independent future for the Kashmiri people. The uprising lit the fires of rebellion against Dogra rule in other areas. At the end of October, soldiers of the Gilgit Scouts – British imperialism’s fighting force in the Gilgit Agency - rose up. There were less well-developed protests in Ladakh. The provisional government only lasted until 24 October. It was shunted aside by one of the pro-Pakistani leaders of the Muslim Conference, supported by sections of the Pakistani military and backed up by armed fighters from North-West Frontier who entered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October. Sections of Muslims in the maharaja’s army began to desert, going over to the side of armed fighters and putting his rule under increasing threat. In these circumstances, Hari Singh signed an accession agreement with India and requested troops and armaments in return. As a concession, Singh was forced to agree that Sheikh Abdullah would head a new ‘emergency’ government in Jammu and Kashmir. By the end of 1948 Singh, the last maharaja of Kashmir, had left the state, driven out by popular discontent. Line of controlTHE ARRIVAL OF Indian troops in Srinagar led to clashes with Pakistani forces and a war that lasted until January 1949. At the end of the war Pakistan controlled one third of Jammu and Kashmir (including parts of Poonch, and the whole of Gilgit and Baltistan) while India controlled the remaining two thirds (Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir, and Ladakh). A ceasefire line (which after the 1971 war became known as the Line of Control – LOC) divided the two parts of the state. Although the Indian-controlled portion had joined the Indian Union it still retained greater autonomy than other areas at the time (enshrined in article 370 of the 1950 Indian constitution). The New Dehli government controlled communications, defence and external affairs. Unlike other ‘princely states’, Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to fly its own flag, elect a prime minister and sadar-I-riyasat (a presidential type figure). The United Nations sponsored ceasefire called for a referendum on the future status of Jammu and Kashmir. Initially, both the Pakistani and Indian regimes publicly agreed to this. However, both sides called for the withdrawal of the other’s troops before giving the go-ahead for a referendum. Despite the Pakistani Muslim League’s call for ‘azadi’ (freedom) for Jammu and Kashmir, the ‘governments’ they oversaw in the Pakistani-occupied sector of the state were its puppets. All candidates for election in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir have to pledge an oath of loyalty to Pakistan. The real power in this region has always lain in the hands of the Pakistani military and their shadowy Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) organisation. The Northern Areas have continued as a Pakistani version of the ‘Agency’ method of rule implemented by British imperialism. This followed the signing of the Karachi agreement of 1949, when the non-elected administration in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir handed over administration of these territories to Pakistan without consultation of the population in the areas concerned. The Indian regime subsequently backed away from the idea of a referendum, claiming that the 1951 elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly indicated the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Their main fear was that a referendum could result in independence or a wish to accede to Pakistan. Abdullah’s National Conference won the 1951 elections overwhelmingly. But these elections were far from democratic. Only 5% of the electorate voted and in 73 out of 75 seats National Conference was elected unopposed. This was to be a theme of most elections held in Indian Occupied Kashmir from then on. Friction soon developed between Abdullah and the central Congress government in India. Abdullah criticised the discrimination against Muslims in India while Congress leaders stood behind Hindu nationalist parties in Jammu who were campaigning for a full merger of the state with the Indian Union. Abdullah began portraying the Indian and Pakistani regimes in the same light. This was an extremely dangerous development for the Indian ruling class and so, under the influence of the Indian Congress government, Abdullah was overthrown by a ‘palace coup’ from amongst his own circle of supporters in 1953. He did not return to power until 1975 after spells in prison. Under the new administration, the accession of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union was confirmed and reflected in a new constitution. Democratic rights were further undermined by the introduction of detention without trial for five years. This was the start of a process which after ten years would, in effect, remove the special status of the state within the Union and vastly increase the power of central government in determining events there. The arrest of Abdullah led to mass protests in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir and a campaign calling for the crossing of the ceasefire line. The Pakistani government realised such a development could lead to an explosive and uncontrollable movement for independence on both sides of the ceasefire line. They promptly arrested the movement’s leaders, some of whom had held senior positions in the Pakistani Occupied Kashmir government. This was yet another indication of the hypocrisy of the Pakistani ruling class in claiming to support ‘freedom’ for Kashmiris. Following the 1962 war between India and China over border territory, in which the Indian military was defeated, regional power relations altered considerably. To counterbalance the danger it felt was posed by the Chinese Stalinist regime, US imperialism increased weapons sales to India. The New Dehli government was able to announce a doubling in its armed forces as a result. This elicited a strong reaction from the Pakistani regime who felt its status as ‘most favoured ally’ of the US was being undermined. US imperialism attempted to make some progress in negotiations between the two countries over Kashmir to reduce the tension, but failed. In fact, the situation worsened as the Indian government passed legislation implementing direct rule in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir at the end of 1964. This followed mass Muslim protests in Srinagar, capital of the Valley, following the disappearance of a sacred Islamic icon from the city. The 1965 Indo-Pakistani war took place against the background of these tensions. Border clashes were a prelude to major fighting between the Indian and Pakistani forces in Jammu and Kashmir. The Pakistan military felt that an invasion in Kashmir would lead to a popular uprising of a pro-Pakistani character in the Valley and that the Indian regime would be forced to the negotiation table. This was a big miscalculation and the war resulted in a stalemate with the ceasefire line, in reality, unchanged. Armed liberation struggleTHE GUERRILLA STRUGGLES for national liberation in Algeria and Vietnam inspired a new layer of Kashmiri activists to move in the direction of armed struggle. Armed wings were formed in the mid-1960s which evolved into the Jammu and Kashmir National Liberation Front (JKNLF). This was based initially in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir but also organised operations on the other side of the LOC. The JKNLF believed an armed struggle would bring the world’s attention to the issue of Kashmir, opening the way to genuine independence from both India and Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the many hundreds of youth who rallied to its banner were extremely heroic and committed to the national liberation of their country. One of their leaders, Maqbool Bhutt, who was eventually hung by the Indian authorities, has become a symbol of the fight for national liberation for many Kashmiris. But this guerrilla struggle, based on the active participation of a tiny minority of the population, had no possibility of driving out Indian forces or liberating Pakistani Occupied Kashmir because of the balance of military forces. Only a struggle to overthrow capitalism and landlordism involving workers and peasants in all parts of the sub-continent could have led to Kashmiri national liberation. This was even more the case in the period after the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. This followed a move for increased autonomy for East Pakistan after the massive election victory of a Bengali nationalist party, the Awami League, in the December 1970 elections. The West Pakistan-based army attempted to crush all opposition to keeping both parts of Pakistan united. The Indian army intervened on the side of the Awami League leading to a new war. The Pakistani army was surrounded by a hostile population and a militarily stronger Indian army and was forced into a humiliating surrender in late 1971. The defeat was a major blow to the Pakistani military. Pakistan’s population was more than halved and the country lost important economic interests. The 1972 Simla agreement reflected the changed balance of forces between the two countries and meant that the Pakistani government was forced to accept that the LOC in effect represented the ‘international’ border between itself and India. Public Pakistani claims of fighting for the rights of all Kashmiris were put into cold storage. However, this did not mean that the military elite had given up its ambition to restore its shattered prestige through further military campaigns. The development of regional separatist movements in India (particularly amongst the Sikh population) in the 1980s also hardened the Indian ruling class’s opposition to concessions to autonomy or independence in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The activity of guerrilla groups like the JKNLF had not succeeded in breaking the stranglehold of the Indian state forces. Its lack of success and the small number of forces it could organise as an underground, secretive guerrilla organisation opened the way to its infiltration by both the Indian and Pakistani regimes. The same applied to a number of armed groups which had proliferated on both sides of the LOC. In the late 1980s the biggest growth was amongst the Islamic jihadi groups (such as Hizb-Ul Mujahadeen, Lashkar-E-Taba) fighting for an Islamic Kashmir. The only lasting exception to the general tendency of growth in support for Islamic fundamentalist groups in this period was the formation of the Jammu and Kashmir National Awami Party in 1995 in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir. Members of the National Students Federation (first organised in the wave of radicalisation that took place in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir in the mid 1960s) set up this left nationalist party. The Islamic fundamentalist groups had come to prominence as a result of the CIA-funded struggle against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. US imperialism funnelled millions of dollars through the ISI to develop the madrassahs, or religious schools, based in Pakistan, which trained fighters against the Soviet-backed Afghan regime. However, these ultra-reactionary forces did not limit their activity to Afghanistan and saw the opportunity to spread their jihad to areas such as Indian Occupied Kashmir. This led to the development of the so-called ‘Kalashnikov culture’ throughout Jammu and Kashmir. Many Muslim youth on both sides of the LOC have either volunteered or been forced into service of these groups in the last two decades. Insurgency & state brutalityTHE LATE 1980s was a decisive turning point in Indian Occupied Kashmir and represented the crystallisation of decades of indignity, attacks on democratic rights and brutal oppression. Armed opposition and mass rebellion gripped the Valley in the period following the rigged elections in 1987. In this contest, despite a high turnout of 75% and indications that the opposition Muslim United Front would make a strong showing, stooge parties for the Indian government won a sweeping parliamentary majority. Acts of sabotage, kidnappings of state officials and assassinations against those suspected of sympathy with the Indian regime climbed. The Indian government responded by sending Shri Jagmohan back to govern Indian Occupied Kashmir by decree. Insurgency exploded from the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990. The Indian regime responded with an occupation force whose rule made the actions of the Israeli Defence Force in Palestine pale into insignificance. Between 30,000 and 80,000 people are estimated to have been killed. In 1990 Jagmohan gave Indian occupation forces the right to shoot on sight any demonstrator or ‘insurgent’. Months-long curfews were put in place, particularly after more than a million people demonstrated against Indian rule in Srinagar in March 1990. Wave after wave of protest shook the province as a national uprising threatened Indian control. There is evidence that Jagmohan and the Indian-directed administration encouraged the Valley’s Hindu Brahmin minority to leave in the early 1990s. This was then used to justify increasing repression and to undermine what remained of the Kashmiriyat. Well-known members of the Hindu Brahmin community had been attacked and up to 140,000 Brahmins left for refugee camps in Jammu and Dehli. However, the Indian claim that the Hindu community of the Valley had been driven out by Muslim groups bent on communal pogroms is undermined by the accounts given by Brahmins who said that they left the keys to their property with Muslim neighbours to look after. By the end of 1990s different wings of the Indian security forces had set up 63 torture centres and had between 200,000 and 600,000 soldiers or special forces in the occupied territory. The current threat of conflict between India and Pakistan, although having drawn back from the brink of all-out war, demonstrates that the national aspirations of the Kashmiri people have never been further from being solved. The existence of two weak and reactionary regimes in India and Pakistan makes armed conflict over Kashmir a certainty in the future unless the working class and poor peasants of the Asian subcontinent can overthrow capitalism and landlordism. The history of Jammu and Kashmir shows that the territorial and strategic interests of the Indian and Pakistani ruling classes, as well as the intervention of US imperialism, have vastly complicated the situation in the region. Attempts at negotiation have failed because they try to achieve the impossible: a capitalist solution to the problem. The struggle for socialism, and thereby the genuine national liberation of the Kashmiri people, will have to take account of the history of developments in the state. Socialists would struggle for a socialist independent Kashmir as part of a socialist confederation of the sub-continent. However, such a programme must include guarantees for the cultural and language rights of all ethnic, religious, and tribal minorities within the state. This would include rights of autonomy in areas such as Gilgit-Baltistan and Ladakh where there have been past fears of Muslim domination. Only in this way can the millions of workers and poor peasants who have suffered so cruelly in the last five decades find a solution to their social, economic, and national aspirations. | |
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Kashmir: the roots of the crisis by KEVIN SIMPSON (SocialismToday )
JKNAP +JKNSF MEMORANDUM AGAINST UPRAISING OF MANGLA DAM MIRPUR (POK)
Memorandum of JKNSF and JKNAP against the upraising of Mangla Dam - 2002-09-30
1. Mr. G.W. Bush,
President of USA, Washington,
USA.
2. Mr. Kofi Annan,
Secretary General of United Nations Organization,
Newyork, USA.
Subject: Request to Stop Military Dictator of Pakistan From Inaugurating the Upraising and Extension of Mangla Dam on the Disputed Territory of Pakistani-Held-Kashmir on 30th Sep
Excellency,
We (Jammu Kashmir National Awami Party – JKNAP and Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation – JKNSF) have already apprised your honour through memoranda about the situation, viza-viz, Mangla Dam, a dam built on the disputed territory of Jammu Kashmir (Pakistani-Held-Kashmir). We have said that the first military junta of Pakistan forcibly constructed this dam on the disputed territory of Jammu Kashmir in 1960-67 and some 10 thousand families out of those who were evicted and displaced are still displace after the lapse of 40 years. Now, some 8 thousand families are going to be evicted and displaced again this time whose rehabilitation is not being thought of and arranged before upraising and extension work is taken up. Moreover, the said dam is being constructed on the disputed territory which is quite un-constitutional, illegal and immoral. Hence our demands are:
1. Pakistan doesn’t have any right to encroach upon the disputed territory of Jammu Kashmir. Hence she should not go for upraising/extending Mangla Dam . Which would be unconstitutional, illegal and immoral on the part of Pakistan.
2. However, if it is inevitable from human point of view, then Pakistan should fulfill the following conditions as prerequisite:
(i) She should give reasonable royalty (for using water and generating electricity out of this source) to the AJK Govt. ( a puppet one, of course).
(ii) Provide electricity to the people of AJK at cheap rates as is being given to the people of tribal areas.
(iii) Start upraising and extension of the dam after constructing reasonable colonies with roads, hospitals, schools and other civic facilities for the displaced persons in the vicinity of the dam.
But the military junta of Pakistan have absolutely ignored all our appeals and requests and has announced inauguration of the said project unilaterally on 30th Sep, 002. Consequently, we, being the champions of the independence of Jammu Kashmir and the rights of its people, have decided to confront this sinister move with the help of all other patriotic elements (All Parties National Alliance, JKPNP, Liberation Front, National Liberation Front, Pakistan People’s Party, Azad Kashmir, Freedom Movement, and some other parties etc) and have announced 30th Sep, 002 as ‘Black Day’ In Pakistani-Held-Kashmir. We are also going to start a ‘Long March’ to Mangla Dam (Mirpur AJK) on 4th Oct, 002. In case, any unpleasant and untoward situation is arisen, the military dictatorship of Pakistan shall be held responsible.
Truly Yours,
(Shujaat Ali Kazmi) (Sardar M. Anwar Khan, Advocate)
President JKNSF President JKNAP
Kashmir - For workers' unity
Sent: Saturday, 22 September, 2007 18:08:20
Subject: WORKERS UNITY IN KASHMIR
Kashmir - For workers' unity
The ruling classes of both India and Pakistan persecute the Kashmiri masses and deny them the right of self-determination, to an independent Kashmir. At independence from Britain in 1947, both India and Pakistan fought for control of Kashmir, and the territory was divided between the two rival states who have fought three wars involving Kashmir.
By Vaseem Khan
Democratic rights are suppressed either side of the Line of Control, and unemployment and poverty dominate. Governments in India and Pakistan have always used Kashmir to divert attention from crisis at home, and to try to increase their power.
The Indian government seized on Bush's "war against terrorism" to launch an attack on opposition groups in Indian-occupied Kashmir. They unleashed state terror on Kashmiris. Now they have called elections in Indian Occupied Kashmir attempting to legitimise their occupation.
General Pervez Musharaff military dictator of Pakistan has dismissed the elections as a rigged farce. Right wing Islamist groups have unleashed a terror campaign against the vote that has claimed the lives of more than 440 people since they were announced in August this year. This has included candidates and party workers. The Indian Army has stepped up its repressive measures to ensure the elections are successful.
Both sides at present have placed millions of troops on the line of control between India and Pakistan.
There is a potential for a nuclear conflict between both countries as they are now nuclear powers. They are determined to cling on to their part of Kashmir by any military means because of other separatist struggles in their own countries. They continue the old colonial methods of divide and rule.
But Kashmir has different traditions. The Kashmiriyat for hundreds of years promoted coexistence between Muslims and Hindus and was only abolished with partition in 1947. The 1924 strike of mainly Muslim silk workers was supported by Hindus and Sikhs. This shows the potential for unity on a class basis.
In August 2002, 10,000 Kashmiris protested against the extension of the Mangla dam in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The extension of the Mangla dam will cause the eviction of 100,000 people from their homes. Musharaff's dictatorship is exploiting Kashmir's economic wealth to the detriment of ordinary Kashmiris. Islamic reactionary groups such as Hizbul Mujahadeen have played a divisive role by splitting up mass protests against the war on Afghanistan.
Both India and Pakistan have no real solution for Kashmiris. Their solution is based on the exploitation of Kashmiris to suit their own interests. Their interests are their own profit system - this system is capitalism!
Capitalism creates profits that allow feudal landlords, politicians, and generals of both Pakistan and India to create hunger, war, and famine.
The wealth that has been created by the masses of the subcontinent belongs to the masses and not to the minority who exploit the masses. In order to control this wealth and the power that comes from this wealth a mass movement of workers and peasants is urgently required not only in Kashmir but in the subcontinent.
A mass movement of this nature should call for the withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops and for a free and independent socialist Kashmir. Socialism is the only form of genuine democracy that allows the exploited people of Kashmir and the subcontinent to overthrow capitalism and to put in place a system that represents the interests of the majority and the not the minority. This system is Socialism
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Nadeem Aslam Advocate spokesperson IC JKNAP
Nadeem Aslam
Advocate spokesperson IC JKNAP on 28th April 2008 at Bradford UK against Karachi Packet 28th April 1949 ( Organized by- JK NIA UK- Jammu Kashmir National Indipedent Alliance UK)
THEOCRATIC OR SECULER DEMOCRATIC PAKISTAN?
17 May 2008
According to my point of view the real face of Pakistan as a THEOCRATIC STATE is a mother of all problems in its own.It means the ruling class of Pakistan i.e military bureaucracy,civil bureaucracy, landlord and puppet industrialist are the major beneficiaries of that state.All of them are less then 20% of whole Pakistani population.
THEOCRACY :Upper class of the state (mention above) still enjoying all the fundamental, constitutional and economical powers in one man show. Means upper class enjoyed all the state resources and powers in the name of Islam and Almighty ALLAH. All the religious parties are against the creation of Pakistani state (Including Jammiat Ullma-e- Hind,Jammat-e-Islami etc).If you are red the Jammat-e-Islami's paper TERJAMAN-UL-QURAN there are many written FATWA'S of Moullana Moududdy said that vote for the creation of Pakistan was not right (HARRAM ). Field Marshal Ayyuab Khan was the co-founder of THEOCRACY and real founder of the Islamic Ideology of Pakistan,the reason is behind that is he completely failed to address the real economical and social problems of poor Pakistani Nation.He told them Islam is a real issue not the economy and he was the allied of all the religious parties and groups.He and all religious groups those are against the creation of Pakistan gave a election slogan,(PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KIA............).Now the religious parties are the champions of ISLAMI PAKISTAN.Pakistani Nation rejected all those religious parties and groups and sent them a clear massage about their economical and social problems.But military is stronger then any other bureaucracy and American allies as well since 1947.
In a UNELECTED THEOCRATIC PAKISTAN fundamentalism's grown up as a back bone of the military dictatorship in years and years .Even they got money ,military training and put unconditional influences and pressure on civil society in Pakistan even they change the written history of the state.To days terrorist disturbance in Pakistan and around the world has a long history if (WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WITH THE HELP OF AMERICA,9/11 IN AMERICA , JIHAD IN KASHMIR, RECENTLY LAL MOSQUE).
If we want to tackle that problem, than we need to address their economical and social problems with the restoration of real democracy not the deals.
We have to minimize the poverty level between poor and rich,justice for every one not just for the upper class.
Its a real time for Pakistani Military return to work as a public servant rather then a snatchers of civil rights.
Otherwise history won`t take to long to decide it .
PAKISTAN AS A THEOCRATIC STATE OR REAL SECULAR ,DEMOCRATIC STATE.
Lets people have to decide it.
REGARDS,
NADEEM ASLAM
Jammu Kashmir NAP NSF Honour Hassan in an EID MILLAN PARTY (Luton UK)
In this photo Cheife guset Khawaja Hassan Mahmood leader of Jummu Kashmir National Awami Party Europe, Tahir Bostan President Peoples National Party, Rashad Raja Secretary General National Awami Party uk Asif Masood Choudhary former Secrary General National Students Federation Azad Kashmir, Latif Malik former president JKLF UK, Wahid Kashir a memeber of Kshmir Workers Association UK, Ghalib Bostan Advocate and others speaking to the event. This reception was organised by National Awami Party UK in the honour of Khawaji Hassan Mahmood
Issued By,
Nadeem
IC JKNAP UK
Peoples Democratic Revolution , Socialism, and Universal Peace is the Axis of our Struggle.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Kashmir -- breaking the chains
Kashmir -- breaking the chains
By Sean Healy
MIRPUR, Azad Kashmir ( POK) -- Kashmir is a nation in torment -- partitioned, brutally repressed, its people the victims of a vicious proxy war between India and Pakistan. The Kashmiri people want an independent, free Kashmir, beholden to neither India nor Pakistan.
For the two governments which occupy Kashmir, the region is a perpetual source of conflict over rich mineral resources, strategic geography and eminently marketable natural beauty. Neither government shows any sign of relinquishing its claim, in spite of heavy western pressure.
Washington wants a “negotiated solution”, most likely to formalise the partition of the country. For the US, the “Kashmir issue” is a threat to regional stability and a waste of a very profitable tourism resource.
Before 1947, when Britain pulled out of the subcontinent, Kashmir was a “princely state”, subject to the British crown but ruled by a maharaja. When India and Pakistan gained independence, many Kashmiris also believed their country would become independent.
However, in 1948 Pakistan and Indian troops fought a brief war and partitioned Kashmir at a “line of actual control” -- the uneasy, unofficial border. That did not quell the independence struggle on either side of the “line of actual control”. Upsurges of national sentiment occurred throughout the 1960s, '70s and into the '80s against both Pakistani and Indian rule.
In Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (perversely named “Azad Kashmir” or Free Kashmir), central to these struggles were the students led by the Jammu-Kashmir National Students' Federation (JKNSF). JKNSF still has a massive following among the youth of Azad Kashmir for its uncompromising pro-independence stance. This contrasts to most of the “recognised” parties, which favour a Kashmir “unified” under Pakistani rule.
The JKNSF has units on all the colleges and universities in the region; the letters “NSF” can be seen daubed on walls throughout Azad Kashmir.
In the late 1980s, there was another upsurge in the national struggle, particularly in Indian-held Kashmir. In the 1990s, however, this upsurge was hijacked by the Pakistani intelligence services and military.
Left nationalist forces operating underground in Indian-held Kashmir were starved and crushed, often with the Pakistani military tipping-off their Indian counterparts. As a result, the left in Indian-held Kashmir has been decimated -- and has lost all contact with its colleagues on the Pakistan side.
Instead, the Pakistan military has financed, armed and trained Islamic militants and mujahideen groups, frequently from Afghanistan. These groups are helped across the border by the Pakistani military (one of the training camps of Osama bin-Laden hit by US air strikes on Afghanistan was a Pakistan-run training camp for militants to be sent into Kashmir).
For these reactionaries, the goal is not a free and independent Kashmir but a jihad, a holy war, against Hindu India. They have carried out brutal atrocities against the Hindu minority in Kashmir and the Hindu majority in neighbouring Jammu, as well as against leftist and secular Kashmiris. In reply, India has carried out is own atrocities against the Kashmiri people.
In an attempt to reorganise and revitalise the left (at least in Azad Kashmir), in 1997 the JKNSF launched a new party, the National Awami Party (NAP). This was bitterly opposed by the pro-Pakistan “recognised” parties.
The NAP (and the JKNSF) operate semi-legally. Whilst not banned, it is constantly watched and occasionally repressed. On universities, the JKNSF is frequently threatened and sometimes physically attacked by Islamic fundamentalists.
In the last elections, in 1996, the NAP announced a list of candidates for all 36 seats in Azad Kashmir's puppet assembly. All were disqualified for not signing the oath of loyalty to Pakistan.
Nevertheless, the NAP is rapidly gaining support. According to general secretary Ali Zaman Raja, new units are being established all over Azad Kashmir. Many other left groups are now discussing unification with the NAP. The JKNSF also continues to grow.
The main problems Kashmir's left nationalist movement face are lack of resources, constant interference by the intelligence services and a complete lack of contact with Indian-occupied Kashmir.
Given the intransigent opposition of the Indian and Pakistan governments to the right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people -- and the western powers' interest in a “quick solution” -- the left nationalist forces in Kashmir need international solidarity to ensure that a “solution” cannot be imposed on them against their will.
OPEN LETTER TO HAFIZ SAEED (A PROXY JIHADI)
From: nadeem aslam
To: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mudasirhataf@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, 24 October, 2008 14:21:54
Subject: Re: [kashnet] Re: OPEN LETTER TO HAFIZ SAEED (URDU) جناب حافظ سعید تاریخ: 2007-06-24
Dear Mudasir,
Further to you reply at least you stated that you are not a blind followers of Lashker? I would like to tell you that I had been involved for the Liberation and Reunification of the Jammu Kashmir in POK ,I born there as well ,for this related struggle for the Kashmir in POK .In return I honored, its not just me there are thousands of poor and well educated youth lost the battle of their future.During those years I have been penalised ,torchered and harassed with every brutal way that local authorities and agencies related to the army and ISI.
Your group and some other Jihadi groups were emerged in POK with the umbrella of ISI and Pakistani military in 1986-1988 when Gen.Zia launched another offensive and military approach plan `OPPRETION TOOPAK, in term of Jihad in Indian Occupied Kashmir.
That Jihadies are most of them from upper Punjab and are Wahabi or Dewband Maslik.
Before 9/11 they were always been an American sponsored groups through Saudi Islamic injection.
Post 9/11 during Musharef era its hard for them to work openly because of new American anti Jihad policy in place through Pakistan army many of them still disappeared from POK.You just got a credit of 100;000,martyrs what you achieved with this proxy war for ISI and Pakistani military.There are hundreds of Men's from Punjab are still in Indian prisons and ther got three to ten years prison sentences even they don`t have legal support to fight their case in courts,ISI not helping them now because after 9/11 they are terrorist in Pakistan.Hundreds and thousands of Pakistani military troops are in place from Tao Butt to Chamb Joriann and there are many stories of rap, killings of innocent people POK Supreme Court and High court and civil administration are bound to obey ISI and military even the prime minister of POK is clear by ISI and money they paid for it ? The firing is always been between India and Pakistan on LOC,have you ever heared that Pakistani and Indian troops had a crossfire on Wahga border or Indo-Pak border?
We always condemned the Indian brutalities in IOK and we believe one day will come when Kashmiries are reunited.
I firmly belive that on a short term programme we need to pull out Pakistani Army from POK,and OGB people need to do the same,and IOK Kashmiries have fight their struggle against illegal Indian occupation.
I try to clear my point of view .
If you are a Kasmiri Just try to understand the Kashmir question from Kashmiri point of view not the Pakistan military and ISI proxy point of view.
Kind regards,
Nadeem
From: mudasir ahmad
To: nadeem aslam
Cc: kashmir-global-network@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 23 October, 2008 11:13:34
Subject: [kashnet] Re: OPEN LETTER TO HAFIZ SAEED (URDU) جناب حافظ سعید تاریخ: 2007-06-24
Dear Nadeeem,
I have read the letter in urdu . I want to tell you brother that in the ongoing freedom movement in kashmir there have been lots of violent cases in which the freedom fighters were involved. There were human rights violations committed by people belonging to yaseen maliks group, javid mirs jklf and even hizbul mujahideen against both muslim and pundit brothers. I do not know the truth about this letter or your opinion and allegation against markaz dawa . What i got from your letter is that there is a land row . A land that belongs to you guys has been illegaly taken by markaz dawa and in that process one of your brother has been killed. Without asking you further details. I tell you mine and opinion of every kashmiri that we condemn such acts. We are of the opinion that such people should be brought to justice whether there in ajk or here in occupied valley. We are not blind followers of lashkar. We are not blind followers of any organization or any Sheikh Abdullah now. If there are mistakes and drawbacks , we have to say and try to fix them.I bellieve we are all human . There can be mistakes and mistakes can be corrected by taking steps towards solutions. If we count those cases against freedom fighters here in valley then the ongoing movement will suffer heavily. I might ask you its not you and me on ground its these boys and they did commit mistakes due to lack of training and in some cases even moral values. We are writing mails and exchanging views here but i am sure that if we were there in such an unorganized army we would also commit some mistakes although not all.
The point is why i objected to your mai ?? . Here in kashir net we are disscussing views and opinions for how to get liberation from the indian terrorist rule in our occupied nation. Stress should be laid on that. I know there are mistakes from these boys also but when you compare them with the attrocities and heinous form of terrorist activities commited by indian military in our valley it is a drop compared to ocean. The crux of it is that our movement is just and legal. We are fighting indian armed forces and whether it be boys of hizbul or lashkar. Those dying on ground laid their lives for a just cause fighting an opressive force. I hope you got what i meant. I mean internal issues we can discuss within ourselves . We dont need to call indians or americans to solve these issues for they will not understand our interests. They will just come and bombard the villages and mass murder the civilians.
Take care and stay blessed
Feeamaanillahi taala
From: nadeem aslam
To: kashmir-global- network@yahoogro ups.com
Cc: mudasir ahmad
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:56:17 AM
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO HAFIZ SAEED (URDU) جناب حافظ سعید تاریخ: 2007-06-24
Dear Mudasir Mhmad ,
Thanks for you reply, the real question is that who they are and why they claimed Jihad on behalf of Kashmiries. Why they don`t know about the problems facing ,Pakistani nation today?
Whats their role in todays Pakistan ?
If they look in Lahore ,could they able to stop,and solve the problems of HEERA MANDI LAHORE( near Shai Mosque, RAJA BAZAR RAWALPINDI and THE LEE MARKEET KARACHI, its bitter but thats truth .
If they are a REAL and efective ,then could you be able to give me a time frame whe they solve the problems of these markets in Pakistan.
Please read a letter bellow for their kindness on the peole of Mazefrabad AJK.
If you need some more information about their Jiadi work I would be able to tell you more stories not from the WESTEREN MEDIA?
Don`t forget to tell me and the Kashneters to real story about the letter bellow.
Regards,
Nadeem
|
| تاریخ: 2007-06-24 |
| واجب الاحترام جناب حافظ سعید صا حب و ذمہ دران جماعت الد عوۃ پاکستان اسلام علیکم: امید ہے کہ آپ خیریت سے ہوں گے۔ بعد از خیریت گزارش ہے کہ 8اکتوبر 2005کے بعد آپ کی جماعت نے متاثرین زلزلہ کے لئے جو کردار ادا کیا اور اس سے قبل بھی تحریک آزادی کشمیر کے حوالے سے مظلوم کشمیر ی مسلمانوں کی مدد کی لئے جو کردار ادا کیا وہ تاریخ میں سنہری حروف سے لکھا جائے گا۔ کوئی بھی تنظیم، تحریک زیادہ ددیر تک قائم نہیں رہ سکتی اگر اس کے اندر خود احتسابی کا عمل موجود نہ ہو۔ جو تحریک و تنظیم اپنی خامیوں پر نظر نہیں رکھتی اورخوش فہمیوں میں مبتلا رہتی ہے اس کی تباہی یقینی ہوتی ہے ۔ حا لیہ دنوں میں مظفرآباد میں پیش آنے والے واقعہ سے ایک خالص دینی تنظیم ہونے کے ناطے آپ سے چند گزارشات کرنا چاہتا ہوں امید ہے آپ اپنے قیمتی وقت میں سے کچھ وقت نکال کر غور فرمائیں گے۔ آخر کیا وجہ ہے کہ گذشتہ کچھ عرصہ سے آپ کی تنظیم سے وابستہ افراد غیر قانونی اور مجر مانہسر گرمیوں میں ملوث پائے جا رہے ہیں ۔ مظفرآباد یونیورسٹی سے طالبہ کا اغوا ہو، چہلہ بانڈی میں مزدور پر کی گئی فائرنگ یا اب معصوم طالبعلم عدنان علی کا قتل۔ اس طرح کی کئی دیگر واقعات کی نشاندہی کی جا سکتی ہے۔ مگر اخلاص کے ساتھ خود احتسابی کے لئے غور کیا جائے تو یہ کافی ہیں طالب علم عدنان علی کے قتل اور اس کے بعد کی صورتحال دیکھ کر انتہا ئی دکھ ہوا کہ ایک خالص اسلامی اور دینی تنظیم جس کی قیادت آپ سے جیسے جید علماء کرام کر رہے ہوں وہ کیسے یک طرفہ طور پر اپنے کا رکنان کی طرف سے سنائی جانے والی صورتحال کومد نظر رکھ کر مقتول عدنان علی کے خاندان کے بارے میں میڈیا کے ذریعے انتہائی غیر ذمہ دا رانہ طرز عمل اختیا ر کئے ہو ئے ہے اور مسجد اور قرآن کے نام پر عوامی جذبات کو بڑکانے کی ناکام کوشش کر رہی ہے۔ محترم میری آپ سے گزارش ہے کہ اس واقعہ کے حوالہ سے آپ کی تنظیم کے طرف سے تحریر ی طور پر جو درخواست صدر تھا نہ میں دی گئی ہے اور اس میں جو الزامات لگائے گئے ہیں آپ اس کی کاپی حاصل کر کے پڑھیں اور تہجد کی نماز سے فارغ ہو کر اپنے اللہ کے سامنے سینے پہ ہاتھ رکھ کے سوچیں اور اپنے ضمیر سے جواب مانگیں کہ اس میں کتنا سچ ہے۔ اور کیا قا نونی تقاضے پورے کرنے کے لئے بحثیت اسلامی اور دین کی داعی تنظیم جھوٹ اور بہتان تراشی پر مبنی تحریری بیان دے سکتی ہے؟ اس واقعہ کو ہوئے دس دن گزر چکے ہیں کیا آپ کی دینی اخلاقی ذمہ داری نہیں بنتی تھی کہ آپ یا آپ کی طرف سے کوئی ذمہ دار نمائندہ عدنان علی کے ورثاء کو مو قف سننے کے لئے آتا اور دونوں طر ف کا موقف سننے کے بعد آپ کی جماعت کوئی لائحہ عمل اختیا رکرتی؟ محترم آ پ سے گزارش کرتا چلو ں کہ جس خاندان کے بارے میں آپ کی تنظیم نے اپنے تمام وسائل و اثر و رسوخ استعما ل کر کے میڈیا میں یہ تاثر دینے کی کوشش کی ہے کہ یہ کوئی قبضہ گروپ ہے اور شر پسند عناصر ہیں۔ مظفرآبا کا ایک بھی فرد یہ بات ماننے کو تیا ر نہیں۔ اس لئے کہ اس خاندان کی دین اور تحریک آزادی کے لئے قربانیاں ہیں اورجو کردار ہے وہ مظفرآبا د کا ہر شخص جا نتا ہے۔ اس چھوٹی سی بستی (بقول آپ کی تنظیم کے قبضہ گروپ اور شر پسندوں کی بستی) کے سات نوجوان مقبوضہ کشمیر میں شہید ہو چکے ہیں ۔ اسلام کی دعوت اور تحریک آزادی کے ابتدائی دور سے لے کر جماعت الدعوۃ کے ہسپتال کے قیام تک ہر معاملہ میں اس خاندان کے لوگ صف اول میں رہے۔ آپ کے ہسپتال کے قیام اور خیمہ بستی کے حوالے سے جب آپ کے لوگ اس خاندان کے پاس آئے اور ان کی زمین پر عارضی خیمہ بستی اور ہسپتال قائم کرنے کی درخواست کی تو اس وقت بھی جب مظفرآباد میں صرف ایک ٹینٹ لگانے کا کرایہ دو صد روپے ماہانہ تھاتو ان لوگوںنے تقریبا اپنی چالیس کنال زمین بغیر کسی معاوضے کے ایک سال تک آپ کی تنظیم کو دے رکھی مگر جب زمین کے حوالے سے آپ کے لوگوں کی نیت خراب ہونے لگی۔تو انہیں جگہ خالی کرنے کے لئے کہا گیا۔ آپ کے لوگوں نے شکریہ ادا کرنے کے بجائے اس میں سے کچھ زمین پر بندوق کی نوک پر قبضہ کر لیا اور یہ موقف اختیار کر لیا کہ یہ زمین خالصہ سرکار ہے اور حکومت نے ہمیں الاٹ کر دی ہے۔ محترم آپ خود سوچیں کہ اس بات میں کتنی صداقت ہے کے کہ یہ زمین حکومت نے باضابطہ طور پر جما عت الد عوۃ کوالاٹ کر دی ہے۔۔ اگر آپ کی تنظیم کے پاس کوئی الاٹمنٹ آرڈر ہے توابھی تک کسی اخبار میں کیوں نہیں چھپوایا یا مقتول عدنان کے ورثاء کو ہی دکھا دیا ہوتا۔ اگر اب بھی آپ کے پاس کوئی الاٹمنٹ آرڈر ہے تو اس کو منظر عام پر لایا جائے بصورت دیگر ہر وہ شخص جو زمین رکھتا ہے یا زمین کے معاملات سے واقف ہے وہ سمجھ سکتا کہ کہ جس شخص کا چالیس کنال رقبہ ہو اور اس کے ساتھ دو کنال خالصہ یا شاملات ہو اور وہ پاکستان بننے سے لے کر اب تک اس پرقابض ہو اور اس کو آباد کیے ہو تو اس پر کا حق ہے یا نہیں۔پھر بھی جب تنازعہ پیدا ہو ا تو دونوں طرف کے لوگوںنے بیٹھ کر باہمی رضامندی سے ایک معائدہ کیا اور اس کے نتیجہ میں دو کنال سات مرلہ خالصہ خسرہ نمبر 89کو دو حصو ں میں تقسیم کیا گیا ایک حصہ جماعت الد عوۃ اور ایک حصہ مقتول عدنان کے ورثاء کے قبضے میں دیا گیا۔ مگر آپ کی جماعت کے لوگوں نے اس معائدے کی خلاف ورزی کرتے ہوئے اندر ہی اندر خفیہ طریقے سے خسرہ نمبر 89کے سارے دو کنال سات مرلہ رقبہ کو کسی پرائم فاؤنڈیشن نامی این جی او کے نام الاٹ کراونے کی کوشش شروع کر دی جو کہ تاحال کامیاب نہ ہو سکی بنیادی وجہ تنازعہ یہی ہے۔ اس کے ساتھ باہمی رضامندی سے طے کئے جانے والے معائدے کی شق نمبر 1کے مطابق جماعت الد عوۃ کسی بھی وجہ سے ہسپتال ختم کرتی ہے یا چھوڑتی ہے تو وہ پابند ہے کہ یہ رقبہ مقتول عدنان کے ورثاء کو واپس دے گی۔ آپ اپنی تنظیم سے معائدہ منگوا کر پہلی ہی شق نمبر 1کو دیکھ سکتے ہیں۔ اس کے برعکس آپ کی تنظیم نے اس رقبہ کو گورنمنٹ سے پرائم فاؤنڈیشن این جی او کے نام کروانے کی کوشش کی جو کہ معائدے کی کھلی خلاف ورزی تھی جو کسی بھی عام انسان کو زیب نہیں دیتی کجا کہ دین اسلام کی حقیقی علمبردار تنظیم ایسا کرتی۔ جب یہ ساری صورتحا ل جماعت الد عوۃ آزادکشمیر کے امیر محترم عبدالعزیز علوی صاحب کے نوٹس میں لائی گئی تو ان کی طرف سے برملا یہ اظہار کیا گیا کہ یہ لوگ میرے کنٹرول میں نہیں ہیں اور نہ ہی میری سنتے ہیں، یہ بیان حکمت عملی تھی یہ سچ؟ یہ تو علوی صاحب اور ہم سب کا خالق ہی بہتر جانتا ہے۔ بہر حال اس ساری صورتحال میں جب مقتول عدنان کے بھائی اور ان کے پڑوسی سدھیر شاہ آپ کے ہسپتال میں 11جون کو بات کرنے گئے کہ آپ کام کی توسیع کے حوالے سے بیٹھ کر بات کریں تو آپ کے مسلح لوگوں نے انہیں ہسپتال کی وارڈمیں باندھ دیااور تقریبا 15افراد جن میں مسؤلین بھی شامل تھے ان پر تشد د کرتے رہے اور آہنی سریوں اور ڈنڈوں سے انہیں مارتے رہے۔اس تشدد کے اثرات کے کو اگر میڈیکل رپورٹ پر اعتماد نہ ہو تو آج دس دن گزرنے کے بعد بھی ان کے جسموں پر دیکھا جا سکتا ہے۔ زخموں پر مرہم رکھنے والا ہسپتا ل ٹارچر سیل کیوں بن گیا؟ اور انڈین فوج سے لڑنے کے لئے آپ نے جو ہتھیا ر اپنے جوانو ں کو دئیے ہیں ان کے دہانے اپنے ہی محسنوں پر کیوں کھل گئے ؟اور آپ کے ہی تربیتی مرکز سے فکری تربیت حاصل کرنے والا معصوم عدنان کیوں قتل ہو گیا؟ محترم قتل تو ایک حادثہ تھا یا چند افراد کا سوچا سمجھا منصوبہ لیکن قتل کے بعد خالصتا اسلامی تنظیم جماعت الدعوۃ نے تحریر ی طور پر بیان دیا کہ مقتول کواس کے چچا نے قتل کیا اور مقتول کے باپ نے ہسپتال جلایا۔ محترم آپ کے سامنے دین کے حوالے سے بات کر نا سورج کو چراغ دکھانے کے مترادف ہو گا مگر یہاں آپ سے یہ شرعی مسلئہ ضرور پوچھنا چاہوں گا کہ ایک مسلمان کی جان کی حرمت زیادہ ہے یا کہ حرم کعبہ کی؟ ایک انسان کا قتل ساری انسانیت کا قتل ہے کہ نہیں؟ کسی بھی معاملہ میں جھوٹی گواہی دینا شریعت میں کیا مقام رکھتا ہے؟ خصوصا خالص دینی اور اسلامی تنظیم اجتماعی طور پر ایسا کرے تو کیسا ہے؟کسی بھی معاملہ میں یکطرفہ طور پر حالات معلوم کر کے اسلامی تنظیم کا اجتماعی طور پر اقدامات کرنا کیسا ہے؟ کسی بھی مقام پر عارضی طور پر نماز کے لئے قائم کیا جانے والے مصلہ کو مسجد کہا جا سکتا ہے؟ اور کیا کسی مکا ن ،دکان یا سٹور وغیرہ میں آگ لگنے کی وجہ سے اس میں قرآن پاک شہید ہو جائے تو اسے دانستہ قرآن جلانے کی کوشش کہا جا سکتا ہے؟ یہ خالصتا شرعی سوالات ہیں جن کے جوابات قرآن و سنت کی روشنی میں آپ سے جاننا چاہتا ہوں۔ محترم خط کافی طویل ہو گیا اور تفصیلات ابھی بہت زیادہ ہیں پھر بھی مجھے آ پ کے قیمتی وقت کا پورا احساس ہے آخر میں خط کے ساتھ آپ کے لئے درج ذیل دستاویزات ارسال ہیں تا کہ آپ خود حقیقی تجزیہ کر سکیں۔ 1۔ جماعت الدعوۃ کی جانب سے تھانہ صدر میں جھوٹ اور بہتان پر مبنی دی جانے والی درخواست(ایف ۔آئی ۔آر) 2۔ جماعت الدعوۃ اور مقتول عدنان کے ورثاء کے ساتھ ہونے والے معائدہ کی کاپی۔ 3۔ پرائم فاؤنڈیشن کی طرف سے الاٹمنٹ کے لئے دی جانے والی درخواست۔ 4۔ انتظا میہ کی طرف سے الاٹمنٹ پر اعترضا ت کی کاپی۔ 5۔ مظفرآباد ڈیلپمنٹ اتھارٹی کی طرف سے جماعت الدعوۃ کو جگہ خالی کرنے کے لئے دیا جانے ولا نوٹس۔ 6۔ 2004میں سید مبارک علی کی جانب سے جگہ کی الاٹمنٹ کے لئے دی جانے والی درخواست۔ 7۔ مظفرآباد ڈویلپمنٹ اتھارٹی کی جانب سے سید مبارک علی شاہ کو الاٹمنٹ کے لئے دی جانے والی این اوسی کی کاپی۔ محترم آخر میں گزارش ہے کہ کہیں بھی آپ کی شان میں گستاخی ہوئی ہو تو معذرت چاہتا ہوں اور اللہ سے دعا کرتا ہوں کہ آپ اس معاملہ کو خالصتا قرآن اور سنت کی روشنی میں حل کرنے کی کوشش کریں گے خواہ اس کے لئے کتنی ہی بڑی قربانی کیوں نہ دینی پڑے۔ 21-06-2007 والسلام آپ کی دعاؤں کا طالب حافظ عبد الصمدC/Oملت سروس سٹیشن شوائی نالہ پاجگراں مظفرآباد آزادکشمیر wWw.KashmirHotLine. com
The time you spent collecting this poisonous matterial wriiten by western hate mongers, we wish you had spent this time in searching for some stuff that would contribute to the ongoing movement instead of giving it a bad name. When you say lashkar is a terrorist organization then you must also acknowledge the indian state sponsored military terrorism of india at the same time. There is no comparison between the two as lashkar has not killed an innocent civilian so far, never raped or humiliated women or killed kids and elderly in cold blood ( although there are some baseless allegations launched by indian media against them without any proof ). When we talk about indian haegemony in kashmir, we can compare it with israiel not with lashkar. A westerner when writing against lashkar doesnt criticise them for any crime against humanity . The only reason he criticises them is for being strict and adherent to islamic teachings and sunnah of prophet saw. Your below article only promotes their goodness. One thing they forgot to mention is the contribution of jamat dawa at the time of earthquake . They worked in a highly organized manner to help the victims without any bias. The proved stronger among public when they left their own comfort and helped them in the time of difficulty. They worked more than any other ngo of pakistan. And if they did does anyone have answer to them instead of criticising them ? Lashkar boys are fighting freedom struggle, we cannot call them terrorists. Infact the boys of lashkar e toiba are angels in this regard when we see the crimes of indian armed forces against our population in kashmir. Where would you see videos of soldiers like indian army ? killing kids beating women , humiliating elderly, Terrorising and torturing our young boys even below the age of 7 . Their torture made them raise the slogans in the favor of lashkar not anyone else.......right or wrong ?? Lashkar will ever live as long as the torture and killing of our people continues. If indians stop mass murder of our population, the lashkar people will be normal humans like us.. there will be no revenge and no movement From: nadeem aslam To: kashmir-global- network@yahoogro ups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:03:11 PM Subject: [kashnet] Hafiz Mohammed Saeed: Pakistan's heart of terror only search Let Us Build Pakistan Monday, 20 October 2008Profiel of a terrorist: Hafiz Mohammed Saeed of Lashkar-e-Toiba, an ISI sponsored terrorist orgnaizationHafiz Mohammed Saeed: Pakistan's heart of terror Hafiz Muhammad Saeed is the head (ameer) of Jama'at-ud-Da' wah Pakistan. He was a professor in Islamic Studies department of University of Engineering and Technology (Lahore) Pakistan. He was sent to Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s by the University for higher studies where he met some Saudi Sheikhs who were taking part in Afghan jihad. They inspired him to join his colleague, Professor Zafar Iqbal, in taking an active role supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. There he met some youth who later became his companions. In 1987 Hafiz Muhammad Saeed along with some Salafi Muslims founded Markaz Dawa-Wal-Irshad, which can be grouped with the Ahle Hadith. This is a puritanical interpretation of Islam that has drawn great financial support from Saudi Arabia. This organization spawned the jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was based in Pakistan before 9/11and was transferred to kashmir after that.Lashkar operates primarily in Indian held Kashmir. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Hafiz_Muhammad_ Saeed At first sight - he is an academician - jovial man who wears an easy smile on his face and, invariably, a Turkish cap on his head . . . a shalwar kameez-clad man, thoroughly Eastern in dress and habit, who is friendly and humble towards those who listen carefully to him . . . probably a person whose only introduction to cosmetics has been the henna that is regularly applied to his long beard - a regular feature on a regular feature on a regular face in this part of the world. At first sight - it is a face that hardly begs for the camera. Look closer - it is a face that shies away from cameras as a rule. It has good reason to: Islam, the much un-photographed man says, forbids the capture of human images. Human lives, however, are another matter. For Professor Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, killing is a pious man's obligation: it is his duty 'to destroy the forces of evil and disbelief'. And the Professor is a very pious man. His kind of piety has also given him dubious distinctions. An uncrowned terror king till the suicide attack on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi on 13 December 2001, Saeed headed the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the militant arm of the innocently titled Markaz Dawa Wal Irshad (the Centre for Religious Learning and Propagation) . Dreaded for its guerrilla attacks in Kashmir and well known for the infamous attack on the Red Fort in New Delhi on 22 December 2000, the Lashkar is the Professor's brainchild, crafted through an interpretation of militant Islam. Statistics also bear out that the Lashkar-e-Toiba is no less pious than its ameer and founder. The website of the Markaz Irshad, in fact, proudly displays the cold equations of terror: * During the last eleven years of jihad in Kashmir, 14,369 Indian soldiers were killed as against 1,016 Lashkar-e-Toiba militants. * In 1999, eleven fidayeen (suicide) missions in Kashmir (that is, what Pakistan refers to as Held Kashmir) killed 258 Indian soldiers and officers. * In, 2000, by the grace of Allah, the mujahideen successfully carried out 98 fidayeen missions in which 891 indian soldiers including three colonels, 10 majors, one commandant, one captain, three engineers and a number of JCOs were killed.' At Muridke, 45 km from Lahore, which the bulky and bearded Professor Saeed used at his base - till Washington banned the Lashkar and Pakistan followed suit by freezing its assets - there is no trace of the blood behind the figures. Just the impression, which the Professor likes to give, of a scholarly man. But he is much more than that. outwardly a simple Punjabi, who speaks in the tongue of the region, he has broken a fifty-three- year-old tradition: before him, the Pashtuns always led the jihad against India. Now, the Lashkar's ranks have just a few Pashtuns and even fewer Kashmiris. Though the Lashkar-e-Toiba leader cultivates simplicity, he always moves under tight security. His preferred vehicle is the hardy Pajero. The Professor is generally surrounded by young followers with whom he is quite frank. The leader and his keen young group talk freely. Most of the youngsters are from big families that count close to ten members. The Professor favours the big-family norm, reasoning that greater Muslim numbers translate into many more fighters of jihad against the infidels. Once in the Lashkar, the youngsters are drawn into a pattern of community life, epitomised by the shared, common meal. Al young men eat together using their fingers to pick food from a big, shared bowl or parat. This simple occasion is almost a rite, symbolising and encouraging fraternity among the comrades-in- arms. The Professor himself comes from a close-knit family. He is married to the daughter of his maternal uncle, Hafiz Mohammad Abdullah Bahawalpuri, a well-known religious leader and renowned Ahle Hadith scholar. But, interestingly, he heads a very small family unit: one son and one daughter. Three members from among his widely dispersed family have been drawn into the organisation' s ranks. His only son, the thirty-one-year- old Talha, looks after the affairs of the Lashkar at its base camp in Muzaffarabad. His brother-in-law, Abdul Rehman Makki, is his close partner and holds an important position in the Markaz at Muridke. Makki spent many years in Saudi Arabia before settling down in Pakistan. The Professor's son-in-law Khalid Waleed is also associated with the Lashkar's organisational set-up in Lahore. Two of the Professor's brothers live in the United States. One runs an Islamic centre while the other is pursuing his Ph.D studies in an American university. Both remain in constant touch with him. However, the Professor has never travelled to the United States or set foot anywhere in the West. And unlike most fundamentalists, he does not express deep hatred for it. But the Professor's past has been bloody, with a cause for revenge. Thirty-six members of his family were murdered during Partition n 1947 when his father, Kamaluddin, an ordinary landlord, moved to Pakistan, Kamaluddin first tried to settle his family in the Sargodha district of Punjab, but finally chose Village 126 Janubi, in the Mianwali district. A government land grant to the settlers and hard work soon brought prosperity to the family, an effect that the Professor credits to Allah's bounty. The Professor's parents were religious-minded and his mother used to teach the Holy Quran to her seven children, five of whom are still alive. The Professor was a good learner, and memorised the Quran. His favourite verse is: Wajahidu Fee Sabilallah: Wage a holy war in the name of God Almighty. In college, the Professor furthered his religious interests. After graduating from the Government College at Sargodha, he went to Saudi Arabia for a Masters in Islamic Studies and in Arabic Lexicon from King Saud University, Riyadh. He frequently met religious scholars and even received special religious instruction. Indeed, his first job in Pakistan was as a research officer for the Islamic Ideological Council. His current job could not have been more different. At fifty-five, he has just retired as professor of Islamic Studies from the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore, and is fully devoted to his organisation. The fruits of that devotion are significant: in ten years, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, launched in 1991, has reportedly set up six private military training camps in Pakistan and in what is termed Azad Kashmir; has 2,500 offices across the country; and over two dozen launching camps along the Line of Control (LoC). The Lashkar's jihadi network is the largest, the most efficient, and also has greater independence than other militant organisations since the Markaz Dawa Wal Irshad has a Wahabi orientation and does not have to follow any of the four Muslim religious leaders or imams. On the other hand, three other fundamentalist organisations - the Harkat-ul-Mujahidee n, the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, and the Jaish-e-Mohammed - are Deobandis and follow the imams. The Lashkar - in an attempt to prove that the Kashmir insurgency is a freedom struggle - has announced that it is shifting its base to 'Indian-Held Kashmir' but it is Muridke that is the base of the Markaz Dawa Wal Irshad and the hub of the jihad machine. Spread over 200 acres, the complex houses teaching and residential facilities, complete with its own farms, mosques, fish-breeding ponds and stables. Over 2,000 students are presently enrolled at the Centre and the teachers insist that all are Pakistanis. The education - Islamic and Western - is from the primary to the university level for both men and women. Students are doctrinated towards propagating Islam. The Markaz also has a modern-looking, computerised religious university, which has five related institutions. At least two dozen thoroughbred horses are used for training the Centre's students between the ages of eight to twenty years. these students, dressed in military uniforms, are imparted compulsory training in shooting and swimming. In fact, they are not allowed to cross the barbed periphery wire until they are 'mature'. Photography of all living things which is anathema to the Professor is strictly prohibited. The Markaz Dawa Wal Irshad describes photo cameras, TV sets and films as un-Islamic and its students carry out periodic campaigns for the public destruction of cameras and TVs. Visitors are frisked for cigarettes and any other addictive substances, which are banned in the complex. The Muridke complex is also not just restricted to the Markaz Dawa Wal Irshad. Around the seminary, the organisation has bought land for supporters, who have build houses, shops and more mosques and centres of Islamic learning. 'We want like-minded people to get together.' Says a resident. Evidently that is happening. The organisation has transformed the land between Lahore and Gujranwala into an Islamic state that has banned music, television and smoking on its heavily guarded premises. Not even passing vehicles are allowed to play music which, the Professor believes, is strictly forbidden in Islam. The complex also has a garment factory, an iron foundry, a wood-works factory, a swimming pool and three residential colonies. So far, Rs 30 million have been spent on the Markaz projects. Where has the money come from? Osama bin Laden, whisper rumours. It is alleged that the Saudi billionaire, a figure who has grown from being demonised by the West to being mythologised, rolled out a thick wad - Rs 10 million - for the construction of the Markaz's mosque. Osama bin Laden is even said to have financed Professor Saeed, his low-key, comrade-in-arms Zafar Iqbal, and a short-lived founder, Abdullah Azam, to launch the Markazs Dawa Wal Irshad in 1989. http://www.kashmirh erald.com/ profiles/ HafizMohammedSae ed.html | |
JK NATIONAL INDEPENDENDT ALLIANCE UK
JK NATIONAL INDEPENDENDT ALLIANCE UK
| Updated at: Friday,07 November 2008 |
| حق خودارادیت مطلب قابض قوتوں سے آزادی و خودمختاری ہے،مشترکہ بیا ن |
| لندن(پ ر)حق خودارادیت کابنیادی مطلب غلام قوم کو تمام قابض قوتوں سے آزادی اور خودمختاری ہے نہ کہ الحاق پاکستان اور الحاق بھارت۔اور یہ حق لامحدود اور غیر مشروط ہوتا ہے۔ اس حق کا مطالبہ اس سے کرنا چاہیے جس نے اس کو غصب کر رکھا ہے یعنی کہ ہندوستان کے زیر قبضہ کشمیریوں اور ان کی سیاسی جماعتوں کو ہند وستان سے کرنا چاہیے اور جدوجہد بھی کرتی رہنی چاہیے۔جبکہ پاکستان کے زیر قبضہ، نام نہادآزادکشمیر اور گلگت بلتستان کے عوام کو یہ مطالبہ پاکستان سے کرنا چاہیے اور اس کے لئے جدوجہد بھی جاری رکھنی چاہیے۔لیکن کیا وہ وجہ ہے کہ ٦٢ سال گزرنے کے باوجود پاکستان سے زیر انتظام آزادکشمیر اور گلگت بلتستان اور چین کے زیر انتظام اقصائے چین نہ صرف منقسم ہیں بلکہ اعلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کے باوجود بنیادی انسانی ،آئینی ، اور قانونی حقوق بھی حاصل نہیں کرسکے۔اور حق حوداردیت کا مطالبہ صرف اقوام متعدہ اور بھارت کے زیر انتظام کشمیر کے بارے میں کیا جاتا ہے اور آزاد کشمیر اور گلگت بلتستان کو دانستہ طور پر نظر انداز کیا جا تا ہے۔جبکہ ایڈہاک کمیٹی میں شامل مسلم کانفرنس،پیپلز پارٹی کئی دہائیوں سے اقتدار میں ہیں،نیشنل انڈیپنڈنٹ الائنس کے صدر طاہر بوستان ایڈووکیٹ،سیکرٹری جنرل محمود کشمیری،اور ندیم اسلم ایڈووکیٹ نے ایڈہاک کمیٹی برائے حق خودارادیت کے رہنمائوں سے مطالبہ کیا کہ وہ کشمیری عوام کے سامنے حق حودارادیت کی دستاویزی وضاحت پیش کریں کیونکہ خودمخٹار کشمیر کے حامی آزاد کشمیر میں الحاق پاکستان کی شق پر دستخط کئیے بغیر الیکشن تک میں حصہ نہیں لے سکتے |
