A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir

INTRODUCTION

In recent years Jammu and Kashmir has been the subject of international focus. Unfortunately,
discussion on the issue has largely been flawed by misunderstanding of the State’s history and
its present situation. Pakistan, in promoting its own territorial ambitions, has deliberately sought
to project a distorted version of developments in the State since 1947 when the State joined the
Union of India, in an attempt to disguise its own sustained effort at undermining the tranquillity of
this "Eden of Bliss".

Pakistan continues to look upon the issue of Jammu & Kashmir as one that lies at the very core
of India’s relations with Pakistan. This is manifested by Pakistan’s pronouncements and its
repeated aggression against India, initially in the form of conventional wars and then by
sponsorship of terrorism. This strategy is born of Pakistan’s non-acceptance of the accession of
Jammu and Kashmir to India, made with the full support of its people then led by Sheikh
Mohammed Abdullah. The fact that the two communities had coexisted for centuries, that a
sizeable section of India’s Muslims chose to live in India, that a princely state with a sizeable
Muslim population like Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India of its own volition, and that the
Muslim majority wing of Pakistan separated and became independent Bangladesh, are aspects
of history that challenge the principle that peaceful and beneficial co-existence was not possible.

Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Indian Union in 1947 through final accession
in accordance with the legal framework determined by the British Parliament for the
independence of the Indian subcontinent. This was sought to be undermined by the use of
military force in 1947, which though successfully resisted by the Kashmiris with the support of
India’s army, resulted in a portion of the State remaining under Pakistan’s occupation. Again, in
1965 Pakistan sought to capitalise on local disturbances to foster insurgency, but on failing to
suborn the local Kashmiri population, infiltrated armed personnel into the State leading to war
with India, ending with the Tashkent Declaration of 1965. In 1971, under threat of an insurgency
in its own eastern wing Pakistan again sought to divert world attention and extend the conflict into
Jammu & Kashmir. This brought about defeat and the loss of its eastern wing with the
emergence of independent Bangladesh.

In complete contravention of the Tashkent Declaration of 1965 and the Simla Agreement of 1972,
signed after two wars, Pakistan, still addicted to its quest to wrest Jammu and Kashmir by force,
changed strategy and embarked on a programme of sponsoring terrorism in the State. Since
1989, with over 20,000 people killed, Pakistan continues its proxy war against India. Even after
the Kashmiris voted for democracy and again elected their own government in 1996, signalling
their disenchantment with terrorist violence, Pakistan has not given up its policy of trying to
disrupt the free democratic polity of Jammu and Kashmir. Disappointed with the response of the
Kashmiris to its calls for what it sought to promote as a "holy war" in Jammu and Kashmir,
Pakistan has taken recourse to sending in battle hardened Pakistani, Afghan and other
mercenaries who have distinguished themselves only by drenching the soil with the blood of the
very people whose interests they claim to champion in the name of religion.

India remains committed to dealing with all matters pertaining to its relations with Pakistan, within
the bilateral framework of the Simla Agreement. Solutions that entail a rewriting of history or a
redrawing of geographical boundaries and possible population transfers can, however, never be
countenanced.

GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY

The terms "Kashmir" and "Muslim" are often loosely, and erroneously, used when referring to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has deliberately fostered this misrepresentation to stake
its claim to what it terms a "Muslim State".
Indeed, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has a Muslim majority but is by no means a
homogenous religious or ethnic entity. Like the rest of India, it represents a mosaic of different
religions, different ethnic groups and cultures as do many other States of India. In its entirety, the
State consists of Jammu to the south, Ladakh in the northeast and geographically the smallest
segment Kashmir, comprised mainly of a river valley, surrounded by lofty mountains. All three
segments are distinguished by their diversity. Jammu has a majority Hindu population(60%), but
with substantial Muslim and Sikh minorities. Poonch, Rajouri and Doda, three of its six districts
have Muslim majorities. Variations of Punjabi like Dogri and Pahari, are the languages most
widely spoken , together with a smattering of Kashmiri. Ladakh has two districts; one, Leh,
overwhelmingly Buddhist and the other, Kargil, overwhelmingly (73%) Shia Muslim. The
languages there are Ladakhi and Balti. Kashmiri is not indigenous to this geographically largest
constituent of the State. The Kashmir Valley itself is predominantly Muslim, with small
components of Hindus and Sikhs. Kashmiri is the predominant language, but with entire regions
speaking Shina and Pahari.

The constituent units of the State of Jammu and Kashmir still retain many of their distinctive
religious, ethnic and linguistic features. This heterogeneity was not lost even when they were
incorporated in one or the other empire - Maurya, Kushan, Mughal, Sikh or British, and today it
reflects the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of India

HISTORY

Ancient Kashmir is steeped in legend. It is said that the Kashmir Valley was once the great lake
Satisar (the Lake of the goddess Sati, also known as Durga), home to ferocious demons.
Responding to the penances of the great sage Kashyapa, the grandson of Brahma himself, the
gods destroyed the demon of the lake, with a pebble divinely caste, which today stands as the hill
upon which towers the fortress built by the Mughal Emperor Akbar, and known today as Hari
Parbat. The water of Satisar was drained through a breach in the mountains at what is now the
mouth of the Valley, beyond the northern town of Baramulla (or the Sanskrit name of Varaha
Mukh, the visage of the boar). From then on the Valley has carried the name of its founder. Like
that of the rest of India, the ancient history of the State lacks detailed documentation although
stuff and legend have been indistinguishably mired in the work of Rajatarangini by Kalhan whose
identity remains a source of conjecture. In the 3rd Century BC, the state was incorporated into
the Maurya Empire under Asoka, founder of the city of Srinagar. Buddhism became the principal
religion which continued into the times of the Kushanas (1st and 2nd centuries AD), the names of
many of whose rulers several towns in the Valley were named and continue to be borne by
several towns in the Valley, such as Kanispora after Kanishka, and Hushkora after Huvishka. It
was in Kanishka’s time that the 3rd Great Buddhist Council was held in Srinagar, formalising the
split between the schools of Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. Thereafter Buddhism declined
in the Valley though it retained its vibrancy and continues to thrive in Ladakh.

In the 8th century, Kashmir rose to become the centre of a great kingdom , spanning much of
North India and parts of Central Asia under Lalitaditya Muktapida, who was builder of the
Martand (sun) Temple, and founder of the Valley’s irrigation canal irrigation system which has
survived for centuries, helping water rich harvests of the finest rice, a variety of temperate fruit
and exotic crops such as saffron.

Islam came to India through traders, warriors and missionaries from the eighth to the twelfth
centuries. The faith came to Kashmir through the Sufi saint Bulbul Shah in the early fourteenth
century, finding wide acceptance. The ruling monarch Rinchen Shah converted to Islam and
assumed the name of Sadruddin in 1327 AD. Thereafter, beginning with his former general
Shahmir, a series of Muslim dynasties ruled the State with brief interludes of annexation into
neighbouring States, to become a part of the Mughal Empire in the late 16th century, under its
greatest ruler Akbar. The State was fully incorporated into the systems of administration and land
settlement which long remained a legacy of that Empire in India, well after its own disintegration.
All through this period the religious activity of the Shaivites and Sufis continued to flourish, and
fed the vibrant stream of Kashmiri culture. Lal Ded, Kashmir’s great poetesses was also among
her foremost Shaivite ascetics and mentor to one of Kashmir’s greatest Sufi saints, Sheikh
Nooruddin, whose school of Sufism is called ‘Rishi’ and who is revered by Hindus as Nand Rishi.
The songs of Habba Khatoon, queen to the last Sultan of Kashmir before it fell to the Mughals,
who retired to the life of a hermit in the hills of Gurez after her husband’s deportation, still
resonate with the peasant women harvesting rice in Kashmir’s fields.

The rule of the Mughals has been coloured by romance, the modern remnants of which are to be
found in the masterful architecture and layout of their world famous gardens in Kashmir:
Shalimar, Nishat, Chashme Shahi, Chinar Bagh. A graphic account of the pomp and panoply of
the Emperor’s cavalcade to Kashmir has been left to us by the French physician Francois Bernier
who was in the court of the Emperor Aurangzeb.

The Imperial Court called on the Kashmiri Pandits, famed for their scholarship, to man courtly
positions in Delhi. Thus it was that the ancestor of the Nehrus was recruited by the Emperor
Farrukhsiyar in the early 18th century to serve as imperial scribe.

The defeat of the Empire at the hands of the Afghan brigand Ahmed Shah Abdali forced the
ceding of Kashmir to the Afghans in 1753 AD, leading to a period of unmitigated brutality and
widespread distress, which remained cruelly etched on the public memory, reinforced by the
happenings of 1947. The greatest of the Sikh rulers Maharaja Ranjit Singh won Kashmir in 1815.
On the defeat of the Sikhs by the British, the latter annexed and then sold Kashmir to the local
feudatory Gulab Singh, who then assumed the title of Maharaja. His dynasty continued to rule the
State under British paramountcy till the events described hereafter.

THE ACCESSION

Since the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, Pakistan has sought to project the
accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India as invalid and that, as a state with a Muslim majority, it
should have somehow become part of Pakistan. The Pakistani argument is that since the state
had a Hindu ruler he was surreptitiously persuaded to accede to India, whereas if the wishes of
the people had been considered, they would have opted for Jammu and Kashmir acceding to
Pakistan. This patently false hypothesis has been used by successive leaders in Pakistan to refer
to Jammu and Kashmir as the "unfinished business of Partition" and to justify Pakistan’s
pretended "concern" for the Kashmiris’ rights, and its continued meddling in Jammu and Kashmir.
Successive Pakistani leaders have referred to Kashmir as the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, a
demonstration of the fact that it is the strategic importance of the state that has fashioned
Pakistan’s actions and not any regard for the rights of the Kashmiris. Major General Akbar Khan
who organised the raids in 1947 intended to forcibly seize Jammu and Kashmir writes in his book
‘Raiders in Kashmir’ that it seemed that Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan was not simply a matter
of desirability, but of absolute necessity.

History proves the malafide nature of Pakistan’s arguments which are designed only to
camouflage its territorial ambitions. The two nation theory was proved fallible even at its inception
when a sizeable Muslim community chose to live, and continues to live and prosper, in secular
India rather than go to the newly created Pakistan. In 1971, the Eastern Wing of Pakistan broke
away after a war of liberation fought by the Bengali Muslims against the oppression of their co-
religionists who had hitherto monopolised Pakistan’s governance. India’s role in that war was
supportive of the liberation forces.

Given the ethos of Jammu and Kashmir and the liberal and secular philosophy that provided the
foundation for the Indian Union it was natural that the leaders of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir would seek to identify with a polity that enshrined the same values that they cherished.
India, since its independence, has been a vibrant, secular democracy providing to the people of
all its states, including Jammu and Kashmir, free and equal participation in political life and
governance that has enabled them to determine their own destinies. It was this awareness of
what India represented that prompted Sheikh Abdullah, the undisputed leader of the Kashmiri
people at the time of Partition, to actively endorse the accession of the State to India and to
appeal to India for help, on behalf of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to repulse the
aggression by Pakistan.

Speaking to the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in 1951 Sheikh Abdullah said " ....
In the final analysis, as I understand it, it is the kinship of ideals which determines the strength of
ties between two States. The Indian National Congress has consistently supported the cause of
the state’s people’s freedom. The autocratic rule of the Princes has been done away with and
representative governments have been entrusted with the administration. Steps towards
democratisation have been taken and these have raised the people’s standard of living, brought
about much-needed social reconstruction, and, above all built up their very independence of
spirit. Naturally, if we accede to India there is no danger of a revival of feudalism and autocracy.
Moreover, during the last four years, the Government of India has never tried to interfere in our
internal autonomy. This experience has strengthened our confidence in them as a democratic
State.

The real character of a State is revealed in its Constitution. The Indian Constitution has set
before the country the goal of secular democracy based upon justice, freedom and equality for all
without distinction. This is the bedrock of modern democracy. This should meet the argument that
the Muslims of Kashmir cannot have security in India, where the large majority of the population
are Hindus. Any unnatural cleavage between religious groups is the legacy of Imperialism, and
no modern State can afford to encourage artificial divisions if it is to achieve progress and
prosperity. The Indian Constitution has amply and finally repudiated the concept of a religious
State, which is a throwback to medievalism, by guaranteeing the equality of rights of all citizens
irrespective of their religion, colour, caste and class.

The national movement in our State naturally gravitates towards these principles of secular
democracy. The people here will never accept a principle which seeks to favour the interests of
one religion or social group against another. This affinity in political principles, as well as in past
association, and our common path of suffering in the cause of freedom, must be weighed
properly while deciding the future of the State…."

The soundness of the principles enunciated by Sheikh Abdullah and their relevance to the people
of Jammu and Kashmir, became evident again in 1996, when after years of terrorist violence, the
people of Jammu and Kashmir once again exercised their democratic rights and chose their own
government headed by Dr. Farooq Abdullah, President of the National Conference, a party with
deep roots in all three regions of the State.

On the eve of Independence, Jammu and Kashmir was one of more than 560 Princely States
which were governed under the doctrine of Paramountcy enunciated by the British. In return for
the fealty to the Crown pledged by the rulers of the princely states, the King Emperor gave them
protection through "subsidiary alliances". When the India Independence Act was passed by the
British Parliament, British power was constitutionally transferred to the people of India as far as
British India was concerned, putting an end to Paramountcy, leaving it to the Princes to arrive at
such arrangements as they thought proper with the Governments of India and Pakistan.

The provision for accession made in the Government of India Act of 1935, as adapted under the
Independence Act of 1947, says: "An Indian State shall be deemed to have acceded to the
Dominion if the Governor General has signified the acceptance of an Instrument of Accession
executed by the Ruler thereof".

The law did not provide that the Instrument of Accession could be conditional. Once Accession
was accepted the particular Princely State became an integral part of one or the other of the two
Dominions, India or Pakistan.

The law had no provision for consulting the people of the Princely States. The ruler’s decision
was final. Nor was there any provision in the law that the accession had to be ratified by
ascertaining the wishes of the people of the acceding State. There was also no provision of law
taking into account the religious complexion of the population of any of the Princely States.

Though Pakistan now harps on the people of Jammu and Kashmir not having been consulted
about the accession in 1947 and demands a UN supervised plebiscite to ascertain their wishes,
the reality is that while India was willing to ascertain the people’s wishes it was Pakistan which
objected to any UN-supervised plebiscite. Lord Birdwood in his book "Two Nations and Kashmir"
(London 1956 Page 46-47) writes "..With Mr. Jinnah, the approach (of Indian Princely States
accession to India or Pakistan) was governed by the strictly constitutional attitude, that it was for
the ruler, and the ruler alone, to decide.." The reason was obvious. Pakistan wanted Junagadh
and Hyderabad. In both these states, with Muslim rulers and a Hindu majority, Pakistan was
confident that they would opt for accession to Pakistan. Treating Jammu and Kashmir as an
exception to this rule would have been inconvenient.

Campbell Johnson in his book ‘Mission with Mountbatten’ Chapter 19, writing about a meeting of
the Joint Defence Council at Lahore on November 1, 1947 (after the accession of the state to
India) recorded that "Mountbatten proposed that a plebiscite under UN auspices should be held
but at that stage (Mohammed Ali) Jinnah was not agreeable to it ..."

Given the option to accede to one or the other Dominion under the Independence Act, the
Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh vacillated, avoiding a decision. The legal framework for
independence provided for rulers to enter into Standstill Agreements with either or both the
Dominions in the interregnum, while they concluded which Dominion they wished to accede to.
Hari Singh offered such Standstill Agreements to both India and Pakistan. Pakistan entered into a
Standstill Agreement with Hari Singh, clearly recognising the right of the Ruler to decide on
behalf of the state and its people. India sought consultations which never took place.

Pakistan was determined to get Jammu and Kashmir for itself. Major General Akbar Khan’s
disclosure in his book "Raiders in Kashmir" has been mentioned. Sir Zafarullah Khan, arguing
Pakistan’s case in the United Nations Security Council further amplified the rationale behind
Pakistan’s obsession to acquire Jammu and Kashmir when he stated that "..If Kashmir should
accede to India, Pakistan might as well, from both the economic and the strategic points of view,
become a feudatory of India.." Pakistan sent a special emissary to Kashmir to try and persuade
the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. The Mission failed. In total disregard of the Standstill
Agreement, Pakistan, which controlled the head of the then principal road into Kashmir, along the
River Jhelum, cut off supplies of essential commodities such as salt and petrol, stopped supply of
currency notes and small coins to the Imperial Bank in Kashmir and severed postal connections.
Matters became increasingly critical despite the portests lodged by the Maharaja.

"TRIBAL RAIDS" AND THE ACCESSION

Pakistan then sent tribal invaders and ostensibly decommissioned Pakistan Army officers into
Jammu and Kashmir. While Pakistan has always claimed that its government was not behind the
raids and that these were spontaneous expressions of Muslim sentiment following reports of
killing of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, the facts are revealed by Major General Akbar Khan,
the officer given responsibility for organising the raids: He states in his book "Raiders in
Kashmir" ‘..I wrote out a plan under the title "Armed Revolt inside Kashmir". As open interference
or aggression by Pakistan was obviously not desirable it was proposed that our efforts should be
concentrated upon strengthening the Kashmiris internally—and .. to prevent arrival of armed
civilian or military assistance from India into Kashmir..." . Margaret Bourke-White describes the
plunder by the raiders:

"Their buses and trucks, loaded with booty, arrived every other day and took more Pathans to
Kashmir. Ostensibly they want to liberate their Kashmiri Muslim brothers, but their primary
objective was riot and loot. In this they made no distinction between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims".
"The raiders advanced into Baramulla, the biggest commercial centre of the region with a
population then of 11,000, until they were only an hour away from Srinagar. For the next three
days they were engaged in massive plunder, rioting and rape. No one was spared. Even
members of the St. Joseph’s Mission Hospital were brutally massacred."

Unable to prevent the raiders’ brutal advance which was marked by large-scale killings, loot and
arson, the Maharaja, on October 24, 1947, appealed for military assistance from the Government
of India. The Indian Government felt that only if the state had acceded to India could there be the
legal basis for India to intervene, whereupon the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on
October 26, 1947. A simultaneous appeal for assistance and for the state’s accession to the
Indian Union was also made by Sheikh Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, and the
undisputed leader of the people, who had for his views been imprisoned by the Maharaja’s
government into September ’47 and released only under pressure of India’s Prime Minister.

On receipt of the signed Instrument of Accession from the Maharaja, preparations were made to
fly Indian troops to the State. The formal letter of acceptance of the Accession was signed by
Lord Mountbatten on October 27 making Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India even as
Indian forces were airlifted to Srinagar.

The Accession of Jammu and Kashmir was final and unconditional. It was offered and accepted
in the same manner and according to the same legal stipulations as the Accession of princely
states, to Pakistan: the decision was made by only the ruler of the princely state as required
under the India Independence Act. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, there was further
endorsement of the accession by the largest Kashmiri Party, the National Conference, and
subsequently the State’s own popularly elected Constituent Assembly.

THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations Security Council first took cognisance of the Jammu and Kashmir issue in
1948 after the accession of the State to India, and at India’s behest. A distortion of the nature of
the Security Council’s involvement has been fostered over the years by Pakistan to try and
project that it was the status of Jammu and Kashmir that was the subject under discussion.

It was India that approached the Security Council on January 1, 1948 with the request that the
Security Council intervene to vacate Pakistan’s aggression and illegal occupation of Indian
territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

India approached the Security Council of January 1, 1948, and said: "Such a situation now exists
between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan
and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the North West, are
drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to
the Dominion of India and is part of India...The Government of India request the Security Council
to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance which is an act of
aggression against India." India was the complainant before the Security Council against
aggression by Pakistan.

The United Nations Security Council appointed a United Nations Commission for India and
Pakistan (UNCIP). Initially Pakistan continued to deny any role in the tribal raids maintaining that
it was a natural response of the martial tribes to reports of killings of Muslims in Jammu and
Kashmir. Later, however, in July 1948, Sir Zafarullah Khan admitted to the UNCIP that three
regular Pakistani Brigades had been fighting in Kashmir territory since May 1948.

The UNCIP taking note of the developments adopted a resolution on August 13, 1948, divided
into three parts. The first part called for a cease-fire. The second part called for Pakistan to
withdraw its nationals and tribesmen and to vacate the territory occupied by it. Then after the
above stipulation had been implemented India was to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the
State leaving an adequate number behind to ensure that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
maintains law and order and peace, a clear indication that the UNCIP believed that Jammu and
Kashmir was a part of India. Part (3) of the Resolution to be implemented after parts (1) and (2)
stated that both India and Pakistan had reaffirmed their wish that the future status of Jammu and
Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people.

Yet the ensuing months, after the adoption of the resolution, saw Pakistan brazenly advancing
deep into Baltistan and Ladakh, hundreds of kilometres to the east while the so-called Azad
Kashmir forces, which were to be disbanded, were expanded and consolidated and formed what
the UNCIP Military Adviser described as a "formidable force".

A subsequent resolution was adopted by the UNCIP on 5, January 1949 on the same issue.
However, this resolution was to be binding only if the stipulations of the resolution of August 14,
1948 had first been met. India accepted this resolution also. It is noteworthy that while India
accepted the two resolutions, Pakistan balked at implementing even the first one and has still ,
even after the passage of fifty years, not vacated the territories of Jammu and Kashmir seized by
it. Indeed, the portion of the State now called the Northern Areas, has been declared a part of
Pakistan, separate to the entity named "Azad Kashmir"

It is very significant that during the debates in the UN Security Council and in the wording of the
two resolutions the sovereignty of India over Jammu and Kashmir was taken as accepted.

Speaking in the Council of February 4, 1948 the representative of the United States of America,
Warren Austen said "..The external sovereignty of Kashmir is no longer under the control of the
Maharaja.. with the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over
to India and is exercised by India and that is why India happens to be here as a petitioner..".

The UNCIP Resolution of 5 January, 1949 stated that "..The Secretary General of the United
Nations will .. nominate.. a Plebiscite Administrator.. He will be formally appointed to office by the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir.. The Plebiscite Administrator shall derive from the State of
Jammu and Kashmir the powers he considers necessary.."

Subsequently, on 26 January 1957 at the 765th meeting of the Security Council the
representative of the Soviet Union stated "The question of Kashmir has been settled by the
people of Kashmir themselves. They decided that Kashmir is an integral part of the Republic of
India".

The last time that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir came before the UN Security Council was in
the aftermath of the 1965 India Pakistan war. The perfunctory passing reference to Jammu and
Kashmir, with no reference to the resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949
demonstrates that, for the world community, the Kashmir issue was no longer of any
consequence and would have been forgotten if it was not for the war forced by Pakistan on India
in 1965.

The irrelevance of the 1948 and 1949 resolutions to the contemporary situation was highlighted
by the President of the Security Council, Gunnar Jarring in his report to the Council in 1957 when
he said ".. The Council, will, furthermore, be aware of the fact that the implementation of
international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily,
may become progressively more difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has
tended to change.."

Dr. Frank Graham, the UNCIP’s representative stated in March 1958 ".. the execution of the
provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at
the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute
the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful.....".

If, in 1957 and 1958, Mr. Jarring and Mr. Graham felt that the resolutions of 1948 and 1949 could
not be implemented because of the changed situation, the sheer implausibility of these
resolutions having any meaning today is self-evident. The State of Jammu and Kashmir to which
these resolutions applied does not exist any longer with a part of the territory having been
handed over to China by Pakistan and demographic changes having been effected in Azad
Kashmir and the Northern Areas.

The changed situation in terms of peoples’ representation in Government is nowhere more

evident than in the part of Jammu and Kashmir with India. India became a Republic in 1950, with
the will of the people. Pursuant to the Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India the Constitution
of India made provision to accord to State of Jammu and Kashmir a special and protected place
in the Indian polity, under Article of 370 of the Constitution. In 1951, the Jammu and Kashmir
Constituent Assembly was elected by secret ballot, for which all J&K State subjects were eligible.
It adopted, in 1956, the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir which declared that the State of
Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that Accession to India was final and
irrevocable.

The Accession of the State to India had never been an issue for the Kashmiris. In the 1947, 1965
an 1971 wars, even according to disinterested international commentators, the people of Jammu
and Kashmir actively blunted Pakistan’s attempts to incite insurgency and participated vigorously
cooperation with the Army to ensure victory. In 1975, Sheikh Abdullah, the undisputed leader of
the Kashmiris, and the Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi concluded the Kashmir Accord
with both sides accepting the validity of the Constitution of the State of Jammu & Kashmir,
reiterating the status of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of the Indian Union. A little over a
year later, in 1977, elections were held. These elections are internationally endorsed as free and
fair including by the International Commission of Jurists. In these elections, the accession of
Jammu and Kashmir to India was not questioned. It was a non-issue. Sheikh Abdullah who in
1947 had supported the accession and then endorsed it again in 1975, won the elections
handsomely, even though arrayed against him was India’s then ruling party, the Janata,
supported by a range of local parties including Mirwaiz Farooq’s Awami Action Committee and
the Jama’at Islami. The Congress was not a serious contender. If any signal was needed, there
could be no clearer indication that Abdullah’s policies, including his belief in the legitimacy of the
Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, had the support of the people of the State.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir have participated in elections to Parliament and the State
Assembly many times. It is an expression of their will, expressed through the ballot box, that the
National Conference, a supporter of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India, remains the
dominant political party in the State, first under Sheikh Abdullah’s leadereship and, following the
latest Assembly and Parliamentary elections in 1996, and 1998 under his son Dr Farooq
Abdullah.

It is ironical that after itself being responsible for non-implementation of the Resolutions at the
time when they were adopted, Pakistan today seeks to capitalise on the situation of violence
created by it in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is incongruous that Pakistan seeks the
implementation of out of date resolutions in some parts of the State, when even the state of
Jammu and Kashmir does not exist as it did in 1947, thanks to Pakistan’s ‘generosity’ in
unilaterally ceding to China part of the territory of the State, and occupying another part.

Pakistan’s bid today to revert to the Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 is merely a ploy to camouflage
its continuing activity to destabilise Jammu and Kashmir and to capitalise on the situation that it
has created through the use of terrorists and mercenaries.

PAKISTAN’S AGGRESSION AGAINST INDIA

The hostility with which successive establishments in Pakistan have viewed India since partition
in 1947, has manifested itself, over the past five decades, in a policy of sustained aggression
against India coupled with disingenuous ploys to mask its machinations.

In 1947, prior to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, Pakistan sent in well organised
raiders claiming they were acting spontaneously in response to reports that Muslims were being
persecuted in Jammu and Kashmir. The reality was exposed by none other than Major General
Akbar Khan, the officer charged with the task of organising the raids. In his book ‘Raiders in
Kashmir’ he has stated "...We had assumed that Kashmir would naturally join Pakistan ... That
the Maharajah, a non-Muslim, wished to avoid accession to Pakistan had been obvious, but now
the fear was that his hands were likely to be strengthened also by Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim
Leader of Kashmir, hero of the Indian National Freedom Movement, who had previously opposed
the conception of Pakistan. Our own safety and welfare also demanded that the State should not
go over to India .. Pakistan’s military security would be seriously jeopardised if Indian troops
came to be stationed along Kashmir’s western border.

"...The authorities needed a lot of assistance from the Army in the shape of plans, advice,
weapons, ammunition, communications and volunteers. They did not ask for it, because the
whole thing had to be kept secret from the Commander-in-Chief and other senior officers who
were British. There were, however, also senior Pakistani officers in the Army who could have
been taken into confidence - and these were in a position to help a great deal...

"...Ultimately, I wrote out a plan under the title of "Armed Revolt inside Kashmir". As open
interference or aggression by Pakistan was obviously undesirable, it was proposed that our
efforts should be concentrated upon strengthening the Kashmiris themselves internally—and at
the same time taking steps to prevent the arrival of armed civilian or military assistance from India
into Kashmir...

"...Lieutenant Colonel Masud (latter Brigadier Tommy Masud) of the Cavalry, offered to help with
collecting and storing the condemned ammunition...

"...The Prime Minister also promised to obtain some light machine guns (Brens) from a war dump
in Italy or somewhere abroad..."

When the first UN Resolution of January 17, 1948 called "..upon both to refrain from doing or
causing to be done or permitting any acts which might aggravate the situation.." and further
requested "..each to inform the Council of any material change in the situation .." Pakistan
omitted to inform the UN of its direct involvement in the fighting and it was only in July 1948 that
Sir Zafarullah Khan admitted to the UNCIP that Pakistan’s regular forces were engaged in
Jammu and Kashmir since May 1948. Accordingly in an oblique reference to Pakistan’s
obfuscation the UNCIP Resolution of August 13, 1948 Part II A (1) stated "As the presence of
troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material
change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan.."

The direct involvement of Pakistan found mention in the first interim report of the UNCIP which
said that "..the Azad movement, which constitutes an organised political and military body, is
assisted by the Pakistan High Command, and is engaged in active revolt against the existing
government. This movement has cooperated since October 1947 with the invading tribesmen
and individual Pakistan nationals.." The report recognised the legitimacy of the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir and debunked Pakistan’s claims that the raids were a spontaneous venture.

In defence of its actions Pakistan claimed that it had sent its forces to safeguard its own security
and to counter the Indian forces offensive against the "raiders" - a very curious admission indeed,
for when the Indian forces started their offensive against the raiders on October 27, 1947,
Pakistan had then claimed that it had not sent any assistance. They also claimed that when the
Indian forces were about to repel the invaders, Pakistan sent in its army! Moreover, rather than
using its armed forces to just hold the line, which it claimed was the rationale for their
deployment, Pakistan extended its military control over the Northern Areas between August 1948
and January 1949.

The period of relative quiet on the Indo Pakistan border was again shattered by Pakistan with its
misadventure in 1965; the launching of Operation Gibraltar to foment insurgency and sabotage in
Jammu and Kashmir becoming the prelude to all out invasion.

Lt. General Gul Hassan writes in his "Memoirs" "...In 1963 our government decided to extend
some form of moral support to the people of Indian-held Kashmir. Consequently, the Army was
ordered to train volunteers in carrying out sabotage activities across the Cease-fire Line...

"...We were told that the President had ordered that GHQ was required to prepare two sets of
plans - first, intensification of the firecracker type of activity that was already current, but the
embargo on regular troops crossing the Cease-fire Line remained. The second task given to
GHQ was to plan all-out support for any guerrillas who were inducted into the Indian-held part of
Kashmir...

"...The decision to mount guerrilla operations in Indian-held Kashmir was taken shortly after the
Kutch affair...

"...The task assigned to the Army was two-fold; one, to train locals to enable them to embark
upon sabotage in the India-held part of Kashmir; two, to train guerrillas and induct them across
the Cease-fire Line, with a view to disrupting conditions in the Valley and eventually arming the
locals and helping them rise against the Indian Army occupation. As the saboteurs in the first
instance had not produced the desired results, our Government decided to set in motion the
second option to launch guerrillas into Indian-held Kashmir. This decision was taken in May 1965
soon after the Kutch skirmish...

"...The guerrilla operation was named Gibraltar..." It would bear repeating that he acknowledges
that since the first group of saboteurs had not produced the desired result, it was decided to
launch guerrillas into Jammu and Kashmir. The Operation had in fact found little Kashmiri
support.

Altaf Gauhar former Secretary Information and Broadcasting Government of Pakistan, writing
about Operation Gibraltar states in his book "Ayub Khan Pakistan’s First Military Ruler" "...The
aim was to take such action that will defreeze the Kashmir problem, weaken Indian resolve and
bring her to the conference table without provoking a general war.."

This obsession with wresting Jammu and Kashmir by force led to the 1965 India-Pakistan war
resulting in eventual discomfiture for Pakistan. The Tashkent Declaration signed at the end of the
war enjoined on both sides to exert all efforts to create good neighbourly relations in accordance
with the United Nations Charter and not to have recourse to force and to settle their disputes
through peaceful means and not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs. The implication was
clear: that any dispute, including on the Jammu and Kashmir question, should not provide a
pretext for the use of force in any form whatsoever.

The refusal of the authorities of West Pakistan to countenance the victory of Mujibur Rehman’s
Awami League in the elections in 1971, led to protests which were met with brutal repression of
the Bengalis of East Pakistan by the Pakistan Army. India, deluged by 10 million Bengali
refugees fleeing the cruel oppression in East Pakistan, found itself again embroiled in a war of
Pakistan’s making. The outcome of the war was the emergence of independent Bangladesh and
the signing of the Simla Agreement of 1972 which required both India and Pakistan to put an end
to the conflict and confrontation, promote friendly and harmonious relations for a durable peace in
the subcontinent, settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by
any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon, respect each other’s territorial integrity and
sovereignty and not interfere in each other’s internal affairs.

Many analysts and commentators have suggested that the desire for revenge for the defeat in
1971, provided an additional thrust to Pakistan’s established policy of seeking to destabilise the
Indian polity and to secure Jammu and Kashmir by force. In complete and deliberate disregard
for what it had agreed to in Tashkent and Simla, Pakistan resumed its aggression and its
interference in Indian affairs. The only change that took place was that, having failed through
conventional wars to achieve its aims, Pakistan decided to change tack, and go for a low intensity
proxy war.

By its own admission Pakistan had acquired nuclear weapons in 1988. Calculating that it had
neutralised India’s conventional military superiority Pakistan decided to take recourse to a
sustained campaign of terrorism to destabilise the state of Jammu and Kashmir and use the
resulting disturbed conditions to launch a propaganda war accusing India of violating the human
rights of the Kashmiris while projecting itself as a champion of the oppressed Kashmiris.
Interestingly in this "game" Pakistan only made mention of the people of Jammu and Kashmir
and there was never any reference to what Pakistan had done to the people and territory of
Jammu and Kashmir that it had occupied by force in 1947.

PAKISTAN’S AGGRESSION: 1984-1998

Pakistan’s policy with regard to India and other neighbours like Afghanistan, is not determined
only by the civilian government. It has always been the prerogative of the armed forces and, more
particularly, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), even during periods of civilian rule.

The ISI is often referred to as a state within a state. The ISI received a boost when it served as
the front-line conduit for the training, arming and support of the Afghan Mujahideen during the
war against the erstwhile Soviet Union. It was associated with the use of the heroin trade to
finance the Afghan Mujahideen’s operations and the present Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz
Sharif, had once told the Washington Post that his top army brass had approached him for
approval to use drug money to finance the ISI’s operations against India. The ISI is closely
associated with the Taliban movement both in imparting training and in battlefield strategy and
operations.

India has always remained a prime focus of the ISI’s activities and with regard to Jammu and
Kashmir, the ISI has been pivotal in organising operations of mercenary outfits like the Harkat ul
Ansar, declared and subsequently banned, as a Pakistan-based terrorist outfit by the United
States of America. Jane’s Intelligence Review in its October 1997 issue carried an article on the
Harkat ul Ansar that detailed the organisation’s operations and said "..the complicity of the ISI is
more than merely passive. The Harkat ul Ansar owes its considerable arsenal in large measure
to the generosity of the Pakistani Government, or, more specifically, its intelligence service.."
Instructors in the camps run for the Harkat ul Ansar, some of which were bombed by the United
States of America after the attacks on the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, train not
only extremist Pakistanis and Kashmiris, but also cadres for operations in Tadjikistan, Bosnia,
Myanmar and even the Uighers of Xinjiang Province of the People’s Republic of China. Alumni of
these training camps have also been identified with terrorist activities in the USA, France, the
Philippines, Egypt, Algeria and elsewhere.

The present ongoing phase of Pakistan’s aggression was initiated in 1984, exploiting the
vulnerability of a public bereaved by the passing away of their great leader Sheikh Abdullah and
subsequent political uncertainty brought on by leadership squabbles in the ruling National
Conference. As the situation deteriorated, civil grievances which are normal in any society but
which are open to resolution, were exploited to breed disaffection, with some sections then being
brain-washed, armed, financed and instigated into violence. This brutal exploitation of a peaceful
people has been marked by over 20,000 killings, the disruption of society and the calculated
destruction of basic health, education and economic infrastructure. The blackest mark on this
period will remain the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits and many Muslims driven by an
enveloping fear through use of terror, which was deliberately fanned by those who would see an
end to the age old tolerance of the Kashmiri psyche.

A selective killing of prominent persons Hindu, Muslim and Sikh, to spread fear and suffocate
differences of opinion, and to paralyse the economy, press, judiciary and administration, since
1989 has been the strategy of the terrorists. Those killed included Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq,the
revered Muslim clerics and Imam of its Jama Masjid or Cathedral mosque, Maulana Maudoodi, a
90 year old scholar, veteran of the freedom movement, former lieutenant of Sheikh Abdullah and
among the most respected of the leaders of the Gujar community, Qazi Nissar Ahmed, the
Mirwaiz of South Kashmir, Mir Mustafa, a legislator, Lassa Kaul, Director of Doordarshan,
Srinagar, H.L. Khera, General Manager Hindustan Machine Tools, Professor Musheer ul Haq,
Vice Chancellor Kashmir University, Nazir Ahmed Wani, Member of Kashmir’s Legislative
Council and countless other officials and defence personnel. Any person who represented the
State’s authority, considered unfriendly to the militant’s cause, or held in esteem by the local
people and thus able to influence their thinking towards peaceful resolution of conflict and
opposed to militancy and Pakistan’s machinations, became a target.

Despite well documented evidence to the contrary, Pakistan persists in claiming that it is only
providing "moral, political and diplomatic support" to what it calls an indigenous Kashmiri uprising
in Jammu and Kashmir. But the truth behind the latest phase of Pakistani sponsored violence has
been spelt out in the book ‘Fateh’ the biography of the former Chief of Pakistan’s Inter Services
Intelligence, General Akhtar Abdul Rehman. His biographer Brigadier Haroon Rashid states
"..The plan which General Akhtar Abdul Rehman had made for Kashmiris movement for
independence was to come into effect in 1991. It appears that this plan was made with the
struggle for the liberation of Afghanistan in mind, which it was thought would be achieved by
spring 1989... However the Kashmir plan was inaugurated in 1984.. The Kashmiris were provided
with some arms which were not suitable for the Afghan Mujahideen.

The year 1984, mentioned by Haroon Rashid, is significant as it was in 1984 that an Indian
diplomat, Ravindra Mhatre, was murdered in Birmingham(UK) by the Jammu and Kashmir
Liberation Front. Amanullah Khan, Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF),
sought refuge in Pakistan and still lives there and conducts his anti-India activities openly.
Hashim Qureshi, an associate of Amanullah Khan, now resident in the Netherlands, has in his
book "Kashmir: Unveiling the Truth", laid bare the plotting of the murder and the horrors that were
to follow in Kashmir. Terrorism escalated in the Kashmir Valley starting in 1989. Pakistan first
used the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, with its pro independence ideology, to mobilise a
mass movement. The period between 1989-90 was marked by the targeted killing of Government
officials, media personnel, members of the judiciary, and members of the minority Kashmiri
Pandit (Hindu) community and Kashmiri Muslims who dared question the terror tactics and
excesses of the terrorists. One immediate effect, between January and April 1990 was the
resignation of the duly elected State government, the massive exodus of nearly 2,50,000
Kashmiri Pandits and over 50,000 Kashmiri Muslims from the valley with the Pandits settling in
refugee camps in Jammu, Delhi and other cities in India. The objective of creating terror and
mayhem, paralysing the State administration had met therefore with what would have seemed
quick success. This in turn led Pakistan to distance itself from those seeking independence, who
it had earlier sought to cultivate to instigate disaffection in the State, and increasingly seek to
encourage those that favoured joining Pakistan.

A tactic used to telling effect by the militants was to attack the security forces from the cover of
crowded market places and civic facilities, so as to have a human shelter or embroil civilians into
crossfire. The State’s response inevitably led to clashes with both militant and civilian casualties.
The deaths of civilians then became the substance of campaigns orchestrated by Pakistan and
the militant groups alleging oppression of the Kashmiris and violation of their human rights by the
government. Because in each case of such allegation, government would immediately seek to
investigate the truth through its own administrative infrastructure, it was established that while in
some cases there might have been overreaction by the security forces working under enormous
threat and pressure, other cases were wildly exaggerated. In each case of established excess,
legal action against personnel implicated, was initiated by government.

Cordon and search operations to flush out the militants provided militants and their supporters
the ground to accuse the security forces of mass rapes. Such was the case in March 1991 in
Kunan Poshpora Village of Kupwara District, in which a mass rape of 23 women was alleged.
The allegation was enquired into by a team of senior civilian and military officers, on the site of
the supposed occurrence with interviews with alleged victims. The allegations were found to be
groundless.

A sustained propaganda campaign to highlight alleged human rights’ abuse was used by
Pakistan as an instrument to internationalise the Jammu and Kashmir question. The context in
which incidents occurred and the environment of violence created by the terrorists was
conveniently glossed over. Exaggerated, and often fabricated, instances of human rights’
violations were used as a tool of psychological warfare and were accepted at face value by
gullible observers with little or no perspective on the ground situation. In response, and to deal
with specific cases of excess, the Government of India strengthened supervision and set up a
National Human Rights Commission in 1993, whose functioning has been lauded by all human
rights groups with which it has interacted. This is an autonomous commission, free from the
dictates of government and staffed by retired judges and eminent persons. After restoration of a
democratic government in the State in 1996, the State has set up a similar Commission at the
State level under the Chairmanship of a highly respected Kashmiri judge.

On its part the Government and the security forces investigated all allegations of human rights
abuses and, where substantiated, punishment was meted out to the erring personnel. It is,
however, ironic that the security forces whom the militants accused of human rights violations,
continue till today to be deployed to provide security to the leaders of the secessionist and
militant groups, whose lives have been threatened because of their resolve to abjure violence in
seeking their political ends.

Since the ideology favouring independence of Jammu and Kashmir could not be countenanced
by Pakistan, the period starting 1990 witnessed the creation of groups determined to install an
extremist Islamic regime in Jammu and Kashmir, and to ensure its accession to Pakistan. The
major responsibility to execute this strategy was given by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI) to the Hezbul Mujahideen, whose present Supreme Commander, Syed Salahuddin,
continues to reside in Pakistan. Other groups that proliferated, primarily to blunt the hold of
Pakistan’s opponents in the militancy, included Hezbullah, Allah Tigers, Al Barq, etc. This period
witnessed increasing internecine warfare with extremist groups seeking to suppress the Jammu
and Kashmir Liberation Front. The thrust of their campaign was to invoke religion to seize
legitimacy. As a result they sought to impose a blinkered version of Islamic tenets at the point of
the gun, resulting in the destruction of schools, cinemas, restaurants, and a ban on all forms of
entertainment. Women were particularly affected since some extremist groups, defying the very
grain of Kashmir’s culture, tried forcibly to confine them to indoors and the veil, akin to what the
Taleban have done in Afghanistan, but without success. To teach a lesson some Muslim girls
were in fact attacked and injured. This in fact generally alienated womenfolk from the movement,
although many had earlier been supportive of the secessionists through organisations like the
Dukhtaran-i-Millat.

This period witnessed the media in the Valley constantly attacked by the militants, even though
these same elements had been initially supportive of militancy, and demanded that anti-terrorist
articles not be carried; government announcements be boycotted; the "martyrdom" of the
militants be eulogised, as also the campaign posing as "liberation". Attacks on newspaper offices
and printing presses and the killing of eminent journalists and editors became frequent. Among
other incidents the ‘Srinagar Times’ was attacked; the ‘Aftab’ was bombed; the editor of Al Safa,
Mohammed Shaban Vakil , a respected journalist and leading critic of government, was shot
dead in his office. Some journalists from the national publications, who wrote against militancy,
had their papers banned from entering the Valley at various times. In short, a determined effort
was made to strangle freedom of the press, surely a basic tenet of liberty. Only the BBC was
spared somehow.

The effort of Pakistan’s surrogates to establish their ascendancy in the movement reached its
peak in October 1993, with the siege of the shrine at Hazratbal, considered the holiest in Kashmir
by its people, the administration of which had provided the launching pad for the career of Sheikh
Mohammed Abdullah, whose sermons there were the bedrock of his movement for freedom. This
was an effort to provoke a confrontation between the JKLF militants and the military by feeding
provocative and misleading information to each, so that the shrine would become a battleground,
thus simultaneously shaking the foundations of the Sufi tradition of Kashmir, not palatable to the
narrow minded, who consider the religious practices therein heretical, decimating the pro-
independence JKLF, and bringing the Indian army into disrepute. Simultaneously, the All Party
Hurriyat Conference emerged, partly as a defensive mechanism to control internecine conflict,
and partly to give political voice to what had degenerated into a violent terrorist campaign with
few remaining pretensions of liberty.

The Hurriyat leaders like to refer to themselves as the "true representatives of the people of
Jammu and Kashmir". They have sought legitimacy not by public acclaim through the
acknowledged process of elections, but through fear as many of their leaders are affiliated with
one or the other militant group. The irrelevance of the Hurriyat to the people of Jammu and
Kashmir and the situation in the state, became visibly apparent during the elections held in 1996.
The Hurriyat leaders conducted a house to house campaign calling on people to boycott the
elections. Despite their threats and pleas the people turned out in large numbers to vote in most
parts of the state except in some pockets which were known to be in thrall of the militants.

The failures of the Hurriyat internationally and in the Valley led Pakistan’s ISI to create the
Shoora-i-Jehad in 1996 as the coordinating authority to undertake both militant and political
activities. The move was aimed at ensuring continuing ISI control. The growing disenchantment
of the Kashmiri people with violence as a form of grievance redressal, this move also met with
little success, and added to mutual distrust and exacerbated misgivings.

The extremist ideology of groups like the Hezb ul Mujahideen and their open insistence on
Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, finally made Kashmiri’s realise that Pakistan had neither their
freedom nor their interests at heart, but had been cynically manipulating them to fulfil its own
territorial ambitions. The increasing criminalisation of the militant groups contributed further to
Kashmiri disenchantment and fear. The philosophy of tolerance and co-existence, embodied in
the culture of Kashmiriat, had become the prime target of the extremist groups, and was seen to
be in danger of being submerged in a frenzy of fanaticism.

By the end of 1993, however, it became more clear that, after nearly five years of violence, the
Kashmiris were thoroughly disillusioned. With the decline in numbers of Kashmiri youth willing to
be indoctrinated and trained as terrorists, Pakistan took recourse to sending in battle-hardened
mercenaries from Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, including many veterans of the
Afghan war. They came under the banner of the Harkat ul Ansar and Lashkar e Tayyaba to
bolster the fighting ability of the pro-Pakistani militant groups. Their disregard for the Kashmiri
psyche, and their depredations in the Valley, further strengthened the resolve of Kashmiris
against violence and against the Hurriyat and its constituents who had willingly invited these
foreigners into what the people had been led to believe was a Kashmiri movement to right
political wrongs. With facts coming through more and more through propaganda, and peaceful
resolution of the siege at Hazratbal, with the civil and military authorities working closely together
to ameliorate the difficulties of the people contributed, with other developments to a perceptible
change in mood, with increasing numbers of people returning to work with government and
security agencies in restoring order.

In 1994 the Mirwaiz of South Kashmir, Qazi Nisar Ahemd, was killed in Anantnag. His widow and
the local people blamed the Hezb ul Mujahideen, and processions and demonstrations
condemning the militant group and Pakistan took place in the town. In the same year the Harkat
ul Ansar kidnapped Kim Housego and David Mackie, two British tourists. The action was widely
condemned by the people of Jammu & Kashmir leading to the militants capitulating and their
release.

In 1995 mercenaries of the Harkat ul Ansar and the Hezb ul Mujahideen led by a Pakistani
national Mast Gul, seized another revered shrine in Charar e Sharief resulting in the mindless
destruction of both the shrine and the surrounding township. Mast Gul was given a hero’s
welcome in Pakistan and paraded through the streets by the Jama’at e Islami the mentor of the
Hezb ul Mujahideen. The Harkat ul Ansar issued press releases stating that its cadres had been
in the shrine which further aggravated the divide between the centuries old Kashmiri ethos of
harmonious co-existence and the extremist orthodoxy being sought to be imposed by the pro-
Pakistani groups.

Also in 1995 the Al Faran, a front for the Harkat ul Ansar, kidnapped five foreign tourists and
beheaded one of them, a Norwegian named Hans Christian Ostro. In light of widespread public
disapprobation, the Hurriyat was constrained to condemn this act of wanton killing. The hostages
remain untraced till today. Surprisingly, the hue and cry in countries abroad was muted. One
American made a daring escape from his terrorist captors and was rescued by a vigilant team on
a government helicopter. His adventure was largely ignored by foreign media. John Donald
Chiles does not appear to have been interviewed in print or on the electronic media.

The period 1993-96 thus witnessed a changing mood in the Kashmir Valley against militancy and
towards seeking some solution to the crisis. The media became more vocal in its criticism of the
activities of the militant groups and the "guest militants" as the mercenaries were called by the
Kashmiri militant groups. The release through judicial process of prominent jailed suspected
militant leaders like Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik, the formation of political fronts by former
militants disillusioned with Pakistan and militancy, and the revival of political activity by known
and established parties in the face of threats from Pakistan, the Hurriyat and the mercenaries,
bolstered the mood in Kashmir. The restoration of the democratic process was seen as a way out
after years of violence. Pakistan made desperate attempts to prevent these developments but to
little avail.

Responding to the changed public mood, the Government of India organised Parliamentary and
Assembly elections in 1996 in Jammu and Kashmir. The large participation of the people in the
elections despite calls for boycott by the Hurrriyat and Pakistan, despite threats from the militants
and mercenaries and the continued targeted killing of political activists and the Kashmiri Muslims
holding different views, was a clear manifestation of the desire of the Kashmiris for peace. The
Kashmiris voted back to power with a two-third majority, their own old party, the National
Conference, with Dr Farooq Abdullah at its head. Some sections of the foreign media gave undue
weight to the presence of security forces needed to maintain order in the face of terrorist threats
to disrupt the Parliament elections. This criticism was, however, more subdued with the Assembly
elections following Parliament elections, with an even bigger voter turnout.

Since the installation of the elected Government in October 1996, there has been significant
change in the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Life has, more or less, returned to normal in the
capital Srinagar. Markets are open, festivals and marriages are celebrated in the age old manner
with song, music and dance, tourists are coming back to the Valley, trade is beginning to flourish
again, the houseboats are no longer idle, winter sports and cultural programmes have been held
and the process of reconstruction of the infrastructure has begun. Leaders formerly aligned with
the Hurriyat like Shabir Shah have formed new political parties and have begun to talk in terms of
participation in the elections, though with reservations. Umar Farooq revived his slain father’s
Awami Action Committee. Differences have cropped up between him and the Hurriyat, and he
organised separate meetings, without consulting the Hurriyat, to commemorate the tragic day of
his father’s assassination by the militants. His meeting drew large crowds and the Hurriyat was
compelled to go along with him.

Parliamentary elections were held in again in February/March, 1998. There was overwhelming
participation in the Valley despite calls for a boycott by the Hurriyat and by Pakistan, and dire
threats from militant groups against voters, candidates and electoral officers. The period had
been preceded by targeted attacks against political workers. In the elections, the local Jammu
and Kashmir government staff manned polling booths, and officials did not require to be called in
from outside the State; there was overwhelming participation despite inclement weather. One
significant if little noticed aspect was the participation, as candidates, of people like Muzzaffar
Beg, a Supreme Court lawyer, who had always represented the Hurriyat, and the widespread
participation of youth in campaign rallies and the election process. Elements from within Hurriyat
affiliated groups are believed to have quietly supported the candidates even as the Hurriyat
officially boycotted the election. A close aide of Shabir Shah, Naeem Khan, who had broken with
Shah, spoke in favour of the democratic electoral process. Such sentiments were also expressed
to the media by ordinary people in Jammu and Kashmir who crave a return to normalcy. The
Hurriyat call for strikes failed. There were no reports of coercion and almost no untoward
incidents, save a few stray cases of violence.

Internecine squabbles continue within the Hurriyat. Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Jama’at e Islami
was made the Chairman of the Hurriyat in place of Umar Farooq, a development that drew an
adverse response both from Umar Farooq and many other constituents of the Hurriyat because
of Syed Ali Shah’s known predelictions on Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. Separately, G.M.
Bhat the leader of the Jamaat e Islami claimed that the Jama’at did not believe in violence and
that the Hezbul Mujahideen was not the armed wing of the Hurriyat - a claim disputed by Syed
Salahuddin the Pakistan based ‘supreme commander’ of the Hezb who claimed that the Hezb
was the armed wing of the Jama’at-e-Islami. Bhat’s attempts to move the Jama’at-e-Islami away
from violence earned him the ire of Geelani’s supporters.

On the militant front, there is growing evidence that Kashmiri involvement in the militancy has
ceased. Violence does recur sporadically, but is now largely the work of mercenary groups
comprising Pakistanis, Afghans and others operating in the Valley under the Lashkar e Tayyaba
and the Harkat ul Ansar. This has given a new dimension to the nature of militancy. Pakistan’s
role in sponsoring terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir is well documented by the international
media, independent observers and even the US State Department. The latter has identified the
Harkat ul Ansar as a terrorist outfit operating from Pakistan. Some functionaries in Pakistan have
shed all pretence and senior Ministers of the Government and a Stat eGovernor have openly
visiting the training camps of outfits like the Lashkar e Tayyaba endorsing their calls to ‘jehad’
against India. Virtually discomfited in the Kashmir Valley, the ISI has sought to move terrorist
operations to Poonch, Rajouri, Doda and Udhampur sectors, with the objective of targeting
Hindus in the hope of inflaming communal passions and inciting communal conflict. No such
backlash has occurred.

The Government of Pakistan has now shed the fig leaf of denials of supporting the terrorists. In
November 1997 the Lashkar e Tayyaba held an open congregation at its headquarters at
Muridke near Lahore in which it called for a continuing jehad against ‘Hindu India’, cynically
forgetting the secular nature of India with 140 million Muslim citizens, and extolled the activities of
its ‘fighters’ in Jammu and Kashmir. Shortly afterwards on January 25, 1998, the eve of India’s
Republic Day, terrorists massacred over 29 Kashmiri Pandits, men, women and children, at
village Wandhama, only a few miles from Srinagar. Then, in April 1998 Pakistan’s Minister for
Information, Mushahid Hussain, along with the Governor of Punjab, visited the Muridke Camp of
the Lashkar and, in the presence of the media, blatantly commended their activities. This is what
Pakistan calls moral support. The next day twenty three Hindu civilians were killed in Prankote
Village in Jammu division, by militants from the Lashkar e Tayyaba and Hezb ul Mujahideen.
Another massacre took place in June 1998 at Champanari village in Doda district when 25
Hindus, all civilians, were murdered.

PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR (SO-CALLED "AZAD KASHMIR")

In terms of territory, the area of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is 222,236 sq kilometers while
the area illegally occupied by Pakistan is 78,114 sq. kilometers.

The areas occupied by Pakistan comprise so-called "Azad Kashmir" (referred to hereafter as
POK for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) and the Northern Areas of Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza, etc.
Pakistan does not trust the administration of POK to handle the Northern Areas which Islamabad
considers strategically vital. The Northern Areas which have been incorporated into Pakistan, are
five times the size of the area designated as ‘Azad Kashmir’.

As a constitutional enigma POK is unique. It has been given the trappings of a country with a
President, a Prime Minister and a Legislature of its own. But POK is neither a country or a even
province.

From the time of the Karachi Agreement (April 28, 1949) the POK President and the Prime
Minister have enjoyed only titular power. The Karachi Agreement between Pakistan, POK and the
Muslim Conference handed over matters related to defence, foreign policy, negotiations with the
then UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and co-ordination of all affairs relating to
Gilgit and Ladakh areas to Pakistan. Residual powers were kept vague. Pakistan retained control
of the following subjects :

defence
‘foreign policy’ of POK
rehabilitation of refugees and
control over all affairs of Gilgit and Ladakh.

The POK government was saddled with overseeing:

policy with regard to administration

general supervision of administration, and
publicity of its own activities. The charter of the Muslim Conference was restricted to publicity on
the plebiscite and ‘general guidance of the POK government’. The Karachi Agreement was a
landmark in that it sought to institutionalise Kashmiri subservience to Pakistan and put POK in its
place.
It was the Chief Plebiscite Officer of the Pakistan Government who controlled all the levers of
power in the initial stages. On the ground, the power vested in the officers deputed by Pakistan’s
government to POK.

The Chief Plebiscite Officer was notified as the Chief Advisor to the Government of Pakistan, ex
officio. He was a Joint Secretary in the Central Government but in actual terms right from 1949 to
1968, he was the de facto ruler of POK. He owed nothing to the POK Government as he was
appointed by the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, which was formed in 1952 under the general
supervision of the Home Ministry. In 1963 Ayub Khan transferred it to his Presidential Secretariat.

When Gen. Ayub Khan took power and unseated President Iskander Mirza, political activities in
POK were banned. Once Ayub felt confident enough to release the pressure of the army’s
stranglehold on Pakistan, he conceived the idea of ‘Basic Democracies’. This system was more
in tune with colonial thinking and practice, providing that only people who fulfilled certain criteria
like basic education, or income levels, should be allowed to exercise their franchise. The Basic
Democracies were extended to the POK in 1960 through the Azad J&K Basic Democracies Act.

For the first time, the POK President and the POK Council were to be elected, through the
indirect means of ‘Basic Democracies’. The Council remained a mere advisory body. The
President was elected in 1961 through an electoral college of 1200 indirectly elected basic
Democrats in POK and another 1200 who represented Kashmiri refugees in Pakistan.
K.H.Khurshid, was the first President of POK and was dismissed in 1964 because he began
asserting himself. He wanted POK to be a party to the Indus Waters Treaty, a treaty which he
clearly opposed.

The ‘Outlook’ of Karachi wrote on August 14, 1964: "The uncomfortable truth is that the Ministry
of Kashmir Affairs has acquired a vested interest of its own. It treats ‘Azad Kashmir’ territory and
Gilgit-Balistan areas as its own domain which a Joint Secretary controls as Chief Advisor. His
overlordship is supreme and without such checks and balances as are applicable to areas of
Pakistan. The possibility of friction between the ‘Azad Kashmir’ government and the Ministry of
Kashmir Affairs has always been there. The Ministry likes to deal with puppets, not with the
Presidents who take their position too literally".
In 1968, an attempt was made to soft-pedal POK for a while. Some cosmetic reforms were
introduced abolishing "the practice whereby the Presidents of Azad Kashmir were selected, in
effect, by the Minister of Kashmir Affairs. In future they would be chosen by a State Council of
twelve individuals, eight elected directly through Basic Democracies, and four nominated by the
President of Pakistan.

A new Interim Constitution of POK was promulgated on November 5, 1975 during the time of
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, which made the Prime Minister the executive head instead of the President of
POK. As a result of this, a 13-member Azad J&K Council was formed, with the Pakistan Prime
Minister as Chairman and the POK President as Vice-Chairman. Islamabad could nominate six
members to the Council who had to be either Pakistani Federal Ministers or Members of the Pak
National Assembly. The Chairman, along with these six federal nominees, gave the Government
of Pakistan a majority in the Council.

Along with this constitution, the Presidential Election Bill was also passed on August 25, 1974
providing for the direct election of the President through adult franchise, and of the PM by a
majority in the Assembly. Later there was a switch, through an amendment, which envisaged that
the PM was to be the head of the executive in place of the President.

Power, however, still rested with the officials of Pakistan, and the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in
Islamabad with regard to all legislation and appointments, questions of general policy, budget,
internal security, matters involving heavy financial commitment, public debts and loans, taxes and
important matters relating to civil supplies.

General Zia-ul-Haq dissolved the POK Legislative Assembly on August 10, 1977. On July 31,
1979, Zia issued a martial law order suspending all political activities in POK. Political activity in
POK remained suspended till June 17, 1985 when Sikandar Hayat took over as Prime Minister
and Abdul Qayyum took over as President after an election, restricted only to ‘registered’ parties,
thus disqualifying the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

For POK, self determination, as inscribed in the constitution, relates to the ultimate accession of
Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan. Part 2 of Section 7 of the POK Constitution states: "No person
or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take
part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan".

Under Section 5(2) (vii) of the POK Legislative Assembly Election Ordinance 1970, a person
would be disqualified for propagating any opinion or action in any manner prejudicial to the
ideology of Pakistan, the ideology of State’s accession to Pakistan or the sovereignty and
integrity of Pakistan. The same caveat applies to anyone who "defames or brings into ridicule the
judiciary of AJK of Pakistan or the Armed Forces of Pakistan".

In the 1996 elections in POK parties and candidates who wished to participate on the platform of
independence and refused to sign the declaration calling POK’s accession to Pakistan an article
of faith, were denied the right to field candidates.

While guaranteeing freedom of speech, Article 9 of the POK Constitution, imposes "reasonable
restrictions in the interests of the security of AJK and friendly relations with Pakistan". The oath of
office for the President, PM, Minister, Speaker, MLA or MLC of POK clearly includes the following
clause: "That I will remain loyal to the country and the cause of accession of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir to Pakistan".

Section 56 of the Constitution gives the Pakistan Government all the rights. Nothing shall
"prevent the Government of Pakistan from taking such action as it may consider necessary or
expedient for the effective discharge of those responsibilities". The responsibilities are defined
under Section 31 and include UNCIP resolutions, defence and security of POK, currency and
issue bills and the external affairs of POK. Islamabad has the right to dismiss the POK
Government under this clause.
The events in and political configuration of POK during the earlier regimes in Pakistan show that:

POK was devoid of franchise till 1960, since no election was held till then;
From 1960 to 1975 the only elections held were indirect, through the ‘Basic Democracies’ of
Ayub Khan;
POK has been effectively governed through the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad and
through a Chief Advisor of the rank of a Joint Secretary;
Since Bhutto’s Constitution in 1974, the main executive authority in POK rests with the Council of
which the Pakistan PM is the Chairman and which he dominates with his six nominees; and
Each executive head of Pakistan, be it General Ayub Khan, President and then Prime Minister
Bhutto or General Zia, did exactly what he wanted in POK, brought in martial law or the form of
government which he desired, suspended political activities when he chose, and sacked the
President/Prime Minister he disliked. The latest victim was Prime Minister Mumtaz Rathore, who
was dismissed, arrested and flown by helicopter to a Pakistani prison in 1991. After the elections
in June 1996, the President of POK, Sikander Hayat Khan, was removed through a voice vote in
the Assembly.

THE NORTHERN AREAS

The Northern Areas have no status. They are neither a province of Pakistan nor a part of "Azad
Kashmir". They are ruled directly from Islamabad through a Northern Areas Council which is
headed by Pakistan’s Minister for Kashmir Affairs. A chief executive, normally a retired Pakistani
army officer, appointed by Islamabad is the local administrative head. The Northern Areas
Council is headed by the Minister of Kashmir and Northern Areas and meets only when the
minister convenes it.

This mountain outback has been split into five districts, viz. Gilgit, Skardu, Diamir, Ghizer and
Ghanche. Its population of 1.5 million inhabits a vast area of 72,495 sq. kms. Sparsely populated
as the area is, the ethnic groups are varied - Baltees, Shinas, Vashkuns, Mughals, Kashmiris,
Pathans, Ladhakhis and Turks. It numbers many languages like Balti, Shina, Brushaski, Khawer,
Wakhi, Turki, Tibeti, Pushto and Urdu.

The Northern Areas are a story of deprivation of a people and their land devoid of any
development and denial of basic fundamental rights. There is no adult franchise, no assembly
and the people have never participated in an election or sent representatives to the National
Assembly. The prestigious Pakistani magazine the ‘Herald’ has termed the Northern Areas "The
Last Colony".

The literacy rate is 14 per cent for males and 3.5 per cent for women! There is just one doctor for
6,000 people. Piped water supply is non-existant. So is electricity for more than two thirds of the
population of the area. Except for some brick kilns there is no ‘industry’ in the area. An area of
72,495 sq. kms. had in 1993, according to the Pakistan daily, ‘Muslim’, (December 13, 1993),
mettled roads extending merely to 162 kms.

There are only two colleges in the area. There is not a single polytechnic in this seventy thousand
square kilometer land. The only paper K2 carries on its mast head the legend "Voice of a
constitutionless land". There is no radio or TV station.

Seeing no economic prospects in Pakistan, the Mirpuris who inhabit POK migrated in large
numbers to the countries of the West. But the people from the Northern Areas are not even
afforded this concession. They need an exit visa for going abroad, which is given only in the
rarest of cases.

The reason why the Northern Areas have been kept by Pakistan in its own bear-hug is unilateral
ceding of an area 2,700 sq. miles to the Chinese through an agreement on March 2, 1963. The
entire area belonging to Hunza, south of the Mintaka Pass, was handed over to the Chinese. The
border agreement which related to the alignment of the entire boundary line between China’s
Sinkiang and the contiguous areas under the actual control of Pakistan was ceded: "The two
parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan
the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the government of the People’s
Republic of China on the boundary as described in Article II of the present agreement of Kashmir
so as to sign a boundary treaty to replace the present agreement ......"

Had the Northern Areas had an elected assembly of their own, the above issues would surely
have been discussed in the legislature there as well.

The Northern Areas have remained deprived of a High Court and of the facility of writ petitions
against arbitrary State action. Even a death sentence is confirmed by the court of Judicial
Commissioner. The Gilgiti cannot appeal to the Supreme Court. The Northern Areas have not
had the benefit of any legislature or legislative representation for decades. Under Dogra rule,
members from Gilgit and Baltistan were represented in the State Assembly.

None of the constitutions of Pakistan, adopted in 1956, 1962, 1972 and 1973 - recognised that
Northern Areas are part of the Pakistan territories. Conversely, the 1974 Interim Constitution of
POK also did not include Gilgit and Baltistan. This resulted in the passing of the ‘Legal
Framework Order’ which placed the Northern Areas under the total control of the Kashmir Affairs
Ministry. In 1982 General Zia ul Haq proclaimed that the people of the Northern Areas were
Pakistanis and had nothing to do with the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

A writ petition under Section 44 of the POK Interim Constitution Act of 1974 was filed by some
residents of the Northern Areas. They jointly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the POK High Court
claiming that the petitioners were bonafide citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and
hence eligible to approach the court for redress. They challenged the Pakistani view that the
Northern Areas were not a part of Kashmir but were a part of Pakistan. They also contended that
even the Sino-Pakistan Agreement of 1963 conceded that the Northern Areas were a part of the
State of J&K. The Government of Pakistan took the specious plea that the Government of
Pakistan "was not functioning or operating within the territory of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (and) as
such it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of this court". Pakistan also denied the well-known
Karachi Agreement of April 28, 1949 "whereby the administrative control of Northern Areas was
delivered to the Government of Pakistan". The high Court of POK however decided that the so-
called Northern Areas were a part of POK. Pakistan, of course, never implemented the POK High
Court decision and had it vacated by the Supreme Court of POK which said that the POK High
Court had no jurisdiction to issue any order giving the Northern Areas to POK.

In another case when the Al Jihad Trust and others filed a petition before the Supreme Court of
Pakistan demanding that fundamental rights be accorded to them including representation in the
Federal Legislatures and the right of self-determination, the Government of Pakistan held that the
Supreme Court of Pakistan had no jurisdiction since the Northern Areas were not, in terms of
Pakistan’s constitution, a part of Pakistan.

No political activity is permitted. Some political parties like the United Jammu and Kashmir
People’s National Party and the Balawaristan National Front and others have been raising the
slogan of self determination only to see their demonstrations crushed and their leaders arrested.
Demonstrations by students in Gilgit seeking employment have been crushed brutally. The Gilgit
Baltistan United Action Forum for Self Rule has been demanding the right to self-rule under the
UNCIP resolutions on Gilgit and Baltistan.

INDIAN POSITION

India has remained committed to developing and maintaining close and friendly relations with all
its neighbours. It has promoted regional cooperation in social, cultural, political and other fields
through the SAARC mechanism and in other ways. This would be the best guarantor of an
improvement in the living standards of the people of India and its neighbouring countries. With
Pakistan, India has remained committed to the establishment of a cooperative relationship based
on mutual respect and a regard for each other’s concerns. There is much that the two countries
can do together in the fields of trade, agriculture, industry; in environment; in the promotion of
cultural and people to people contacts. India will work towards the resolution of all outstanding
issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, through a direct bilateral dialogue process as mandated in
the Shimla Agreement. There is no place for any third party involvement of any nature
whatsoever in such a process.

Any discussion on improving relations cannot, and should not, envisage a re-writing of history.
Relations have to move forward from the present to a brighter future. With regard to Jammu and
Kashmir there can never be any question of any discussion on the status of the state or on the
question of its accession to the Indian Union. These are unalterable facts of history which cannot
be re-opened or questioned. India has concerns about continuing Pakistani support to and
instigation of terrorism in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as well as its illegal and forcible
control of Part the State’s territory since 1947.

India’s commitment to a peaceful resolution of the issue is reflected in its agreeing to uphold the
status-quo as has existed since 1947. It is significant that the Cease-Fire Line was changed to
the Line of Control in 1972. This was not merely a change of nomenclature but a consequence of
an agreement, seeking to adhere to the status quo by all means. Pakistan’s attempts over the
past nine years to alter the status quo through proxy war are headed for failure as its earlier
attempts through open hostilities and war failed in 1948, 1965 and 1971.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that a democratic polity is best equipped to enable the
people to fulfill their aspirations and govern their own destiny in an atmosphere of freedom.
Participatory government where the people choose their own representatives and leaders is the
most effective instrument for the social, economic, political and cultural development of a nation
providing also for the preservation and strengthening of the identity of the various ethnic, religious
and racial communities that constitute today’s nation states.

India has been regarded as the world’s largest functioning, stable and secular democracy since
its independence over five decades ago. And the democratic tenets that govern the rest of India
have also held sway in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In this lay the rationale for Sheikh
Abdullah’s decision to call for, and repeatedly endorse, the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to
India. Since the accession the people of Jammu and Kashmir have participated in elections while
the Constitution of India, in terms of article 370, provides the framework that guarantees the
special identity and status of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian Union.

If indeed the desire of the world community is to ensure peace and stability and to permit the
people of Jammu and Kashmir the right to determine their own destiny in an atmosphere of
freedom, this can only be achieved under the democratic framework of modern India and not
under the kind of extremist, obscurantist polity that the ideology of the terrorist and mercenary
groups seeks to impose on the people of the State.

Accordingly, the Indian position, in the face of Pakistan’s propaganda over the years has
remained consistent.

The accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir took place as per the provisions of the India
Independence Act and is final and legal and cannot be disputed. The States that acceded to
Pakistan did so in the same manner and the rulers decision was accepted. Pakistan made no
attempt to ascertain the will of the people of these states. If there is any "unfinished" business of
partition it is the requirement that Pakistan relinquish control of that part of Jammu and Kashmir
that it illegally occupies.
The UN Resolutions calling for the will of the people to be ascertained are no longer tenable
because Pakistan has not fulfilled the precondition of withdrawal from the territory it occupied
through aggression. This resulted in a long delay in the implementation of the Security Council
Resolutions and led Mr. Gunnar Jarring, the Representative of Sweden on the UN Security
Council and the President of the Council, who had been requested by the Council to explore
options of arriving at a solution through discussions with India and Pakistan, to observe in his
1957 report to the President of the Security Council that "...The Council will, furthermore, be
aware of the fact that the implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character,
which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively more difficult because
the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change ..." In the meantime, the will of
the people of J&K has been repeatedly determined through elections in India.
After Pakistan’s attempts to alter the status quo by force of war in 1965 it has forfeited the right to
invoke the UN Resolutions. The fact that the Council stopped recalling the resolutions of 1948
and 1949 underscored the irrelevance of those resolutions with the passage of time.
The will of the people does not need to be ascertained only through a plebiscite. Democratic
elections are a recognised means of ascertaining the wishes of the people and the people of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir have repeatedly participated in such elections. The same cannot be
said of the parts under the occupation of Pakistan where, in the Northern Areas, adult franchise
has still not been granted.
Kashmir is not an Islamic or a religious issue and the two nation theory has been seen to be
irrelevant. A sizable Muslim community chose to live in India at the time of partition rather than
move to Pakistan. The most prominent Kashmiri political party, the National Conference, headed
by a popular Muslim leader, Sheikh Abdullah sought and endorsed the accession of Jammu and
Kashmir to India. The emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation proved conclusively, if
further proof were needed, that the notion that all Muslims of the sub-continent would wish to be
a part of Pakistan, which is the basis of Pakistan’s claim to Jammu and Kashmir, was a fallacy.
The extremist structure that Pakistan wishes to impose on Kashmir is alien to the Kashmiri ethos
which has been one of tolerance and coexistence with its origins in the Sufi expression of Islam
that is Kashmir’s heritage.
The problem of Kashmir today is one of terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. The targets are
Muslims in Kashmir, belying Pakistan’s argument that it is concerned about the welfare of
Muslims in Kashmir. The international community must impress upon Pakistan to desist from
such terrorism so that the democratic political process, which India has restored to the state, is
not held hostage by terrorists who, even now, continue to target political leaders, the majority of
whom are Muslims.
The internal situation of Jammu and Kashmir is, by the will of its people, strictly India’s affair and
there is no call for any international intervention.
India wants to resolve all outstanding issues with Pakistan and has started a dialogue for this
purpose. However the integrity and sovereignty of India cannot be a matter for discussion. India
is committed to protecting the human rights of all its citizens and for this purpose militancy must
be eradicated.
Every State has the duty to protect the life and property of its citizens and cannot countenance
their security being threatened by armed terrorists. Any discussion of the question of human
rights must take into account the environment in which the state authorities have to function.
Jammu and Kashmir has been a target of Pak sponsored terrorism for years and this aspect is
fundamental to any discussion of human rights. The Indian Government has sought to maintain
transparency in the state. International and Indian media personnel, foreign diplomats, the
International Committee or the Red Cross, all have free access to Jammu and Kashmir. The
National Human Rights Commission of India and the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights
Commission are performing a stellar role in taking cognisance of, and enquiring into, allegations
of human rights violations. The NHRC has undertaken, at its own discretion, investigations into
incidents where human rights were reported to have been violated and where these have been
substantiated, it has called for punitive action.

PAKISTAN’S ANTI-INDIA PROPAGANDA

The same media and human rights organisations that once appeared to be captive to the
Pakistan point of view have begun to report not only on conditions within Pakistan but also
produced evidence of Pakistan’s support to terrorism.

Pakistan’s claim to Jammu and Kashmir based on the two nation theory has been debunked by
history itself. The eastern wing of Pakistan, predominantly Muslim and carved out on the basis of
the two nation theory, is today the independent nation of Bangladesh, liberated after a war of
independence from West Pakistan. Even today India has a larger Muslim population than
Pakistan, a clear indication that religion is not the sole basis for a separate nationhood.

The plight of the minorities in the Valley who were specifically targeted for extermination by the
extremist groups, has now been well-documented internationally. The increasing criminality of
many of the terrorist groups owing allegiance to Pakistan has resulted in repression of the
Muslims in the Valley and expressions of outrage which have taken the form of demonstrations
against the extremist militant groups as well as Pakistan. The Srinagar press is increasingly
reporting intra-group clashes, rape, extortion and murder by different militant groups and
statements from some of the groups highlighting the abuses by other groups.

Pakistan’s denial of the third option of independence to the Kashmiris ,and the repeated
references to the "unfinished business of partition" with its territorial connotations, has caused
concern to people in the Valley who, by and large, sided with groups espousing an independent
Jammu and Kashmir. It has also exposed the fact that Pakistan has cynically exploited Western
sensibilities and used human rights as a ploy to further its territorial ambitions.

Pakistan’s role in providing sanctuary and training to mercenaries who are involved in violence in
France, Egypt, Tunisia and even the USA; their links with the extremist terrorist groups in
Kashmir and the increasing fear of the spread of Islamic extremism in the West with which
Pakistan is being associated has caused many countries to look askance at Pakistan’s
protestations of innocence with regard to terrorism in Kashmir and its sole concern for the human
rights of the Kashmiris.

There has been increasing activity on the part of people of POK and the Northern Areas as well
as the Mohajirs and the Sindhis who are highlighting in the media and at international fora the
repression that they have been suffering at the hands of Pakistan Government. For the first time
since Pakistan began its propaganda war against India on the Kashmir issue, it is being made
answerable for its own repression of its citizens.

At international fora also terrorism and human rights are getting increasingly linked. The UN has
passed resolutions recognising terrorism as a major threat to human rights. Even Islamic
countries have identified Islamic extremism and terrorism as a major threat. The links with
Pakistan of persons and groups accused of crimes like the World Trade Centre bomb blast; the
bombings of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; incidents in France, Egypt, and
the Philippines, has made many foreign interlocutors wary of buying the Pakistani line on
Kashmir.

The focus on the terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan and Afghanistan has sharpened after
the United States bombing of terrorist camps in Afghanistan following the attacks on US
Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The American missile attacks on the camps proved that
groups like the Harkat ul Mujahideen, the Harkat ul Jehad Islami and the Jamiat ul Mujahideen,
which are active in Jammu and Kashmir, were also training cadres for groups which had targeted
the United States and considered the West a legitimate target for their "jehad" or holy war. In the
wake of the destruction of the camps, leaders of these groups in Pakistan have openly called for
revenge attacks against the United States.

The target of Pakistan’s propaganda has indeed been India and the Indian people. Its victims are
increasingly the people of Pakistan, fed on falsehoods and rendered vulnerable to the voices of
extremism.