Non Violence and Kashmir

This stands on its own. Some interesting points about non-violence are made in this letter from a civil society lead in India to a non-violent (or is he?) leader of Kashmir. But before I go there, i need to deal with this lady’s one core point, and that is that non-violence is a good political response to almost all circumstances. To start with, see what the Dalai Lama, one of the apostles of non-violence, has to say about this subject. I quote:

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here. He termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said. He said the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention.

Curious statement to make, eh? What does one make of that, eh? The Saudi’s seem to have made a combination trick (both police action, army action as well as going after the terrorists from an ideological way) in dealing with their home grown hotheads. Mind you, they also believe in making the terrorists somebody else’s problem (like exporting them to Iraq, and other places), but there you go. I wonder if ahimsa would actually work for non-liberal types like the Taliban or the Mumbai Terrorists? No, obviously it wouldnt, you have to shoot them, blow them up, capture them and then perhaps you have a chance to do a non violent tactic of ideologically unbrainwashing them before they can turn normal.

But India is trying to deal with an insurgency in Kashmir and here’s a man who has laid down the gun and is trying to win independence for his people. Dont get me wrong, i know the Indian government has done much stupid things in Kashmir. India actually quite a lot of the responsibility in not making them part of India mentally, but then you also have the sunny Pakistani’s as well. Anyway, here is the letter for what its worth. A conversation between 2 non-violent activists. It is not an easy letter to read because I am not sure there is an easy answer, but …..

 

Dear Yasin,
The Dialogue on the Future of Jammu & Kashmir organized by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies gained enormously by your presence on November 7, 2009. We recognize that the overlap in timing meant you had to rush to Delhi after registering your attendance at a TADA court hearing in Jammu. I also appreciate the fact that despite provocative slogans against you by a group of Kashmiri Pandits opposed to your presence in the Dialogue, you sat through the meeting to the end and not only explained your politics but also made a public commitment to consider some of the solutions proposed at the meeting as a starting point for a wide spectrum dialogue for the resolution of the Kashmir problem.
However, your outbursts of anger, disappointment and your cynical comments directed at the civil society organizations of India seem to me so misplaced and misleading that they demand a public response; a lot of them were directed at Manushi and at me. Since they have been widely reported in the Kashmiri and Pakistani newspapers, hence my response is also through the media.
For those who do not know the background, let me summarize your grievances as stated in your presentation at the Dialogue. You said that you had given up the gun at the urging of civil society organizations in India, that you took to "Gandhian methods of struggle" due to our persuasion. However, despite your move to non-violent means of struggle, you feel "betrayed" by the human rights community in India for ostensibly failing to help you achieve your political ends. You also claimed that subsequent events and your failure in achieving "azadi" have convinced you that Gandhian methods do not work in today’s India. In your view, they worked only while the British ruled India because the British provided a supportive environment for non- violent struggles.
What proof do you offer for that conclusion? That Gandhi was not subjected to third degree torture by the British, nor was Gandhi killed in an encounter with the police! No responsible leader would provide this form of naive praise of the British. You cannot dismiss the brutalities of the British colonial regime so easily. You don’t have to go too far—just read the life story of Badshah Khan—Gandhi’s most valued colleague and the most inspiring satyagrahi of that period. The brutalities inflicted on the army of satyagrahis mobilized by Badshah Khan—popularly known as the Frontier Gandhi— would put to shame even the apartheid regime of South Africa. Lakhs and lakhs of non violent satyagrahis were tortured in British jails. Many innocents were murdered in cold blood. The manner in which unarmed women and children were massacred in Jallianwala Bagh by General Dyer was not an isolated example of British brutality. Hundreds of thousands of satyagrahis took deadly beatings without raising their hand even in self-defence during the Salt Satyagraha. The cruel treatment routinely meted out to the Indian peasantry in extracting unprecedented high revenue and confiscating their lands arbitrarily for failure to pay ruinous usurious revenue, not sparing them even during crop failures, led to millions dying in unprecedented man made famines and left many more millions destitute, malnourished and terrorized. 
You claim to have taken to Gandhian methods and claim that the movement for "azadi" in Kashmir is non violent —all on the grounds that some years ago you gave up the gun. Dear friend Yasin, you gave up the gun after you were arrested and jailed, not while you were on the outside, fighting. You never gave up supporting and defending those who continued using the gun. In the November 7 meeting, you declared openly that you are proud of having been the first one to take up the gun for the cause of Kashmir. When a young Kashmiri Pandit commented: "You may have given up the gun but that does not mean Kashmiri Muslims gave up the gun. The Hizbul Mujahiddin is also comprised of Kashmiri youth." Your response was: Since the Indian government did not hand over "azadi" to the "non-violent" JKLF, and since human rights organizations in India failed to persuade the Indian government to do so, Hizbul Mujahaddin are justified in taking up the gun. Yasin bhai, a true commitment to non-violence should not be so conditional and fragile. Gandhi did not say: "Give India independence or else I will unleash terrorist brigades on you." That was Jinnah’s method, not Gandhi’s.
As one of many people committed to strengthening democracy and human rights in India, one of my mandates is to ensure that even those who take to terrorist means, are given fair treatment, due process, and a fair trial, and that innocents are not targeted by security forces while combating terrorism. Our primary task, however, is to try to prevail upon the Indian government that draconian laws should not be used to crush democratic dissent. I don’t think I have failed in being consistent about those issues. I have often done my best to intervene with the government of India to defend the Constitutional rights of you and your colleagues, even when I have strong differences with your political goals and means you make use of to achieve them. 
For example, when you asked me to intervene on behalf of some of your colleagues held in detention centres who you claimed and seemed to me to be innocent, I did so without hesitation. I even succeeded on some occasions in helping get them released—your verbal assurance that they were not involved in any terrorist crimes was an important consideration in my efforts. Do you think you could get such relief for your colleagues if they had been arrested on account of suspected terrorist links in England—a nation you so ardently admire— or in the US—the country you had put most faith in to help you gain "Azadi"?
In the November 7 meeting, you expressed your annoyance over the fact that representatives from Ladakh, Jammu, Poonch, and Rajouri had been invited. You dismissed their presence with open contempt saying: " Is this a mohalla meeting that we have gathered all these people to discuss local affairs?" This attitude of assuming that it is only Kashmiri Muslims of the Valley— and that too of a certain political persuasion— who ought to have the right to determine the future of the entire state of J&K has created huge fault lines and murderously hostile camps in the State.
No one organization has the right to be the sole spokesperson of the Kashmiri people. The strong voices opposing your politics in Jammu, Ladakh and even within Kashmir have to be given their due importance.
While you expected human rights organizations in India to help you secure "Azadi"—you have allowed the concept to remain so fuzzy that I have not yet understood what concretely you mean by it. I have spent hours trying to persuade you to work out the concrete modalities of your plank of "Azadi" and explain to us how your Azadi will be any different from the bloody 1947 Partition of India. What will be the fate of minorities in your 'Azad' Kashmir? What happens to the rights of those in Kashmir, Jammu, Rajouri, Poonch, Leh and Kargil and those in the Valley who do not wish to secede from India and do not want to live in your mythical Azad Kashmir? I never got anything resembling an answer. It also makes me very uneasy that the JKLF does not even have a constitution, leave alone any democratic machinery for managing its affairs.
Why on earth would human rights organizations help you partition Jammu & Kashmir in as senseless a manner as Jinnah did the entire subcontinent? Even for the November 7 Dialogue, I repeatedly requested you to give a concrete statement in writing on the form and content of Azadi. You said you don’t believe in putting things down in writing. Instead you preferred to talk about your personal trials and tribulations, how 600 of your JKLF cadres have been killed in encounters by security forces. Much as I mourn the loss of those lives, much as I deplore how our security forces sometimes lawlessly eliminate or brutalize those suspected of terrorism, Yasin bhai, you have to recognize that, unfair as it seems to you, those who live by the gun have to be prepared to be hunted down by the gun.
You say you are still proud of the fact that you took up the gun because without that the Kashmir issue would not have gained due attention. This is not how morally committed non-violent satyagrahis reason. That is not how those who draw inspiration from Gandhi should earn world attention. One does not become a satyagrahi by merely laying down arms, that too without ever expressing remorse for having unleashed a reign of terror and violence. A satyagrahi does not romanticize the power of the gun, especially when it has already caused havoc for millions.
To qualify being a satyagrahi also means:

Being an unconditional soldier of peace by actively opposing all forces of violence. Unfortunately, your love affair with the gun is not yet over, or else you would not claim to be proud of having been the first one to take up the gun as a means of furthering your politics; Even today, you do not condemn terrorist killings without reservations.

Being committed to the path of Truth ( Satya) as a permanent seeker rather than as a self declared authority on Truth. A satyagrahi cannot be selective in choosing facts to suit his political arguments, which you often do. Being able to face unpalatable facts about one's own movement and an ability to take diverse view points and perspectives into account is vital for adhering to the path of Truth. A truth seeker does not indulge in mere partisan politics nor does he/she overstate his /her case, as you often do

Being able to keep one's anger under check and control so that it does not distort one's vision. A Satyagrahi does not demonize his/her opponents, nor does he/she hold malice and ill will towards others whose politics and vision are at variance from that of the satyagrahi. You seem to be in a permanent state of upset with people who do not agree with your politics.

It was a very revealing moment, Yasin, when you told me after one of your visits to Pakistan which I quote from memory:

"I have now realized the great difference between the human rights activists in India and Pakistan. The Indian activists mostly come from ordinary middle class families so they are small minded. The Pakistani human rights activists are mostly from aristocratic families—daughters of generals and wealthy land owning aristocrats. Therefore, they are large hearted and have a broader vision."

You have been understandably impressed by their pampering and hospitality extended to you. But you would do well to remember, many of them pamper you because you are a thorn in the flesh of the Indian establishment. They do not pamper their home grown secessionists--the Baluchis, the Pakhtoons and Sindhis, who wish to break away from Pakistan, as they do you.
You would also do well to remember that the aristocratic elite of Pakistan has done a poor job of defending their own democracy. They have also done a poor job of resisting the growing influence of the Taliban over their polity and civil society. Pakistan Administered Kashmir has a much poorer track record of democracy than the Kashmir you inhabit. The diverse ethnic groups and regions in Pakistan have far fewer rights than minority communities and regions have in India. No matter how well they treat you personally, the aristocratic elite of Pakistan are unlikely to deliver the "azadi" you are seeking. 
Kashmiri society is being torn asunder by the conflicting ambitions of its leaders. As you well know, the mutual hostilities and suspicions of various Kashmiri leaders have even taken murderous forms. That is why it is vital to bridge these divides and important that diverse leaders come together to thrash out differences and explore common ground. Many of those who attended the November 7 meeting considered it an auspicious start of a new process whereby secessionist leaders who had never sat together on a common platform with mainstream political parties not only came together to seek out a consensually acceptable peaceful solution but also agreed to carry forward the debate around the concrete and innovative new Self Rule formula presented by the PDP.
Instead of expecting the human rights community in India to become your followers, instead of expecting them to fight your battles for you, it would be far better if you worked out a political platform that was more in consonance with their perspective. For all their limitations and humbler origins, the Indian middle classes which dominate democratic rights organizations in India have succeeded far better in keeping the authoritarian tendencies of their rulers under a measure of check and control. J& K has too many gun toting self appointed spokespersons of Kashmiri people. What it lacks is a vibrant community of people committed to strengthening human rights and democratic freedoms. Such voices have been marginalized or crushed by the gun in J&K. Reviving that tradition needs much greater courage and conviction than required for taking up the gun. I hope to see you occupy that space in the coming years.
With good wishes,
Madhu Kishwar,
Founder Editor, Manushi
Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
November 14, 2009

Banned Pakistani groups 'expand'

Astonishing indeed and seriously bewildering. On one hand, the Pakistani Army is fighting what appears to be a pretty much full fledged war against Jihadi’s with gunships, armour and mechanised infantry in Swat. Just a few tens or hundred miles away, its encouraging the growth of these jihadi’s. Obviously, all jihadi’s are made equal but some are more equal than others. I quote:

 

Militant groups banned in Pakistan are expanding operations and recruitment in Pakistani-run Kashmir, according to a government report seen by the BBC. The observations are from a detailed secret report submitted to the region's government on the groups' activities in the city of Muzaffarabad and elsewhere.

And if you wanted more proof (dont know why, its pretty clear to everybody) that its the Pakistani Army and Intelligence Services who are in cahoots with them, here’s the kicker:

It then goes on to say that the authorities should take up the matter with the intelligence agency responsible for the militants. The report says officials from that agency should relocate the militants to some area near the border, otherwise clashes with locals could take place.

Lovely, solve the problem by shifting them to some other place. Which would either be in Afghanistan against the Americans, in Balochistan or in other places in Pakistan which means that poor state sinks further and further. Or best, why not in India? HA!

Taliban threaten attack on Islamabad

Something very interesting happened very recently in Pakistan. The Pakistani Taliban has now threatened to take the fight to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. Not only that, they are threatening to go after other militants and Islamic guru’s in Pakistan if they do not join the Taliban. Something like, if you are not with us, you are against us. Remember that one?

But let me quote from the news story itself:

Many religious scholars in Islamabad have also received messages from the Taliban that they have only two options, either to support the Taliban or leave the capital or they will be considered collaborators of the “pro-American Zardari government” which, they claim, is not different from the previous Musharraf regime. It is also surprising that the Taliban of Swat and Bajaur have included the names of some religious and Jihadi leaders, who are not ready to fight inside Pakistan against their own countrymen, in their hit lists. The Taliban have accused some militant leaders of the tribal areas and some leaders of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkatul Mujahideen and Hizbul Mujahideen of trying to stop youngsters from fighting the Pakistani forces. Taliban have declared all these “pro-Pakistan” Jihadis as their enemies.The names of Maulvi Nazir from South Wazirastan, Hafiz Gul Bahadur from North Waziristan, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Maulana Farooq Kashmiri and Syed Salahudin have been included in the hit lists of the Taliban, who have threatened some Hizbul Mujahideen leaders in Swat and Dir to leave the areas as soon as possible.

Another Taliban leader in the Mohmand Agency Maulvi Omar Khalid has threatened boys belonging to the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba to leave the tribal agency or face death. Omar Khalid has claimed that these boys are only interested in fighting against the foreign troops in Afghanistan or against India, which means that they don’t want an Islamic government in Pakistan. This complicated situation has forced the government to take some extreme steps against the Taliban in Darra Adamkhel and Swat, who had killed a Polish engineer as a reaction to the operations in their areas.

Now, what I found interesting was that the erstwhile denizens of Islamic Militancy in Pakistan are themselves being accused of not being Islamic enough. Look at the names of the worthies who have been targeted. So many of them would be familiar to anybody from India, these people have been frequently been seen presenting the face of Islamic militancy as the saviour of Kashmir.

But they themselves are in the firing line. These Mujaheedeen. These Warriors of Islam. You see, these chaps were supposedly be under the control of the ISI, the Pakistani Military Intelligence Agency and were supposed to be the “plausibly deniability” arm of their force projection in Afghanistan and India. And Islam was their ideology, to fight against the godless Soviets, the infidel Hindu’s or the Crusader Americans or the Zionist Jews. So what do you do when you yourself are accused of not being part of the great Islamic worldview? Surely that’s the most ironic thing, that these warriors of Islam are themselves accused of not being Islamic enough.

Perhaps this should be considered more in depth. These two bunches of Jihadi’s are obviously fated to be together. We should encourage them to meet. Something along the lines of

In a recent interview, General Norman Schwartzkopf was asked if he didn't think there was room for forgiveness toward the people who have harbored and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on America.
His answer was classic Schwartzkopf. He said, "I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting."

Technorati Tags: Taliban,Pakistan,Kashmir,Afghanistan,India,Terrorism,Islam

I wonder what the OIC will make of this?

The OIC, without fail and very regularly, gives out a statement about how bad the situation is in Kashmir. And now, Afghanistan, a fellow OIC member, is in Kashmir to learn how to handle counter insurgency and counter terrorism methods. Perhaps they should look to Pakistan.... :)

how amusing :)

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Curry weapons?

This was amusing, the Indians have come up with grenades filled with chili and pepper! Now I just hope those Islamist terrorists do not already know and love curry otherwise this will not be fun. Mind you, considering that most of them are nipping over the border, it is a fair assumption that they know these spices.....

To be one up on militants during counter-insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir [Images], security forces are all set to get new anti-thermal smoke grenades filled with high concentration of red chilly and pepper.

The 81-mm calibre grenades, which have been developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, have completed field trials and contain red phosphorus and chilly and pepper, defence sources said.

"The field trials have been completed with success in several areas and along the Line of Control. The grenades would be successful in forcing out militants from their hideouts," they said.

A sign of decreasing terrorism - increase in alcohol consumption

Now this is a very interesting situation. As and how the Islamist terrorism in Kashmir is getting under control, the alcohol consumption is going up. Now that's an amusing way of getting a picture of the level of terrorism.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Indian Kashmir separatists get boost from Kosovo independence

Sadly, this is what I predicted!

Read and weep!

Separatists in Indian Kashmir said Saturday Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence has bolstered their resolve to achieve the same status for the disputed Himalayan territory.

Kosovo last Sunday declared independence from Serbia, which vowed never to recognise the move.

Kosovo's independence declaration has "strengthened our resolve to achieve freedom for Kashmir," leading Kashmiri separatist Shabir Shah told AFP.

Several countries including the United States and Britain have recognised Kosovo as a new state, but India said it was studying the legal ramifications.

India is wary of recognising Kosovo as an independent state because of its possible ramifications for scenic Kashmir, which has been racked by a nearly two-decade-old revolt against New Delhi's rule.

Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, which have fought two wars for control of the Muslim-majority region each, hold parts of the territory but claim it in full.

"Kosovo's independence is an indicator that struggles based on truth and justice never fail," Shah said, adding that the day is not "far when Kashmiris will be free."

Shah, 54, who heads the pro-independence Democratic Freedom Party, is dubbed the "Nelson Mandela" of Kashmir after spending more than 20 years in Indian jails.

Another separatist leader, Syed Ali Geelani, also said he was delighted by Kosovo's independence proclamation, saying the "creation of a Muslim state within the European heartland has strengthened our resolve to achieve our right to self-determination."

Geelani, however, wants Indian Kashmir to break away from India and join the neighbouring Islamic republic of Pakistan

Technorati Tags: Kashmir,India,Pakistan,Independence,Kosovo

Another Terrorist Group wounded

Good to hear. Read and cheer on! But this isnt something that is that easy, its the end bits which take the longest to remove and if you arent careful, can again break into fight. So keep the pressure on, keep the governance and politics clean, and give the local populace something to buy into the India state. Also, we have heard statements like this before so this also has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

The Hizbul Mujahideen, once the strongest militant outfit in Jammu and Kashmir, now faces decimation. The outfit has lost its top leaders and cadres in encounters with security forces, especially Jammu and Kashmir police.

The group, which once ran an unquestioned writ in the Valley such foreign

militant outfits could not do without it, lost some of its top leaders like Hanief Bhat, Sajjad Bhat and Rahool Bhat. Last year, it had lost as many as 23 top commanders and 300 foot soldiers. The Hizb’s cadre strength always stood between 5,000 and 7, 000 until a few years ago. It also had better support from Pakistan as compared to other outfits like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Al-Jehad and the Muslim Janbaz Force.

“The Hizbul Mujahideen has suffered big blows and its cadre strength is around a few hundred,” said Inspector-General of Police, Kashmir zone, S.M. Sahai. The Hizb had started suffering huge losses from 2000 after its ceasefire was scuttled by its own Supreme Commander Syed Salauddin. The spilt between him and his erstwhile commander-in-chief Majid Dar who was later killed dealt a blow to the group.

At the moment, the Hizb top leadership face is Muzzffar Dar, the new operational chief of the outfit, and Pervez Ahmad Dar alias Pervez Musharraf of Sopore. Hizb cadres based in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir refuse to cross the LoC. They want to enter through other routes as the Indian Army at the LoC is under instructions to neutralise infiltrators.

At the second round table conference in Srinagar in May 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said that Delhi would facilitate the return of the Kashmiri youths from across the LoC.

Some 98 Hizb militants returned to the Kashmir valley in 2006 after that to surrender their weapons but their safe routes were revealed before their guides, also working for the army. “Now, the local militants are risk wary. They would come only through some deal,” said a senior officer.

Technorati Tags: India,Terrorism,Kashmir

Kargil and casualties

I came across an interesting email on a list, it purported to contain an email from a Pakistani Army Officer commenting on the casualties in the Kargil War. Also see this link. I quote (my comments at the end):

Dear All,

I am so relieved to finally find somebody backing up my view point on the subject at hand. Some of us uniformed people who do not have the luxury to scoff at the civilian point of view are caught between the devil and the deep sea. But what pains us the most is the fact that information offered by us no matter how authentic is invariably met with the usual distrust. At least we have nothing to hide from our brothers in Mufti (short of the classified/sensitive information of course). Before I offer some points to ponder I would like to reiterate that independent analysts have a lot to gain through exaggeration of the facts and figures.

There is a lot of tactical mumbo jumbo involved in military analysis and gauging of casualties (if we are not ready to believe the official figures prima facie). Nevertheless, I shall try to explain in as layman terms as possible, the deployments vis-a-vis the terrain and the likely casualties:-

(a)   Whereas a number of brigades are/were deployed along the NAs segment of the LoC, only one brigade i.e. 80 Bde went into actual action.

(b)   At one time during the conflict five NLI battalions were part of the 80 Bde but not during the entire conflict. These five battalions never went into action simultaneously.

(c)   A standared three battalion brigade when deployed in defensive formation has generally two battalions in front if operating in a plain, in mountains the frontages shrink further. The forward battalions generally deploy two companies in the front. So when a standard brigade is taking up defence it has only 4 companies (400 men) at the receiving end of the onslaught. Air Comodore T will bear me out that 400 men is one hell of a strength to deploy in the mountains.

(d)   80 Bde with three battalion had a strength far lesser than a standard infantry brigade; Why? Because NLIs were light infantry battalions before the conclusion of the Kargil conflict and had 60% (approximately) strength of a normal infantry battalion( and infantry battalion may have 700-810 men depending upon its role and situation)

(e)   so the figure of 5000 troops engaged, included the forward deployed troops plus the long logistic tail extending back to Gilgit and beyond to Rwp.

(f)   Artillary doesn't come under direct enemy fire. Only one odd observer may, if at all. It generally operates well out of enemy field artillary range if possible. IAF rarely crossed into our side of the LoC so Artillary could have met any worthmentioning causualties.

(g)   It is next to impossible to wipe out entire battalions even if you carpet bomb in the mountains.

(h)   Artillary is an area weapon and it can cause damage to some extent. It is used generally to demoralize, soften up and/or pin down the enemy. If enemy could be wiped up with artillary and air force alone, there wouldn't be any need for the infantry.

(j)   Scouts and rangers etc (called civil armed forces in military parlance) are never employed on the front as a principle.Their role is restricted to defence of installations, bridges or kept in depth positions. No such forces saw actual action in Kargil.

Some Fact Regarding the Conduct of Battle

(a)   Not all 131 posts were invoved in pitch battle. Some located at the edge of our territory hardly met any casualties.

(b)   Tiger hills was the hottest spot and a matter of prestige for Indians, the reason why they pounded it so severely and sacrificed such a high number of their troops while attempting to clear it. However, only one NLI battalion (i.e. two companies) were deployed on tiger hills. One NLI battalion was uprooted initially but was retaken by the reinforcement battalion. If we check the war diaries of those battalions we don't come up with a very high figure so as to substantiate the claims of many analysts, Why? In infantry terms when forward company suffers the loss of one of its forward platoons (there are three in a company) it goes into counterpenetration position letting the reserve battalion to launch a counter attack which is exactly what happened in the case of tiger hills. (Refer to one of issues of the TIME magazine of that period to have an idea of the causalties suffered by the Indian forces in their failed repeated bids to retake Tiger hills with their infantry)

(c)   Tiger hills was never taken by Indians before the political decision of abortion of the operation and withdrawal from the captured localities. It was only during the withdrawal that the most casualties were met by our men. (this assertion is contradicted by Brigadier Qadir's account, but apparently junior officers in the army continue to believe that Tiger Hill was never taken by the Indians -omar)

(d)   An SSG company (approximately 100 men) was deployed on Tiger hills and was to fight till the last bullet and last man. It suffered heaviest of the casualties. This was the single biggest loss suffered by our troops. A few however still survived ( some of them our own very friends with whom we had intimate discussions afterwards).

(e)   The pitch battle (involving artillary and IAF) lasted only for a short duration, there is no way 2700 - 3000 casualties could've been inflicted in such a short battle. There simply weren't such a number present to be slaughtered.

(f)   No matter if the body of a soldier is found or not, no matter if his body lay buried in  a snow grave, a coffin to his name must be sent to his ancestral home to be buried with military honours. Not all the graves we located necessarily have the bodies of martyrs in them.

(g) Indians handed over 5 additional bodies after the battle. The would be more than glad to line up 2000 plus dead bodies for the whole world to see and gloat over their prize. It wouldn't be difficult for them to spot and collect the bodies from the Kagil Dras sector once our troops had withdrawn for the territory. In fact they would love to do this.

(h)   And lastly, more than 60 officers of various ranks were martyred during the operation making it the highest officer to men ration killed in the history of modern conflict. It is an internationally recognized ratio and in no way could be true if the actual fatalaties were as high as some analysts repeat ad nauseum.

Finally, some of us might be in a position to state the exact figures, but wouldn't be able to do so for the reason of restrictions laid upon us by the service. But I just want to say that six hundred is not a negligibe bodycount, it is greater than the 65 war, it is very high even by the standards of a fierce battle like Kargil. In the end, however, Kargil was an example of daring action, of ultimate sacrifice by officers and men alike. You may question the wisdom behind the launching of the operation, you can lament the inadequacies of the logistic support that presumably caused suffering to our men, you can curse the weak political will for not risking an all out war by using Air Force, that is immaterial to us soldiers fighting on the front. For, its not for us to question the logic behind the orders, we do or die.

Fascinating history from a Pakistani Army officer. Just a small point relating to the last line “For, its not for us to question the logic behind the orders, we do or die”. The very same defence was used at Nuremberg as well and unfortunately was not acceptable as a defence either. Given the fact that no civilian politician ever gave the order (I know it is debatable with Nawaz Sharif saying he had absolutely nothing to do with it), one wonders about which orders were legal and which were being followed? I am afraid Kargil was not an example of daring action; it was the most spectacularly stupid action possible but then, well, you would expect a Pakistani Army officer to disagree with me there! :)

Technorati Tags: Pakistan,India,Kashmir,War

KAC / Kashmir Center Announced the Results of International Essay Contest on Kashmir

Washington, D.C. June 30, 2006. Dr. Ghulam-Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council / Kashmir Center announced that the panel of judges of the International Essay Contest, namely, Professor Stanley Wolpert, University of California, Los Angeles, [Chair], Mr. Ved Bhasin, Editor-in-Chief, Kashmir Times [Member] & Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad, University of Hampton, Virginia [Member] declared the final results of the essay contest on Kashmir. The theme of the essay was "South Asian Stability Post President Bush's Visit” and essayists were assigned to incorporate any one of the following sub-themes: Kashmir: New Hopes and Aspirations; Is Self-Governance a means towards Self-Determination?; Demilitarization: First step towards setting a stage for settlement; and Kashmir: Human Rights Dimension.

Dr. Fai reported that the Chairman of the Panel, Prof. Stanley Wolpert, included the following comments along the final results to the Executive Director of the Kashmiri American Council/Kashmir Center "I hope you agree, and congratulate you on your scrupulous care and complete fairness. Please convey my heartiest congratulations and thanks as well to Judges Ved Bhasin and Dr. Ahmad, and to each of the brilliant prize-winners for their inspiring work in helping all Kashmiris find the elusive road leading to a just and lasting Peace."

Here are the results:

Undergraduates: First Prize: Hyder Syed, (United States); Second Prize: Ousman Noor (United Kingdom); Third Prize: Iqbal Hussain Mir, (Kashmir)
Graduates: First Prize: Gazala Paul, (India); Second Prize: Bhaskar Dasgupta, (United Kingdom); Third Prize: Ahmed Nazeer Motta, (Kashmir)
Professionals: First Prize: Amit Chakraborty, (India); Second Prize: Falendra Kumar Sudan, (Jammu); Third Prize: Nasir Hussain Munshi, (Ladakh)

Dr. Fai explained that the Panel of Judges considered all perspectives and viewpoints, regardless of the inclinations of the writers. There were 27 essays submitted in total, out of which 12 were for the Undergraduate Category; 7 for the Graduate Category and 8 for the Professional Category. The contestants consisted of 20 males and 7 females. The contestants were from various countries including the United States, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Kenya, and Malaysia. Dr. Fai emphasized that winners of the essays of the three categories had clearly addressed the theme and sub-themes as stated above, and that they constructively complemented their arguments through the usage of proper objective criteria in support of their positions.

Dr. Fai pointed out that winners of the top nine essays would receive cash prizes as follows: Undergraduate students [US$ 500.00], Graduate students [US$ 800.00], and Professionals [US$ 1,000.00]. In addition, the top winners in the three categories, namely, Mr. Hyder Syed, Ms. Gazala Paul and Mr. Amit Chakraborty will be invited to read out their winning essays at the Sixth International Kashmir Peace Conference to be held on July 20-21, 2006 at the Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

For more information, please e-mail kashmirconference@yahoo.com or gnfai2003@yahoo.com

========================================

Here's the essay in question (this was written 12 June 2006):

What next for the Kashmir Conflict?

The Kashmir conflict is one of the most stubborn geopolitical challenges in the world, akin to the Israeli–Palestinian crisis. The conflict has antecedents going back sixty years, with roots of the issue planted hundreds of years ago. While it would have been difficult to resolve in 1947, each subsequent political and military step by the various parties has pushed the issue into even more stubborn territory. Though the background to the conflict is public, it is useful to review some key points before we can explore some short and medium term initiatives which can possibly decrease the severity of the conflict if not offer a resolution.

Background to the conflict

It is difficult to generalise the background to the Kashmir conflict because of the bitterness of the fight and the deep divisions among the various parties involved. A cause which may be trivial to a particular party is of importance to another. But most parties agree on the following:

· Kashmir, a Muslim majority state ruled by Hindu kings, contains: Gilgit and Baltistan in the north; a block of land ceded to China in the north-east; Leh and Kargil in the east; Kashmir Valley and Jammu.

· The principle behind the post partition division of geographical units to India or Pakistan was based on the religious majority in geographical areas and will of the state ruler. That said there were princely states where this principle did not hold, such as Junagarh, Hyderabad and of course, Kashmir. A promised plebiscite on the future of the state never took place. India claims the Jammu Kashmir State Parliament voted on this issue, so a plebiscite was needless, while Pakistan does not believe the state parliament vote adheres to the spirit/letter of the original plebiscite. Some Kashmiris say the original plebiscite is wrong, as it only offers accession to India and Pakistan without mention of independence.

· Major ethnic units in Kashmir are Shia and Sunni Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and tiny minorities of other ethnicities (Christians and Sikhs).

· India and Pakistan have fought three wars (1948, 1965, and 1999) over this territory.

· Kashmir was an indirect reason for the 1971 war.

· A militant campaign has been raging in the state since 1989.

· Since 2002, a ceasefire between India and Pakistan has held, although terrorism has not ended. Intermittent talks took place between the three main groups, India, Pakistan and Kashmiri groups with some Confidence Building Measures (CBM) performed.

What do the main stakeholders want?

Given the long history of the conflict, a polarisation and fragmentation of the various groups (with a direct or indirect stake) in the conflict happened. Before we talk about various solutions, it is important to know the direct groups involved:

· Pakistan: Created as a homeland for Muslims, distinct from that of Hindu Majority and Secular India. Kashmir is the last unfinished business of the Partition. Until Kashmir is part of Pakistan, Pakistan’s raison d’être is incomplete. The letter K in Pakistan stands for Kashmir, so attainment of Kashmir is core to the identity and ideology of Pakistan. The Kashmiri cause gives the army reason to grab disproportionate state resources. In addition, because of the religious based foundation of the state, non-state actors, namely the religious parties, are a major and vocal stakeholder in the Kashmir issue.

· India: A strongly democratic secular country, the presence of a Muslim majority state within the ambit of the Indian constitution gives strength to the secular state (both the central government and the local Jammu and Kashmir state government) ideology. The central and state government are not always 100% aligned in their objectives, but both work together. A big security force is present in the state, comprising of regular army troops, paramilitary forces, counter–terrorist forces, state police forces and a myriad of intelligence agencies. The security forces are accused of many human right abuses, but the situation is slowly improving.

· The Kashmiri’s. There are many groups involved and while it is impossible to mention all of them, broadly speaking, we can classify them as follows:

o The militants belong to three groups: the secular independence seeking terrorists (rapidly dwindling in number and influence); the native Kashmiri militants (slowly reducing under diminished Pakistani support and better Indian counter-terror measures) and the foreign militants (usually Pakistani but also from the international jehadi brigades). These militants are not aligned to the Kashmiri political parties and the Pakistani state shows strong yet sporadic control over them.

o The Kashmiri Hindu’s are the largest state minority, despite ethnic cleansing from Kashmir proper since the latest uprising. They are either in refugee camps in India, the Jammu region or have subsumed themselves in India proper. They have little political power and suffer from the flip side of secular India’s objectives (Secular India cannot be seen to provide any major relief to Hindus for fear of being seen as partial to the Hindu majority)

o The Muslims in Kashmir consist of Shia Muslims in Pakistan Kashmir, who resent the pogroms by the hardline Sunni militia and the Sunni Muslims in Indian Kashmir, who criticise Indian rule.

o The Buddhists, a small but significant minority, are mostly present in north-east Kashmir in Laddakh and Leh. Despite their usual non-involvement in the issue, tensions are rising between them and the Muslim population as their sympathies lie with Secular India.

o The Political parties (in Indian Kashmir only, as the political parties in Pakistani Kashmir are not real political parties as we know them, but rather nebulous Pakistani state sponsored groups) include the Indian aligned groups such as the Congress I, National Conference (and variants), People Democratic Party, the secular groupings such as the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front and the Pakistani aligned breakaway grouping of the Hurriyat Conference, such as headed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Though they have a following within the Valley itself, it is difficult to know their support base, as only the Indian aligned political parties have contested municipal, state and central elections.

o The general populace is, of course, tired of the decade’s long fight and yearns for normality and economic growth. The local state economy is growing (but not as much as it should) after huge central government funding, the India-Pakistan ceasefire and increasingly efficient counter-terror measures.

The external indirect stakeholders are a motley collection of organisations and countries noted for their ineffectual role in resolving this crisis. For example, while the United Nations was present in Kashmir since the first ceasefire in 1948, it is, for all practical purposes useless and ignored by all. Similarly, Pakistan uses the Organisation of Islamic Countries to raise the Kashmir issue regularly and is repeatedly ignored or diplomatically managed away by India. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation cannot resolve bilateral issues.

The United Kingdom retains a role by dint of its colonial history, the presence of large number of Kashmiri origin immigrants and groups in the UK itself and London being one of the world’s diplomatic capitals. America, on the other hand, has kept a low-profile in Kashmir, although it has much more influence and depth inside Pakistan (witness the role of President Clinton during the aftermath of the Kargil War). China is another strange participant. On one hand, it controls Kashmiri territory as well as supports Pakistan’s Army. It has provided funding and materials to build the Karakorum Highway connecting Pakistan with China. While difficult to draw independent conclusions about the influence coefficient of all these organisations and countries, clearly international organisations will simply never be able to play a big role in resolving the Kashmiri issue. The only two countries which have some influence on Pakistan are the USA and China. India, on the other hand, is prickly about its international standing and has not and never will accept any form of public intervention by any other country.

What is the solution?

The BBC (http://tinyurl.com/pys26) has put together a set of pages with various solutions such as Kashmir accedes to Pakistan; Kashmir accedes to India, Kashmir becomes independent and variants of the status quo by adjusting the Line of Control (the 1948 ceasefire line) up and down, etc. The site briefly explains each proposed solution and mentions the challenges and difficulties of each. An interested and independent observer would note that none of the solutions are palatable to all direct stakeholders and the important point is that none of the stakeholders will agree to compromise on the key issues.

In other words, it has become a question of “izzat” (honour) and of a perception of identity and survival to the various parties involved. If India accepts a plebiscite, then it is certain that it will lose and no Indian central government can accept that, in addition, it will violate the secular ideology of India. If Pakistan accepts the LoC as the international border that means denying the core ideology of Pakistan. For the Kashmiri jehadi’s to accept political control by India over Kashmir (in any form) is to violate their religious precepts. Given the identification of the other competing stakeholders as the enemy, any compromise is simply not possible. Once you factor in the degree of militancy and the possibility of murders of leaders who dare even suggest a compromise, talk of a solution is plainly impossible as compromise is labelled as selling out to the enemy and leading to the extinction of national/group identity.

A political solution involving territory between two parties is usually only reached after a war, where one party is defeated and thus has to accept the solution, or else, a third-party or parties force/mediate between the two to accept some territorial swaps. Kashmir, as we have seen, does not have a defeated party and no external party has enough leverage to force neither Pakistan nor India into a political solution. Once we include existential reasons such as national survival/identity, religious or secular ideologies, the chances of a lasting political solution are near zero if not negative. Negative in the sense there is a strong chance the current peace process (if the desultory talks and halting steps can be considered as such) can get derailed after some dramatic terrorist attack on a high-profile target or a serious and public human rights violation.

Pushing for a solution now will be useless due to deeply entrenched political positions based on maximalist objectives of all the parties involved. A solution has to be a win-win one, but because of this maximalist perspective, no party is willing to give up any positions/points for the greater good. In other words, everybody is out to get all they can get and damn the rest. None of the solutions will be acceptable because of the intransigence of all the parties involved in the current climate.

If no solutions are acceptable, then what?

One looks at the entrenched positions, the history of the conflict and simply fails to think of a good, reasonable solution acceptable to all concerned. For sake of brevity, one can lessen the challenge to trying to reconcile three mutually incompatible objectives, wish for independence by the Kashmiris, wish to keep Kashmir within India for secular reasons and wish to get Kashmir for Pakistan for religious reasons. Given a limited territorial space and incompatibility of the objectives, there can be no solution. But if no solutions are acceptable to all parties right now, that does not mean there can be no mutually acceptable solutions in the future. So the ground rules have to change.

How can we change ground rules?

When a state gets subsumed into a supranational state, then territorial conflicts change character and become more diffuse, examples such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Cyprus within supranational European State spring to mind. These conflicts have lost much potency once the idea of states fighting over territory got included into the overarching European identity. They have not been resolved, but the maximalist positions became much less. Another example is to convert hard, fenced, land mined borders into soft ones. When men, material, money and machines can move freely over borders, then hard nationalistic or identity politics lose much of their edge. There is, of course, the violent alternative of having an all-out war, where one party defeats the other and essentially removes it from the equation, but no sane person would agree to the last alternative. Irrespective of which option is selected, the objective remains the same, namely to try moving people and parties away from their entrenched positions into fertile soil to allow a solution to emerge in time.

This means that instead of just aiming for a final solution, slow interim steps should be taken to change the ground rules. Of course, for communication and public appetite, a constant reassuring stream of high-quality messages must be transmitted by all senior leaders. Some of the Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) that can be launched:

1. Economic measures: A Free trade agreement between India and Pakistan would be valuable. Special attention can be given to Kashmir, so Kashmiri made products can be given tax exceptions, for purchase and sale in both India and Pakistan as well as for export. Tourism also provides great optimism, as Indians going to Kashmir for tourism can be allowed access to say the northern areas for extending their stay. Subsidies and tax exemptions can be given to foreign investors.

2. Social measures: Allowing greater movement of citizens across the border will be worthwhile. The bus, truck and train CBMs notwithstanding, greater openness is suggested. Security can be a concern, but the movement (not only for Kashmiris) has to be intensified. In addition, cross regional marriages should be encouraged, educational opportunities – such as reserved seats, scholarships, etc. opened to people from both sides of the border.

3. Cultural measures: Exchange of music, drama, film and other mediums should be strongly encouraged to highlight the overarching theme of a common identity and Kashmiriat..

4. Politics and Governance: Political parties should be governed under a code of conduct which stresses peaceful resolution of issues, renounces violence, etc. On both sides of the border, true local governance has to be set up. For example, on the Indian side, other than the border areas, all security forces should be brought under local political control. On the Pakistani side, a true local Kashmiri polity should be allowed to develop rather than being led from Islamabad.

5. Law & Order: The judiciary on both sides should be strengthened. An independent body will review reported human rights crimes by all parties (security forces and militants). An independent Kashmir wide Human Rights Council (with possible observer status to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International etc.) granted powers and wide participation from both sides of the border.

6. The media: The media must play a big role, and open transparency is essential. Allowing private channels in radio, TV and internet will help to provide a diversity of opinions. Internet and mobile communications to be increased in penetration and improved.

7. International Relations between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan can take many steps on the diplomatic side to allow commonalities to rule rather than differences to divide. Such as a public announcement that both India and Pakistan’s WTO working groups will work together. Or announce that India and Pakistan will work on commonalities such as a joint UN peacekeeping force (perhaps not peace enforcement initially); technical aid to poor countries; law of the sea, environmental issues and the Kyoto treaty; water management; etc.

What are the risks and how to mitigate them?

As mentioned earlier, even these small interim ground rule changing steps can be threatened by many events. There are three major possible events (with a reasonably high probability of happening over the next 3-5 years) which can seriously put the peace process into reverse.

1. A big terrorist strike in Kashmir or India

As noted before, the militant groups in Pakistan are not under the full control of the Pakistani Army and intelligence services. In other words, for this peace process to work, the militants have to be reined in to allow social and economic life to begin. This is not easy as the jehadi toothpaste, once squeezed out, is difficult to return into the tube. While not impossible, the Pakistani Army will have to increase the pressure on these militant groups to reduce their activities. It is, of course, impossible to imagine the groups can be made to disband; dialling down their activities will allow the CBMs to launch and take root.

2. A big human rights issue emerges in India because of the security forces

While the Indian armed forces are improving their control over human right abuses, there is indeed a chance that a serious incident might happen which can seriously risk the CBMs. The militants could take up arms again, rebelling against the Pakistani Army authority, and ordinary folks turn off the entire peace process. The current human rights management process within the Indian security forces has to be strengthened and made transparent to the public.

3. Change of government in India

Although both the BJP and the Congress led coalitions are committed to the peace process and are determined to find a solution, it is not inconceivable that a hardline government takes power after the current one. This new government may roll back the peace process, halt it or even embark on a full war, especially if a big terrorist strike happens (or for example, a high-profile political leader is assassinated). While mitigating actions against such an eventuality are difficult to note, the best defence against it is to let a thousand CBMs flower. More CBMs will lessen the chance of all of them being rolled back. Also, the more of India is involved (by greater tourism, economic links, educational links, etc.), the more difficult it would be for the hardline government to roll back the process.

4. Change of government in Pakistan

While currently General Musharraf is in charge of the Pakistani Army, there is a possibility of an internal army revolt/coup where a hard-line officer takes over. Or there is a national movement by the Pakistani religious parties which forces the army to hand-over power to the civilians as has happened before. In either case, the peace process can be rolled back and the jehadi reins loosened. Given the democratic deficit and tradition of autocratic rule in Pakistan, even an increase in the number of CBMs is no defence against all of them being stopped. The only possible mitigation is American pressure and for this, USA can be asked to be a discreet and unofficial guarantor of these CBMs.

Conclusion

It will take political will, persistence and mainly dedication to seek a true peace and stability across all sections of the stakeholders. It will require patience and understanding to deal with mistakes and mistakes will be made. Given the current leadership of Pakistan and India, there is hope that by carrying out some or all of these CBMs, the first faltering steps towards resolving the horrendous Kashmir Conflict can be taken.

Submission by:

Bhaskar Dasgupta,

Graduate PhD student,

Department of War Studies,

Kings College London, UK

Technorati Tags: Kashmir,India,Pakistan,Terrorism,Personal

The Glasgow connection with Terror

There is no longer just a Londonistan, but also a Glasgowistan, as it seems. Read this and worry. I quote:

 

STRUGGLING for that last-minute Christmas present this year, many Scots will have succumbed to the tempting offer in the pub or work canteen of a cheap DVD of the latest Hollywood blockbuster. A useful stocking filler, thank you very much. It might be an illegal knock-off, but really, what's the harm?

That question has a chilling answer. Anyone who handed over their fiver may inadvertently have been funding a organisation responsible for dozens of killings, bombings and political assassinations, thousands of miles away in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
The sale of fake CDs, DVDs, clothing and perfumes in Glasgow and other British cities is helping to raise money for one of the world's most-notorious terror outfits – the group held responsible for the slaughter of US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.
MI5 is now targeting British-based supporters of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a pro-Kashmiri group dedicated to gaining the disputed territory its independence. Its aims include the "destruction" of the United States and India.
...

MI5 estimates that there are about 50 hardcore JeM sympathisers living in Scotland, responsible for shipping half a million pounds abroad every year to fund the militants' murderous activities halfway across the world.
News that JeM is operating here follows closely on other disturbing revelations about terrorist-linked activity within Scotland. In September, Mohammed Atif Siddique, from Alva, Clackmannanshire – described as al-Qaeda's man in Scotland – was convicted of creating websites that taught bomb-making. In the summer, there was the failed car bombing attempt on Glasgow Airport, and only last month came the revelation from senior Scottish police officers that 200 Islamic terror suspects are currently under surveillance.
......

Up until now, the UK Government may have been content to look away from JeM's British-based supporters backing a group whose offences occurred thousands of miles away.
One security source said: "I do not think it is completely true to say we deliberately took our eye off the ball because JeM's activities were not hurting our own interests. It was a case that we could not be everywhere at once and we needed to prioritise. However, the news of a link with al-Qaeda would appear to indicate that things have taken a very dramatic turn for the worse."
.....

The Kashmiri community in Scotland is well-established, having first settled here two generations ago. Although not as big as either the Indian or Pakistani communities it is still a substantial presence, numbering thousands, most of them living in Glasgow.

Technorati Tags: Kashmir,Pakistan,Islamists,Terrorism,United Kingdom,India

The Hearts and Minds Campaign in Kashmir

Three stories came up today, and each of them are very good steps indeed. Each will help immeasurably in the hearts and minds campaign that is a vital component in any counter terrorist campaign.

Terrorism can never be defeated by military, security and policing alone, one needs to address the issues relating to the underlying cause. If that is not possible (for example if its religious in nature), then you cut out the support of the terrorists. If you do that, then the terrorist campaign will simply wither away by itself. Terrorists fear only one thing, that is to lose the support of the population. If that happens, then their crucial advantages over the security forces (hiding inside the population, getting additional recruits, getting funds, getting sustenance, propaganda, etc.) is negated!

So the fact that the Indian Defence Minister has promised to pay more for the rent on army occupied farmland is good. This will make the farmers happy.

The second story is that the Army will vacate schools, hospitals and other public buildings is great. For two reasons, the visibility of the armed forces will drop (which is a victory for the state!) and second, the life for the common man will progressively return to normal and state services such as schooling, medical care and the like can be provided.

For separatist terrorists such as the Kashmiri ones, the fact that a Kashmiri is actually going into a state school, getting treated in a state hospital etc. etc. each will cut into his support. After all, their whole reason for existence is to say that the current state is not providing the services that they think they want. But if they start doing schooling, health care, driving licenses, and the like, then the state starts to establish its presence!

The other story was that 85 Indian officers and soldiers have been found guilty of HR violations in Kashmir and will be punished. Unfortunately, given the nature of the beast the army is facing, HR offences are going to happen. But the fact that its going to happen does not mean that they get away with it. There is nothing worse than the population to see army men committing crimes and getting away with them. The population needs to see the army as their guardians, their elder brothers, their friends. It is only then that they will trust the army and the state enough to get away from the terrorists. So very good step as well.

Good steps and good counter-terrorist strategy as well.

Technorati Tags: Counter-Terrorism , Kashmir , India , Armies , Human Rights

The Role of Pakistan's ISI in the War on Terror

Well, the world and his dog knows the role of Pakistan's ISI in fermenting Islamist terror around the world, many times helped and abetted by western intelligence agencies. It was after 9/11 that the pressure came really on this agency to stop being bad boys. Well, that has proven impossible because it is running counter to its primary objective, which is to keep the military government in power and the national security/ideology of Pakistan. I mean, do you seriously expect the ISI to turn all its Islamist friends in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir (India) over to USA, Afghanistan or India?

Now the current push by USA to have General Musharraf as the President and Benazir Bhutto as the Prime Minister is also destined for tears. It was the ISI which helped and abetted her father's death, and then drove her out of office twice. What has changed? Nothing. And the stupid various western intelligence agencies are being led around by their noses.

Here's a research article which delves deeper into this aspect by giving a good history of the agency and the current operations. I quote the conclusion in its entirety.

This article has explored the nature and operations of the ISI and has argued that in supporting Pakistan's ruling elite and in pursuit of Pakistan's geostrategic interests the ISI has promoted an agenda of Sunni Islamism in Pakistan and of pan-Islamist jihad abroad. In the post-9/11 era the trajectory of this strategy has put Pakistan increasingly at odds with the West, a point underlined by Pakistan's strong support of the Taliban, even as the United States and NATO battle Taliban forces, and by the resurgence of Al Qaeda.

Whether under tight Pakistani government control, as Musharraf asserts, or not, the ISI's support for pan-Islamist jihad threatens Western interests in Afghanistan, in the Southern Caucus, and across South Asia, whereas the ISI's support for Sunni Islamism in Pakistan and its repression of political alternatives and of civil society is closing down political space in the country, fueling instability and the risk of state disintegration. There is a growing concern, expressed even by cautious voices, that the forces created or empowered by the ISI over the past two decades in particular, are forging ever stronger links and may yet rise to challenge for control of Pakistan itself.

Six years after the War on Terrorism began Pakistan has emerged as "the new Afghanistan," the hub, as Negroponte put it, from which Al Qaeda has been able to regenerate and reassert at least some of its lethal global influence. With grave new trends evident in Pakistan, reliance on the Janus-faced ISI is failing and a Western rethink of its intelligence strategy toward Pakistan is now imperative.

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Gregory, Shaun, "The ISI and the War on Terrorism, PY - 2007, VL - 30, IS - 12, SP - 1013-1031
AB - Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence [ISI] plays an ambiguous role in the War on Terrorism. An important ally for Western intelligence with whom it has very close links, the ISI also has a long history of involvement in supporting and promoting terrorism in the name of Pakistan's geostrategic interests. This article explores the nature of the ISI and its aims and objectives in the post-9/11 era. It argues that the focus of the ISI's actions are to shore up Pakistan's ruling elite and to destabilize Pakistan's enemies by the promotion of Sunni Islamism at home and of pan-Islamist jihad abroad. The ISI's strategy, however, deeply conflicts with that of the West, a point underlined by the resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban almost six years after the War on Terrorism began. With grave new trends evident in Pakistan, reliance on the ISI is failing and a Western rethink of its intelligence strategy toward Pakistan is now imperative.

[T]he ISI is a disciplined force, for 27 years they have been doing what the government [of Pakistan] has been telling them.

—President Pervez Musharraf, interview, London Times, 28 September 2006

Technorati Tags: Pakistan , USA , Terrorism

Interview with an Islamist Leader in Kashmir, India

Received via email on this yahoogroup. This is very interesting and provides fascinating perspectives on one of the major Islamist ideologues in Kashmir who supports Islamist violence in India. This should be read and referenced frequently as this is one of the views of the animal we are battling.

=================

Sayyed Ali Gilani, formerly with the Jamaat-e Islami
of Jammu and Kashmir, is a veteran Kashmiri
politician. Presently, he heads the Tehrik-e
Hurriyat-e Jammu Kashmir. In this interview with
Yoginder Sikand, he talks about his views on the
Kashmir conflict and its possible solution.
Q: In your writings, and in those of other similar
Islamist ideologues, the Kashmir conflict is often
described as a war between Islam and ‘disbelief’. Do
you really think it is so? Is it not a political
struggle or a nationalist struggle, actually?
A: The Kashmir dispute is a fall-out of the Partition
of India. The Muslim-majority parts of British India
became Pakistan, and the Hindu-majority regions became
the Dominion of India. There were, at that time, some
575 princely states in India under indirect British
rule. Lord Mountbatten gave them the choice of joining
either India and Pakistan, and instructed that their
choice must be guided by the religious composition of
their populace as well as by the borders they might
share with either India or Pakistan.
On this basis, almost all the princely states opted
for either India or Pakistan. There were, however,
three exceptions to this. Hyderabad, a Hindu-majority
state with a Muslim ruler, opted for independence, but
India argued against this on the grounds that the
state had a Hindu majority, and so ordered the Police
Action to incorporate the state into the Indian
Dominion. Junagadh, another Hindu-majority state with
a Muslim ruler, opted for Pakistan, but India
over-ruled this decision, again on account of the
state’s Hindu majority, and annexed it. If India had
adopted the same principle in the case of Jammu and
Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state with a Hindu ruler,
there would have been no conflict over Kashmir. After
all, more than 85% of the population of the state at
that time were Muslims; the major rivers in the state
flowed into Pakistan; the state shared a border of
over 750 kilometres with Pakistan; the only motorable
road connecting Kashmir with the outside world
throughout the year passed from Srinagar to
Rawalpindi; and the majority of the people of the
state had cultural and historical ties with the people
of Pakistan.
However, over-ruling these factors, which would have
made Jammu and Kashmir a natural part of Pakistan, in
October 1947 the Indian Army entered the state in the
guise of flushing out the Pathan tribesmen, who had
crossed into Kashmir in the wake of large-scale
killings of Muslims in Rajouri and Poonch. Using this
incursion an excuse, Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir,
engineered the intrusion of Indian forces. The British
scholar Alistair Lamb says that the so-called
Instrument of Accession was itself fraudulent and that
Hari Singh did not even sign it.
Thereafter, India itself took the issue of Kashmir to
the Untied Nations. The UN passed some eighteen
resolutions related to Kashmir, recognizing the status
of the state as disputed and calling for a resolution
of the conflict based on the will of the people of the
state, which the first Indian Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, himself also publicly promised. Now,
all that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are saying is
that India should live up to this promise that it made
of holding a plebiscite in accordance with the UN
resolutions. So, this is the basic issue.
Q: So, aren’t you here saying that the conflict is
essentially political, not religious?
A: For a Muslim, no action is permissible which is
against Islam. How can we say that the sacrifices that
the Muslims of Kashmir make, the tortures that they
suffer and the martyrdom that they meet have nothing
to do with Islam, and that they won’t be rewarded by
God for this? In this sense, it is a religious issue
also. Islam teaches that Muslims must follow the
guidance of Islam in every action of theirs—not just
in prayers but also in matters such as war and peace,
trade, international relations and so on, because
Islam is a complete way of life. If a true Muslim
participates in any struggle, it is for the sake of
Islam. So, how can you say that the Kashmir conflict
has nothing to do with religion?
Q: This might be true in theory, but surely many
Kashmiris who are involved in the movement might be
motivated by other factors, including for economic and
political reasons, or also due to a commitment to
Kashmiri nationalism, as distinct from Islam?
A: I agree that there may be various reasons why
different people participate in the movement. Yes,
there can be many who do not adopt the guidance of
Islam in this regard. They might champion secular
democracy and irreligiousness. Their sacrifices might
be motivated by nationalism or ethnicity, rather than
Islam. They might have no problem with the system of
governance in India, their opposition to Indian rule
being simply because of the brutalities of Indian
occupation. Of course, one cannot say that all
Kashmiri Muslims think alike. But I am speaking from
the point of view of a practicing Muslim, whoa accepts
Islam as a complete way of life. For such
self-conscious Kashmiri Muslims, it is undoubtedly a
religious issue and their sacrifices are for the sake
of the faith.
Q: Maulana Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e
Islami, who is a major source of inspiration for you,
opposed the creation of Pakistan. So, then, why is
that that you have consistently been advocating
Kashmir’s union with Pakistan?
A: You are wrong here. Maulana Maududi was not opposed
to the creation of Pakistan and to the ‘two nation’
theory. What he was opposed to was the practice of the
Muslim League leaders, who were leading the movement
for Pakistan. He told them that they talked of the
‘two-nation’ theory and Islam, but were not serious
about establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan. They
were not preparing the activists of the League for an
Islamic state. Maulana Maududi wanted Pakistan to be
an Islamic state, and this was the grounds for his
opposition to the Muslim League. But he, like the
League, supported the ‘two-nation’ theory. In fact,
the League did not have any theoretical justification
for its ‘two nation’ theory until this was provided by
Maulana Maududi through his copious writings.
Q: But do you really see Indian Hindus and Muslims as
two separate ‘nations’? After all, they share so much
in common.
A: They are totally separate nations. There is no
doubt at all about this. Muslims believe in just one
God, but Hindus have crores of gods.
Q: But the Prophet Muhammad, in his treaty with the
Jews and other non-Muslims of Medina, described the
denizens of Medina as members of one nation. The
leader of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind and a leading
Deobandi scholar, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, even
wrote a book to argue against the League’s ‘two
nation’ theory, stressing a composite Indian
nationalism that embraced all the people of India. So,
how can the Muslims and Hindus of one country be
considered separate ‘nations’ even by Islamic
standards?
A: Islam lays down that in an Islamic system (nizam),
all non-Muslims, including even atheists, will get
equality, justice, security of life and property and
freedom of faith. Maulana Madani’s arguments were
critiqued by Maulana Maududi.
Q: In your prison memoirs, Rudad-e Qafs, you write
that ‘It is as difficult for a Muslim to live in a
non-Muslim society as it is for a fish to live in a
desert’. But how can this be so? After all, the
pioneers of Islam in India and in Kashmir itself,
mainly Sufi saints, lived and preached in a society in
which Muslims were a very small minority.
A: I meant to say this in a particular sense. Islam,
as I said, is a complete way of life. No other path is
acceptable to God. So, in the absence of an Islamic
polity, it is difficult for Muslims to lead their
lives entirely in accordance with the rules of Islam,
which apply to social affairs as much as they do to
personal affairs. For instance, Muslims in Kashmir
under Indian rule live in a system where alcohol,
interest and immorality are rife, so how can we lead
our lives completely in accordance with Islam? Of
course, Muslim minorities are Muslims, too, but their
duty must be to work to establish an Islamic
dispensation in the lands where they live so that they
can lead their lives fully in accordance with Islam
and its laws. Missionary work to spread Islam is as
much of a duty as is praying and giving alms to the
poor.
Now, as for your question about those Sufis who lived
and worked in societies where Muslims were in a
minority—they may have been pious people, but we take
as our only model the Prophet Muhammad.
Q: But, surely, no one is forced to drink alcohol,
deal in interest or act immorally in Kashmir?
A: True, but these things automatically spread since
they are allowed by the present un-Islamic system. So
that is why you see the degeneration of our culture
and values happening on such a large scale.
Q: You mentioned about preaching Islam being a
principal duty of all Muslims. But, surely, for this
you need a climate of peace, not of active hostility,
as in Kashmir today?
A: Absolutely. I agree with you entirely. No one can
deny this. We need to have good relations with people
of other communities. Only then can we communicate the
message of Islam to them. But if one side continues to
oppress the other and heap injustices and says that
this should be considered as peace, how can it be
accepted? If, for instance, Narendra Modi says that
what happened [with the Muslims] in Gujarat represents
peace, how can it be? If India stations lakhs of
troops in Kashmir and says this is for establishing
peace, how can it be, because these troops themselves
are disturbing the peace?
Q: You, and other Islamist ideologues such as
yourself, have consistently been advocating an Islamic
state, seeing this as an indispensable Islamic duty.
To your mind, which is the best functioning Islamic
state in the world today?
A: The world-wide Muslim community (ummah) is today in
such a sorry state that there is no Islamic state
anywhere in the real sense. Saudi Arabia is described
as an Islamic state, but it is run by a monarchy, and
monarchy has no sanction in Islam. If Muslim
countries, including those that claim to be ‘Islamic’,
were truly Islamic states they would never have been
enslaved to America, as is the case today. They all
support America’s policies and adopt its dictates.
They are completely, on all accounts, dependent on
America. They cannot even defend themselves. They have
to rely on America and Europe to do this. They keep
their money in American banks. We say that they should
use their wealth to empower themselves and get out of
America’s clutches and convert themselves into genuine
Islamic states.
Q: In the wake of the attacks of 11 September, 2001,
how do you see the impact of American pressure on Arab
states, such as Saudi Arabia, to change their position
on Islamist movements?
A: The events of September 2001 have caused most
Muslim states to change their policies and toe
America’s line even more closely. You can see this
happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only Muslim
country that refuses to cave under American pressure
is Iran.
Q: And now America is seeking an excuse to attack
Iran.
A: Yes. America is trying to stoke Shia-Sunni
rivalries in order to undermine Iran. It is trying all
other such weapons, dividing the Muslims on the basis
of sect, nationality, race and ethnicity against each
other so as to weaken them. And the leaders of most
Muslim countries are now playing the role of agents of
the USA, be they Karzai in Afghanistan, Musharraf in
Pakistan, Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine or the Saudi
monarchs.
Take the case of Pakistan. Some months ago, American
forces bombed a village in the country’s North-West
Frontier Province, as a result of which some eighty
people were martyred, including around thirty
religious scholars. Pakistan’s present rulers are so
beholden to America that at first they did not
acknowledge that the Americans were behind the attack.
Only later, under pressure, were they forced to admit
this. Likewise, the Lal Masjid fiasco in Islamabad was
stage-managed in order to please the Americans. See
what’s happening in Waziristan, the Frontier Province
and Baluchistan. A climate is being deliberately
created in those parts of Pakistan to justify American
attacks and bombings in the name of flushing out
militants, and Musharraf and Karazi are key players in
this scheme.
Q: If Pakistan is now so pro-American, acting against
its own people, and if it is not an Islamic state,
then why have you been advocating Kashmir’s union with
it?
A: As I said earlier, the Muslim League claimed that
Pakistan was got in the name of Islam, but it did not
give its cadre training to establish an Islamic state
there. Because of this, the influence of the Army and
the country’s Westernised leadership, Pakistan failed
to become an Islamic state. But it was meant to
become such a state, which is something that we want.
So, if the people of Jammu and Kashmir were given the
right to decide between India and Pakistan, the
majority, I think, would prefer the former.
Yes, there are weaknesses in Pakistan, but these can
be addressed. India has a secular system, which we
can, under no condition, accept. Because of the
oppression that we have been suffering under Indian
rule for the last sixty years, how can we opt for
India? In just a few weeks, in late 1947, some five
lakh Muslims were killed by Dogra forces and Hindu
chauvinists in Jammu. In the last seventeen years,
over one lakh Kashmiri Muslims, mainly innocent
civilians, have been killed. So many localities have
been burned down, women raped and men rendered
missing. After such brutal experiences, only a blind
person would opt in favour of India.
Q: Many Kashmiri Muslims would rather be independent
than join India or Pakistan. Do you agree?
A: The UN resolutions provide for only two options:
joining India or Pakistan, and if this rule is
followed then the majority would, I think, opt for
Pakistan. However, if the three parties to the
dispute—Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and
Kashmir—come to a consensus on an independent Jammu
and Kashmir, then, as I have repeatedly said, we will
accept that formula also.
Q: In some of your writings you have argued against
Kashmir being an independent state, even claiming that
this is an Indian ‘ploy’. Can you elaborate?
A: This is true. It is an Indian ploy, because India
does not want to see Pakistan strengthened, which it
would be if Jammu and Kashmir joins Pakistan. The
slogan of Azadi (‘Independence’) is aimed at weakening
Pakistan. Independence would result in a territory
that would have been a natural part of Pakistan being
taken away from it. But then, compared to staying with
India, independence is a lesser evil.
Q: Many Kashmiris, seeing the current political and
economic troubles in Pakistan, might say that they
would prefer to be independent.
A: If we get independence, we will accept it.
Q: What if most people of Jammu and Kashmir wish to
live in a secular or democratic set-up, and not a
Taliban-style ‘Islamic’ state?
A: We don’t want to bring Taliban-type Islam, but the
real Islam of the Quran and the Practice (Sunnah) of
the Prophet.
Q: But the Taliban argued that their state was in
accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah.
A: To claim something is different from acting on that
claim. For instance, while Islam makes it a duty for
every Muslim male and female to acquire education, as
soon as the Taliban came to power they banned girls’
education. What they should have done, instead, was to
set up separate schools for girls. So, like this,
there are many issues on which we can differ. The
Islamic state that we would like to establish in Jammu
and Kashmir would be one based on the understanding
that all of humanity are children of the same primal
parents, Adam and Eve. They will all be treated
equally and justly. There shall be no discrimination
based on religion. After all, the Prophet once
remarked that all creatures are of the family of God
and that the best is he who treats members of God’s
family—which obviously includes non-Muslims, too—in
the best way
Q: You advocate Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, but
today minority nationalities in Pakistan, such as the
Baluchis and the Sindhis, suffering under Punjabi
domination, are struggling for independence. Might not
the same thing happen to the Kashmiris if the state
were to join Pakistan?
A: We want to be join Pakistan, not be absorbed into
it. We would have internal autonomy.
Q: But, surely, despite Pakistan’s claims, the part of
Jammu and Kashmir under its control—‘Azad
Kashmir’—lacks real autonomy?
A: Yes, Azad Kashmir cannot be said to be really
autonomous since there, too, everything happens
according to the wishes and directions of the Federal
Government. But we would make sure that our autonomy
be written into the Constitution.
Q: Do you see any significant changes in Pakistan’s
policies vis-à-vis Kashmir in recent years, perhaps
under American pressure?
A: Yes, considerable changes can be noticed. Earlier,
Pakistan used to insist on the right to
self-determination for the people of Jammu and
Kashmir. Musharraf was the first to change this,
arguing for a solution outside that of the UN
resolutions, an out-of-the-box solution. This
constituted the first deviation in Pakistan’s Kashmir
policy. Then, Musharraf began talking of seven zones
in Jammu and Kashmir, soft borders and his four-point
formula, which is nothing but a means to preserve the
status quo.
Q: How do you respond to media allegations that the
Kashmiri movement for self-determination is
‘anti-Hindu’?
A: How can our struggle be called ‘anti-Hindu’? It is
a struggle for certain principles. In Hindu mythology,
when the Kauravas and the Pandavas, cousins of each
other, were arrayed against each other on the
battlefield, Arjun turned to Krishanji Maharaj, and
told him that he could not bear to fight his own
brothers. Why, he asked him, was he asking him to
fight them? He wanted to refuse to fight. But, then,
Krishanji Maharaj said, ‘Arjun, this is a battle for
certain principles. In this, do not consider the fact
that those who are opposed to you are your relatives’.
We Kashmiris, too, have such a battle for certain
principles with the Indian Government for occupying us
against our will and not acting on its promise to let
us decide our own political future. It is not a war
against Hindus or the people of India. It is not a
communal conflict. In fact, there are many Indians who
support our stand on the right to self-determination.
Q: Then why is it that the Indian media, and large
sections of the Western media, too, present the
movement as ‘Islamic extremism’ or ‘terrorism’?
A: The Indian media is bound to support India’s
military occupation. How can you expect it to support
our cause? I’ve seen so many massacres by the Indian
Army here, but often the media describes them as
‘encounters’ with ‘militants’. You know how the agents
of the Indian Army engineered the massacre of so many
innocent Sikhs in Chhatisinghpora and falsely
attributed this to ‘militants’, in order to convey the
misleading message to the then American President,
Bill Clinton, at that time on a visit to India, that
our struggle is a ‘communal’ one, and not a freedom
movement. I can cite so many more such cases to prove
this point.
Q: But, if that is so, why is it that you and people
like you have not condemned killings by militants in
the same way as you condemn similar crimes by the
Indian Army?
A: Wherever such incidents have happened, we have
condemned them, irrespective of the religion of the
victims. The Quran clearly states that enmity with a
people should not make one stray from the path of
justice, because justice is closer to piety.
Q: If Jammu and Kashmir becomes independent, how do
you envisage its relations with India and Pakistan?
A: It should have brotherly relations with both
countries.
Q: Some radical groups active in Kashmir argue that
all Hindus are ‘enemies’ of Islam. What do you feel?
A: No, this is not so. There should be no enmity or
discrimination with anyone simply because of his
religion, caste, race, colour or country. We are
permitted to fight only those individuals who fight us
or place hurdles in the path of our faith. With others
we should have good relations, and that applies to our
relations with ordinary Hindus as well. So, when some
people argue that as a community the Hindus are
‘enemies of Islam’, it is wrong. It is not an Islamic
way of thinking.
Q: Certain militant groups active in Kashmir say that
they will not stop their war with India until India
itself is ‘absorbed’ into Pakistan and the Pakistani
flag flies atop Delhi’s Red Fort. What is your
opinion?
A: This is emotional talk and should not be paid
attention to. We don’t agree with this argument. Our
fight with India is only to the extent that India has
taken away our right to self-determination. Once we
win that right we will have no problem with India. In
fact, if by exercising this right the majority of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir say that they want to be
with India, we will also accept that.
Q: But don’t you feel certain radical groups active in
Kashmir who preach hatred against Hindus and call for
India’s ‘absorption’ into Pakistan are actually
defaming the religion whose cause they claim to
champion?
A: Islam has been given a bad name more by Muslims
themselves and less by Hindus. Islam has been damaged
less by open ‘disbelief’ (kufr) than by hidden
hypocrisy (munafiqat), by people who claim to be
Muslims but are really not so in practice. You can
see, for instance, what people like Karzai, Musharraf
and other pro-American rulers are doing. They are
killing Muslims and destroying mosques.
Q: So, would you agree that these groups who condemn
all Hindus as ‘enemies’ are actually misinterpreting
Islam?
A: We cannot take responsibility for what others say.
You can ask these people yourself.
Q: What message do you have for the people of India?
A: I will only say that India should honour its
promise to the people of Jammu and Kashmir to let them
decide their own political future. Honouring one’s
promise is a major principle of the Hindu religion.
Raja Dasharath, honouring the promise he made to his
wife Kaikeyi, gave his throne to his son Bharat and
ordered Ram Chandraji to go into the forest in exile.
Simply in order to keep his promise he sent his elder
son to fourteen years in the forest and gave the
throne to Bharat instead. Bharat was a man of
character and so he placed Ram Chandraji’s sandals on
the throne, believing that his elder brother deserved
to rule. So, the Hindu religion teaches that one
should live up to one’s promises, and if India were to
act on the advice of the Hindu scriptures in this
regard on the issue of Kashmir the conflict will be
solved.
Sukhia Sab Sansar Khaye Aur Soye
Dukhia Das Kabir Jagey Aur Roye
The world is 'happy', eating and sleeping
The forlorn Kabir Das is awake and weeping

Technorati Tags: Kashmir , India , Pakistan , Terrorism , Islam , Muslims