Tag Archive | "Kashmir"

Marking the three regions of the Indian state ...

2,288 women martyred, 22,744 widowed, 9,984 molested in Indian Kashmir

Marking the three regions of the Indian state ...
Image via Wikipedia

SRINAGAR (Indian Occupied Kashmir): In occupied Kashmir, 2,288 women were among 93,515 civilians martyred during the last 21 years due to the unabated acts of Indian state terrorism.

According to a report released by the Research Section of Kashmir Media Service, today, on the occasion of “International Day for the Elimination of Violence against WomenIndian troops molested 9,984 women during the period and state terrorism rendered 22,744 women widowed.

The report maintained that Kashmiri women had been the worst affectees of the harrowing conflict since January 1989.

The report deplored that the troops had been routinely involved in sexual harassment of Kashmiri women to suppress the ongoing liberation struggle. It further pointed out that although men had been subjected to enforced disappearances, but women had been adversely affected because of being related to the disappeared persons as mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.

The report said, women constitute a considerable number of mental patients, which is well over one hundred thousand, due to the violence perpetrated by the troops. 2,288 women martyred, 22,744 widowed, 9,984 molested in IHK. ‘Pakistan Times‘ Jammu & Kashmir Desk

Posted in Current AffairsComments (6)

Flag of Hyderabad (princely state) (1724-1948)

Kashmir and Hyderabad

Flag of Hyderabad (princely state) (1724-1948)
Flag of Hyderabad (princely state) (1724-1948). Bharat illegally occupied it with what is now called “Police Action”.

Bharat just keeps on hoping that the Kashmir dipute would just go away and the world would stop mentioning the “K” word. It hasn’t happening and the dispute cannot be forgotten. In the last General Assembly session Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi brought it up. Of course Pakistan and Delhi sparred over it. This year Iran chagrined Delhi by brining up Kashmir and mentioning it as occupied territory. To make things worse for Bharat–the Norwegian parliament is considering solutions to the Kashmir dispute. Norway brought about the Israeli Egyptian reconciliation and has worked on seemingly intractable disputes.

Delhi had a conniption fit when the Obama Administration began talking about it and it is rumored that Ambassador’s hidden portfolio included Kashmir, even though he is not allowed to mention the “K” word publicly.

Bharat illegally occupied Hyderabad in 1948 and this remains on the UN agenda. Bharat illegally sent her forces across an international border into East Pakistan. That act of aggression remains on the UN agenda.

This year Bharat tried to get the international disputes off the UN rosters failed when the Pakistani Ambassador intervened.

The United Nations to mollified Islamabad for what its top diplomat had privately described as an “inadvertent” omission of Kashmir from the annual report of the Security Council.

When the omission was noticed and corrected, Bharat was peeved.

Mr. Farhan Haq, acting deputy spokesperson for the UN secretary-general last week has, instead, drawn attention to documents validates Islamabad’s principled stand revealing that Pakistan has brilliantly kept “alive” at the UN Hyderabad’s merger with India and the aggression against  of East Pakistan on the UN agenda. It is these points that will keep Bharat out of the UNSC.

The Nizam had refused to accede Hyderabad to India after the country's independence Aug 15, 1947. He wanted Hyderabad to remain an independent state or join Pakistan. The princely state finally merged with the India in September 1948 after a military operation.

The Golconda Sultanate, terminating the older Kingdom of Golconda (since c.1364) was established in Telangana in 1463 as a vassall of the Bahmani Sultanate. It was ruled by the Qutb Shahi Dynasty. Golconda declared’ independence in 1518. Golconda served as the capital from 1463 to 1589, when the capital was moved to newly-built Hyderabad. In 1687 Golconda was conquered and annexed by the Mughal Empire.
In the early 18th century the Mughal Empire disintegrated. Chin Qulich Khan Asaf Jah Imir Qamaruddin Siddiqi, granted the title Nizam-ul-Mulk by the Mughal Emperor, established what was to become the Nizamate of Hyderabad, ruled by the Asaf Jahi Dynasty. Hyderabad was one of the largest princely states where the E.I.C., and in her succession, British India, applied indirect rule. In 1853 Berar was split from Hyderabad.

The Nizam's Hyderabad State was forcibly and illegally included into Bharati forces

Pakistan has never accepted this occupation of Hyderabad. It remains on the UN agenda
When India was released into independence in 1947, the Nizam of Hyderabad rejected the call of the Union of India to join it. In 1948 Indian forces occupied Hyderabad; the Nizam was deposed, the territory partitioned. Presently Hyderabad territory is divided among Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Within the region of Telangana (Andhra Pradesh) there is a movement aiming at the formation of a separate state by that name.

The UN roster is a painful reminder to Bharatis who may not wich to remember Bharat’s illegal actions in 1948

The map of Kashmir showing Kashmir as disputed territory

As soon as the omission was discovered Islamabad filed a complaint. The UNs corrective action stemmed from a complaint by Pakistan’s acting permanent representative to the UN, Amjad Hussain Sial, in the General Assembly a fortnight ago that “an inadvertent omission” in the annual report of the Security Council had left out Kashmir as “one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council.”

Responding to a predictable uproar in Pakistan that Kashmir is no longer on the Council’s agenda, Haq told reporters that the Indo- Pakistan dispute, “by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year” of issues which have not been eliminated altogether from its purview.

Haq quoted from Security Council documents to bolster a firm assertion by Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN here, Abdullah Hussain Haroon that “the (current) president of the Security Council… the UK, is amply clear on the subject and is cognisant of the matter.”

Haroon, was severely criticized in Pakistan for his over-friendliness with the Bharati mission to the UN–and has been fired.

That active list of the Council’s agenda mentions The India Pakistan dispute” with a clear implication to Kashmir.

It is obvious that Bharat wants to keep it out of the UN and as the affected party Pakistan is interested in keeping it alive.

A second part of the document “sets out those items which were identified in the summary statement for 2009 as matters of which the Security Council was seized and which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (last) three-year period.”

It explains that “the list indicates the date on which each item was first taken up by the Council at a formal meeting, and the date of the most recent formal Council meeting held on that item.”

That “the India-Pakistan question” — about Kashmir was first brought before the Council in January 1948 and has not figured on the Security Council’s active agenda since November 1965.

In 2008, in an effort to streamline the work of the UN and to make the Security Council more effective, it was decided that items “which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (previous) three-year period” would be completely removed from its purview.

Accordingly, at the beginning of this year, secretary-general Ban Ki-moon sent out a circular which mentioned Jammu and Kashmir among the items due for such deletion unless at least one UN member requested otherwise by February 28.

On January 7, Pakistan’s permanent representative shot off a letter to the secretary-general and the president of the Security Council demanding that the India-Pakistan dispute be retained for another year.

Haroon’s letter also demanded that the dispute over Hyderabad and the Bharati agression in 1971 should remain under the purview of the Council.

By stating the legalistic position on Kashmir, Haq  give Pakistani diplomats what they wanted–keeping alive the unfinished business of 1947–an issue that Delhi wishes would go away.

Related articles:

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

Kashmir, Hyderabad, 1971 agression is alive on UN agenda

Flag of Hyderabad (princely state) (1724-1948)
Flag of Hyderabad (princely state) (1724-1948). Bharat illegally occupied it with what is now called “Police Action”.

Bharat just keeps on hoping that the Kashmir dipute would just go away and the world would stop mentioning the “K” word. It hasn’t happening and the dispute cannot be forgotten. In the last General Assembly session Libyan president Muammar Qaddafi brought it up. Of course Pakistan and Delhi sparred over it. This year Iran chagrined Delhi by brining up Kashmir and mentioning it as occupied territory. To make things worse for Bharat–the Norwegian parliament is considering solutions to the Kashmir dispute. Norway brought about the Israeli Egyptian reconciliation and has worked on seemingly intractable disputes.

Delhi had a conniption fit when the Obama Administration began talking about it and it is rumored that Ambassador’s hidden portfolio included Kashmir, even though he is not allowed to mention the “K” word publicly.

Bharat illegally occupied Hyderabad in 1948 and this remains on the UN agenda. Bharat illegally sent her forces across an international border into East Pakistan. That act of aggression remains on the UN agenda.

This year Bharat tried to get the international disputes off the UN rosters failed when the Pakistani Ambassador intervened.

The United Nations to mollified Islamabad for what its top diplomat had privately described as an “inadvertent” omission of Kashmir from the annual report of the Security Council.

When the omission was noticed and corrected, Bharat was peeved.

Mr. Farhan Haq, acting deputy spokesperson for the UN secretary-general last week has, instead, drawn attention to documents validates Islamabad’s principled stand revealing that Pakistan has brilliantly kept “alive” at the UN Hyderabad’s merger with India and the aggression against  of East Pakistan on the UN agenda. It is these points that will keep Bharat out of the UNSC.

The Nizam had refused to accede Hyderabad to India after the country's independence Aug 15, 1947. He wanted Hyderabad to remain an independent state or join Pakistan. The princely state finally merged with the India in September 1948 after a military operation.

The Golconda Sultanate, terminating the older Kingdom of Golconda (since c.1364) was established in Telangana in 1463 as a vassall of the Bahmani Sultanate. It was ruled by the Qutb Shahi Dynasty. Golconda declared’ independence in 1518. Golconda served as the capital from 1463 to 1589, when the capital was moved to newly-built Hyderabad. In 1687 Golconda was conquered and annexed by the Mughal Empire.
In the early 18th century the Mughal Empire disintegrated. Chin Qulich Khan Asaf Jah Imir Qamaruddin Siddiqi, granted the title Nizam-ul-Mulk by the Mughal Emperor, established what was to become the Nizamate of Hyderabad, ruled by the Asaf Jahi Dynasty. Hyderabad was one of the largest princely states where the E.I.C., and in her succession, British India, applied indirect rule. In 1853 Berar was split from Hyderabad.

The Nizam's Hyderabad State was forcibly and illegally included into Bharati forces

Pakistan has never accepted this occupation of Hyderabad. It remains on the UN agenda
When India was released into independence in 1947, the Nizam of Hyderabad rejected the call of the Union of India to join it. In 1948 Indian forces occupied Hyderabad; the Nizam was deposed, the territory partitioned. Presently Hyderabad territory is divided among Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Within the region of Telangana (Andhra Pradesh) there is a movement aiming at the formation of a separate state by that name.

The UN roster is a painful reminder to Bharatis who may not wich to remember Bharat’s illegal actions in 1948

The map of Kashmir showing Kashmir as disputed territory

As soon as the omission was discovered Islamabad filed a complaint. The UNs corrective action stemmed from a complaint by Pakistan’s acting permanent representative to the UN, Amjad Hussain Sial, in the General Assembly a fortnight ago that “an inadvertent omission” in the annual report of the Security Council had left out Kashmir as “one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council.”

Responding to a predictable uproar in Pakistan that Kashmir is no longer on the Council’s agenda, Haq told reporters that the Indo- Pakistan dispute, “by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year” of issues which have not been eliminated altogether from its purview.

Haq quoted from Security Council documents to bolster a firm assertion by Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN here, Abdullah Hussain Haroon that “the (current) president of the Security Council… the UK, is amply clear on the subject and is cognisant of the matter.”

Haroon, was severely criticized in Pakistan for his over-friendliness with the Bharati mission to the UN–and has been fired.

That active list of the Council’s agenda mentions The India Pakistan dispute” with a clear implication to Kashmir.

It is obvious that Bharat wants to keep it out of the UN and as the affected party Pakistan is interested in keeping it alive.

A second part of the document “sets out those items which were identified in the summary statement for 2009 as matters of which the Security Council was seized and which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (last) three-year period.”

It explains that “the list indicates the date on which each item was first taken up by the Council at a formal meeting, and the date of the most recent formal Council meeting held on that item.”

That “the India-Pakistan question” — about Kashmir was first brought before the Council in January 1948 and has not figured on the Security Council’s active agenda since November 1965.

In 2008, in an effort to streamline the work of the UN and to make the Security Council more effective, it was decided that items “which have not been considered by the Council at a formal meeting during the (previous) three-year period” would be completely removed from its purview.

Accordingly, at the beginning of this year, secretary-general Ban Ki-moon sent out a circular which mentioned Jammu and Kashmir among the items due for such deletion unless at least one UN member requested otherwise by February 28.

On January 7, Pakistan’s permanent representative shot off a letter to the secretary-general and the president of the Security Council demanding that the India-Pakistan dispute be retained for another year.

Haroon’s letter also demanded that the dispute over Hyderabad and the Bharati agression in 1971 should remain under the purview of the Council.

By stating the legalistic position on Kashmir, Haq  give Pakistani diplomats what they wanted–keeping alive the unfinished business of 1947–an issue that Delhi wishes would go away.

Related articles:

Posted in Current AffairsComments (3)

Ali Khamenei has been the supreme leader of Ir...

Iran reiterates support for Kashmiris. Delhi angry

Ali Khamenei has been the supreme leader of Ir...
Image via Wikipedia

NEW DELHI: Iran is a close friend of India, but that has not prevented its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, from asking the world’s Muslims to support the “struggle” in Kashmir against “Zionist regimes”.

Press TV is doing a great job by exposing these brahman savages who are exterminating innocent kashmiris, These bharti barbarians will meet the same fate as their ancestors when Timur, Ghazni, Ghori, Aurangzeb brought calamity on them.

In his Haj message to pilgrims earlier this week, Khamenei said, “Today the major duties of the elite of the Islamic Ummah is to provide help to the Palestinian nation and the besieged people of Gaza, to sympathize and provide assistance to the nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir, to engage in struggle and resistance against the aggressions of the United States and the Zionist regime,

 

Read more: ‘Friend’ Iran calls India a Zionist regime – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Friend-Iran-calls-India-a-Zionist-regime/articleshow/6949524.cms#ixzz15kakNQPy

Since July this year, Iran has on three occasions remarked supporting the “struggle” in Kashmir and bracketed the situation in the state with that in Gaza and Afghanistan, sources said.

The recent remarks were made by Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“Today the major duties of the elite of the Islamic Ummah is to provide help to the Palestinian nation and the besieged people of Gaza, to sympathise and provide assistance to the nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir, to engage in struggle and resistance against the aggressions of the United States and the Zionist regime, to safeguard the solidarity of Muslims….,” he said.

Earlier in October, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman condemned Indian action against protesters in Jammu and Kashmir who were provoked by clippings of alleged desecration of the Koran in the US.

Spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast had said to counter such protests could be “interpreted as supporting acts of sacrilege.” Later, he said it was “perfectly acceptable for Muslims to react to the desecration of the Koran” and called upon the Indian government to show “self-restraint”.The sources said while raising these remarks with Iran, India has asked it to be “mindful” of its “core concerns”.

Upset over persistently critical statements by Iran on Jammu and Kashmir, India today summoned its acting Ambassador, telling him that such remarks impinged on the country’s territorial integrity.

New Delhi issued a strong demarche to Iran’s Charge De Affairs Reza Alaei expressing its “deep disappointment” over the remarks, which is seen here as “impingement of territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

In an apparent tit-for-tat, India, for the first time, abstained late last night from voting on the UN resolution on the human rights violations in Iran. In past, India has always voted against the resolution.

Noting that it was a matter of “serious concern”, the sources said these comments have also factored India’s decision to abstain from voting on the UN resolution, which was piloted by Canada and several other countries.

In an official reaction, Ministry of External Affairs said “our decision on the vote was made after due deliberation.” while 80 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 44 voted against it and 57 countries abstained.

At the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Saudi Arabia in past has voted in favour of the resolution.

He was addressing Hajj pilgrims in Tehran.However, the sources refused to treat these remarks as “major setback” to the overall relationship, saying that the two countries have civilisational links and share a similarity of views on many issues.

They also maintained that India attaches highest priority to its projects with Iran and these remarks will not impact the other facets of the relationship.

The sources said that whenever India has raised the issue with Iran, New Delhi has been told that there was no change in the official position of Tehran on Jammu and Kashmir that the situation in the state was an internal matter of India.

They said India continues to monitor the developments in the matter.

India summons Iran envoy to protest remarks on Kashmir
New Delhi, Nov 19 (PTI)

Posted in Current AffairsComments (9)

Marking the three regions of the Indian state ...

World and UN still consider Kashmir an international dispute

Marking the three regions of the Indian state ...
Image via Wikipedia

UNITED NATIONS – The United Nations Tuesday set the record straight when it declared that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains on the UN Security Council’s agenda, while rejecting as “inaccurate” that it has been removed from the list of unresolved issues.

“Some articles today on Kashmir are inaccurate,” UN Spokesman Farhan Haq said, referring to those reports, especially in Indian media.
He said the latest list of matters the Security Council is seized of “continues to include the agenda item under which the Council has taken up Kashmir which, by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year,” the spokesman added.

Earlier, a spokesman for the Pakistan Mission clarified that Pakistan’s Acting Ambassador Amjad Hussain Sial, in his speech to the General Assembly on Friday, November 12, had referred to the omission of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a statement by the President of the Security Council, and not from the Council’s Annual Report – as reported in a section of press.

“The agenda item entitled, ‘India and Pakistan Question’, which covers Jammu and Kashmir dispute, is duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security Council and is also present on its agenda,” Spokesman Mian Jehangir Iqbal said in a statement.

In his statement, the 15-member Council’s President for the current month, British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, while presenting the Annual Report to the 192-member assembly, did not mention the Kashmir dispute in the context of unresolved long-running situations, despite the fact decades-old issue is included in the Annual Report.

“We understand this was an inadvertent omission, as Jammu and Kashmir is one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council,” Ambassador Sial remarked, after Ambassador Grant’s statem-ent.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s UN Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon, who is on a visit to Pakistan, said there was no question of the Kashmir issue being dropped from the Council’s agenda. “The Security Council Report in its annexure is explicit,” he said in a statement.

“The President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of the UK, is amply clear on the subject and is cognizant of the matter. I would request all concerned not to speculate unnecessarily upon the subject”.

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

Kashmir Azadi Conference

The slogans for Azadi

Geelani Part 1

Geelani Part 2

Aurandhati Roy exceprts

Repeat of Roy–different sections 4 mins only

 

Posted in Current AffairsComments (3)

Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf: India responsible for terror in Pakistan

Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf.
Image via Wikipedia
  • India is creating anti Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan
  • Delhi is involved in many such activities which are against the sovereignty of Pakistan
  • The Balochistan security conditions are also being targeted by India.
  • Indian consulates  in Jalal Abad and Kandahar Afghanistan are being used for anti Pakistan activities
  • There is no existence of Taliban Shura.

Former President Gen (Retd)  Pervaiz Musharraf has said that India is responsible for the worst security conditions in Pakistan and there are proofs to back to this claim

While addressing to Atlantic Council think-tank in Washington former president said that India is behind the worst security conditions in Pakistan and we have solid evidence backing this statement. He said that our atomic Bomb is known as Islamic bomb then why Indian bomb is not called Hindu bomb and why Israel’s bomb is not called Jewish bomb.

He further said that Drone technology is very useful and if this is given to Pakistan better results can be achieved , he said that extremism should be dealt seriously and said that the Lashkar –e-Taiba and Jaish Mohammad are living in the occupied Kashmir and have sympathies of certain group of people.

Sharing his views with the think tank Atlanta council in Washington the former President said that the financial conditions were far better and the country was moving towards prosperity during his reign but things are getting worse day by day in the present times.

He said that India is creating anti Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan and is involved in many such activities which are against the sovereignty of Pakistan and the Balochistan security conditions are also being targeted by India.

He informed the council that Indian consulates are present in Jalal Abad and Kandahar in Afghanistan which are being used for anti Pakistan activities and there is no existence of Taliban Shura.

Musharraf also acknowledged and appreciated the rehabilitation and reconstruction services which were performed by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa after the Oct 8 earthquake and the recent floods .

He said President Obama should have discussed the Kashmir issue in detail with the Indians because it is essential to maintain peace between both the countries. He further said that President Obama should have visited Pakistan to see the flood affected areas and the rehabilitation work being done there during his Asian visit.

He further said that Pakistan should not solely be blamed for not maintaining peace and security America and Afghanistan are equally to be blamed for its failure .

Former President said that he will return to Pakistan and play his part in the politics of the country. He further elaborated that during his tenure Pakistan and India came very close to a settlement and important dialogues took place regarding Sir Creek and Siachen glacier and Indian President Manmohan Singh was invited to Pakistan to sign these documents which he declined because of the security reasons and opposition. India broke all ties after the Mumbai attacks but now its again been initiated which is a good sign both countries should resolve their issues through dialogue. Nation. India responsible for deteriorating situation in Pakistan: Musharraf.

Related articles

Posted in Current AffairsComments (4)

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - Paris Air Show 2009

Boeings, Bharat's bullying vs. Kashmiri boiled eggs: Arundhati Roy

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - Paris Air Show 2009

Image via Wikipedia

Boeing has blood on its hands. The lure of a few billion Dollars lets President Obama to ignore the suffering of millions of Kashmiris. This criminal negligence will not be forgotten by the world. All that talk about “Change that we can believe in” and his campaign promises have been dumped, ostensibly for business contracts. Actually that too is not true. The Saudis recently signed a $60 billion contact to buy US planes. The Gulf states are purchasing $120 billion of American arms. But Obama ignores them and hundreds of thousands of jobs the Arabs create for America.  He does remind the world that the $10 billion will create this that and the other. It is pedagogical to note that the US spend $10 billion in a few days in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan would save the US $1 Trillion by allowing it a face saving exit from Afghanistan. However that would be eulogizing the wrong country. By Obama’s calculations, that would create millions of US jobs.

The Kerry Lugar Bill forces the US government to spend half of the $7.5 billion on US contractors. That we suppose would create about 25,000 jobs. 25% of the 7.5 billion is spent on US Administrative expenses. How many jobs does that create? All that is hidden under the cloak of US Aid, very little of which actually reaches the victims of the drone bombings–30,000 Pakistanis dead. What is the price on their heads?

There are few in today’s Bharat that can remind Obama that his disastrous blunders in Delhi will have long term repercussions on millions of incarcerated Kashmiris–100,000 of whom have given their lives for freedom–freedom to get away from Bharat—and freedom to live in Pakistan. More than a million troops hold the Kashmiris hostage to the concepts of Greater Bharat (Akhand Bharat).

A few confused Kashmiris want to convert Kashmir into another Sikkim to be taken over by Delhi at a later date. Most Kashmiris want freedom.

Arundhati Roy is Bharat‘s (aka India’s ) conscience. She is a good human being and a fantastic human rights activists. The Bajrang Dal and the BJP are after her blood. She has written another brilliant article about Bharat’s illegal occupation of Kashmir, which was published in the New York Times today. It is poignant, sharp and prodigious in its insight and its descriptions. We are scared for the life of Arundhati Roy. The Hinduists extremists are after here. Those who ignore her advice and those who contemplate violence against her are the worst of the worst. May God give us a long and prosperous life.

A WEEK before he was elected in 2008, President Obama said that solving the dispute over Kashmir’s struggle for self-determination — which has led to three wars between India and Pakistan since 1947 — would be among his “critical tasks.” His remarks were greeted with consternation in India, and he has said almost nothing about Kashmir since then.

But on Monday, during his visit here, he pleased his hosts immensely by saying the United States would not intervene in Kashmir and announcing his support for India’s seat on the United Nations Security Council. While he spoke eloquently about threats of terrorism, he kept quiet about human rights abuses in Kashmir.

Whether Mr. Obama decides to change his position on Kashmir again depends on several factors: how the war in Afghanistan is going, how much help the United States needs from Pakistan and whether the government of India goes aircraft shopping this winter. (An order for 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, worth $5.8 billion, among other huge business deals in the pipeline, may ensure the president’s silence.) But neither Mr. Obama’s silence nor his intervention is likely to make the people in Kashmir drop the stones in their hands.

I was in Kashmir 10 days ago, in that beautiful valley on the Pakistani border, home to three great civilizations — Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist. It’s a valley of myth and history. Some believe that Jesus died there; others that Moses went there to find the lost tribe. Millions worship at the Hazratbal shrine, where a few days a year a hair of the Prophet Muhammad is displayed to believers.

Now Kashmir, caught between the influence of militant Islam from Pakistan and Afghanistan, America’s interests in the region and Indian nationalism (which is becoming increasingly aggressive and “Hinduized”), is considered a nuclear flash point. It is patrolled by more than half a million soldiers and has become the most highly militarized zone in the world.

The atmosphere on the highway between Kashmir’s capital, Srinagar, and my destination, the little apple town of Shopian in the south, was tense. Groups of soldiers were deployed along the highway, in the orchards, in the fields, on the rooftops and outside shops in the little market squares. Despite months of curfew, the “stone pelters” calling for “azadi” (freedom), inspired by the Palestinian intifada, were out again. Some stretches of the highway were covered with so many of these stones that you needed an S.U.V. to drive over them.

Fortunately the friends I was with knew alternative routes down the back lanes and village roads. The “longcut” gave me the time to listen to their stories of this year’s uprising. The youngest, still a boy, told us that when three of his friends were arrested for throwing stones, the police pulled out their fingernails — every nail, on both hands.

For three years in a row now, Kashmiris have been in the streets, protesting what they see as India’s violent occupation. But the militant uprising against the Indian government that began with the support of Pakistan 20 years ago is in retreat. The Indian Army estimates that there are fewer than 500 militants operating in the Kashmir Valley today. The war has left 70,000 dead and tens of thousands debilitated by torture. Many, many thousands have “disappeared.” More than 200,000 Kashmiri Hindus have fled the valley. Though the number of militants has come down, the number of Indian soldiers deployed remains undiminished.

But India’s military domination ought not to be confused with a political victory. Ordinary people armed with nothing but their fury have risen up against the Indian security forces. A whole generation of young people who have grown up in a grid of checkpoints, bunkers, army camps and interrogation centers, whose childhood was spent witnessing “catch and kill” operations, whose imaginations are imbued with spies, informers, “unidentified gunmen,” intelligence operatives and rigged elections, has lost its patience as well as its fear. With an almost mad courage, Kashmir’s young have faced down armed soldiers and taken back their streets.

Since April, when the army killed three civilians and then passed them off as “terrorists,” masked stone throwers, most of them students, have brought life in Kashmir to a grinding halt. The Indian government has retaliated with bullets, curfew and censorship. Just in the last few months, 111 people have been killed, most of them teenagers; more than 3,000 have been wounded and 1,000 arrested.

But still they come out, the young, and throw stones. They don’t seem to have leaders or belong to a political party. They represent themselves. And suddenly the second-largest standing army in the world doesn’t quite know what to do. The Indian government doesn’t know whom to negotiate with. And many Indians are slowly realizing they have been lied to for decades. The once solid consensus on Kashmir suddenly seems a little fragile.

I WAS in a bit of trouble the morning we drove to Shopian. A few days earlier, at a public meeting in Delhi, I said that Kashmir was disputed territory and, contrary to the Indian government’s claims, it couldn’t be called an “integral” part of India. Outraged politicians and news anchors demanded that I be arrested for sedition. The government, terrified of being seen as “soft,” issued threatening statements, and the situation escalated. Day after day, on prime-time news, I was being called a traitor, a white-collar terrorist and several other names reserved for insubordinate women. But sitting in that car on the road to Shopian, listening to my friends, I could not bring myself to regret what I had said in Delhi.

We were on our way to visit a man called Shakeel Ahmed Ahangar. The previous day he had come all the way to Srinagar, where I had been staying, to press me, with an urgency that was hard to ignore, to visit Shopian.

I first met Shakeel in June 2009, only a few weeks after the bodies of Nilofar, his 22-year-old wife, and Asiya, his 17-year-old sister, were found lying a thousand yards apart in a shallow stream in a high-security zone — a floodlit area between army and state police camps. The first postmortem report confirmed rape and murder. But then the system kicked in. New autopsy reports overturned the initial findings and, after the ugly business of exhuming the bodies, rape was ruled out. It was declared that in both cases the cause of death was drowning. Protests shut Shopian down for 47 days, and the valley was convulsed with anger for months. Eventually it looked as though the Indian government had managed to defuse the crisis. But the anger over the killings has magnified the intensity of this year’s uprising.

Shakeel wanted us to visit him in Shopian because he was being threatened by the police for speaking out, and hoped our visit would demonstrate that people even outside of Kashmir were looking out for him, that he was not alone.

It was apple season in Kashmir and as we approached Shopian we could see families in their orchards, busily packing apples into wooden crates in the slanting afternoon light. I worried that a couple of the little red-cheeked children who looked so much like apples themselves might be crated by mistake. The news of our visit had preceded us, and a small knot of people were waiting on the road.

Shakeel’s house is on the edge of the graveyard where his wife and sister are buried. It was dark by the time we arrived, and there was a power failure. We sat in a semicircle around a lantern and listened to him tell the story we all knew so well. Other people entered the room. Other terrible stories poured out, ones that are not in human rights reports, stories about what happens to women who live in remote villages where there are more soldiers than civilians. Shakeel’s young son tumbled around in the darkness, moving from lap to lap. “Soon he’ll be old enough to understand what happened to his mother,” Shakeel said more than once.

Just when we rose to leave, a messenger arrived to say that Shakeel’s father-in-law — Nilofar’s father — was expecting us at his home. We sent our regrets; it was late and if we stayed longer it would be unsafe for us to drive back.

Minutes after we said goodbye and crammed ourselves into the car, a friend’s phone rang. It was a journalist colleague of his with news for me: “The police are typing up the warrant. She’s going to be arrested tonight.” We drove in silence for a while, past truck after truck being loaded with apples. “It’s unlikely,” my friend said finally. “It’s just psy-ops.”

But then, as we picked up speed on the highway, we were overtaken by a car full of men waving us down. Two men on a motorcycle asked our driver to pull over. I steeled myself for what was coming. A man appeared at the car window. He had slanting emerald eyes and a salt-and-pepper beard that went halfway down his chest. He introduced himself as Abdul Hai, father of the murdered Nilofar.

“How could I let you go without your apples?” he said. The bikers started loading two crates of apples into the back of our car. Then Abdul Hai reached into the pockets of his worn brown cloak, and brought out an egg. He placed it in my palm and folded my fingers over it. And then he placed another in my other hand. The eggs were still warm. “God bless and keep you,” he said, and walked away into the dark. What greater reward could a writer want?

I wasn’t arrested that night. Instead, in what is becoming a common political strategy, officials outsourced their displeasure to the mob. A few days after I returned home, the women’s wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (the right-wing Hindu nationalist opposition) staged a demonstration outside my house, calling for my arrest. Television vans arrived in advance to broadcast the event live. The murderous Bajrang Dal, a militant Hindu group that, in 2002, spearheaded attacks against Muslims in Gujarat in which more than a thousand people were killed, have announced that they are going to “fix” me with all the means at their disposal, including by filing criminal charges against me in different courts across the country.

Indian nationalists and the government seem to believe that they can fortify their idea of a resurgent India with a combination of bullying and Boeing airplanes. But they don’t understand the subversive strength of warm, boiled eggs. Kashmir’s Fruits of Discord By ARUNDHATI ROY New Delhi

Arundhati Roy is the author of the novel “The God of Small Things” and, most recently, the essay collection “Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers.”

Posted in Current AffairsComments (1)

Pakistan slams US 'politics of expediency' on UNSC

Peeved over the backing of the U.S. for India’s quest for a permanent UNSC berth, the Pakistan government on slammed Washington over the move, claiming it would have “implications” for peace and stability in South Asia.

The government on Wednesday afternoon expressed its opposition to U.S. President Barack Obama’s endorsement for India’s efforts to gain a seat at the high table during a meeting of the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

The cabinet said “politics of expediency” should not be allowed to decide the future of the international order.

“The cabinet expressed its serious concern and strong disappointment on the decision of the United States to support a permanent seat for India on the U.N. Security Council,” said a statement issued by the Foreign Office following the meeting.

“This decision has grave ramifications for the direction and prospects of the system of multilateral cooperation as envisaged by the founding fathers of the U.N. Charter.

“It also has implications for peace and security and stability in Asia, particularly South Asia,” the statement said.

The cabinet claimed it was “incomprehensible that the U.S. has sought to support India, whose credentials with respect to observing the U.N. Charter principles and international law are at best chequered”.

As an instance, the cabinet cited what it described as India’s “disregard of Security Council Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir and gross and systematic violations of the fundamental human rights of the Kashmiri people”.

The Pakistan government claimed the future of the U.N. and of “succeeding generations cannot and must not be premised on considerations of power politics, politics of expediency, bereft of morals and ideals, which must be the guiding spirit for an enlightened international order”.

The cabinet contended that Pakistan, “along with a large number of members of the international community,” wanted “principled” reforms of the Security Council.

“This process should be based on respect for the cardinal principles of the U.N. Charter, including the principle of sovereign equality of states,” the statement said.

The Pakistan government, especially the Foreign Office, has been rattled by Mr. Obama’s remarks backing India’s bid for permanent membership of the U.N.’s most important decision-making body.

Shortly after Mr. Obama announced his support during a speech to the Indian parliament on Monday, U.S. envoy Cameron Munter was called to the Foreign Office, where Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir conveyed Islamabad’s disappointment at the development.

Mr. Bashir told the U.S. envoy that the move would have “serious repercussions” for South Asia and reforms of the U.N., Pakistani sources told PTI.

Mr. Bashir also reiterated Pakistan’s publicly stated position that the U.S. appeared to have acted “out of expediency of power politics” while setting aside India’s position on the Kashmir dispute and “violations” of Security Council resolutions on this issue, the sources said.

Pakistan’s military leadership, the driving force behind the country’s foreign policy, is expected to take up the same concerns with Gen. David Patraeus, the commander of the U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, when he visits Islamabad on November 12, the sources said. Hindu.

Keywords: India’s UNSC bid, Barack Obama, U.S. backing, U.N reform

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

United Nations Security Council

India in UNSC is 'incomprehensible': Delhi shouldn't hold its breath

United Nations Security Council

Image by Amit Chattopadhyay via Flickr

  • India in UNSC: Pakistan says it is “incomprehensible” given New Delhi‘s policies toward the disputed Kashmir region.
  • U.N. Security Council, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley poured cold water on any expectation of New Delhi’s elevation anytime soon.
  • China has not publicly backed India’s claim — and it will certainly be encouraged to do so by its long-standing ally, Pakistan, which cites what it says are India’s continued violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions over Kashmir as grounds for exclusion.
  • Everybody supports reforming the Security Council to expand the P5, but agreeing on a list of new veto wielders will take many years — and a lot of big-ticket horse-trading

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan‘s government criticized American support for India’s attempts to get a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, saying Wednesday it was “incomprehensible” given New Delhi‘s policies toward the disputed Kashmir region.

Pakistan and India are regional rivals who have fought three wars since 1947, two over Kashmir. Relations between the two nuclear-armed nations continue to be marked by distrust. Neither likes anything that increases the standing and power of the other.

President Barack Obama said Monday that America would support Security Council reforms that would include a permanent seat for India. He made the remarks at the end of a three-day visit to India that confirmed its status as a rising global power – a sharp contrast to Pakistan’s reputation as an unstable, militancy-wracked nation.

Pakistan’s government expressed “strong disappointment” at Obama’s support in a statement released after a Cabinet meeting.

“It is incomprehensible that the U.S. has sought to support India, whose credentials with respect to observing U.N. Charter principles and international law are at best checkered,” it said, alleging India was carrying out human rights violations in Kashmir and had ignored earlier U.N. resolutions on the region.

U.S. support for New Delhi does not mean it will join the five permanent Security Council members anytime soon.

For India to join, the council would have be radically reformed, something that could take years. Pakistan criticizes US support for Indian UN seat. The Associated Press. Wednesday, November 10, 2010; 10:13 AM

Time Magazine says it succinctly and prolifically.

U.N. Security Council, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley poured cold water on any expectation of New Delhi’s elevation anytime soon. “we have to recognize … this is a process that has been going on for some time, and it is a process through which we must consult with others within the U.N. and within the Security Council.” In other words, India, don’t hold your breath.

The five permanent members, or P5, of the Security Council — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — not only get to stay on when the other 10 members are rotated out every two years for replacements elected from their region, they hold the coveted veto power that allows them to nix any decisions on questions of war, peace and security that are not to their liking. That veto power has certainly helped sustain the illusion of superpower relevance for Britain and France, which have long since fallen by the wayside by measure of military strength — indeed, they had better hope nobody noticed their agreement last week to pool much of their defense capability, lest it be suggested that their two permanent Security Council seats be consolidated into one. It has also proven useful to a country like Israel, on whose behalf the U.S. has regularly intervened to block critical U.N. resolutions. Given the power that attaches to a permanent seat on the Security Council, then, it’s not hard to see why some of the incumbents are not exactly enthusiastic about sharing their status with anyone but their closest allies.

The P5 attained their status at the U.N.’s creation a half-century ago, on the basis of having been ostensibly the five key nations allied against the Axis powers in World War II. But Britain and France were drastically diminished colonial powers holding desperately to the last remnants of empire in Africa and Asia. Still, within two decades, each of the permanent five had all burnished their veto power in the real world by building nuclear weapons, becoming the original nuclear club years before India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea followed suit.

It’s plain to see, though, that the makeup of the permanent five no longer accurately reflects the global balance of power, and the 21st century distribution of responsibility for keeping the peace — which, after all, is the primary function of the U.N. Countries such as India, Brazil and Turkey are emerging as major economic powerhouses with the capacity to play a far larger strategic role in their regions than some of those currently in the P5, while Germany and Japan have long claimed the same status. It has also long been suggested that one of Africa’s more powerful countries, such as Nigeria or South Africa, will do the same on the mother continent. So talk of enlarging the P5 has been around for years.

President Obama’s nomination of India underscores precisely why Security Council reform may be years away. Washington is making no secret of the fact that it is promoting a greater strategic role for India, a democratic ally, in response to China’s growing regional ambitions. China may beg to differ — it is the only permanent member that has not publicly backed India’s claim — and it will certainly be encouraged to do so by its long-standing ally, Pakistan, which cites what it says are India’s continued violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions over Kashmir as grounds for exclusion. China has also opposed any move to elevate its old enemy, Japan, into permanent membership. Although Brazil’s efforts to join the permanent five were thought to have suffered in the U.S. and France as a result of its opposition, along with Turkey’s, to sanctions against Iran, Britain on Tuesday reiterated its support for Brazilian membership, expressly talking of strengthening its own ties with Latin America. And France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, for similar reasons, is pressing for an African seat.

Those powers currently holding permanent seats certainly want help in policing the world, but each will be looking to safeguard their own strategic interests in the course of any expansion of the P5. And in a world where geopolitical rivalry is intensifying, that’s a recipe for deadlock. Everybody supports reforming the Security Council to expand the P5, but agreeing on a list of new veto wielders will take many years — and a lot of big-ticket horse-trading. Time Magazine. — With reporting by Rania Abouzeid / Islamabad, Hannah Beech / Shanghai and Andrew Downie / Brazil

Posted in Current AffairsComments (4)

Categories

Archives