PPP Welcomes the initiation of Dialogue between India and Pakistan

Srinagar (IOK), January 19, 2011: People’s Political Party (PPP), Chairman, Hilal Ahmad War, said, “We welcome the initiation of dialogue between India and Pakistan .He further said PPP is not averse to talks but the talks should be meaningful and result oriented. To make talks on the different Issues including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir a success, there should be no pre-condition from both sides. Dialogue between India and Pakistan to create mutual trust and understanding is indispensably paramount and this is an important step towards the stability and peace of this South Asian Region which will ultimately pave the way for resolution of Kashmir dispute. “India must not forget that Kashmir is the gateway to Peace, said, War”.

In response to India’s offer to Pakistan, People’s Political Party (PPP) has urged Pakistan to hold meaningful and result oriented dialogue with India ensuring that Kashmir is on top of the agenda. Commenting on India’s talk’s offers to Pakistan, PPP Chief, Hilal Ahmad War said Pakistan should stick to its stance that talks with India should not be confined to economic issues only. India, he said is trying with its best to pressurize Pakistan for not insisting on inclusion of Kashmir in the agenda of proposed dialogue. It is an attempt on the part of India and its international supporters to help India get out of present embarrassing situation in Kashmir.Mr. War said that Kashmiris had made a lot of sacrifices for the resolution of Kashmir but India always used talks as ploy to ward off the pressure.

He said whenever there is international pressure on Kashmir issue to avoid any eventuality of nuclear confrontation in South Asia, India makes talks offer to Kashmiris just to neutralize the situation. “It is in fact the international pressure that has got mounted on India and they just want to diffuse it by staging a drama in the name of talks to give an impression to the world community that it is engaged in a dialogue with Pakistan or with one section of favourite Kashmiri leadership on Kashmir”, he said. Under given circumstances, Pakistan should ensure that Kashmir is on the top of the Agenda”.

Mr. War urged the Government of Pakistan to formulate a Kashmir Policy in accordance with the letter and spirit of Shaheed Z.A.Bhutto's Kashmir Policy. He  disfavoured and disapproved the proposed idea of showing any flexibility by government of Pakistan with regard to settlement of Kashmir Dispute as such a flexibility is bound to cause a irreparable damage to Kashmir Cause and shall affect Kashmir Liberation Movement which has so far taken heaviest toll of life, honour and property in entire J & K State.

Observe January 26, ‘A Black Day’: Hilal War

SRINAGAR (IHK), January 09, 2011: The Chairman of  People’s Political Party ( PPP), Hilal Ahmad War , has appealed the general masses of Kashmir  to observe January 26, Indian Republic Day as ‘Black Day’ and convey a message to the International Community that people of Kashmir are struggling for the attainment of right to self-determination as enshrined in UN Charter.

Mr. War  in a statement  said ,every Kashmiri will observe January 26, a ‘black day’ as a mark of protest against the continued denial of Kashmiris’ right to self-determination which  is contrary to its claim of being a democratic republic and against ongoing human rights violation in the Valley . War said we have appealed the people of Kashmir to observe a 26 January a Black Day in order to remind the Indian leadership and the world community that the presence of Indian Occupational Forces in Jammu and Kashmir is illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional is clear violation of United Nations Charter as well as U.N. Plebiscite Resolutions passed by U.N.O. Therefore, by no law all over the world or morals can justify their presence in Jammu and Kashmir Nation be justified.

PPP Chief said, “we believe that Pak-India peace needs a boost and participation of Kashmiri leadership within and without Hurriyat Conference in any result-oriented dialogue process is a must. He said, “There are political parties in the entire J&K State with conflicting ideologies and stands regarding Kashmir Issue. Therefore, no person, party or conglomerate of diverse ideologies can be recognized as political attorney of the common man of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole”.

He, however, said that before initiating talks, India should create conducive atmosphere by taking steps like demilitarisation, repeal of black laws, put an end to human rights violations in the occupied territory and release all illegally detained youth, pro-freedom leaders and activists.

India must not forget the issue of Jammu and Kashmir has assumed the shape of an International Conflict ,therefore, the intervention of superpower nations like United States of American and China is unavoidable and in accordance with golden principles of United Nations Charter in order to maintain International Peace and Security . These powerful Nations including European Union knew that the gateway of World Peace is the resolution of Kashmir Tangle. The PPP Chairman said that the international community had accepted that the Kashmir dispute was the main hurdle in cordial relations between New Delhi and Islamabad and its amicable settlement could bring peace in the region in particular and world in General.

Passport issue of Shaukat Kashmiri: Dr Shabir Choudhry

Sardar Shaukat Kashmiri is a nationalist leader who is always surrounded by controversies. He is among those leaders who have seriously challenged the status quo in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. He has suffered for his politics and sad thing is that, like many others he is accused of being an ‘Indian agent’.

Many people ask me to stay away from him because, in their view, Shaukat Kashmiri is pursuing an Indian agenda and regularly receives hefty amount of money from India, which he distributes to his party members in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. When I ask them for some evidence in support of this serious allegation they produce none; but still urge me to trust them.

Making silly allegations and calling political opponents agent of one country or the other is part of political culture of Pakistan and Kashmir. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is occupied by three countries and they all don’t want to vacate any part of the State, if anything, they want more Kashmiri territory.

Like India and China, Pakistan also wants to maintain its control over the parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir not legally taken over by them. New Delhi is responsible for human rights abuses in Kashmir, but to lesser extent, Islamabad is also directly responsible for human rights abuses; and also responsible for suffering of the people on both sides of the divide by perpetuating the dispute and by ensuring that the status quo is maintained.

Yet those Kashmiris who receive large amounts of funds to advance a Pakistani agenda on Kashmir are considered as loyal, and they feel proud to be ‘soldiers’ of Pakistan. They openly say they want to be part of Pakistan. But those leaders who are accused of being ‘Indian agents’ never say they are ‘soldiers’ of India or that they want to become part of India; and yet they are accused even though there is not a shred of evidence against them.

This double standard must stop, and culprits of this policy must be opposed by all those who believe in equality, freedom of speech and freedom of political activity. If right of free speech taken away from a society, then slowly but surely that society becomes a totalitarian society with no civil rights.

Shaukat Kashmiri was arrested by secret agencies of Pakistan in 1992 and in 1998. Even at that time allegation was that he had contacts with the secret agencies of India. On both occasions, despite solitary imprisonment and torture, Pakistani secret agencies could not prove a shred of evidence against him; but the rumour mill was churning out lies and propaganda against him. On both occasions he was released without any charges.

Those who didn’t like Shaukat Kashmiri and his politics needed no more evidence, to them mere arrest by the ISI was sufficient to prove that Shaukat Kashmiri was guilty. Those who arrested him and those who were making wild allegations against him were not asked to provide any evidence, onus was put on the accused to prove that he was not guilty – what a justice.

My colleagues and I opposed Pakistani sponsored ‘jihad’ and extremism in Kashmir in mid 1990s, but we did that from safety of London and Geneva. Despite that Pakistani agencies and ‘Jihadi’ groups opposed us tooth and nail; and in some cases issued warnings of death and severe punishment. I was and still am subject of verbal abuse and threatening phone calls.

Shaukat Kashmiri, on the other hand, started exposing Pakistani policy on Kashmir in 1992, while he was still living in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, where he was vulnerable and did not have a large following or international contacts which could have been of some help to him during difficult times.

Of course he was guilty – guilty of openly declaring that militancy in Kashmir was a ‘proxy war of Pakistan’, which was designed to ‘bleed India’ and not to liberate Kashmir. He said it was not ‘jihad’, as the aim of sponsors of militancy and the JKLF leadership was to communalise the Kashmiri struggle and divide people in name of religion.

To say such things at that time, and from position of vulnerability, it was tantamount to signing a death warrant for himself and his colleagues. Instead of getting compliments for his vision and courage he is getting criticism and unfounded allegations.

Now in 2010, Shaukat Kashmiri faces a different kind of allegations. Many in position of authority and some political activists claim that he has compromised his ideology and his political stand. This time, according to rumours, he has met the ISI and made some compromise.

If that was true, then why he and his family is denied passports that they could visit their family and friends in Pakistani Administered Kashmir? This denial is clearly human rights issue, as Shaukat Kashmir and his family have every right to travel to their motherland and meet their relatives and friends; and Pakistani government is in breach of this fundamental right and obligations it assumed under the UNCIP Resolutions.

During KNP Study Tour of Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistani Administered Kashmir in October, one political activist said to me: Your friend Shaukat Kashmiri has made a compromise with Pakistan. He has compromised his ideology and political stand.

I said to him, if that was the case then why Pakistani authorities are not issuing passport to him and his family. His claim was that because his deal was with the army or more appropriately with the GOC Murree, and the ISI didn’t like that. Both GOC Murree (military commander stationed in Murree who wields exceptional powers in affairs of Pakistani Administered Kashmir) and the ISI are in direct competition in controlling affairs of this territory. According to him, ISI officers also met Shaukat Kashmir, but they could not reach any agreement; and his subsequent deal with representatives of the GOC Murree have annoyed the ISI; and it was because of that he is having problems with the passports.

To me and many other thinking Kashmiris, this is another propaganda campaign against a nationalist leader and a loyal son of soil. Shaukat Kashmiri is a pro Kashmir leader; and like me and many others, openly oppose forces of extremism, communalism and hatred, and that appears to be his real crime. As a Kashmiri, he doesn’t have to be pro or anti any country, but he has every right to promote a Kashmiri interest; and he must not be punished for this.

It is advisable that Pakistani authorities issue passports to him and his family, as that is their right. By denying what they are entitled to Pakistani authorities are not going to win their hearts; but it is possible that their unreasonable and illogical action might generate anti Pakistan feelings among some other Kashmiris.

Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Kashmiri Journalist filed a Case against Government for the denial of Passport.

Srinagar: Jammu and Kashmir High Court (HC) has issued notices to State Government, Police and Secretary, Union Home Affairs and Regional Passport Officer (RPO) on a petition filed by Ajaz Ahmad War, a journalist by profession, seeking direction to respondents to issue passport to him. 

A single bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Hussnain Masoodi today directed the respondents to file objections with two weeks against the petition. 

Mr War, in the petition filed by his lawyer M. Aijaz today, alleged that he has applied for an International passport on February 27, 2008 and deposited Rs 1000. 

He said after the issuance of the passport was delayed abnormally he made a representation to the Chief Minister who directed the Additional Director General of police, CID, for immediate action as per existing policy and also to intimate the action taken in the matter. 

The petition alleged that nothing happened in the matter as a consequence thereof he approached different authorities and also asked for a report under RTI Act. 

The petition said that the CID department in its reply to Chief

Minister on January 9, this year alleged that Mr Aijaz was brother of Hilal Ahmad War, Chairman of the Peoples Political Party (PPP) and Jameel Ahmad War, a pro-freedom leader .CID department has written in its reply that Jameel Ahmad War is the close associate of Syed Ali Shah Gilani and Syed Salahuddin which is one of the reasons of the denial of passport to Ajaz Ahmad War. 

The department declared him a threat to security and warned that separatists may use his visit for anti national activities. 

However, the department said that he himself was not involved in any anti national activities. Finally the Public Information Officer, Police headquarter communicated to the petitioner through a letter that as per the existing guidelines the issuance of passport to the petitioner is denied. 

However, the petitioner approached the First Appellate Authority by virtue of a representation that in the light of the norms

guidelines issued by the Chief Minister that if a relation of an applicant is involved in any anti-social or anti-national activity and the applicant is not directly involved cannot be denied the passport.

The appellate Authority acceded to the request of the applicant and communicated to IGP, CID, to consider my case for the issue of passport. 

However, the IGP CID declined to clear the name of the petitioner

for issuance of the passport. 

Mr War prayed for direction to concerned authorities for issuance

of passport to him.

The notices were accepted by Additional Solicitor General of  India on behalf of secretary union home affairs and RPO, Srinagar and Additional Advocate General for state government, IGP, CID and Senior Superintendent of Police headquarters.

CAN PAKISTAN PRODUCE ONE ARUNDHATI ROY TO SPEAK TRUTH: DR SHABIR CHOUDHRY

Arundhati Roy, a famous Indian writer and human rights activist has, once again, made headlines and won minds and hearts of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. She said what she believed – Kashmir is not legally part of India.Kashmir is not part of Pakistan either, although both countries control State of Jammu and Kashmir and have no desire to relinquish their control over these areas.

There is demand in some parts of India that Arundhati Roy should be charged for ‘sedition’. But there are many rational people who support her. Alok Tiwari, a prominent Indian journalist wrote in her defence that what she said was ‘definitely against the government line on Kashmir. It was also against the popular opinion. Mercifully, there is no law that obligates us to toe the government or popular line. Going against it is dissent, not sedition; and democracies thrive on dissent. They do not shun it.’

India claims to be the biggest democracy on earth, and that democracy is alive and kicking, at least, in India, if not in Jammu and Kashmir. Demand of a genuine democracy is that people must be allowed to express their views without fear or intimidation; and Arundhati Roy is an Indian citizen, and at least, she should be entitled to enjoy fruits of democracy. Alok Tiwari further writes:

‘Freedom in a society is tested by its tolerance of what most of its members consider offensive. Freedom to say goody-goody thing is actually no freedom. If we assert before the world that Kashmiris in India are living in freedom, it means even those Kashmiris who would rather not be part of India. They have as much right to air their opinion as the rest of us have to assert Kashmir is an integral part of India. If we find Geelani’s ideas offensive then let us come up with better ideas to counter them.’

It is best for government of India to resolve the Kashmir dispute rather than charge all those who express their disagreement on Kashmirpolicy of government of India. The Kashmir dispute is real. It will not go away by closing eyes; or by using force.

In Kashmir there is a strong resentment against what Indian government do there; and that anger and sense of alienation will not go away by continuation of the present policies. The government of India has to come out with a new policy and new approach and satisfy demands of the people, as policy of gun and bullet cannot win minds and hearts of the people.

Arundhati Roy is brave and honest in her assertions on Kashmir. She had courage to say that India’s claim on Kashmir is not correct; and is against popular will of the people of Kashmir. She said all that even though Jammu and Kashmir ‘provisionally’ acceded to India; andIndia’s claim on Kashmir rests on that ‘accession’.

That ‘provisional accession’ had to be ratified by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and due to Pakistan’s refusal to withdraw troops from Kashmiri territory, as demanded by the UN Resolutions, conditions for a plebiscite could not be created to hold a referendum to test will of the people, hence the present forced division and suffering of the people on both sides of the LOC.

Despite India’s claim on Kashmir and its claim to democratic ideals, people like Arundhati Roy speak against India’s Kashmir policy. They tell government of India that hearts and minds of people could not be won with use of force. They tell the government that you cannot make people Indian by pulling their finger nails.

On the other hand Pakistan also occupies two parts of State of Jammu and Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, from which Pakistan generously gave away around 2200 sq miles to China in 1963 to improve bilateral relations. 

Pakistan has military strength to control the Kashmiri territory under its occupation, but has no legal cover to justify this occupation. It has no legal mandate to be in control of the Kashmiri territory, but still has managed to divert attention away from areas under its control and call them ‘azad’ meaning free; and many Kashmiri collaborators happily advance the cause of Pakistan.

Many in Pakistan, especially writers and scholars know shallowness of Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir. They also know that people of so called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are not happy with what Pakistan and its secret agencies do to the people of these areas; and yet they decide to remain quiet. Their conscience does not trouble them, and they follow the government policy on issue of Kashmir. They happily promote government’s version on Kashmir, knowing well that it is based on lies.

They know, as it has been confirmed by many impartial surveys that people of Jammu and Kashmir DONOT want to join Pakistan; and yet they broadcast lies that people of Jammu and Kashmir are desperate to join Pakistan. They are reluctant to speak about plight and exploitation of the people living under Pakistani occupation; and will only focus on events taking place on other side of the LOC.

Can Pakistani society produce one prominent writer, scholar and human rights champion who has guts to challenge Pakistan’s Kashmirpolicy; and tell the world that Pakistan’s control of Kashmiri territory is not legal? Someone who could tell the world people of Jammu and Kashmir State living on this side of the LOC are also deprived of their fundamental human rights. Or is this too much to ask, and Pakistani writers, intellectuals and scholars will continue to follow the out of date policy of Islamabad?

Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.