Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

J&K News and Discussion - 2016

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6082
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby CRamS » 27 Oct 2016 01:16

Guys, no need to give publicity to the usual traitors on DDM trying to among other things impress the "world" about their supposed "moral conscience" and "nuanced view" on the despicable desire among many KMs to secede and collude with pakis in terrorist acts and vandalism; but I see these traitors have been peddling Farooq Abdullah on their shows who is making brazen demands on ModiJi: talk to Harried scum, talk to TSP, or else valley is gone for ever. Is the situation in the valley as dire as he claims?

And what is repugnant about Farooq Abdullah's cry is that the root of the problem is the PDPs alliance with BJP and the KMs feel threatened. Its breath-taking honesty, but look at his gall, and he gives the game away: BJP and RSS have no right to contest in elections and aspire for power in Kashmir. Their very presence in the valley is anathema according to him and thats the root of the problem, and Wani's killing only provided the spark. My take is that this is the vilest form of politics. There is a conspiracy by NC, possibly Congoons, everybody opposed to BJP/RSS to use the unrest in the Kashmir valley as a way to first undo BJP there, and then elsewhere.

Dinesh S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 26 Sep 2016 20:41

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Dinesh S » 27 Oct 2016 03:45

One Day LoC Will Become The India Pakistan Border…: MJ Akbar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOXyG72Grn0&app=desktop

Wow. Pathetic. MJ akbar, bjp spokie is saying LOC will become IB on television. Does this mean bjp is going to pimp away PoK like they did with lands inside bangladesh without taking any concessions? Considering sangh and its activities so far, I won't be surprised if they did. So all their talk about balochis tan, PoK, not ceding an inch from india etc is just show? And these are the people who are supposedly nationalists in india. India is so screwed.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9195
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby arun » 27 Oct 2016 10:32

X Posted from the “Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013” thread.

UK Prime Minister Theresa Mary May answers a question by raised by Mohammadden UK Parliamentarian Yasmin Qureshi with origins in the Terrorist fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, by toeing India’s position that Jammu & Kashmir is strictly a bilateral matter between India and the Islamic Republic and no third party mediation will be permitted.

UK PM also rightly characterizes in the first line of her response that the accusations levelled by Yasmin Qureshi are Qureshi’s own.

Relevant excerpt From Hansard of 26 October 2016 (Clicky):

Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)

Q10. In Indian-occupied Kashmir over the past three months 150 people have died, 600 have been blinded by the deliberate use of pellet guns, and more than 16,000 injured, many critically. There have been unexplained disappearances and shortages of food and medicine. Will the Prime Minister meet me and cross-party colleagues to discuss the human rights abuses and the issue of self-determination for Kashmiri people, as was set out in the UN resolution in 1948? Will she raise the matter with the Indian Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Lady sets out her case and the issues that she has identified. I take the same view as this Government have taken since they came into power and previously, which is that the issue of Kashmir is a matter for India and Pakistan to deal with and sort out. The Foreign Secretary has heard her representations and I am sure will be interested in taking up those matters with her.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby wig » 02 Nov 2016 10:09

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/the-rheto ... -dialogue/

there are a few incisive and insightful articles on Jammu & Kashmir by distinguished authors in Jammu based newspapers.

The rhetoric of bilateral dialogue by Prof K N Pandita formerly, Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University

Valley leadership of all hues counsels New Delhi to hold bilateral dialogue with Pakistan for resolving outstanding disputes including Kashmir. Their advocacy is usually coated with victimhood phraseology like “we the poor Kashmiris get killed; we are faultless and we suffer; our economy is in shambles’ a pall of uncertainty looms large over our destiny” etc. Ironically, one time bravado of ethnic cleansing has now turned into cankerous sore of victimhood.
However, Kashmir leadership doesn’t make any such forthright supplication for dialogue to Pakistan. It means that according to them major fault lies with Delhi. Kashmir handlers of terrorists and traitors catch the first flight to New Delhi to talk to a visiting Pakistani VIP but they refused to meet and talk to Indian Parliamentarians who come almost begging at their doorsteps this summer.
We have marked that the counsel of this leadership, while urging New Delhi to initiate bilateral talks with Pakistan, also carries veiled warning like “Kashmir a nuclear flash point; Kashmir a powder keg; Kashmir a seething volcano etc.” The borrowed narrative has become central to their Kashmir tantrum.
The import of a plea like this is that innocent Kashmiris, being non-partisan, are made victims of political strife between two neighbouring countries which are at loggerheads for many decades. By making appeal for peaceful dialogue they want the world community to accord legitimacy to their feigned innocence.
In reality, how much innocent is this leadership? This question has to be answered. Their innocence lies in pushing the valley to four-month long hypocritical siege during which everything is paralyzed through mosque sermons and everything is activated through hypocrisy and guile. In simpler words, the people know the art of lionizing as well as befooling the seditionist leadership by responding to as well as circumventing their call.
For the seditionists, frequent call for bilateral dialogue serves more than one purpose. It equates the two belligerent countries in staking claim to Kashmir; it dilutes Indian Parliament’s 1994 unanimous resolution of retaking the illegally occupied PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan in 1947; it is a subtle step towards breaking status quo on Kashmir; it creates space for foreign powers to stimulate the process of “give and take”, which, in simpler idiom, means India making big concessions, and it kindles Pakistan’s anti-democracy agenda in tandem with China.
If Kashmiri separatists are sincere in playing the card of affinity with Pakistan on religious, cultural, geographical and other counts, they would have by now taken the initiative of crossing LoC and engaging leadership in Muzaffarabad and Islamabad in fruitful talks instead of hoping to make India the cat’s paw. The taste of pudding is in eating.
Sheikh Abdullah tried it in 1964. His son and grandson, both vociferous about bilateral dialogue, should analyze the reasons why the Sheikh had failed in his mission and why he never talked of bilateral talks. . Any fair and dispassionate analysis of that failure will bring them to the conclusion that President Ayub Khan of Pakistan had not recognized the Sheikh as the sole representative of the people of Jammu and Kashmir as Nehru did. Realpolitik and idealism are poles apart.
Therefore, if the Hurriyatis and secessionists— passionate about bilateral talks as they pretend to be — are disposed to make their initiative a success, they will have to carry with them a full team representing not only the three regions and sub-regions of the State but also its ethnic and cultural groups including the communities and groups extirpated from their birth places for dialogue with their Pakistani benefactors.. Peace talks have to be comprehensive and inclusive.
But the seditionists will not lead a delegation to PoK/Pakistan. They are apprehensive that their counterparts in Muzaffarabad and Islamabad will repeat to them what Maulavi Yusuf Shah, the Mirwaiz of Kashmir, banished by Sheikh Abdullah to PoK in 1948, had told a team of Kashmiri Muslim seniors who visited him when he became President of “Azad Kashmir”. Their interlocutors will tell them (of course only in private) to forget Pakistan and be happy with India.
How much innocent is the Kashmiri in this background, and how much sincerity is there in the rhetoric of bilateral dialogue profusely advocated by the valley leadership? It is thought provoking indeed.
Pakistan has three centres of power viz. “elected” government, army and Beijing. Protagonists of bilateral dialogue in the valley should identify which one of the three they want India to talk to.
If pro-dialogue Kashmir Valley leadership believes that dialogue is the solution then the simple logic is that it should first and foremost persuade militants to bid farewell to arms, renounce violence, agree to sit round a table and initiate talks with Srinagar and New Delhi. Immediate result of this initiative will be that security forces deployed to maintain law and order will go back to the barracks and atmosphere of dialogue will prevail.
Pontificating for bilateral dialogue without silencing guns in the hands of wanton killers and allowing atmosphere to remain vitiated cannot lead to any solution. If it is not hypocritical in suggesting bilateral talks, the Valley leadership should put its finger on the real causes of unrest in Kashmir. The accusing needle will point towards their selves only.
Many among pro-dialogue sermonizers say that domestic dialogue is part of bigger interaction and a component of conflict resolution process. Of course, they have some takers in Indian civil society and a select group in Indian media.
Recently, a five-member team of Indian civil society led by former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha was on two-day visit to the valley. The team met with the Hurriyatis besides a large number of stakeholders. Team leader said that they had come to “understand Kashmir crisis and share the pain of the people”.
Kashmir issue is talked about so profusely for last two decades that we now have an army of Kashmir experts without having read a single book of Kashmir history. In other words, commercialization of Kashmir issue has thrown up innumerable sellers, buyers, stockpilers and black-marketers of Kashmir commodity. This is the result of Pakistan’s wholesale effort of internationalizing Kashmir issue.
In the first place we need to ascertain the credentials of Yashwant Sinha’s so-called civil society team. We agree it was not a government sponsored team. But rank opportunists or people with suspected loyalties and murky antecedents cannot be genuine representatives of civil society to deal with a sensitive issues of immense national interests like Kashmir.
How come the Hurriyatis and seditionists in Kashmir declined to meet with the parliamentary delegation that had come to them almost begging but they readily agreed to meet the team civil society? Hurriyatis are not that naïve not to understand which side of their toast is buttered.
The former External Affairs Minister had come “to understand Kashmir issue”. It means that during his tenure as India’s foreign minister he had not understood that Kashmir seditionists and traitors want secession from India and accession to Pakistan. It is only now that he understands what they want. Therefore either this former foreign minister is telling a lie or he betrays his naiveté. It is difficult to speculate with what argument, a man with so poor a knowledge of Kashmir, will have countered the Hurriyatis.
The team says it came to share the pain of Kashmiris — a noble sentiment indeed. But why did the sentiment spring four months after the unrest began and about a hundred people lost their lives. Why three months after the parliamentary delegation’s failed visit did this group of civil society feel pleased to undertake the visit. Isn’t it that the seditionists as well as their sympathizers in the country have begun to understand that the patent blackmail had begun to boomerang on them and hence they look for face-saving?
About the “pain and sharing it”, did the team civil society ask Hurriyatis who and what is at the root of inflicting pain on Kashmiris? Did they understand that in the course of sharing the pain of Kashmiris, the Kashmiris torched 25th school building south as team civil society went on applying soothing balm on the pain? Whose pain was the team civil society sharing?
Who are the people really in pain in Kashmir? Are those fanatical groups in pain that come out on streets, rush on to attack police posts, throw stones at security forces, damage public and private property, torch school buildings, Panchayat houses, dispensaries etc. or the thousands of policemen who, while protecting public property, have been hit by stones and missiles hurled on them by the maddened crowds. Why the civil society team did not interact with the families of thousands of seriously injured policemen in the valley to share their pain.
Should not have the team shared the pain of the families of the minority community whose wards numbering about 1400 had been given petty jobs under PM’s package and posted to far-flung villages in Kashmir valley but were hounded out by the unruly mobs. They are now languishing in miserable condition in Jammu. Should not have the team shared the pain of thousands of families of internally displaced minority community ethnically cleansed in Kashmir and now living in exile in Jammu and other parts of the country for last twenty-seven years. We did not want the team to share their pain but we expected it to, at least, visit them once and hear their story of pain.
Should not have the team met with Ladakhis who feel not only discriminated against but also made hostages to the diktat of valley leadership for seven decades in the past. They have unanimously demanded Union Territory status for Ladakh. The team should have also met with the representatives of lakhs of refugees of 1947 tribal attacks who have not been given citizenship even after 68 years of migration.
We had never thought that the team civil society was so myopic as to think that J&K meant only the people of the city of Srinagar and nothing more. Had it interacted with various sections of people in the State it would have helped them realize how grave and phenomenal a situation has been created by militarization and radicalization of Kashmir. No patriotic person or leader will support the proposition of bilateral dialogue with Pakistan or with local dissidents in the background of what has been stated above. The real pain of Kashmiris is best explained in this verse of Mirza Ghalib:
Jata hun thori door har ik rahrav ke sath
Pahchanta nahin hun abhi rahbar ko main

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby wig » 02 Nov 2016 10:13

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/unfair-pl ... ion-india/

‘Unfair to plead that J&K has not yet merged with Union of India’ by Justice G D Sharma formerly with the High Court of J&K
On 25th of September, 2013 while talking to European Delegation at Srinagar the then Chief Minister Omar Abdullah of the coalition government of National Conference and Congress had said:- “State of J&K has only acceded to Union of India and not merged into it and that is why it has special status. We have our Constitution and State flag. That political issues of Kashmir are not born with the militancy which started in 1990. Their genesis is long back associated with the partition of the country when the future of all States was decided other than J&K. Reluctance of separatists to join the dialogue was the major hurdle in Kashmir solution. There is need of sustained internal and external dialogue between the Centre and the separatists and the two neighboring countries of India and Pakistan to solve the issue once and for all. There are diverse views; one extremist view is for secession and the other extremist opinion is total merger.”
The statement on its face value is irrelevant and unwarranted. At the outset we have to understand the meaning of the term “Merger” having a bearing on the present controversy. Blacks’ Law Dictionary has defined statutory merger which means, “a merger provided by and conducted according to statutory requirements.” Mr. Omar Abdullah has opined that Accession with India was only on four issues consisting ofCurrency, Communications, Foreign Affairs and Defence. Addition of the term currency is his ownfigment of imagination being nonest in the list, prescribed instrument of Accession was of uniform nature for all the Rulers of the Indian Princely States outside British India who wanted to accede to Indian Dominion by or after 15th august 1947. Omar Abdullah in the second breath has prescribed a readymade formula to restore peace through the implementation of Interlocutors Report of 2011 wherein at page-6 it is recommended that:- “Parliament will make no laws applicable to the State unless it relates to the country’s internal and external security and its vital economic interest, especially in the areas of energy and access to water resources. No doubt, going by the contents of the said Interlocutor’s Report of 2011, it is indubitably established that interlocutors appointed by the Central government had caused serious drain to the public exchequer since they have done their duty in a casual and perfunctory manner because they were ignorant about the other two main fields of limbs of Instrument of Accession viz Foreign Affairs and Communications as well as the Ancillary matters .These matters were part and parcel of the prescribed formula of Instrument of Accession being inseparable and non negotiable.At the time of making Accession, there was no law in force throughout the country that an acceding Ruler at any point of time could order or include the demand of secession of his state. Maharaja Hari Singh of princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was no exception as he was also included in that category on 26th of October 1947 and conditions continued to be so thereafter. No ruler could make partial Accession or Cancel it once it was made. Further more, it is stated that no Article of Indian Constitution including Article 370 can be used for disintegration or secession purposes. Indirectly Omar Abdullah has suggested that Article 370 exists in the Constitution for the sake of special status or is a sign of Autonomy. Earlier to it also, about 3 years back (on October 6, 2010) Mr. Omar Abdullah as Chief Minister had sung the song of the doctrine of “there having being no merger”.
The newly created controversy by ex Chief Minister of the state had hardly died down when unfortunately during the earlier parliamentary session of the year 2016 Member of Rajya Sabha Dr. Karan Singh who happens to be the son of Maharaja Hari Singh and could be taken as a recognized eye witness of many historical events of the State gave oxygen to the controversy in hand. Dr. Singh has stated in the Parliament thatwhile all the other States subsequently merged, but Jammu and Kashmir didn’t merge; Jammu and Kashmir’s relationship with the rest of India is guided by Article 370 and the State Constitution that he signed into law. Such a statement coming from his mouth has hurt any rationally considering mind as well as the feelings of every patriot citizen of India. To add fuel to the fire; he has stated against all official records including the Constitution of J&K State itself that State of J&K had acceded on 27th of October, 1947 when the fact of the matter is that the State had acceded on 26th of October, 1947. This date finds a place in the Instrument of Accession made by Maharaja Hari Singh in the covering letter addressed to the Viceroy of India Lord Mountbatten and in the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution too. Men can lie but not the documents. His statement was most welcomed by the anti-India elements both inside the State and outside as well as hostile elements across the country. He has unfairly dented not only the image of his late father but also of India in the international spheres. Had both of them (Omar Abdullah and Dr Karan Singh ) taken care to read Article-1 of the Indian Constitution in conjunction with section-3 of the J&K State Constitution they would not have ventured into harming the national cause in such an irresponsible manner.
is advantageous to reproduce Article-1 of the Indian Constitution which says:-
(1) India that is Bharat shall be a Union of States,
(2) The States and the Territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule. In the First Schedule State of J&K ason date figures in seriatim at serial No. 15 along with other States of the Union at their respective places. There is no separate or special preference or reference to the State of J&K. Not only that no reference is made of Article-370 therein.
Section-3 of the J&K Constitution lays down that J&K is and shall be integral part of India.Preamble of the State Constitution reads:- “We the people of the State of J&K having solemnly resolved, in of the Accession of this State of India which took place on 26th day of October, 1947, to further define existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof. Section-147 of the State Constitution interalia imposes a bar that Section-3 cannot be amended by state legislature.

When the Government of Britain had decided to end her rule in India then for discussions Cabinet Mission had visited India and informed the Members of the “Chamber of Princes” that after the lapse of British Rule, the Princes would not be under their (Britain) suzerainty. On 25th of July, 1947, Lord Mountbatten had addressed the Chamber of Indian Princes that in practice it would be in the better and logical interests of the Indian Princely States outside the independent divided British India to exercise the option of joining either of the any two Dominions. There is no record available that he( Lord Mount Batten) or any of the Acts or the guidelines that existed in 1947 had made it mandatory for the then Princes to take into account the wishes of thetheir subjects /people or/and to execute another instrument by the name merger document or the like after a Prince had executed the Instrument of Accession with India dominion. The British had established a department for this purpose which was known “Department of States” (PP.160 to 164 of the white paper on Indian States). This Department was designated as “State Department” and was under the control of Sardar Patel who was Minister in charge of Home Affairs. The said Department had sent a communication to every State which envisaged that after Accession the States had to immediately surrender three subjects to the Dominion of India -Foreign Affairs, Communications and Defence. In view of such factual and legal matrix no inference can be drawn that Accession and Merger were two independent co-existing or coextensive incidents or legal identities. In plain words question of merger of sone territories/areas after Accession, where ever needed, for convenience of internal governance was exclusively in the domain of acceded Indian Dominion and acceding State had nothing to do with it.
Be that as it may, there were 565 Princely States in India at the time of independence. A large number of them had in a way only contracted with the Viceroy of India to provide public services and tax collections. Only twenty or twenty one Princely States could be said as having Governments that could be in the real sense said as having Governments that could be named as State Governments and from amongst them only four were large identities i.e. Baroda, Mysore, Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir. J&K State had the largest territory of 84000 square miles which was bigger` in size than the area of 111 States of the world.
By 15th August, 1947; as many as 136 States had acceded to Union of India. V.P Menon got negotiated merger documents of smaller princely States with larger ones and in some cases with British Provinces such as small States of Orissa with the Province of Orissa. Dr. Karan Singh while acting as Ragent of his father Maharaja Hari Singh; on 25th of Nov., 1949 had formally accepted the spirit and jurisdiction of Constitution of India over State of J&K. When Indian Constitution was in the process of making, four nominated members were sent from J&K State as representatives in the Constituent Assembly. This power could only be exercised by the Ruler i.e Maharaja Hari Singh who on 26th October, 1947 had like other Rulers acceded to India (Hari Singh was represented by Regent Yuvraj Karan Singh in 1949 ). Even at the time when representatives were sent to the Constituent Assembly he was the Ruler under the State Constitution given by him in the year 1939. He was the fountain head of all the powers i,e executive, judicial, Foreign Affairs and Legislative. His sovereign powers were immune from any law. Sheikh Abdullah through the medium of Prime Minister Pt.Nehru illegally usurped Maharaja’s powers and made him only a figure head of the State. It should not be forgotten that Maharaja Hari Singh had pardoned Sheikh Abdullah for the conviction and sentence awarded to him for the offence of sedition for the remaining term of one and half years. This was done in the month of September, 1947. At that time Sheikh Abdullah was not even a member of the then elected State Legislature (known as Praja Sabha). The then Prime Minister of the State M.C. Mahajan was in a way forced by the conditions prevailing to leave the State after accession within four months and Maharaja Hari Singh in place of Mr.Mahajan appointed Sheikh Abdullah as his Prime Minister. The Process did not end here because Maharaja himself was forced to leave the State forever within a period of less than two years after making the Accession. The conviction and sentence of Sheikh Abdullah was pardoned by Maharaja Hari Singh on the basis of a written apology letter dated 26th of September, 1947.Sheikh Abdullahhad promised in that letter to remain loyal to Maharaja Hari Singh through out his life and his family members along with his political organization namely, National Conference. Maharaja Hari Singh had Acceded on 26th of October, 1947 whileas, Nizam of Hyderabad had Acceded in 1948. He( Nizam) had even entered into an armed conflict with the Dominion of India. He had been provided a place of respect and honour in his own State while as Maharaja Hari Singh had to live in exile in Bombay till his death which occurred in 1961.
To quote and undo the misconceptions being created by persons of significance, even like Omar Abdullah and Dr Karan Singh, in the name of something like unexecuted ‘merger document’ otherwise additionally required for execution by the Prince of Indian Princely State of J&K with India Dominion after 26th October 1947 Accession let it be quoted here, that on 18th December, 1947, Chattisgarh Rulers merged with the Central Provinces with in India Dominion after accession. Similarly; in between 17th to 21st January, 1948 scores of minor States in Kathiawar merged with adjoining States. There is long list of merged States throughout the country along with the adjoining States or with the adjoining Provincesfor reorganisation leading to forming territories of states with in the Indian union for local governance with the geographical boundaries of independent India. There is no need of a full discussion on such States regarding their merger or amalgamation as that was only an internal arrangement and had nothing to do with their Accessions made with Dominion of India.
The Union of India on 26th December, 1949 passed the “Merged States (Laws) Act 1949 which Act came into force on 1st day of January, 1950. When India was under British Colonial rule nearly two-fifth of the Indian subcontinent was ruled by the Indian Princes. The common feature was that all of them, big or small, recognized the paramountey of the British Government. Hence during the period 1948-1950, some of the princelyState that joined India were either incorporated into existing former provinces of British India or others were formed into Unions of new States. The senior rulingprinces within the Union of India were mostly appointed as Raj Pramukhs and Maharaja Hari Singh was one of them. The appointing Authority was President of India.
It is stated here that when Indian Constitution came into force on 26th January, 1950 the process of Accession, internal merger or amalgamation had been completed. The States/Administered areas through Administrators, Chief Commissioners were later on shown in Schedule-1 as States of A, B, C and D categories as well as Centrally administered areas in the Indian Constitution.
Former ruling Princes were guaranteed their hereditary styles and titles, certain privileges of rank and honour as well as economic security like privy purses to cover the living expenses of themselves and their families.Maharaja Hari Singh was also getting privy purse.
Subsequently in 1956 state, organization Act was passed consequent upon the recommendation of State Re-organization Commission. This process is continuously going on. The Congress Government had created some States and likewise NDA Government during its previous incarnation in the year 2002 had also created some States for administrative purposes.
Those who argue that Art. 370 was intended to guarantee extra territorial Autonomy to the state Of J&K forget the fact that to some extent in similar way time was given to a few other States to define their relationship in the Constituent Assembly of Independent Indian Dominion that yet had to frame their Constitutions. Article 370 is purely of temporary nature and deals with the aspect of application of Central laws. The State had faced external aggression from Pakistan and forcibly nearly half of the area of the State was occupied by her, which still is in Pakistan’s possession. Unfortunately, the then Prime Minister Pt. Nehru had been duped by Lord Mountbatten on whose advice he made a complaint in UNOafter Pakistan attacked Indian State of J&K. This was a second honey trap of Great Britain to give the J&K state to Pakistan. Not only that, there is no record which suggests that contents of Art. 370 were drafted at the instance of Maharaja Hari Singh. Rather, evidence is there that stiffresistance in the Parliament was shown by majority of the members of Parliament including Law Minister Ambedkar but Pt. Nehru had made a personal issue to get it incorporated as he wanted to always see Sheikh Abdulla in happy mood in order to win plebiscite through him. Art. 370 incorporates self contained procedure for its amendment or abrogation. With the aid of this Articlesome more mostof the provisions of the Indian Constitution barring 135 have been made applicable in the State of J&K of course with few exceptions of their modifications.
Another specious argument as advanced by Omar Abdullah is that J&K State has two flags and it is a sign that demonstrates an extra-ordinary status.
The National Conference leaders are oftenly quoting Delhi agreement of 1952 when Sheikh Abdullah was Prime Minister of the State. Some thinkers deny the validity of this agreement as it was not signed and Sheikh Abdullah was denying the Fundamental rights and jurisdiction of Supreme Court to the residents of the State. To nullify the argument of Omar Abdullah, it is stated that in the text of 1952 Delhi Agreement it was agreed by the State Government that the State flag would not be a rival of the Union flag; it was also recognised that the Union flag should have the same status and position in Jammu and Kashmir as in the rest of India, but for historical reasons connected with the freedom struggle in the State, the need for continuance of the State flag was recognised. That it is relevant to state here that alleged struggle was launched by the inhabitants of only one Regionof the State i.e. Kashmir Region which was the smallest in size compared to other four Regions. Everybody should know that when this flag started being hurled by Ministers of ruling National Conference party at that point of time State Flag of Maharaja also had relevance under State Constitution of 1939 as that was still in force. Maharaja Hari Singh was de-facto and de-jure Ruler. Judges of the J&K High courtnever hurled that flag of the state and still do not hoist State flag on their cars. State flag had no rivalry with National Flag as thePrimacy is that of National Flag. Both the ‘separate constitution’ and ‘separate’ flag of J&K are not that of a sovereign country but are particular features extended in favour of validly Acceded State part of whose Territories were and arestill under illegal occupation of Pakistan.
Thus the argument for having a separate constitution along with State Flag also equally has no legal validity worth J&K having some special status.
The constitution of India is the mother of State Constitution. The preamble of State Constitution which is key to understand its other provisions suggest that it was enacted in aid of Indian Constitutionor as extension of Constitution of India. Preamble in a way also suggests that along with Section 3 and Section 147 as well as other relevant Sections referred to hereunder that J&K Constituent Assembly was not to draw a constitution for a Sovereign State but it had to only draw out the working methods/procedures for the day to day operations within the State and with exceptions to the Central Government executive, judicial and legislative jurisdictions.
To straighten the controversy reading of Section-4 of the J&KState Constitution is necessary.It defines the territory of the State which was on the 15th day of August 1947 under the sovereignty and suzerainty of the Ruler of the State. Section 6 relates to the permanent residents of the State and the primary qualification for being a permanent resident of J&K state is that a person has to be first a citizen of India under the provisions of the constitution of India. Section-6 even recognizes a person who before 14 May 1954 was a State Subject of Class-I or Class-II of J&K and had migrated after the first day of March, 1947 to the territory now included in Pakistan and returns to the State under a valid permit for resettlement in the State. Under Section-48 of the State Constitution twenty four seats in the State Legislative Assembly are reserved for the subjects of J&K presently living in the area occupied by Pakistan until the area of the State under the occupation of Pakistan ceases to be so occupied and residents of that area can democratically elect their representatives. It thus becomes clear that State Constitution contains some supplements to the Indian Constitution and does not supplant it. In case a ‘permanent’ resident of the State loses the citizenship rights as guaranteed under Indian constitution, he/she would also lose the right of Permanent Resident of the State as defined in the state constitution. A resident of the State does not have two citizenshipsas is often quoted by some, a Permanent Resident of J&K has only one citizenship and that is Indian citizenship. This is a very important legal proposition and everybody should know it before making anti-national statements.
At the end it is stated that Maharaja Hari Singh had acceded to the new Dominion of India in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Independence Act read with Government of India Act 1935 in the same manner in which other Rulers of princely states outside side British India had acceded but he has been the only Ruler who was disgraced and sinned a little more than sinning. In an illegal manner he was forced to leave the territory of his State at the behest of Sheikh Abdullah whom he had made Prime Minister. It is because of Hari Singh’s signing Instrument of Accession, this day of 26th October, 1947, lacs of inhabitants of the State of J&K have survived after mayhem massacres of Lacs of people, loots, abductions,rapes and colossal loss of properties by the armed marauders let loose by Pakistan by their armed forces and savage tribes men from their country. Even some patriot members of the majority community like Late Master Maqbool Shervani had also suffered along with a Christian nurse and others in Baramulla Christian Hospital.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby wig » 05 Nov 2016 19:12

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/re-organi ... u-kashmir/


some ideas on reorganization of J&K
Historically all the three regions of Jammu and Kashmir State of India namely (a) Jammu (b) Kashmir (c) Ladakh were independent kingdoms. While Britishers were gaining control over other parts of Indian territories, the Sikhs were capturing power in Punjab and adjoining hilly regions with capital at Lahore. Then Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh annexed Jammu Kingdom in 1812 and appointed Mian Mota a local of Smailpur, Jammu as administrator. Later’s nephews Gulab Singh and Dyan Singh distinguished at Lahore Darbar. While Gulab Singh climbed the ladders of success in soldiery, his brother Dyan Singh excelled in administration. The Sikh rule in Jammu came to be resented and Jamwals rose in rebellion under Mian Dido. When various expeditions sent by Ranjit Singh failed to sub due rebellion recognizing special services rendered by his general Gulab Singh in reducing Multan and Peshawar in Punjab and in 1819 Kashmir valley he decided to crown this local as King of Jammu in lieu of fixed revenue he shall pay Punjab Kingdom annually. Ranjit Singh had also leased out vast territories of Wazirabad & Gujrat regions of Punjab known for timber trade and boat industries to these dogra brothers Gulab Singh and Dyan Singh on the lease rent of Rupees seven lacs per annum. Gulab Singh eliminated Mian Dido and conquered for his master Ladakh in 1834 and later added Baltistan and Shardu too to his controlled territories. Sikhs after the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839 indulged in intrigues and were defeated by British India forces in the battle of Sobran fought on 10th of Feb, 1846. As per treaty of March 9, 1846 signed at Lahore Sikhs were required to pay British India Govt. war indemnity of Rupees one hundred & fifty lacs. As Sikhs were able to pay rupees seventy five lacs only they ceded to Britishers all hill territories including Kashmir. Gulab Singh the arbitrator signed a separate treaty with Britishers at Amritsar on 16th March 1846 paying balance rupees seventy five lacs to gain direct control of all hill territories of Jammu Kashmir & Ladakh. Thus the state of Jammu and Kashmir came in to existence on this day. On 15th August 1947 Britishers left India giving birth to Pakistan for Muslims out of Muslim majority areas of India directly ruled by them. For the princely states the rulers were to decide for ceding to Indian union or Pakistan depending upon the contiguity.
In Jammu and Kashmir the Jammu & Ladakh regions were Hindu and Buddhist dominated whereas Kashmir valley was Muslim dominated, then King Hari Singh belonging to Jammu region was still undecided. On October 22nd 1947 Pakistan sent under the command of their army major general Akbar Khan, armed tribal raiders in 300 lorries to Muzaffarabad in J&K. After looting and arson there the invaders continued their march toward Srinagar the summer Capital of State. Pakistan had also sent its forces in certain parts of Jammu region resorting to wanton killing of non Muslims in Mirpur, Kolti, Rajouri and Poonch etc. This made the ruler Hari Singh to cede Jammu and Kashmir to India on 26th October 1947. Then Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru a Kashmiri by origin forced the King to appoint his friend Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as head of emergency administration and later on March 4th 1948 as Prime Minister of the State. Enjoying unprecedented support of Indian Prime Minister the Sheikh not only looked down the Dogra King but also dogras (Jammu people) who had ruled over Kashmir for hundred years. On June 20, 1949 the humiliated King Hari Singh vested all king’s powers in his son Yuvraj Karan Singh and left the State forever to settle at Mumbai. Then came Delhi agreement between Nehru and Sheikh announced in the Indian Parliament on 24th July 1952 giving state administration the special powers under article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
The Jammu and Ladakh people already sulking under discriminatory attitude of the Sheikh resorted to long drawn agitation and protests against him desiring complete merger of the state with India by undoing article 370. Dreaming Sheikhdom for himself & his family Sheikh even ignored Indian Prime Minister and made public statements as well interview to foreign press threatening undoing succession with India. His deputy Bakshi Gulam Mohammad supported by other Cabinet Colleagues issued on August 7, 1953 an open statement accusing Sheikh of making arbitrary decisions and for being responsible for deteriorating administration & generating uncertainty and doubts in the people of state in general and those of Jammu & Ladakh in particular. Bakhsi was made on 9th August 1953 the Prime Minister by head of the state (Sadr-i-Riyasat) and was confirmed by constituent assembly which met at winter capital Jammu in Feb, 1954. His first act was to arrest Sheikh and his trusted friend Mirza Afzal Beg putting them under preventive detention at Govt. guest house in Jammu’s hill resort of Kud. The State witnessed allround progress under Bakshi and later under G.M. Sadiq who had merged Sheikh’s national conference into Indian Congress party renaming P.M of the state to Chief Minister. G.M. Sadiq also as bold decision of withdrawing all charges against Sheikh and his associate releasing them in April 1964. In August 1965 Pakistan infiltrated large number of its regular army men into the Valley who took shelter with supporters of Sa Geelani’s of Kashmir.
Thus started 2nd war with Pakistan in which locals of Kashmir and Indian army jointly eliminated them. Thereafter Pakistan made regular invasion of Jammu region through Chambb sector on September 1, 1965. To reduce pressure in this sector the Indian army opened new fronts in Punjab and Rajasthan putting the enemy on the run. The captured territories were returned after Tashkent agreement of January 10, 1966. Sheikh returned to power in Feb, 1975 after an accord with then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. After his death on Sept 8, 1982 his son Dr. Farooq Abdullah became new Chief Minister of the state. During the course of assembly elections of June 1983 serious conflict developed between Congress and National Conference. Congress had won 32 seats mainly from Jammu and Ladakh regions. A group of 12 National Conference MLAs from Kashmir valley led by Farooq’s own brother in law G.M. Shah defected and formed new Govt. in the state with support of Congress. In fact Farooq was looking like his father for Sheikhdom and had released 60 hard core terrorist of Al-Fatah outfit promoted during Sheikh’s exile from power. He was also accused of whipping up regional, religious and parochial emotions of Kashmiri people to keep Indian Govt. at bay. He was hand in glove with separatists led by Jammat-i-islami etc. and was manipulating the system to keep separatist forces alive in the state.
Pakistan having failed to annex Kashmir in wars of 1947, 1965 & 1971 promoted since 1989 proxy war against India, infiltrating hard core terrorist into Indian territories particularly J&K and Punjab. Infact it’s army had been responsible for giving birth to many terrorist organizations during 1979-89 including Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toyibba and later Jaish-e-Mohammad. Pakistan has emerged as breeding ground of terrorism as realized by world powers. More than half a million Hindus had left the valley in 1990 and Pakistan is still fueling Islamisation through infiltrators & separatists including Huriyat Conference. Therefore there is urgent need to re-organize the state of Jammu and Kashmir providing home land to Kashmiri Hindus within the valley and freeing Jammu and Ladakh regions from Kashmiri dominance. Kashmiries in Jammu & Ladkah irrespective of religion and date of migration should be taken back into the valley. The demand has already been put forth during the recent visit of all parties delegations led by Indian Home Minister Raj Nath Singh to Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. There is no other option in view of Islamisation of Kashmir valley.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3534
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby sanjaykumar » 06 Nov 2016 04:26


Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20337
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Prem » 06 Nov 2016 05:07

sanjaykumar wrote:http://www.dawn.com/news/1293815/how-music-students-in-gojal-are-trying-to-keep-their-culture-alive
Is this India?

Was but lost becuase of Chacha and must be gained back.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3534
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby sanjaykumar » 06 Nov 2016 08:21

It is a crime to have this real estate occupied by the likes of Pakistan.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby wig » 07 Nov 2016 09:57

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/434766-2/
the article refered to below has the images of the Instrument of Accession posted in the newspaper. Could somebody please post them here for ready reference. I am unable/unaware of how to do it

A True Copy of Jammu & Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession
October 26, 2016 mark the 70th anniversary of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. On account of the troubled times that J&K has been passing through since July, there is little space for celebrating this event, but a sober commemoration of this historic moment is necessary. The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh has become the object of a never-ending controversy, unlike similar accession instruments signed by other princely states. The author seeks to reinvigorate informed debate on this issue by placing a true copy of the signed accession instrument in the public domain. The copy was obtained from the National Archives of India. This article also critically examines some of the popular claims regarding this document by making a reference to other contemporaneous official records.

Re-discovering the J&K Instrument of Accession

On a hot and humid mid-September afternoon, I walked in to the research room of the National Archives in New Delhi to find out if my search for a “historic” document had borne results. The document in question was the original Instrument of Accession (IoA) signed in October 1947 by the then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh and accepted by Lord Mountbatten of Burma, who was Governor General of India at the time. Earlier, the Union ministry of home affairs had transferred to the National Archives my RTI application seeking a copy of this document and a handful of IoAs signed by other Rulers[1]. Subsequently, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the National Archives invited me to access the documents under the Public Records Act, 1993[2].

I walked towards the shelves situated at the end of the hall, my shoes squeaking across the extra smooth flooring, butterflies fluttering in my stomach. The J&K IoA lay in a cream coloured folder at one corner of a shelf waiting to be picked up. The last time I got as excited was a few days earlier, when I spotted a reference to this document in the Index of 1,847 treaties and agreements transferred by the Central government to the National Archives for safe keeping.[3]

The J&K IoA has been the subject of one of the biggest and long drawn controversies in independent India. Does it really exist or not? One academic doubted its authenticity and reportedly dismissed its very existence.[4] Andrew Whitehead has claimed that he was denied access to this document on the ground that it was “classified”.[5] The retyped text of this document is currently accessible on a privately hosted website.[6] Whitehead writes that a facsimile of the J&K IoA was displayed on the website of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for some time.[7] I could not trace this facsimile copy on the MHA site.

Through this article in The Wire, I can confirm that the J&K IoA exists for real, is safe and well preserved in the collection of the National Archives.

I have elected to place in the public domain a copy of the J&K IoA obtained legitimately from the National Archives for the purpose of facilitating informed debate amongst those interested in the subject.

I have also placed copies of the IoAs of Mysore, Manipur, Tehri Garhwal and Udaipur obtained by me from the National Archives in the public domain so that readers may compare them with the J&K IoA for ascertaining its genuineness.[8]

Is the J&K IOA held by the National Archives a genuine document?

I am not a forensics expert, nor was I familiar with the signatures of the Maharaja of J&K and Lord Mountbatten before I looked at these five IoAs. However, at least three indicators seem to testify to the genuineness of the J&K IoA.

First, like several other IoAs, the document signed by the Maharaja of J&K is in two parts. The first three pages contain the text of the terms of the accession- this is the IoA proper. Page 2 of the document bears the signature of Maharaja Hari Singh and the acceptance of the instrument signed by Lord Mountbatten. Page 3 contains the list of subjects on which the Dominion Legislature’s powers to make laws applicable to J&K were accepted by the Maharaja by virtue of this accession instrument. Pages 4 and 5 contain the standstill agreement between J&K and the Dominion of India, as it was called in 1947 before India became a republic. IoAs signed by the several other princely States contain a standstill agreement between them and the Dominion of India as annexures.[9]

First page of Jammu and Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession.
First page of Jammu and Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession.

Second page of Jammu and Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession
Second page of Jammu and Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession

Schedule attached to Jammu and Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession
Schedule attached to Jammu and Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession

Standstill agreement with Jammu and Kashmir
Standstill agreement with Jammu and Kashmir

Schedule attached to Jammu and Kashmir’s standstill agreement.
Schedule attached to Jammu and Kashmir’s standstill agreement.

Second, in all the IoAs signed by the rulers of Mysore,[10] Manipur,[11] Tehri Garhwal[12] and Udaipur[13], Lord Mountbatten signed his acceptance of the instruments and mentioned the date of acceptance in green ink – just like he did while accepting the J&K IoA.[14] Further, the overall faded appearance of this document – just like the other IoAs I picked up – clearly hints to its vintage.

Third, the appended standstill agreements are an added element confirming the authenticity of the Jammu and Kashmir IoA.

At the time of independence, various parts of the Indian sub-continent were under different kinds of administrative arrangements. Chiefly, there were two kinds of jurisdictions – the principalities – large and small which were ruled by hereditary princes and provinces which were directly under British administration. The British Raj had entered into separate treaties and agreements with several princely states for a variety of purposes, such as the construction and the maintenance of roads and power supply facilities, railway tracks, communication facilities including posts, telegraph and wireless, flights, taxation, currency and coinage, external affairs etc. With the ousting of the British Raj, these treaties would become void automatically. So the newly established Department of States drew up an agreement in consultation with the Chamber of Princes (comprising of the rulers of princely states) to ensure that these administrative arrangements would continue unaltered (i.e., standstill) until the new Constitution was drawn up. Almost all princely states that had such treaties and agreements with the British Raj signed a standstill agreement along with the Instrument of Accession to the Dominion of India.

As can be seen from the documents posted here, the Rulers of Mysore, Tehri Garhwal, Manipur and Udaipur did not sign the standstill agreements annexed to the IoAs, nor did Lord Mountbatten append his signature to the same. In all these cases, the standstill agreements were signed by the rulers’ subordinates. In the case of Mysore, the standstill agreement was signed by the dewan (prime minister) of Mysore, in the case of Manipur, it was signed by the private secretary to the maharaja, in the case of Tehri Garhwal it was signed by the chief secretary of the state and in the case of Udaipur it was signed by the then acting prime minister.

First page of Udaipur’s Instrument of Accession.
First page of Udaipur’s Instrument of Accession.

Second page of Udaipur’s Instrument of Accession.
Second page of Udaipur’s Instrument of Accession.

Schedule attached to Udaipur’s Instrument of Accession
Schedule attached to Udaipur’s Instrument of Accession

Standstill agreement with Udaipur
Standstill agreement with Udaipur

Schedule attached to Udaipur’s standstill agreement.
Schedule attached to Udaipur’s standstill agreement.

The J&K standstill agreement, however, was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh himself and for good reason. All writers commenting on the events leading to the accession of J&K to the Indian Dominion are unanimous on one fact, i.e., the then prime minister of J&K, Justice M. C. Mahajan[15] was in New Delhi on October 26 – the date on which Maharaja Hari Singh is said to have signed the IoA. So there was probably no authority other than the Maharaja in Kashmir who could sign the standstill agreement. In all five cases, the standstill agreements were signed by Shri V. P. Menon on behalf of the Dominion of India.

Readers may ask, what about the letter that Maharaja Hari Singh is purported to have sent to Lord Mountbatten along with the signed IoA and the reply the latter sent back to the maharaja. Those documents, whose existence is not in doubt, thankfully, are not included in the file containing the IoA and the standstill agreement. They seem to remain in the custody of the Union home ministry. The text of this correspondence is published in a document published by the Political Branch of the Ministry of States.[16]

Some writers have commented on the overwriting visible in the J&K IoA to argue that it is not a genuine document.[17]This issue can be explained by the fact that a common template was used for the purpose of the IoAs. The printed stationery mentioned the month of August, leaving a blank space for filling up the exact date of accession at the time of signature by each Ruler. While a large number of Rulers signed their respective IoAs in August itself, Maharaja Hari Singh signed it in October when his hands were forced by the invasion from across the State’s borders. This explains the striking out of “August” to insert “October” in the IoA.

Making such minor technicalities as the basis to contest the authenticity of the J&K IoA may not help advance the debate much because overwriting is seen in at least one other IoA whose copy I was able to obtain form the National Archives. For example, in the Mysore IoA, the date of acceptance was initially mentioned as the “ninth” day of August in black ink. Lord Mountbatten seems to have put in the correct date, namely, the “sixteenth” while appending his signature. The correction is made in green ink – the same colour he used for signing his acceptance of every IoA that I have looked at. Further, in the case of the standstill agreement with Mysore, the dewan signed on the portion which was reserved for the signature of the Secretary of the States Department of the Dominion. So the designation of V. P. Menon had to be typed up manually at the bottom of this document.

While the title of the rulers of Manipur and Udaipur were type-written on the IoAs, those of their counterparts in the case of the IoAs of Mysore, Tehri Garhwal were hand written. Should this discrepancy then be used to dispute the validity of the accession of any of these princely States to the Dominion?

Interestingly, while the IoAs and the standstill agreements in the case of Mysore, Manipur, Tehri Garhwal and Udaipur indicate that they were drawn up in the names of the rulers of those states and the Dominion of India, in the case of J&K, both documents are drawn up in the name of the Jammu and Kashmir State.[18] Should this curious titling be taken to imply that the residents of J&K had consented to the accession, when they were not even consulted on this matter? Such nitpicking does not help informed debate on the subject. Given the trying circumstances in 1947 and the sheer number of documents that had to be signed from across the country, such discrepancies are highly likely to occur, especially in a newly created department that was short staffed and had set a near impossible deadline for itself to secure the integration of India.

Is the J&K IoA a unique document?

There is a general consensus that unlike other princely states, J&K acceded to the Dominion of India under unique circumstances. I do not intend to delve into these circumstances to examine the claims and counter claims in this brief article. However, another myth that popular lore about J&K has perpetuated is that Maharaja Hari Singh signed a specially drafted Instrument of Accession that took care of his demands. Almost every layperson I met with in J&K during my travel to promote awareness and the use of the state’s RTI Act would point out during informal discussions that the maharaja had recognised the powers of the Dominion to make and implement laws only on three subjects matter, namely foreign affairs, defence and communications. Until I began my research on this subject, I had also harboured a similar misconception.

A comparison of the four IoAs of Mysore, Manipur, Tehri Garhwal and Udaipur that I accessed from the National Archives and a careful reading of V. P. Menon’s narrative account of the process by which India was integrated, indicates otherwise.


Every one of the 140 princely states that signed IoAs with the Dominion of India agreed to the same terms and conditions as J&K. All these rulers also initially acceded to the Dominion limited to the same three subjects. The remaining powers were retained by them just as the maharaja of J&K had sought to do. However, eventually some of them signed instruments of merger, to form larger administrative units such as the Matsya Union, Vindhya Pradesh, PEPSU, Travancore and Cochin etc. and finally accepted the scheme of administration laid down by the new Constitution. The then yuvaraj of J&Km who exercised all powers delegated to him by the Maharaja, issued a proclamation on November 25, 1949 stating that the soon-to-be-adopted Constitution of India would govern the relations between J&K and the Union only to such extent as its provisions would apply to J&K. Article 309 – which would later become Article 370 – laid down the terms and conditions of this relationship. Interestingly, the provisions under Article 370 were intended to be transitional and temporary in nature. Menon’s tome contains a detailed account of these developments. Subsequently, Noorani[19] and others have extensively dwelt upon the manner in which the protection provided by Article 370 was eroded from the very beginning. I do not intend to go into those matters in this brief article.

Tabling of the IoAs in the Constituent Assembly (Legislative)

In fact, my inspiration to seek copies of the IoAs including that of J&K came from a reading of three pieces of legislation, namely, The Government of India Act, 1935 (GoI Act), the India Independence Act, 1947 and The India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947.

While the GOI Act had laid down the accession procedure for the princely states (to the undivided Dominion of India as was envisaged then), the provisional constitutional order made an important amendment to its provisions, amongst several others. Section 6 of the GOI Act relating to the accession of the Indian states to the Dominion was amended to incorporate several changes. Sub-section 6 of the new Section 6 required the laying of copies of the Instrument of Accession on the table of the dominion legislature soon after they were accepted by the governor general. Eventually, the dominion legislature came to be known as the Constituent Assembly-Legislative (CA-L) when it was performing legislative functions outside of its main mandate, namely the framing of a constitution for India.

When the MHA did not respond to my request for copies of the IoAs, I filed an RTI application with the Lok Sabha secretariat seeking access to the same documents and the CA-L debates. I pointed out that the IoAs were required to be tabled before the CAL and the Lok Sabha being a successor body to the CA-L, ought to have maintained copies of these documents. The CPIO of the Lok Sabha has not responded to my RTI application till date. Subsequently, I secured access to the library of Parliament and located the debates of the CA-L for the period 1947-1948.[20]

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, as the deputy prime minister, in charge of the Ministry of States, tabled the IoA of J&K along with those signed by 116 other princely states before the CA-L on 19 November 19, 1947.[21] Kashmir is listed at #68 in Schedule I Part A of the paper laid on the table of the house. The date of signature of the IOA is mentioned as October 26, 1947 and the date of acceptance as October 27, 1947. Several writers have raised doubts about these dates. This is an area I intend to research next, so I will not offer any comment on this matter for now.

Before closing, it is necessary to dispel one more myth popularised by those who question the existence of the J&K IoA. Its origin seems to be based on the write-up attributed to Prof. Lamb.[22] If he has truly written that the signed copy of the IoA was never attached to the White Paper on J&K that the Government issued in 1948 or included in the documents that the Indian government sent to the UN Security Council that year, that discrepancy may also be explained in simple terms. It must be remembered that during the late 1940s and 1950s, photocopying and mimeography were not available in India. So the government perhaps appended only a copy of the IoA template which was commonly used to secure the accession of the 140 princely States to these documents. I have already shown that the text of the IoA templates was retyped for the purpose of laying them before the CA-L. Of course the government could have anticipated its future acerbic and often vituperative critics and included photographs of the signed copy of the J&K IoA in all these documents. It was within its powers to so do. Why it elected not to do so, is not my job to explain. That explanation should come from the government of India.

My objective in this article is limited – to place legitimately obtained true-to-the original images of the J&K Instrument of Accession along with other comparable and supporting documents to encourage informed debate across the country and elsewhere on this subject. I trust this article has accomplished this objective.

It will not be an exaggeration to describe the IoAs and the standstill agreements as the threads that knit the disparate administrative jurisdictions into a Union. Instead of tucking them away and providing access to researchers only on demand, the National Archives should work with the government to display them in a museum which people can visit at will. Citizens have the right to know more about these building blocks that became India.

Venkatesh Nayak is an RTI activist and a history researcher based in New Delhi. He works with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

Endnotes

[1] While the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the MHA did not bother to reply to my request, my RTI application was transferred to the National Archives only after I submitted the first appeal to the appellate authority in MHA. According to Section 7(2) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 where a CPIO fails to send a reply to an RTI application within 30 days, it will be deemed that he or she has refused to the request for information and the right of the applicant to submit a first appeal gets activated automatically.

[2] The Public Records Act, 1993 and the Public Records Rules, 1997 lay down the statutory framework for the declassification and the archivisation of official records, including those labelled “top secret”, “secret” or “confidential”, held by public authorities under the Central Government. The National Archives is the custodian of such archived records and provides access to such records to researchers. Similar laws and rules have been put in place by several State Governments for the purpose of placing their old records with their own State-level Archives.

[3] National Archives Register No. R.R. 271, page no. 27. The J&K IOA is preserved in file no. P-I/20/47, Year 1947. Strangely, the National Archives refused to provide a photocopy of this page. This register indexes various treaties and agreements signed between 1831 and 1985

[4] This is what Prof. Alastair Lamb wrote about the J&K IoA in 1991: “The actual Instrument of Accession…was, in fact, no more than a printed form, not unlike an application for a driving licence, with blank spaces left for the name of the State, the signature of the Maharaja and the date; and it also contained a printed form of acceptance which required dating and signature by Mountbatten as Governor-General.” See Alastair Lamb, Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990, Roxford Books, Hertfordshire,1990, page 137: accessed on 22 October, 2016. In an alleged excerpt from another work attributed to him: The Myth of Indian Claim to Jammu and Kashmir: A Reappraisal, uploaded on the website of Pakistan’s Ministry of External Affairs, the following statement is displayed: “The far more important document (a), the alleged Instrument of Accession, was not published until many years later, if at all…. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing. The Instrument of Accession referred to in document (c), a letter which as we have seen was probably drafted by Indian officials prior to being shown to the Maharajah, may never have existed, and can hardly have existed when the letter was being prepared.”:, accessed on 22 October, 2016. Despite several efforts I could not locate on the Internet reliable bibliographical information about this work attributed to Prof. Lamb. There is no mention of this work in subsequent scholarly publications on Kashmir such as Andrew Whitehead’s Mission in Kashmir, etc. (see f.n. #4 below) or in Victoria Schofield’s Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War”: I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., London, 2003) and A. G. Noorani’s, The Kashmir Dispute: 1947-2012, Vol. 1, Tulika Books, New Delhi, 2013.

[5] “The Instrument of Accession is in the holdings of India’s National Archive. I have been refused permission to consult the document because it is, apparently classified. A facsimile of the entire document was posted in 2005 at the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs website”. See f.n. #29 in Chapter 6: Signing up to India in Andrew Whitehead, Mission in Kashmir, Viking, Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd., 2007, New Delhi, page no. 255, accessible online on the author’s website, accessed on 22 October, 2016.

[6] See: http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/ ... ssion.html, accessed on 22 October, 2016. This document is surprisingly replicated on the website of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Hydebarad-IV, accessed on 22 October, 2016.

[7] See f.n. #29 in Chapter 6: Signing up to India in Andrew Whitehead’s Mission in Kashmir etc. (see f.n. #5 above).

[8] Please note that the image files have been created from the images I obtained legitimately upon payment of the prescribed fees at the National Archives. All copyright vis-à-vis these IoAs is claimed by the National Archives. I request readers to access these files in the original from the National Archives using the file numbers mentioned in these foot notes.

[9] With deep respect to Prof. Lamb, it must be said that the parallel he drew in 1991, between the template on which the J&K IoA was drawn up and an application for a driver’s license, is uncalled for, for multiple reasons (see f.n. #4 above). First, the integration of the princely States into the Dominion could not afford a diversity of arrangements, if integration were to be achieved at all. The process by which the common text of the IoA template was drawn up by the newly established Ministry of States under the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and the stewardship of its Secretary, Shri V. P. Menon is documented in Chapter V of his well known publication: The Story of the Integration of the Indian States, Longmans Green & Co. London, 1956, pages 67ff. Second, practicality, based on common sense, dictated the need for printing a common template for the IoA to be used for securing the accession of all major princely States instead of having to retype each document. This would have required at least 280 documents to have been typed up i.e. 140 sets of 2 documents each – one copy for the Ruler who signed the IoAs and another for the government of the Dominion. Given the pressing times, I believe this would have been a cumbersome course of action to follow, resulting in delays which the country could ill afford.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby jamwal » 07 Nov 2016 20:03


Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2917
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Dipanker » 15 Nov 2016 07:04

This could be a possible replacement for pellet guns as means of crowd control. Use of pellet gun has been a huge public relation disaster and a major propaganda tool in the hands of our enemies.

As less than lethal options, the Border Patrol uses the FN 303 Launcher. The FN 303 fires plastic pellet balls containing OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) Pepper dust. The plastic pellet balls burst on impact spraying the suspect with OC Pepper dust and also act as an impact projectile. The Border Patrol also issues its agents OC Pepper spray canisters, tasers and a collapsible/telescopic (or telescoping) steel police baton.


Apparently this is used by the US BPA on Mexican border. Also Portland police looked like using something similar against the violence by anarchists during the recent protests.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby ramana » 15 Nov 2016 07:32

Dipanker, In J&K the BSF used rubber slugs which were 'non-lethal'. However the force was enough to fracture as the crowd would be too close. This led to the pellets which are bird shot.

This FN303 is a US thing?

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2917
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Dipanker » 15 Nov 2016 07:35

Yes, I ran into this description while reading about US BPA on Wikipedia. I also saw the video of Portland police using something similar against the rioters.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby svinayak » 19 Nov 2016 11:20

Fake article going on. Looks like a paid article.

PM Modi has risked lot of things to establish relations with Pak govt and its faction and military.
He got attacks on India


Kashmir Is Paralyzed by an ‘Adored’ Band of Militants

Fake words used.
Still, the independence movement persisted, giving rise every few years to violence and protests. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India made overtures to Pakistan early in his tenure that rekindled hopes for a resolution of Kashmir’s future. But he has made no public moves to restart discussions over the region.

“Is people’s confidence in dialogue shaken? Yes, it is,” said Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a founder of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a coalition of separatist groups.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby svinayak » 19 Nov 2016 11:48

Exhibition on temples of Kashmir in Jammu

Exhibition on temples of Kashmir in Jammu
Press Trust of India | Jammu
November 18, 2016 Last Updated at 20:48 IST


A two-day long exhibition on temples of Kashmir will begin from November 26 here.

"We are holding a two-day long exhibition of temples of Kashmir from November 26 and 27," President of Zeashta Devi Prabandhak Committee (ZDPC) B B Bhat said.

ZDPC and Temples and Shrines Management Board Kashmir will jointly organise the exhibition at Kala Kendra here, he said.

An intellectual meet will also be held on November 27 to discuss the issue confronting the community, Bhat said.

As many as 208 temples in the Valley were damaged during past two decades of militancy with Srinagar witnessing highest number of acts of vandalism.

"Of the 438 temples in the Valley, 208 had been damaged over the years," the state government had said in a written reply to the state assembly in response to a question by a BJP MLA in 2012.

The government has, however, said that there was no illegal encroachment of temple land in the Valley.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)


India has to restore the temples in Valley

Also India need a master plan to restore the temples in POK

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1239
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby schinnas » 23 Nov 2016 22:22

Art of Living hosts Kashmir Back to Paradise Conference

Art of Living to host ‘Kashmir Back to Paradise’.

PTI
Jammu, Publish Date: Nov 18 2016 11:35PM | Updated Date: Nov 18 2016 11:35PM
Former militants, stone-pelters and victims of militancy will take part in a conference 'Kashmir Back to Paradise' by Art of Living (AOL) to promote peace and usher in an era of peaceful and prosperous Kashmir.
The Spiritual guru and Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju will also take part in the conference.

The conference will take place on 23rd of November here in the winter capital, Program Director AOL, Sanjay Kumar said.
The objective of the Conference is to provide a platform to diverse stakeholders from Kashmir such as ex-militants, stone pelters, victims of militancy, youth leaders, women, entrepreneurs, NGOs, Sufi leaders, academicians, media persons in art and culture, Sikh community representatives to share their views on the current situation in Kashmir and ponder over a peaceful solution.
Spiritual Guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar will be the keynote speaker and Kiren Rijiju will be the Guest of Honour, he said.

He said that it will go a long way to promote peace and harmony and usher in an era of peaceful and prosperous Kashmir.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1239
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby schinnas » 23 Nov 2016 22:27

Interesting that Burkha Dutt is reporting very positively about @SriSri and the Kashmir peace conference hosted by Art of Living where Army and GoI has participation.

barkha dutt ‏@BDUTT 10h10 hours ago
barkha dutt Retweeted Mamta Kailkhura
J&K watchers must watch @ArtofLiving Peace Conference today. Everyone from Army to Separatists had talks. @SriSri de facto Kashmir Envoy

https://twitter.com/BDUTT/status/801319 ... 44?lang=en


barkha dutt ‏@BDUTT 10h10 hours ago
barkha dutt Retweeted Art of Living
Interesting. Gen Saha among finest Army officers who served in Valley-at @ArtofLiving Jammu & Kashmir Peace Conference #SriSriInJnK

https://twitter.com/BDUTT/status/801318 ... 92?lang=en

It would be great if some forumers who know how to post imaages post screen grab of these tweets before they are deleted or modified.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Peregrine » 28 Nov 2016 02:16

X Posted on the J & K Thread

The sad state of Kashmir

Just after Partition, the Pakistani state claimed the complete Kashmir as its legitimate territory which should be certified by a plebiscite by the Kashmiri people based on the fact that majority
 of its inhabitants are Muslims. “Kashmir humari sha ragh hay” is the major slogan sung by
 Pakistanis and the claim that the letter “K” in Pakistan is for Kashmir.

On the contrary, in 1963, the Pakistani side under Field Marshal General Ayub Khan announced giving Kashmir’s 13,000 square miles land to China on Kashmir’s border with the Chinese region of Xinjiang. It means we were ready to give some part of our vital land as gift to China. Then in 1972, PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto accepted the Line of Control (LOC) as an almost official border and in 2006, president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf gave a proposal which included two major points. Firstly, borders between Pakistan and India remain the same and secondly, Kashmir be given autonomy but not independence. These chronological events clearly show that Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir has been going back slowly and steadily. This means that the “sha rag” is no longer considered as such
practically but only remains so in speeches and slogans. The people of Kashmir on the Indian side have not accepted Indian domination even after more than 68 years. Interestingly, India has millions of Muslims living peacefully in other parts of India but continuous wave of revolts and protests against the Indian regime can be seen in Kashmir. Either it is because of the continuous and deliberate interference of Pakistan in Kashmir or the brutal and inhumane behaviour of the Indian regime which includes pallet guns, disappearances, extra judicial murders etc., or maybe it is because of the nature of the people of Kashmir to not bow down against injustice and stand for their freedom.

Whatever may be the case, the Kashmir issue should have been properly handled rather than going again and again on the negotiating table when things get hot on the roads of Kashmir and betraying the hopes of the people by slowly stepping back from the initial claims. As far as the UN resolutions are concerned, which is the prime route Pakistan intends to take to resolve the conflict, it seems that since the UN has failed miserably for the last 68 years, expecting it to intervene and resolve the issue ahead is nothing but self-deception. It can be safely stated without any exaggeration that UN has been an absolutely useless platform when it comes to issues related to the Muslim world which include nations like Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, chachnya, Syria, Libya etc.

Similarly, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has always discussed this issue but never taken any practical steps for its resolution. It could have become a strong force in dealing with resolving conflicts of the Muslim world by using its massive influence. But it chose to remain an incapable platform. Now then, with negotiations, we are losing Kashmir, the UN and OIC are not doing anything about it. We have also tried small military operations like Gibraltor and Kargil and have failed in them miserably because of lack of political will.

Having said that, it seems that in order to seriously liberate Indian occupied Kashmir, a sound political and military strategy is required with a sincere and determined will. Secondly, any demotivating claims like “India and Pakistan are both nuclear states and therefore we cannot do much about military solution with India” are outcomes of a politically weak mindset. Have we not seen two nuclear superpowers in cold war where America came out triumphed? Secondly, have we not seen how India took out Bangladesh from Pakistan? Why is it not possible then with a serious visionary leadership to turn the tide of history?

The question would still remain, What if we do get the Indian occupied Kashmir, can the current Pakistani regime yield to the demands of the Kashmiri people? The Pakistani regime is already responsible for massive atrocities on its own people in places like Balochistan, Fata region, Karachi etc. Will the people of Kashmir really accept such an attitude from Pakistan? Or would they then demand independence and would be dealt with the same fate as that of the people of Bangladesh?

And finally, let us assume, we give up the “sha rag” and India gives up the “Atoot Ang” and both nations decide to let Kashmir become an independent state. Would that be really good for the Kashmiris or would they become colony of either India or Pakistan or china because of inability to take a firm stance in front of these giant neighbours? Consequently, it means that an independent Kashmir would also not prosper much, would remain in turmoil and therefore will not be in a position to make its own destiny.
Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15847
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby chetak » 28 Nov 2016 08:36

The recent sustained unrest in cashmere was a blatant attempt by the pakis to over thow the BJP PDP govt in the state.

Mehabooba simply kept her head down and let the GOI act like a lightening rod and she went into silent mode except when making overtly sympathetic noises to support the jehadis under the guise of "humanitarian" concerns.

She is complicit and invested heavily in this attempt to destabilize her own state.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby svinayak » 28 Nov 2016 10:22

Farooq Abdullah does not understand that POK is now the international property of major powers and cross road of geo politics.
Major powers such as China, Russia and NATO are in the region.
Since it is geo politically critical region India cannot ignore the region. India has to have active control of the region.
This is also China;s weakest link in CPEC

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/faro ... 20304.html
It (Kashmir) is not the personal property of India so that it could make a claim over it like an inherited property of forefathers," Farooq Abdullah said.
Calling upon the Modi government to engage in talks with Islamabad to defuse tension on the borders, Farooq Abdullah said, "Pakistan is one of the stakeholders of the Kashmir issue, which even India has accepted."

THE SECOND DAY IN SUCCESSION
This was the second time in as many days that Farooq Abdullah questioned the Modi government's Pakistan policy and strategy to deal with dissent in the Valley.
On Wednesday, Farooq Abdullah had said, "Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India on three subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communication, which have been reemphasised by the former Sadr-e-Riyasat Dr Karan Singh in Parliament recently."

READ| Kashmir is never going to be part of Pakistan: Farooq Abdullah
"Autonomy to both sides of Kashmir was the only viable solution to nearly seven-decade old problem. Borders cannot be changed but these can be made irrelevant and soft for people to people exchange and opening new vistas of trade and commerce for overall economic prosperity of the region," Abdullah had said.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby ramana » 28 Nov 2016 22:59

Farooq Abdullah should be confronted by Kashmiris and asked what his family did for them all these years.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby wig » 29 Nov 2016 11:04

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/firing-n ... eststories

3 Soldiers Killed In Terror Attack On Army Unit In Nagrota Near Jammu, & in a separate incident a BSF patrol was attacked near Chamliyal, Samba
Three soldiers were killed in a terror attack on an army artillery unit in Jammu and Kashmir's Nagrota on Tuesday morning. Firing has been on for hours between the army and the terrorists, who attacked the camp around 5.30 am with grenades.
Four terrorists are believed to be hiding in the camp.
Nagrota, which is around 20 km from Jammu, is the headquarters of the army's 16 Corps, a massive military formation that defends the borders and fights terrorists in the greater Jammu region.
The army has cordoned off the area and all schools have been shut down. Traffic has been stopped on the highway, which is very close to the camp.
In another incident, the Border Security Force intercepted a group of terrorists and killed two of them while they were attempting to cross over at the International Border at Ramgarh in Jammu and Kashmir's Samba sector.
There has been a spurt in attacks and infiltration attempts by terrorists from across the border over the past few weeks.
In September, 19 soldiers were killed when terrorists from Pakistan attacked an army base in Uri. A few days later, the army carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control targeting staging areas for terrorists planning to attack Indian cities.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9195
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby arun » 29 Nov 2016 15:48

X Posted from the “India-Australia News and Discussion” thread.

Australian Green Party Senator Ms. Lee Rhiannon makes an anti-Indian speech regards India’s efforts to restore Law and Order in Jammu & Kashmir in the wake of Mohammadden violence which is gleefully picked up the Mohammadden Terrorist fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan (See: On 22 November, Australian Senator Lee Rhiannon, made a powerful statement in the Parliament regarding Indian atrocities). There seems to be personal animus in this rabid attack targeting India by Ms Lee Rhiannon as this subject is outside her area of responsibilities as a member of the Green Party (Clicky).

Text of Ms. Rhiannon’s anti-Indian speech:

Adjournment Speech: Jammu and Kashmir
Speeches in Parliament
Lee Rhiannon/ 23 Nov 2016/ Foreign Affairs/General/
Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (20:37): The people of occupied Jammu and Kashmir are facing a humanitarian crisis that requires urgent international attention. The people who live in this region have a right to live in peace, with their fundamental human rights to self-determination recognised and honoured. Kashmir has been subjected to centuries of foreign rule. Today, Jammu and Kashmir are occupied and divided between India, Pakistan and China. This situation is a product of British colonialism. Britain partitioned the subcontinent. Nation states were created by drawing arbitrary lines on maps at the close of the Second World War.

Whilst many of us might associate Kashmir with pleasant holidays, the reality for locals is very grim. Kilometres of barbed wire run across the landscape. There is mounting evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed in this region. These crimes should be investigated and steps should be taken to end the human rights abuses. Tragically, the violence in this region is escalating. There are worrying reports of blockades limiting supplies of essential commodities to the people of this region. This is from the website of Amnesty International:

Human rights defenders, journalists and protesters continued to face arbitrary arrests and detentions. Over 3,200 people were being held in January under administrative detention on executive orders without charge or trial. Authorities also continued to use 'anti-terror' laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other state-specific laws which do not meet international human rights standards.

Amnesty International has also released a report called Denied: failures in accountability for human rights violations by security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir. This report documents the difficulties involved in resolving human rights violations. The report notes, at section 7, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act grants virtual immunity to members of the security forces from prosecution for alleged human rights violations.

So much of the violence in occupied Jammu and Kashmir violates the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the follow-up additional protocols of 1977. The distinction between civilian and non-civilian targets is not recognised. Indiscriminate attacks are not prohibited and state forces violate international guidelines. A Human Rights Watch report has identified mass graves of thousands of Kashmiris, possibly as high as 8,000. The Human Rights Commission inquiry confirmed there are thousands of bullet-ridden bodies buried in unmarked graves in Jammu and Kashmir. I understand the majority are young men.

Amnesty International recently called on the authorities in Kashmir to investigate alleged mass rapes of over 30 women in North Kashmir, in 1991, in the villages of Kunan and Poshpora. The women raped were aged between 13 and 70. Human Rights Watch has reported that between 50 and 100 women were raped by Indian Army forces on the night of 23 February 1991. At the time, Kashmir police stated that the case was untraceable and stopped the investigation in October 1991.

In 2011 India's human rights commission requested that Kashmir authorities launch a fresh investigation. In June 2013 Kashmir's Judicial Magistrate Court ordered the reinvestigation of the case. In August this year Amnesty International India temporarily closed its offices in India. The decision was taken shortly after Amnesty had hosted a function on recent events in Kashmir. There were concerns for the safety of Amnesty staff. Since July, Srinagar, the capital city of Kashmir, has had its mobile phone networks shut down, many newspaper offices have been raided and papers have been seized.

Tragically, civilians are often the target of attacks. In August, staff at a hospital in Srinagar covered their eyes with patches as an act of solidarity with the children and adults hit with pellets. The doctors and nurses are treating the civilians who are bearing the brunt of the war crimes. 'See our blindness' was one of the slogans on the doctors' placards. The action garnered international attention.

Australia has a strong connection with Kashmir. Successive governments have been engaged in finding a solution to the dispute that has been causing so much hardship since 1948, when the former coloniser of this land, Britain, withdrew from the region. In 1950 an Australian officer, Major General Robert Nimmo, was appointed Chief Military Observer. Australia held this position until 1966. In 1951 Australia sent eight military observers to UNMOGIP, the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. These Australian observers served in Kashmir until 1985. By that time, 150 Australians had served under UNMOGIP. I understand the Australian government withdrew, as they thought the dispute had been resolved.

Also in 1950, the United Nations Security Council appointed Sir Owen Dixon, the sixth Chief Justice of Australia, as the UN representative to organise a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, but the plebiscite was never held. This is not a reflection on Sir Owen Dixon. It was a failure of the international community. Australia should renew its work to ensure that a plebiscite is now held.

I believe Australia has a special responsibility—as a candidate for the United Nations Human Rights Council for 2018-20—to advocate for the protection of human rights of the people of Kashmir and Jammu. The two nations associated with Kashmir and Jammu are Pakistan and India. Both these countries are nuclear powers. If the Turnbull government is responsible, it should be working to de-escalate the current extreme situation. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop should be exploring every avenue to resolve the current tensions and assist to promote peace and justice in this region.

Clicky


Meanwhile the Hindu is reporting that Lee Rhiannon’s office is backing away from this rabidly anti Indian attack by saying “Although she gave this speech, she does not hold the relevant portfolio”. The Hindu also points out that Lee Rhiannon had in the past attacked Dharmic Sri Lanka. What they have not pointed out is that she has a track record of attacking Jewish majority Israel and supporting Mohammadden majority Palestine:

Australian Senator distances herself from Kashmir speech

Our Political and Foreign Policy top brass must demand the Australian Government inform us as to what action was taken by the ruling Australian Government to challenge this statement on the floor of the Australian Parliament and if not challenged, why that was the case.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby wig » 29 Nov 2016 19:34

7 Soldiers Killed In Terror Attack On Army Base

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/3-soldie ... eststories
Seven soldiers, including two officers, were killed in a huge terror attack at an army base near Jammu in the town of Nagrota, just 12 miles from the border with Pakistan. The attack is reminiscent of January's deadly strike on an air force base in Pathankot, and comes just two months after 19 soldiers were killed by Pakistani terrorists at an army camp in Uri. Heavily-armed suicide attackers entered the army base in Nagrota before daybreak with guns and grenades and forced their way in. Three terrorists have been killed. The families of some army officers who were in danger because of the attackers were rescued

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby jamwal » 29 Nov 2016 19:38

Every other source is saing 3 soldiers including one major. NDTV says 7.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 292
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby VKumar » 29 Nov 2016 19:44

DD news confirms 2 officers and 5 soldiers martyred. May their souls RIP.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3534
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby sanjaykumar » 29 Nov 2016 20:46

An Australian giving a human rights speech is like a Sudanese extolling the virtues of white skin

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5764
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Vikas » 30 Nov 2016 10:58

^^ Farooq Abdullah comes up with these moronic statements just to stay in relevance. Even he knows that in next election cycle, Mufti Mehbooba will be kicked out and he (and his son) will be back doing best what they do..Mooching money and holidaying in London.
Ordinary Kashmiri like rest of Ordinary Indians thinks of these politicians as blood sucking leeches.
Unfortunately the alternative to people like Abdullah/Mufti are Geelani, The other Farooq and Shah.
Unless NM focuses his gaze on J&K, their isn't much hope about Kashmir ateast for a Generation or two.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby svinayak » 05 Dec 2016 00:43

VikasRaina wrote:^^ Farooq Abdullah comes up with these moronic statements just to stay in relevance. Even he knows that in next election cycle, Mufti Mehbooba will be kicked out and he (and his son) will be back doing best what they do..Mooching money and holidaying in London.
Ordinary Kashmiri like rest of Ordinary Indians thinks of these politicians as blood sucking leeches.
Unfortunately the alternative to people like Abdullah/Mufti are Geelani, The other Farooq and Shah.
Unless NM focuses his gaze on J&K, their isn't much hope about Kashmir ateast for a Generation or two.


Farooq Abdullah has not understood that international geo politics has changed.
India will be protecting its own region including POK and Indian reach will go to entire AF Pak

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20337
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Prem » 05 Dec 2016 09:45

At 21 minute, General explain that GOI has concluded that Hoorirats ain't political but terror problem . Iron hand is out now.Demonetisation beng teh first blow.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 775
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Bart S » 05 Dec 2016 13:35

^ GOI over the years has failed miserably at the narrative needed on the Hurriyat. It needs to be clearly spelled out, publicized and recognized that the Hurriyat is nothing but the mouthpiece of the United Jihad Council.

Somehow the separatist lies that the UJC represents the militants and the Hurriyat represents the political option has been sold and bought wholesale by the mainstream media and most politicians.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby wig » 06 Dec 2016 16:37

http://tribuneindia.com/news/jammu-kash ... 32763.html

Farooq talks azadi, ready to unite with separatists ; ‘NC is with you (separatists) till you lead the nation in right direction’

National Conference president Farooq Abdullah on Monday offered a partnership to the separatist leadership, who have been steering the five-month-long unrest, telling them not to consider his party as an enemy and vowing to struggle for rights of the people.
Farooq said his party was ready to follow the separatists “till they are on the right path and were leading the nation in the right direction”. Putting up a brazen and rare separatist rhetoric, unusual for a mainstream politician, Farooq said the “path to Azadi is never easy”.
“We don’t have to stay silent, we don’t have to flee. We have to safeguard this land for our children and their children. This will happen when we all will unite,” Abdullah said while addressing his party workers at a commemoration event marking the 111th birth anniversary of his father and National Conference founder Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.
In a significant speech, Farooq, who was once a harsh critic of separatists, offered unity to the separatist leaders, suggesting a major policy U-turn of his party which has remained in power for most of the time in the past three decades. He was accompanied by his son and state’s former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.
“I also tell the leaders of Hurriyat, don’t do it alone, unite. We are with you at this moment. We are not your enemy, but we are not ready to walk on the wrong path,” he said. “We have also struggled, we have spent all our lives doing so… I tell you from this sacred place that move ahead, we are with you till you are right and you can lead this nation right,” the former Chief Minister said.
Farooq’s National Conference is the main opposition party in the state Legislative Assembly and has 15 members as legislatures. The National Conference was routed in the last parliamentary elections and also lost to the PDP in the Assembly elections.
In recent weeks, the National Conference is attempting to put on a soft separatist image by issuing statements delinking Pakistan from the unrest and putting the blame on New Delhi.
Hinting at New Delhi, Farooq said that “they cannot suppress you, remember it”. “This fire will not douse till India and Pakistan will do justice to us… the more they try to extinguish this fire, the more it will rise. I want to tell the workers of the National Conference that do not be away from this struggle,” he said.
The ongoing unrest was an “agitation for the rights of the people”, Farooq said while adding that India and Pakistan needed to talk to solve the Kashmir issue.
The National Conference leader also criticised the state’s ruling party PDP, alleging that its healing touch had turned into a shock for people.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9195
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby arun » 07 Dec 2016 16:04

It is very regrettable that we Indian’s seem not to have learned anything from the flooding of the North East of our country by illegal Bangladeshi origin Mohammadden migrants from Bangladesh and we now are being lax about illegal migration of Bangladeshi origin Mohammaddens from Myanmar into Jammu. I hope that our BJP led Government, both at New Delhi and in J&K State, will act firmly against illegal migration to leave no possibility of changing the religious demographic of the Jammu part of J&K so that the future will not see the Non-Mohammadden Sikh and Hindu population of Jammu meeting the same fate of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits who were forced out of their ancestral lands in the Kashmir Vale:

Rohingya Muslims find new home in Jammu

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2852
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Rudradev » 08 Dec 2016 00:31



Even Bangladesh is sending these filthy pigs packing.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-new ... k3yeK.html

How the f**k is Modi sarkar (or for that matter, BJP-PDP state govt in J&K) allowing this infestation of Rohingyas into a state that has already been targeted for Islamist population explosion and has suffered massive ethnic cleansing of Hindus?

If this had happened during the MMS-Maino Regime we would have been up in arms about it 24X7.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby ramana » 08 Dec 2016 00:40

Bart S wrote:^ GOI over the years has failed miserably at the narrative needed on the Hurriyat. It needs to be clearly spelled out, publicized and recognized that the Hurriyat is nothing but the mouthpiece of the United Jihad Council.

Somehow the separatist lies that the UJC represents the militants and the Hurriyat represents the political option has been sold and bought wholesale by the mainstream media and most politicians.



Hurriyat is an American effort and has the full backing of US SD having been midwifed by Robin Raphael in the 1993 time frame.
Hence there was a reluctance to combat the Hurrirats.

Now its clear Hurrirats are last obstacle to peace and will be eliminated.
NC under Farooq Abdullah are rats sailing to a sinking Hurrirat boat.
Please tweet this message.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2917
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Dipanker » 08 Dec 2016 01:28

*** Duplicate deleted ***
Last edited by Dipanker on 08 Dec 2016 04:30, edited 1 time in total.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2917
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Dipanker » 08 Dec 2016 02:39

To begin with Rohingya is a concocted nomenclature , these people are basically Bangladeshis living in bordering areas of Burma but Bangladesh does not want them! Now so many of them numbering 10's of thousands have ended up India obviously through Bangladesh route. Among other things, this also means that we are doing a poor job of guarding our borders.
Last edited by Dipanker on 08 Dec 2016 04:31, edited 1 time in total.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby sivab » 08 Dec 2016 02:59

https://twitter.com/Peacef_Warrior/stat ... 0430514176

A Nationalist
‏@Peacef_Warrior

And its confirmed Tweeps... Abu Dujana pig has been dispatched to hell


http://www.oneindia.com/india/is-it-end ... icle-tweet

Is it end game for Kashmir Lashkar chief Abu Dujana?

Security forces have managed to corner the Chief of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba in Kashmir, Abu Dujana. An operation is underway in Pulgam, Jammu and Kashmir where security forces are trying to capture the dreaded militant.



This is bigger than Wani pig.

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5764
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion - 2016

Postby Vikas » 08 Dec 2016 12:29

Abu Dujana, What kind of name is that ?
So will his wife(s) be handed over to one of the LeT chief as is the practice in Kabila ?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KJo, Kritavarman and 28 guests