J & K news and discussion

Tamang · Post by **Tamang** » 01 Nov 2010 11:44

Hindus, Muslims are separate nations: Geelani

Luit · Post by **Luit** » 01 Nov 2010 12:03

Jarita wrote,

Have you seen this?
It is from 2008

Tuesday, December 09, 2008
What is Sonia Gandhi doing on FDLAP?

Why is Sonia Gandhi listed as a co-president of an organization that supports secession of Kashmir? Last time we checked, the Indian Government does not officially endorse an Azad Kashmir. India officially considers Kashmir, including the region called Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as integral part of its territory. It also appears that Kashmiris themselves do not particularly want freedom, they participated in the recent assembly election in large numbers.

vera_k wrote,

Curious. This FDL-AP site even now has here listed as a member, and the Kashmir Crisis is the only one highlighted on the page.

http://www.nancho.net/fdlap/

That is a great revelation. I think the lack of response is indicative of the jhatka that people have felt.
But this has not come as a surprise to me. I see it as a shining example of the extent of subversion in the power structure. This also explains the pat on the back the 'Sultan of Kashmir Valley' got from the Yuvraj of Hindustan, for his latest anti national activities.

edit - typos.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 12:15

Tamang wrote:Hindus, Muslims are separate nations: Geelani

Chalo, Another endorsement of the TNT. Lets blow it up sky high.

Luit · Post by **Luit** » 01 Nov 2010 12:50

To begin with, Omar Abdullah literally shrieked in high decibels that Jammu & Kashmir acceded conditionally to India and was not an integral part of the Union . One part of his speech referred to his intention to revive the ‘Anglo-American Dixon Plan,’ though he did not name this obnoxious and aborted proposal. Abdullah’s reference to the creation of so-called sub-regions of Rajouri-Poonch and Doda districts of Jammu province by granting them regional autonomy deserve careful analysis of his latent intentions, which were originally mooted by his grandfather in 1953.

They are ominous clouds on the horizon. They are planning to hand over Ladakh and half of Jammu to India. The Kashmir Valley will be decided by a referendum = merger with Pakistan. This storm will lead to further Balkanisation of India.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Nov 2010 13:18

Luit wrote: That is a great revelation. I think the lack of response is indicative of the jhatka that people have felt.
But this has not come as a surprise to me. I see it as a shining example of the extent of subversion in the power structure. This also explains the pat on the back the 'Sultan of Kashmir Valley' got from the Yuvraj of Hindustan, for his latest anti national activities.

edit - typos.

The opposition should have made this an issue....is the BJP sleeping on the job? Paging Rajaram and other resident BJPites...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Nov 2010 13:20

more realistically they are probably going to go for LOC == IB plan

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 13:24

Hey but will that be acceptable to the KV Whabies. More importantly, can any GOI of the day diliver on that. If not, then not acting at all is the best course of action available to the GOI.

As any action by it will result in a massive blowback against the GOI.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 01 Nov 2010 13:25

Luit wrote:That is a great revelation. I think the lack of response is indicative of the jhatka that people have felt.
But this has not come as a surprise to me. I see it as a shining example of the extent of subversion in the power structure. This also explains the pat on the back the 'Sultan of Kashmir Valley' got from the Yuvraj of Hindustan, for his latest anti national activities.

edit - typos.

This seems to some dubious website and does not need any attention.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Nov 2010 13:28

pratyush-ji
i would like to believe (and sincerely hope that i am not wrong) that there is taqiya underway. bit of keep unkil happy with talks, so that unkil can tell pak that aal eez vell and please now attack haqqani. when pak delivers haqqani and pax afghanica and there are victory parades in the US, then India and Pak can go back to the old formula, and soon enough - we will prevail

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 14:38

LM,

I am unable to see why it would be so. Moreover, if it is then the partners to the dialogue will see right through and understand what can or cannot happen.

Yet they persist with this behaviour.

The worst part is that the KVMs are getting sold down the river by their representatives( So called). At a level I feel that they deserve what they are getting. Yet the human in me is deeply sadden by the betrayal of the KVM.

This will be used to further the alienation in the valley. Yet the GOI is not doing any thing to dispel that notion.

The GOI should have stood firm and told every one involved in no uncertain terms that the borders of the Union will not be redrawn. But they have chosen not to do so. The so called interlocutors are a bunch of out of work uber WKKs. Who behave as if they are beyond the Idea of India.

What happens if the panel gives an opinion which in turn is rejected or put in cold storage by the GOI?
It is likely that we will see a return to the stone pelting ways next summer. Then what?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Nov 2010 15:13

pratyush - do you think that the global ummah gives a fig for the kashmir jehad? not one iota. in all my travels in the arab world and other muslim countries, despite being asked many questions about the m-word or the g-word or the h-word, the k-word never ever figured. in general - most of them have a positive opinion on india.

so the k-obsession is a purely pakistani one. and one that is cold, cynical and manipulative. pakistan will continue to fight india to the last kashmiri-wahabbi, and then find a new moron to back. and as for unkil - if pakistan does their bidding, they couldn't care less. you saw a few years ago the change of tack taken by the KVM leaders and politicians who perhaps actually cared for their constituents. almost all turned towards accomodation with india - and promptly several died in mysterious incidents (or not so mysterious if you think about it). geelani is who or what exactly? what was his stance before? what is it now?

who benefits from ongoing tension and strife in kashmir?

the KVM's are the world's biggest suckers

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 15:44

LM

All I have are questions. The more I try to answer it rationaly the less sense it makes.

JMT

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Nov 2010 15:53

until the time that we can impose our own solution onto pakistan and the 3.5 friends, we will have to go along with this game... the window of opportunity for the pukes is closing fairly fast... they will up the ante

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 15:59

I Have a feeling that in order to mudy the waters further they will attempt a kargil like adventure. With the Khans busy trying to seek a face saving withdrawl. The PRC having a blank check from the TSP. This may give them perfect cover to launch an incident.

Some times I feel that India must play the same game that with the TSP. That the TSP is playing with India.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Nov 2010 16:13

Pratyush wrote:LM

All I have are questions. The more I try to answer it rationaly the less sense it makes.

JMT

That's because you are not looking at the obvious. As Shri Holmes famously said "after all the other possibilities are eliminated, what ever remains, must be the real reason, however improbable"

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 16:53

Sanku,

I have looked at it that way as well. The only explaination is irrational. But in order to resolve that irrationality the powers that be will have to acknoledge the Irrationality.

Once done act accordingly.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 01 Nov 2010 21:00

Dipanker wrote:
Luit wrote:That is a great revelation. I think the lack of response is indicative of the jhatka that people have felt.
But this has not come as a surprise to me. I see it as a shining example of the extent of subversion in the power structure. This also explains the pat on the back the 'Sultan of Kashmir Valley' got from the Yuvraj of Hindustan, for his latest anti national activities.

edit - typos.
This seems to some dubious website and does not need any attention.

Why is it dubious? It does need attention because it affects our country. Look at the interviews and writings of this forum
- Asma Jehangir
- Imran Khan and others

I have a sense of which geo faction this represents and their other alignments follow. For example they vehemently support East Timur but also support the 20th century Islamic jehad where it is destabilizing the pagans. This is very much a mainland Europe/Catholic arm in Asia.

But beyond geopolitical factions the fact remains that she used to be co-president of this body. People need to hold her accountable

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Nov 2010 21:08

Pratyush wrote:
Tamang wrote:Hindus, Muslims are separate nations: Geelani
Chalo, Another endorsement of the TNT. Lets blow it up sky high.

Another Jinnah in the making; but alas the Congress is same

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Nov 2010 21:14

Yuvaraj is doinig a Telangana on J&K. Let me explain. He wants to be on both isdes of the issue. And Omar Abdullah (KCR) is his foil in this case.

I see that after the KCR successfull stalled Andhra Pradesh progress, Yuvraj is using the same strategy everywhere- Orissa, Bihar etc.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 01 Nov 2010 21:15

^^^^
sell outs can shriek using their lung power. some in the media will ask for handover of J&K to TSP.reality does not change. J&K will remain in India in foreseeable future. there will be some incidents going on in Kashmir valley to be in the news.
TSP will continue to go down the drain. 3.5 friends will continue to prop up TSP till the costs and benefits will change with India's rise.
meanwhile GOI will continue with chai biskoot sessions for all and sundry under the ambit of Indian constitution.
enjoi the show.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 01 Nov 2010 21:20

ramana wrote:Yuvaraj is doinig a Telangana on J&K. Let me explain. He wants to be on both isdes of the issue. And Omar Abdullah (KCR) is his foil in this case.

I see that after the KCR successfull stalled Andhra Pradesh progress, Yuvraj is using the same strategy everywhere- Orissa, Bihar etc.

Omar Abdullah is his yuvraj's chum chum

whereas KCR is expendable

. Yuvraj is a nice homely boy with good manners.

It is a lie

. he may not have the required grey matter to be a great leader but he wont do such things.

I refuse to believe it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Nov 2010 09:30

Never struck any written deal with Jethmalani panel: Mirwaiz

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Never ... aiz/705842

Jethmalani had said that the Kashmir Committee had reached a five-point agreement with moderate separatists for a permanent Kashmir solution, which was subsequently sabotaged by the Centre. “We had a written agreement with the Hurriyat on five key issues. The main points are — violence and terror were to be totally outlawed; the solution must be acceptable to all parties and sections, which means it included people of Ladakh and Jammu. Extremist positions like scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution and the demand for secession were to be abandoned, displaced Pandits have to be rehabilitated with full dignity; and that the new dispensation will be a democracy of equal rights,” Jethmalani had said in an interview to a TV channel.

Luit · Post by **Luit** » 02 Nov 2010 14:05

Jethmalani had said that the Kashmir Committee had reached a five-point agreement with moderate separatists for a permanent Kashmir solution, which was subsequently sabotaged by the Centre. “We had a written agreement with the Hurriyat on five key issues. The main points are — violence and terror were to be totally outlawed; the solution must be acceptable to all parties and sections, which means it included people of Ladakh and Jammu. Extremist positions like scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution and the demand for secession were to be abandoned, displaced Pandits have to be rehabilitated with full dignity; and that the new dispensation will be a democracy of equal rights,” Jethmalani had said in an interview to a TV channel.

Jethmalani's garbage is not the kind which causes epidemics. However, it stinks up the mohallah we live in. Opposition to Abrogating Article 370 is either ignorance or subversion.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2010 20:29

Arjun, Why is the onus on the BJP or the opposition? Hasn't the ruling party sworn to uphold the Constitiuion and national interests when it took office?

How come folks want to blame the BJP when they are not in power and in a minority?

I truly want to understand how is it you conclude its the BJP that has to do something when its the UPA and INC that have been elected and are doing the misdeeds?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 02 Nov 2010 21:33

ramana wrote:Arjun, Why is the onus on the BJP or the opposition? Hasn't the ruling party sworn to uphold the Constitiuion and national interests when it took office?

I agree - the post should have been worded better. Sonia Gandhi is listed as Co-president of this organization and apparently has been since '95, and for several years now, this organization seems to have been making a case for Kashmir independance, and there are links on the website that openly talk about this. Sonia and the Congress party should bear the primary responsibility for this treasonous act.

At the same time, nothing moves in India until somebody makes a song and dance about an issue to get people to wake up. The BJP as the primary opposition also bears some responsibility for not making this an issue when these articles and Sonia's association have been public for several years. However this is not to be compared with the culpability of Sonia and the Congress which is of a totally different league.

Luit · Post by **Luit** » 03 Nov 2010 10:47

JUH brainstorming.

New Delhi: Nov 1, 2010: Jamiat Ulema Hind’s Conference on the Kashmir issue held in Ram Lila Maidan here on Sunday unanimously called for the withdrawal of the army from Kashmir and putting an end to gross human rights violations by the state police and the security forces to restore peace and normalcy in the valley. It appealed to the leadership of the militants, calling them ‘mujahideen’ , thus sanctifying their terrorism as Jihad, to take recourse to democratic process. No attempt was made to explain how Jihad could be waged democratically.

Most speakers displayed complete ignorance of or were willing to condone the treacherous policies pursued by Pakistan that has resulted in the present situation. Mufti Mukarram went to the extent of demanding the implementation of UN resolutions which could not be implemented due to Pakistan’s unwillingness to withdraw its armed forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir, as the resolution demanded. The late Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Bhutto had practically rescinded these resolutions in the Simla Pact of 1972 calling for the resolution of this issue bilaterally and former President General Musharraf had said, they are no longer applicable. Journalist M J Akbar, however, clarified, to loud cheers from the audience, that he was NOT with Kashmiris if they wanted another division of the country, but like every other Indian, he too would support them if they demanded justice.

The conference was presided over by the President of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Maulana Syed Md Usman Mansurpuri and attended by its Secretary Maulana Mahmood Madani, Maulana Mujtaba Farooque, Secretary Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Maulana Abdul Wahhab Khilji, Secretary Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadis, Film Director and human rights activist Mahesh Bhatt, Journalist Dr Aziz Burney, Journalist M J Akbar, Swami Agnivesh, Renowned Gandhian Rajiv Vohra, K K Jain, Kamal Farooqi and Professor Tahir Mehmood along with other dignitaries and intellectuals.

The Secretary of the JUH, Mehmood Madani said in no uncertain terms that persecution of Kashmiri people and atrocities on women and children in the name of suppressing protests would not be tolerated anymore because Kashmir belonged to us and Kashmiris were our own. He said that the erosion of trust that had taken place among the people of Kashmir due to the non-fulfilment of promises on the part of the government was the root cause of the current situation in the valley and to win their confidence back, the government would have to take some sincere steps. He further said that restoration of civil rights was a pre-requisite for bringing back peace and normalcy in the state.

Maualana Madani read out an 11 point Resolution passed by the JUH:

1) The government should accept the demands of the Kashmiri people within the frame work of the Constitution of India to restore peace in the state;

2) The government should fulfil the promise of special economic packages for the development and stability of Kashmir and take appropriate steps for the rehabilitation of displaced people and pay compensation to the affected people.

3) The government should issue orders to the armed forces to vacate populated areas as they have made life difficult for the people.

4) The AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and the PSA (Public Safety Act) should be immediately revoked;

5) Action should be taken against the violators of human rights and a commission should be set up to investigate the disappearance of missing youth in the valley;

6) Innocent arrested people should be immediately released;

7) The protesters should not be treated as militants and terrorists;

The JUH appeals to the leadership of the mujahideen to take recourse to democratic process;

9) The JUH assures the Kashmiri people that we support their legitimate demands. We do not regard their interests as different from those of the common Muslims of the country; We shall not allow the millat or the country to break up;

10) The JUH appeals to the peace-loving and justice-loving people and organisations to come forward and start movement against the injustice and atrocities meted out to the Kashmiri people;

11) The JUH declares that its movement against the human rights violations, atrocities and injustices in Kashmir will go on shoulder to shoulder with the people of the country.

Almost all the speakers and representatives of organisations present in the conference supported and seconded the resolution. The Secretary of the Jamat Islami, Mujtaba Farooque said that his organisation supported the resolution and said that the army of any country was for the safeguard of the sovereignty of the country and for the protection of its people, not for killing innocent children and women.

The Vice-President of All India Muslim Personal Law Board Maulana Kalbe Sadiq said that the Kashmir issue was messed up by Mr Jagmohan when he was made the governor and said that our Prime Minister instead of taking solid decisions was merely indulging in lip service.

He said that there are two parties in this dispute. Some people say that there was a third party also involved. But if the government makes further delay in solving this issue, a fourth party which is more powerful than India might also get involved in it.

He further said that had Gadhiji been alive today, he would not have allowed this bloodshed of the Kashmiris.

He proposed to the government to involve the leaders of Jamiat Ulema Hind and Darul Uloom Deoband in the Kashmir process as he hoped that they can solve the issue.

Renowned journalist and group editor of Rashtriya Sahara (Urdu) Dr Aziz Burney discussed the historical perspective of the Kashmir issue and questioned the legitimacy of the presence of the army in the valley.

He said that Kashmir was an integral part of India but if we do not have the army posted in all the other states of India as we have in Kashmir, then Kashmir is not a part of India in the same way as are other states of India.

Senior journalist M J Akbar said that it was heartening that the Jamiat was holding a sincere and honest discussion on the Kashmir issue. He said, “If the Kashmiris demand justice, we are with them but if they demand division of the country, we are not with them.”

Maulana Mufti Mukarram of Fatehpuri Masjid said that it was commendable that we were raising our voice for justice. It is the duty of every peace loving Indian to raise his voice against the atrocities and tortures on the Kashmiris by the armed forces. No Kashmiri is a terrorist, no Muslim is a terrorist, and the killings, the torture of Kashmiri youth, women and children could not be tolerated.

He said, “I have learnt that the first Prime Minister of India Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru had made some commitment before the UNO about Kashmir. The Nehru family is still there. If it is true then the government should honour its commitment.”

He further said that he did not support the illegitimate demands of the Kashmiris but their legitimate demands should be met.

Referring to the killings of protesters, he said that it was unfortunate that the security forces kill the protesters whereas in other parts of country the police and the security forces do not open fire on protesters. Protesters often burn trains, block roads, damage government offices but no one is killed.

Arya Samaj leader Swami Agnivesh was the most vocal against the human rights violations in Kashmir and supported the resolution passed by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Criticising the Prime Minister for his silence on the issue, he asked,” Why is he not taking any initiative, leaving the matter to his Home Minister and the state government?”

He demanded that the Prime Minister make his decision known on the demand of the withdrawal of armed forces, the repeal of AFSPA and PSA within fifteen days. He also demanded a judicial inquiry into the killing of 111 people mostly youngsters by the security forces.

He warned that if these demands were not met, a movement would be launched and lakhs of members of Jamiat and peace-loving people would march from Delhi to Kashmir.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Nov 2010 06:59

US professor deported for ‘political activism’ in Valley

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/US-pr ... ley/706855

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 04 Nov 2010 08:37

This guy is Angana Chatterji's "life partner"

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Nov 2010 10:25

Why was the babette allowed in while hubby was sent back? Both should have been packed away....

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Nov 2010 11:24

Perhaps because she still retains her Indian passport. So her activities are legal. But her huby being a amrikan. Will not be allowed the same privilage.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 04 Nov 2010 13:57

very proud of the BJP activists who heckled that seperatist in jammu. The people of kashmir who pelt stones must realize just how hated they are in thier own state.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 04 Nov 2010 14:05

Pratyush wrote:Perhaps because she still retains her Indian passport. So her activities are legal. But her huby being a amrikan. Will not be allowed the same privilage.

The report says Ms. Chatterji is a US citizen of Indian origin! But wiki says she holds Indian citizenship and is a US PR and she has claimed the same in a report. What is true, I have no idea. The babus questioned Vishy Anand's citizenship, I assume they would have questioned Ms. Chatterji.

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Nov 2010 15:09

Atleast Ms. Chatterji will now know that she is being watched and analyzed closely by GoI

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 04 Nov 2010 18:53

The Economist's slant on Obama's visit to India and the K word...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview ... l/bl/kword

WILL Barack Obama, who arrives in India for his first official tour of the country in the next few days, be forced to utter the K-word? America has a tried-and-tested formula when asked if it will get involved in troubled Kashmir: after some 60 years of conflict, unless both Pakistan and India seek outsiders’ assistance, it will not push itself forward. And since India has no intention of doing so, that means America will stay away.

Yet as a presidential candidate Mr Obama promised to seek some sort of diplomatic resolution in Kashmir. He talked of deploying an envoy to encourage peaceful progress there. His envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, has mightily annoyed the Indians in the past by bringing up Kashmir as relevant to the wider region.

All this might have been quietly forgotten in Mr Obama's forthcoming trip, except for the dreadful events of the past five months, in which Indian security forces have killed more than 110 Kashmiri separatist protesters, some of whom had hurled stones at police, and injured many more.

It never ceases to amaze me at the extent to which The Economist regularly goes to use wordplay to showcase it's bias in reporting India.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Nov 2010 21:25

sum wrote:Atleast Ms. Chatterji will now know that she is being watched and analyzed closely by GoI

Being Indian citizen open up the possibilty of bringing various legal charges against her and make her favourite guest in Tihar with full use of beauty enhancing techniques there.

Luit · Post by **Luit** » 05 Nov 2010 13:31

Geelani talks.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Jamaat-e Islami of Jammu and Kashmir is a veteran Kashmiri politician. Presently, he heads the Tehrik-e Hurriyat-e Jammu Kashmir. He talks about the Kashmir conflict and its possible solution in this exclusive interview with Yoginder Sikand.

Q: In your writings, and in those of other similar Islamist ideologues, the Kashmir conflict is often described as a war between Islam and ‘disbelief’. Do you really think it is so? Is it not a political struggle or a nationalist struggle, actually?

A: The Kashmir dispute is a fall-out of the Partition of India. The Muslim-majority parts of British India became Pakistan, and the Hindu-majority regions became the Dominion of India. There were, at that time, some 575 princely states in India under indirect British rule. Lord Mountbatten gave them the choice of joining either India or Pakistan, and instructed that their choice must be guided by the religious composition of their populace as well as by the borders they might share with either India or Pakistan, as the case might be.

On this basis, almost all the princely states opted for either India or Pakistan. There were, however, three exceptions to this. Hyderabad, a Hindu-majority state with a Muslim ruler, opted for independence, but India argued against this on the grounds that the state had a Hindu majority, and so ordered the Police Action to incorporate the state into the Indian Dominion. Junagadh, another Hindu-majority state with a Muslim ruler, opted for Pakistan, but India over-ruled this decision, again on account of the state’s Hindu majority, and annexed it. If India had adopted the same principle in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state with a Hindu ruler, there would have been no conflict over Kashmir. After all, more than 85% of the population of the state at that time were Muslims; the major rivers in the state flowed into Pakistan; the state shared a border of over 750 kilometres with Pakistan; the only motorable road connecting Kashmir with the outside world throughout the year passed from Srinagar to Rawalpindi; and the majority of the people of the state had cultural and historical ties with the people of Pakistan.

However, over-ruling these factors, which would have made Jammu and Kashmir a natural part of Pakistan, in October 1947 the Indian Army entered the state in the guise of flushing out the Pathan tribesmen, who had crossed into Kashmir in the wake of large-scale killings of Muslims in Rajouri and Poonch. Using this incursion an excuse, Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, engineered the intrusion of Indian forces. The British scholar Alistair Lamb says that the so-called Instrument of Accession that Haris Singh is said to have signed to join India temporarily was itself fraudulent. He claims that Hari Singh did not even sign it.

Thereafter, India itself took the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations. The UN passed some eighteen resolutions related to Kashmir, recognizing the status of the state as disputed and calling for a resolution of the conflict based on the will of the people of the state, which the first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, himself also publicly promised. Now, all that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are saying is that India should live up to this promise that it made of holding a plebiscite in accordance with the UN resolutions. So, this is the basic issue.

Q: So, aren’t you here saying that the conflict is essentially political, and not specifically religious?

A: For a Muslim, no action is permissible which is against Islam. How can we say that the sacrifices that the Muslims of Kashmir make, the tortures that they suffer, and the martyrdom that they meet have nothing to do with Islam, and that they won’t be rewarded by God for this? In this sense, it is a religious issue also. Islam teaches that Muslims must follow the guidance of Islam in every action of theirs—not just in prayers but also in matters such as war and peace, trade, international relations and so on, because Islam is a complete way of life. If a true Muslim participates in any struggle, it is for the sake of Islam. So, how can you say that the Kashmir conflict has nothing to do with religion?

Q: This might be true in theory, but surely many Kashmiris who are involved in the movement for separation from India might be motivated by other factors, including for economic and political reasons, or also due to a commitment to Kashmiri nationalism, as distinct from Islam?

A: I agree that there may be various reasons why different people may participate in the movement. Yes, there can be many who do not adopt the guidance of Islam in this regard. They might champion secular democracy and irreligiousness. Their sacrifices might be motivated by nationalism or ethnicity, rather than Islam. They might have no problem with the system of governance in India, their opposition to Indian rule being simply because of the brutalities of Indian occupation. Of course, one cannot say that all Kashmiri Muslims think alike. But I am speaking from the point of view of a practicing Muslim, who accepts Islam as a complete way of life. For such self-conscious Kashmiri Muslims, it is undoubtedly a religious issue and their sacrifices are for the sake of the faith.

Q: Maulana Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e Islami, who is a major source of inspiration for you, opposed the creation of Pakistan. So, then, why is that that you have consistently been advocating Kashmir’s union with Pakistan?

A: You are wrong here. Maulana Maududi was not opposed to the creation of Pakistan and to the ‘two nation’ theory. What he was opposed to was the practice of the Muslim League leaders, who were leading the movement for Pakistan. He told them that while they talked of the ‘two-nation’ theory and Islam, they were not serious about establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan. They were not preparing the activists of the League for an Islamic state. Maulana Maududi wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state, and this was the grounds for his opposition to the Muslim League. But he, like the League, supported the ‘two-nation’ theory. In fact, the League did not have any theoretical justification for its ‘two nation’ theory until this was provided by Maulana Maududi through his copious writings.

Q: But do you really see Indian Hindus and Muslims as two separate ‘nations’? After all, they share so much in common.

A: They are totally separate nations. There is no doubt at all about this. Muslims believe in just one God, but Hindus believe in crores of gods.

Q: But the Prophet Muhammad, in his treaty with the Jews and other non-Muslims of Medina, described the denizens of Medina as members of one nation. The leader of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind and a leading Deobandi scholar, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, even wrote a book to argue against the League’s ‘two nation’ theory, stressing a composite Indian
nationalism that embraced all the people of India. So, how can the Muslims and Hindus of one country be considered separate ‘nations’, even by Islamic standards?

A: Islam lays down that in an Islamic system (nizam) all non-Muslims, including even atheists, will get equality, justice, security of life and property and freedom of faith. Maulana Madani’s arguments were
critiqued by Maulana Maududi.

Q: In your prison memoirs, Rudad-e Qafas, you write that ‘It is as difficult for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim society as it is for a fish to live in a desert’. But how can this be so? After all, the pioneers of Islam in India and in Kashmir itself, mainly Sufi saints, lived and preached in a society in which Muslims were a very small minority.

A: I meant to say this in a particular sense. Islam, as I said, is a complete way of life. No other path is acceptable to God. So, in the absence of an Islamic polity, it is difficult for Muslims to lead their lives entirely in accordance with the rules of Islam, which apply to social affairs as much as they do to personal affairs. For instance, Muslims in Kashmir under Indian rule live in a system where alcohol, interest and immorality are rife, so how can we lead our lives completely in accordance with Islam? Of course, Muslim minorities are Muslims, too, but their duty must be to work to establish an Islamic dispensation in the lands where they live so that they can lead their lives fully in accordance with Islam and its laws. Missionary work to spread Islam is as much of a duty as is praying and giving alms to the poor. Now, as for your question about those Sufis who lived and worked in societies where Muslims were in a minority—they may have been pious people, but we take as our only model the Prophet Muhammad.

Q: But, surely, no one is forced to drink alcohol, deal in interest or act immorally in Kashmir?
A: True, but these things automatically spread since they are allowed by the present un-Islamic system. So that is why you see the degeneration of our culture and values happening on such a large scale.

Q: You mentioned about preaching Islam being a principal duty of all Muslims. But, surely, for this you need a climate of peace, not of active hostility, as in Kashmir today?

A: Absolutely. I agree with you entirely. No one can deny this. We need to have good relations with people of other communities. Only then can we communicate the message of Islam to them. But if one side continues to oppress the other and heap injustices and says that this should be considered as ‘peace’, how can it be accepted? If, for instance, Narendra Modi says that what happened with the Muslims in Gujarat represents peace, how can anyone accept it? If India stations lakhs of troops in Kashmir and says this is for establishing peace, how can it be, because these troops themselves are disturbing the peace?

Q: You, following other Islamist ideologues, have consistently been advocating what you call an ‘Islamic state’, seeing this as an indispensable Islamic duty. To your mind, which is the best functioning ‘Islamic state’ in the world today?

A: The world-wide Muslim community ummah is today in such a sorry state that there is no Islamic state anywhere in the real sense. Saudi Arabia is described as an Islamic state, but it is run by a monarchy, and monarchy has no sanction in Islam. If Muslim countries, including those that claim to be ‘Islamic’, were truly Islamic states they would never have been enslaved to America, as is the case today. They all support America’s policies and adopt its dictates. They are completely, on all accounts, dependent on America. They cannot even defend themselves. They have to rely on America and Europe to do this. They keep their money in American banks. We say that they should use their wealth to empower themselves and get out of America’s clutches and convert themselves into genuine Islamic states.

Q: In the wake of the attacks of 11 September, 2001, how do you see the impact of American pressure on Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, to change their position on Islamist movements?

A: The events of September 2001 have caused most Muslim states to change their policies and to toe America’s line even more closely. You can see this happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only Muslim country that refuses to cave under American pressure is Iran.

Q: And now America is seeking an excuse to attack Iran, is it not?

A: Yes. America is trying to stoke Shia-Sunni rivalries in order to undermine Iran. It is trying all other such weapons, dividing the Muslims on the basis of sect, nationality, race and ethnicity against each other so as to weaken them. And the leaders of most Muslim countries are now playing the role of agents of the USA, be it in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Palestine or as is the case with the Saudi monarchs. See what’s happening in Waziristan, the Frontier Province and Baluchistan, in Pakistan. A climate is being deliberately created in those parts of Pakistan to justify American attacks and bombings in the name of flushing out militants.

Q: If Pakistan is now so pro-American, acting against its own people, and if it is not an authentic ‘Islamic state’, then why have you been advocating Kashmir’s union with it?

A: As I said earlier, the Muslim League claimed that Pakistan was won in the name of Islam, but it did not give its cadre the necessary training to establish an Islamic state there. Because of this, the influence of the Army and the country’s Westernised leadership, Pakistan failed to become an Islamic state. But it was meant to become such a state, which is something that we want. So, if the people of Jammu and Kashmir were given the right to decide between India and Pakistan, the majority, I think, would prefer the former.

I admit that there are weaknesses in Pakistan, but these can be addressed. India has a secular system, which we can under no condition accept. Because of the oppression that we have been suffering under Indian rule for the last sixty years, how can we opt for India? In just a few weeks, in late 1947, some five lakh Muslims were killed by Dogra forces and Hindu chauvinists in Jammu. In the last seventeen years, over one lakh Kashmiri Muslims, mainly innocent civilians, have been killed. So many localities have been burned down, women raped and men rendered missing. After such brutal experiences, only a blind person would opt in favour of India.

Q: Many Kashmiri Muslims would rather be independent than join India or Pakistan. Do you agree?

A: The UN resolutions provide for only two options: joining India or Pakistan, and if this rule is followed then the majority would, I think, opt for
Pakistan. However, if the three parties to the dispute—Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir—come to a consensus on an independent Jammu and Kashmir, then, as I have repeatedly said, we will accept that formula also.

Q: In some of your writings you have argued against Kashmir being an independent state, even claiming that this is an Indian ‘ploy’. Can you elaborate?
A: This is true. It is an Indian ploy, because India does not want to see Pakistan strengthened, which it would be if Jammu and Kashmir joins Pakistan. The slogan of Azadi is aimed at weakening Pakistan. Independence would result in a territory that would have been a natural part of Pakistan being taken away from it. But, then, compared to staying with India, independence is a lesser evil.

Q: Many Kashmiris, seeing the current political and economic troubles in Pakistan, might say that they would prefer to be independent.

A: If we get independence, we will accept it.
Q: What if most people of Jammu and Kashmir wish to live in a secular or democratic set-up, and not a Taliban-style ‘Islamic’ state?

A: We don’t want to bring Taliban-type Islam, but the real Islam of the Quran and the Practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet.

Q: But the Taliban argued that their state was in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah.

A: To claim something is different from acting on that claim. For instance, while Islam makes it a duty for every Muslim male and female to acquire education, as soon as the Taliban came to power they banned girls’ education. What they should have done, instead, was to set up separate schools for girls. So, like this, there are many issues on which we can differ. The Islamic state that we would like to establish in Jammu and Kashmir would be one based on the understanding that all of humanity are children of the same primal parents, Adam and Eve. They will all be treated equally and justly. There shall be no discrimination based on religion. After all, the Prophet once remarked that all creatures are of the family of God and that the best is he who treats members of God’s family—which obviously includes non-Muslims, too—in the best way.

Q: You advocate Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, but today minority nationalities in Pakistan, such as the Baluchis and the Sindhis, suffering under Punjabi domination, are struggling for independence. Might not the same thing happen to the Kashmiris if the state were to join Pakistan?

A: We want to join Pakistan, not be absorbed into it. We would have internal autonomy.

Q: But, surely, despite Pakistan’s claims, the part of Jammu and Kashmir under its control—‘Azad Kashmir’—lacks real autonomy?

A: Yes, Azad Kashmir cannot be said to be really autonomous since there, too, everything happens according to the wishes and directions of the Federal Government. But we would make sure that our autonomy be written into the Constitution.

Q: Do you see any significant changes in Pakistan’s policies vis-à-vis Kashmir in recent years, perhaps under American pressure?

A: Yes, considerable changes can be noticed. Earlier, Pakistan used to insist on the right to self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Musharraf was the first to change this, arguing for a solution outside that of the UN resolutions, an out-of-the-box solution. This constituted the first deviation in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Then, Musharraf began talking of seven zones in Jammu and Kashmir, soft borders and his four-point formula, which is nothing but a means to preserve the status quo.

Q: How do you respond to media allegations that the Kashmiri movement for self-determination is ‘anti-Hindu’?

A: How can our struggle be called ‘anti-Hindu’? It is a struggle for certain principles. In Hindu mythology, when the Kauravas and the Pandavas, cousins of each other, were arrayed against each other on the battlefield, Arjun turned to Krishanji Maharaj, and told him that he could not bear to fight his own brothers. Why, he asked him, was he asking him to fight them? He wanted to refuse to fight. But, then, Krishanji Maharaj said, ‘Arjun, this is a battle for certain principles. In this, do not consider the fact that those who are opposed to you are your relatives’. We Kashmiris, too, are engaging in such a battle for certain principles with the Indian Government, for occupying us against our will and for not acting on its promise to let us decide our own political future. It is not a war against Hindus or the people of India. It is not a communal conflict. In fact, there are many Indians who support our stand on the right to self-determination.

Q: Then why is it that the Indian media, and large sections of the Western media, too, present the movement as ‘Islamic extremism’ or ‘terrorism’?

A: The Indian media is bound to support India’s military occupation. How can you expect it to support our cause? I’ve seen so many massacres by the Indian Army here, but often the media describes them as ‘encounters’ with ‘militants’. You know how the agents of the Indian Army engineered the massacre of so many innocent Sikhs in Chhatisinghpora and falsely
attributed this to ‘militants’, in order to convey the misleading message to the then American President, Bill Clinton, at that time on a visit to India, that our struggle is a ‘communal’ one, and not a freedom movement. I can cite so many more such cases to prove this point.

Q: But, if that is so, why is it that you and people like you have not condemned killings by militants in the same way as you condemn similar crimes by the Indian Army?

A: Wherever such incidents have happened, we have condemned them, irrespective of the religion of the victims. The Quran clearly states that enmity with a people should not make one stray from the path of justice, because justice is closer to piety.

Q: If Jammu and Kashmir becomes independent, how do you envisage its relations with India and Pakistan?

A: It should have brotherly relations with both countries.
Q: Some radical groups active in Kashmir argue that all Hindus are ‘enemies’ of Islam. What do you feel?

A: No, this is erroneous. There should be no enmity or discrimination with anyone simply because of his religion, caste, race, colour or country. We are permitted to fight only those individuals who fight us or place hurdles in the path of our faith. With others we should have good relations, and that applies to our relations with ordinary Hindus as well. So, when some people argue that as a community the Hindus are ‘enemies of Islam’, it is wrong. It is not an Islamic way of thinking.

Q: Certain militant groups active in Kashmir say that they will not stop their war with India until India itself is ‘absorbed’ into Pakistan and the Pakistani flag flies atop Delhi’s Red Fort. What is your opinion?

A: This is emotional talk and should not be paid attention to. We don’t agree with this argument. Our fight with India is only to the extent that India has taken away our right to self-determination. Once we win that right we will have no problem with India. In fact, if by exercising this right the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir say that they want to be
with India, we will also accept that.
Q: But don’t you feel certain radical groups active in Kashmir who preach hatred against Hindus and call for India’s ‘absorption’ into Pakistan are actually defaming the religion whose cause they claim to champion?

A: Islam has been given a bad name more by Muslims themselves and less by Hindus. Islam has been damaged less by open ‘disbelief’ (kufr) than by hidden hypocrisy (munafiqat), by people who claim to be Muslims but are really not so in practice.

Q: So, would you agree that these groups who condemn all Hindus as ‘enemies’ are actually misinterpreting Islam?

A: We cannot take responsibility for what others say. You can ask these people yourself.
Q: What message do you have for the people of India?

A: I will only say that India should honour its promise to the people of Jammu and Kashmir to let them decide their own political future. Honouring one’s promise is a major principle of the Hindu religion. Raja Dasharath, honouring the promise he made to his wife Kaikeyi, gave his throne to his son Bharat and ordered Ram Chandraji to go into the forest in exile. Simply in order to keep his promise he sent his elder son to fourteen years in the forest and gave the throne to Bharat instead. Bharat was a man of character, and so he placed Ram Chandraji’s sandals on the throne, believing that his elder brother deserved to rule. So, the Hindu religion teaches that one should live up to one’s promises, and if India were to act on the advice of the Hindu scriptures in this regard on the issue of Kashmir the conflict will easily be solved.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Nov 2010 13:43

^^^ lies, damn lies, and hurriyat utterances

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Nov 2010 07:34

J&K Separatists not betting on Obama
That's why they have been wooing the Chinese lately.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Nov 2010 08:12

Luit wrote:Geelani talks.

A: I will only say that India should honour its promise to the people of Jammu and Kashmir to let them decide their own political future. Honouring one’s promise is a major principle of the Hindu religion. Raja Dasharath, honouring the promise he made to his wife Kaikeyi, gave his throne to his son Bharat and ordered Ram Chandraji to go into the forest in exile. Simply in order to keep his promise he sent his elder son to fourteen years in the forest and gave the throne to Bharat instead. Bharat was a man of character, and so he placed Ram Chandraji’s sandals on the throne, believing that his elder brother deserved to rule. So, the Hindu religion teaches that one should live up to one’s promises, and if India were to act on the advice of the Hindu scriptures in this regard on the issue of Kashmir the conflict will easily be solved.

His interpretation of events leading up to the promise of a plebiscite is factually incorrect and need not be countered here as they are too well known. Geelani saheb is engaging in taqiya, but there is one truth about Mawdudi.

Q: Maulana Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e Islami, who is a major source of inspiration for you, opposed the creation of Pakistan. So, then, why is that that you have consistently been advocating Kashmir’s union with Pakistan?

A: You are wrong here. Maulana Maududi was not opposed to the creation of Pakistan and to the ‘two nation’ theory. What he was opposed to was the practice of the Muslim League leaders, who were leading the movement for Pakistan. He told them that while they talked of the ‘two-nation’ theory and Islam, they were not serious about establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan. They were not preparing the activists of the League for an Islamic state. Maulana Maududi wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state, and this was the grounds for his opposition to the Muslim League. But he, like the League, supported the ‘two-nation’ theory. In fact, the League did not have any theoretical justification for its ‘two nation’ theory until this was provided by Maulana Maududi through his copious writings.

Geelani saheb is actually right about Mawdudi and Yoginder Sikand is wrong. Mawdudi did not have confidence in Jinnah and his crop of second-rung leadership that they would establish a truly Islamic state in Pakistan. He called Jinnah as Kafir-e-Azam. In circa 1942, Maulana Abu ala Al Mawdudi wrote in his article Musalman aur Maujooda Siyasi Kashmakash Vol III (Muslims and the Current Political Struggle), that "As a Muslim, I have no interest in their (Muslim) rule in those areas of India where the Muslims are in a majority. For me the primary question is whether in this 'Pakistan' of yours the basis of government will be the sovereignty of God or, in accordance with the western idea of democracy, the sovereignty of the people. In the first case it will certainly be 'Pakistan,' otherwise it will be as much of 'Na-Pakistan' as that part of the country where, according to your scheme, the rule will be that of non-Muslims: in fact, in the eyes of God it will be 'na-pak' -- and damned.” Jinnah spoke different tunes at different times which raised the suspicion of Mawdudi. Raja of Mehmudabad arranged a meeting between Mawdudi's representative and Jinnah when Jinnah promised “I will continue to strive for the cause of a separate Muslim state, and you do your services in this regard; our efforts need not be mutually exclusive. I seek to secure the land for the mosque; once that land belongs to us, then we can decide on how to build the mosque.” Mawdudi correctly interpreted this as that Jinnah's efforts will end with securing Pakistan and that the Islamists will be handed over the responsibility of building the nation.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 06 Nov 2010 15:36

The oh-so-chweet Briturds are at it again.

The K-word (Economist)

Reads like the ~~rhetorical~~ recto-rical polemic that it is. Would've needlessly gotten moi BP up over such garbage not so long ago. Only elicits smirks now. The chootzpah of the Economyst types has been exposed as impotent only. More bark matters little at this point, in the iPod era when the noise can easily be cancelled out. LOL.

Interestingly, whereas economyst correspondents never ID themselves, this time the Briturd rag has chosen to put the initials of the turd who wrote this bilge - A.R......now who could that be, I wonder....LOL