The arrangements for a remembrance seminar to be organized by the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on the occasion of the 74th founding day of liberated part of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir have been finalized.
74th Founding Day of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
The Radio Pakistan broadcasted on Saturday that the 74th Founding Day of Azad Jammu and Kashmir will be celebrated on Sunday with a renewed pledge to continue the struggle until the liberation of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and accession of the whole territory to Pakistan.
The tomb of founder President of AJ& K, Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (late) at Kot Matte Khan, Rawalakot, Azad Kashmir. He led the revolt of 1947 and liberated present day Azad Kashmir from Dogra forces.
It will be a public holiday throughout the state. The day will dawn with 21 guns saluting in the state capital Muzaffarabad.
Sardar Ibrahim Khan- ‘Bani-e-Kashmir’ (founder of liberated Kashmir).
The Founding Day is celebrated in commemoration of freedom from the Dogra regime on in 1947. On 24 Oct 1947, Sardar Ibrahim Khan declared Bhimber, Kotli, Mirpur & Muzaffarabad independent as ‘Azad Kashmir’ and himself came to be known as ‘Bani-e-Kashmir’ (founder of liberated Kashmir).
Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar acceded to Pakistan
After the collapse of dogra rule in above mentioned areas of the state, On 04 Nov 1947, Pakistani flag was hoisted by Maj William Brown at the Gilgit Scouts lines & Peshawar was informed of Gilgit’s accession to Pakistan along with principalities of Hunza & Nagar.
Maj William Brown -the Gilgit ScoutsSardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan- Founder and the first president of the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan-Mujahid-i-Awwal (the first freedom fighter)
Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan started armed struggle against the rulers from the hilltops of Neela Butt. It’s a popular belief that Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan fired the first gunshot.
Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan- Former President and Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir
This day was celebrated by the followers of the Mujahid-i-Awwal (the first freedom fighter) as he was popularly known, commemorating his bravery.
Ghazi Millat was the cause of the revolutionary government formed under the leadership of Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan.
Prominent leaders will address the seminar
According to a spokesman of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Prime Minister Sardar Abdul Qayyum Niazi, Chairman Kashmir Committee Shehryar Khan Afridi, former President Azad Kashmir Sardar Masood Khan, former Prime Minister Azad Kashmir Raja Farooq Haider, Leader of the Muslim Conference, and former Prime Minister, Sardar Atiq Ahmad Khan, Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly Chaudhry Latif Akbar and others will address the seminar.
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Tasneem Aslam, Executive Director of Iqbal Institute of Research and Dialogue Islamabad Dr. Hassan Al-Amin, Azad Jammu, and Kashmir University Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr. Muhammad Kaleem Abbasi and other speakers will also address the event.
The Registrar of the University, Prof. Dr. Ayesha Sohail has constituted a core committee headed by Prof. Dr. Siddique Awan, Director Finance and Planning, for the management and administration of the Kashmir Seminar.
According to Radio Pakistan, special prayers will be offered in mosques for the integrity and prosperity of Pakistan and the early liberation of Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Simple but impressive flag hoisting ceremonies will be held at all district and divisional headquarters.
Main function of the Founding Day will be held at Parade Ground Muzaffarabad
In the state capital Muzaffarabad, the main function of the Founding Day will be held at Parade Ground and Prime Minister AJK Sardar Abdul Qayyum Niazi will hoist the national flag at 9:00 am. All the three radio stations of AJK will air special programs to highlight the significance of Founding Day.
The second session will be presided over by Azad Kashmir Prime Minister Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan Niazi in which leaders of parliamentary political parties Latif Akbar, Sardar Atiq Ahmed Khan, Raja Farooq Haider Khan, Khawaja Farooq Ahmed, and other leaders will address.
Meanwhile, Azad Jammu and Kashmir University Professor Dr. Muhammad Kaleem Abbasi said in a statement that the University of Kashmir has been celebrating the foundation day of Azad Kashmir since 2016.
And in keeping with its tradition, the university will celebrate the founding day of the state with full enthusiasm and national spirit this year as well to acquaint the young generation with the present situation of the Azad Kashmir Movement and the motives behind it on October 24, 1947.
India has unleashed a reign of terror in Kashmir, Prime Minister Imran Khan said this in his virtual address at 76th session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said in his tweet that he was proud to be under leadership of PM Imran Khan who at UNGA spoke about major global challenges of today.
He further said that PM Khan continues to engage every major platform to bravely share voices of those less fortunate & to highlight key issues that many choose to ignore but that affect us all.
PM Imran Khan said in his address that India’s action in occupied Jammu and Kashmir is against the international human rights and humanitarian laws including the fourth Geneva Convention.
He further said that India’s actions in Jammu and Kashmir amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity .
“This is unfortunate -very unfortunate approach to overlook the violations of human rights. The world has its considerations of commercial interests and major powers overlook the transgressions of India. These are such a double standards.
PM Imran Khan criticised the policies of Indian government that endorses RSS and BJP’s Hindutva strategy that allowed them to get away with human rights abuses.
He mentioned in his speech that renowned Kashmiri leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s funeral was denied to take place according to Islamic tradition and such actions are against basic human rights.
Since 2003, people of Indian Jammu and Kashmir are facing intensified repression that continues to vitiate the environment.
PM Imran Khan reiterated his demands that India should reverse its unilateral and illegal measures instituted since 5th August 2019.
Secondly, India should stop it’s oppression and human rights violations.
Thirdly, India should halt and reverse changes in the occupied Jammu and Kashmir territory to prevent another conflict.
Fourthly, India’s military build-up development of nuclear weapons and acquisition of destabilizing conventional capabilities can erode mutual deterrence between the two countries.
/London/: Members of the British Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Kashmir have exchanged heated views while discussing a motion on human rights in Kashmir.
British parliament member Imran Hussain said that the UK should send clear massage to United Nations for solution of Kashmir as he said the Kashmiries also have equal rights to live on earth.
Labour MP Tahir Ali, while speaking to the House of Commons, called for the Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom to be barred from the Parliament because of the military occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.
MP Tahir Ali
The Minister for Asia in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), Amanda Milling, responded to the debate on Thursday by reiterating the UK government’s unchanged stance on Kashmir as a bilateral issue.
The government takes the situation in Kashmir very seriously but it’s for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political solution, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
It’s not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator, said Milling.
Raheel Malik Tweeted that the backbench business debate was put forward by MPs Debbie Abrahams and Yasmin Qureshi.
According to Qureshi “the situation on the ground is deeply troubling” and as the “conflict is a colonial legacy” UK has a responsibility to help resolve it.
The debate, which was scheduled to be held in March 2020 but had to be postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, was opened by Opposition Labour Party MP Debbie Abrahams.
She said that the Pakistani government allowed them unfettered access. We used our meetings to ask pointed questions related to human rights issues highlighted in United Nations reports, said Abrahams.
Kashmiris must be at the heart of a trilateral peacebuilding process, she said, reiterating that Thursday’s debate was not pro or anti any country and only speaking in favour of human rights.
Since India and Pakistan have finally embarked on the path of reconciliation and dialogue, it is time to reflect upon and identify the major roadblocks which have the potential to hinder forward movement once again.
These hurdles include: a top-down approach, limited infrastructure for peace-building and, more importantly, the absence of Kashmiri representation and limited support of all the stakeholders. It is a sad reality that, despite periodic engagement in dialogue, both India and Pakistan have remained unable to yield any tangible results, particularly in the context of the Kashmir dispute and Siachen.
In the present circumstances, it is imperative to find the key entry points which might help both countries initiate a continuous, uninterrupted and insulated dialogue process, ensuring the involvement of all stakeholders in the process including the political and civil society representatives.
A major obstacle is the tendency of a top-down approach. Most of the time, the top leadership initiates talks which is a top-down approach, with its own limitations. The civil-military bureaucracy plays a vital role in constructing the contours of the dialogue process which is conservative in terms of generating fresh thinking and is also averse to new ideas for the engagements. A well thought-out and properly structured peace process, involving citizens and multi-layer stakeholders, has not been formulated so far.
Additionally, seven decades-long acrimonies and rifts among the leaders resulted in the creation of some permanent infrastructures meant to undermine and compete with each other at the diplomatic level for economic gains.
Secondly, the institutional structures for the peace process have not been created so far; these could have served as a platform for dialogue and cooperation. Instead of creating institutions to promote dialogue and reconciliation, prevent conflict and enable mediation; heavy investment is made to prevent each other’s socio-political growth and damage international standing.
Third, several accounts acknowledged the significant role played by the secret backchannel set up by the two governments to resolve contentious issues and find a common ground for the settlement of the Kashmir issue during 2004-2008. However, the delay in the pronouncement of what was agreed on made it redundant as the altered political environment in both countries made it infeasible to make things public.
Fourth, several dialogues and even summit meetings hit a dead end quickly because these were not mutually planned and well-designed, and there was no strategy to contain backlash in case of failure. Conversely, both New Delhi and Islamabad tried to outmaneuver each other at all meetings instead of focusing on resolving the contentious issues. Regrettably, politics was played to address the domestic audience and larger regional interests were conveniently compromised.
For instance, in July 2009, on the side-lines of a Non-Aligned Movement summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, then Indian PM Manmohan Singh acknowledged Pakistan’s apprehension about alleged Indian involvement in insurgency reported in Balochistan. Likewise, in July 2015; the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, on the side-lines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in the Russian city of Ufa, issued a joint statement which outlined the future course of action to normalize bilateral relations; they mentioned that both sides should strive to combat terrorism. Pakistani media and politicians accused the then PM Nawaz Sharif of accepting Indian terms by including the term ‘terrorism’ in the joint statement, without mentioning Kashmir in particular.
Almost all the meetings of the Indian and Pakistani leaders are intensely followed by their respective media which largely promotes the traditional narrative, often led by ex-government officials who are generally driven by the popularity syndrome instead of balanced thinking. The media has thus made it virtually impossible for the political leadership to think creatively to find new ways of engagement. In this background, both countries have to carefully manage their domestic media, besides ensuring solid support from the opposition parties.
Last but not least, since the LoC ceasefire implemented on February 25, Kashmir has not witnessed any respite in violence or state-led repression. Thousands of Kashmiris are still in jails or under house arrest despite the growing danger of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The dialogue process between India and Pakistan cannot yield the desired results unless the Kashmir Valley witnesses some noticeable changes such as the release of prisoners, exercising zero tolerance to human rights violations and creating space for political activities run by people with all shades of political attachments and opinions.
It is a hard reality that the political landscape of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir is undergoing rapid changes, unparalleled in scale and impact, since the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35 A on August 5, 2019.
In this context, an honest and objective discussion should begin about Pakistan’s priorities associated with the dispute.
India is gradually but consistently trying to alter the ground realities in IOK.
As a result, the economic, political and administrative domination of Kashmiri Muslims is diminishing swiftly, and fast demographic change is becoming a reality. On top of this, an intense cultural assault is also being pursued which is meant to change the ages-old Kashmiri Muslim identity.
The lands owned by the Kashmiris are being confiscated for the expansion of the existing military cantonments, building new ones or allotting land to new settlers coming from mainland India. Indian authorities have changed laws to designate certain areas as ‘strategic zones.
This will facilitate the Indian armed forces to carry out construction and build facilities wherever required. The best farmlands, forest areas and gardens are taken from people without their approval which seems to be an imitation of the Israeli model of land theft.
This sabotaging process will eventually pave the way for settler colonialism aimed to replace the original population.
In the present circumstances, the Kashmiri Muslim identity and centuries-old culture commonly called Kashmiriyat are facing an imminent challenge. Secondly, Kashmiri Muslims had gradually established their political and administrative power in Occupied Kashmir during the last seven decades.
Since August 5, a systematic process of its reversal has begun. It is reported that all major administrative positions are currently being held by non-Kashmiris.
Indeed, demographic change is a vital element of the BJP’s Kashmir policy. To implement it, the Indian government has scrapped a 37-year-old law that granted the right of return to residents of J&K who had fled to Pakistan during 1947-1954. Additionally, local residency rights are given to outsiders in a big way.
The Indian government has granted leases to non-state companies for mining in Kashmir. This move has created severe problems for local firms which are unable to compete with big non-state companies. Following the abrogation of Article 370, bidding for mineral blocks was also opened up to bidders from outside J&K; this has drastically reduced the prospects of winning the bid for local companies.
Recently, a delimitation commission was formed to redraw the electoral constituencies and increase assembly seats in Hindu–dominated Jammu and pave the way for the first-ever Hindu chief minister of the Muslim majority J&K.
The plan of building around 50,000 temples in Occupied Kashmir is no longer secret. The Indian government has identified several historic mosques and dargahs to replace them with temples. They claim that many mosques were built upon the sites of ancient Hindu religious sites. Besides, the BJP government abolished the 131-year-old status of the Urdu language as Jammu and Kashmir’s sole official language in September 2020.
It is reported that due to constant siege and absence of the internet facility, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic; the economic losses of Kashmir have reached six billion dollars during the last 20 months. The tourism sector, horticulture, local construction, education, hospitals and medical activities have also suffered enormously.
After August 5, 2019; Kashmir witnessed a massive increase in the incidents of state repression. Occupation forces have been setting local homes on fire on the pretext of militants hiding there. The killing of young and educated people has become a regular phenomenon. It is reported that 10 MPhil/ PhD scholars, 15 Masters degree holders and 47 graduates had been killed in various incidents. The entire population lives with a sense of perpetual insecurity, facing a collective punishment.
In brief, the people of Occupied Kashmir are facing an unprecedented existential crisis. The international media reports and human rights activists have affirmed that Kashmir is silent as a graveyard and in a state of shock.
In this context, a short-term strategy is required to meet the immediate challenges without making compromises on the long-term goals of the Kashmiris such as the right to self-determination.
The Kashmiri identity and demographic change can only be protected if all Kashmiri voices join hands and come up with a common minimum agenda for the future of Jammu and Kashmir, entailing the improvement of the humanitarian condition and restoring to some degree freedom of expression and assembly. The disintegration of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir is not acceptable to the residents of J&K across the LoC. Hence, the statehood should not be only restored but Kashmiris should also be assured that the demographic changes will not happen. Luckily, the pro-India Kashmiri political parties are demanding the reversal of articles 370 and 35 A which if succeeded can undo several laws and ensure the protection of the Kashmiri identity and statehood to a great extent.
A vibrant strategy is essential to stop or slow down the BJP’s political agenda in Kashmir at least for the time being. Without massive pressure from the international community and Pakistan, the present Indian approach to Kashmir cannot be averted.
Pakistan has shown immense restraint and did not attend calls to support violent means or resort to military escalation. A matching reciprocal approach is imperative to forward the peace process. Unilateral appeasement will not work for a long time. The BJP government has to realize that peace and stability in South Asia runs through Srinagar.
Aneela Shahzad summarises and contexualises different military adventures carried by the two countries along Line of Actual Control in the recent past and the objectives of China behind incursions in Galwan Valley.
By Aneela Shahzad
Kashmir is a potential geopolitical pivot that engages two aspirant regional powers China and India and a third nuclear power, Pakistan. The volatility of the Kashmir Conflict is not an untroublesome matter, experts around the world realize its sensitivity; the International Crisis Group 2020 Report highlighted Kashmir as one of the ten conflicts to watch.
The recent and ongoing Ladakh Stand-off, where China has made incursions into Indian held territories, has come as a shocker for world audience but is not without precedence. Skirmishes and standoff along the 4,056 km border shared between China and India, where the enormous Tibetan Plateau punches at the towering Himalayas, have been often since the independence of the two states. The same Kashmir that Pakistan contends with India in the United Nations, is also occupied by China in the Aksai Chin, Demchok, and Chumar Valley.
In the recent stand-off, there are reports of incidents and Chinese encampment at several places, making it a multi-nodal incursion. Within a couple of days, the Chinese made their presence at the Pangong Tso Lake through which the LAC passes; the Despang Plains; the Galwan Valley further north; at the Hot Springs area; at Demchok; and at Sikkim.
Entering Ladakh at the Galwan Valley has enabled the Chinese to cross and obstruct the strategic Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi (DSDBO) highway, cutting off the Indian army’s lone road to Daulat Beg, isolating Sub-Sector North (SSN).
As it has happened, the Indian side has constructed over 2316.62 km to its network of the road inside Ladakh, since 2015. This net of roads leads all the way to Daulet Beg Oldi, the last station at the northern end of Ladakh, that open into Chinese territories. DBO is only 8 km short of the Karakoram Pass, the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Road was completed in October last year and shortly after the Indian Army upgraded the DBO base to brigade level – all this was seen by the Chinese as a threat and India’s preparedness for war under the current ambitious Modi government.
Apparently, the Chinese see India’s enhanced infrastructure and their developments right up to the Karakoram Pass as India’s possible impulsion over Aksai Chin and the adjacent Shaksgam Valley. An impulsion that is proven by the Ministry of External Affair’s recent assertion on Gilgit Baltistan, where it made clear ‘…that the entire Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, including the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, are an integral part of India…’. Indeed, if India considers Gilgit Baltistan a part of India then Aksai Chin and the rest disputed area must be its too. Interestingly, this statement came on May 4th, just one day before the Chinese incursions.
But beyond this China also fears for its highway from Kashghar all the way to Lasha, passing through Aksai Chin. This highway is vital to China as its road to the far-flung city centers of Tibet, separated from the mainland by the daunting Gobi Desert. The same highway from Kashghar splits towards the Khunjrab Pass that enters the Gilgit Baltistan region, wherefrom it goes all the way down to Gwadar at the Arabian Sea, the CPEC route. This means that any Indian advance can obstruct China’s two vital veins, one to its vulnerable Tibet, whose dissenting Dalai Lama is in Indian protection, and the CPEC route that is a flagship project of the BRI.
Source: Google
If the Chinese obstruct the DSDB road at Galwan, where they have reportedly landed with 5,000 troops, they would practically be besieging the whole SSN, and the only access remaining would be through air. This does not only put the Chinese in a position to defend their territory across the Karakoram Pass but also in a position to occupy the whole of SSN, also securing the contentious Siachen Glacier, accessible only from SSN.
The degree of escalation in the standoff can be measured by the fact that Chinese aircrafts have been flying more frequently from their bases in Hotan and Gargunsa, where the number of J-11 and J-7 aircraft has been increased. On the other side, the Indian defense forces and intelligence agencies are carrying out extensive reconnaissance missions via unmanned aerial vehicles.
India’s apprehensions about the stand-off are also not without precedence, as Pakistan has been holding aerial exercise with the PLA Air Force in Hotan and Gargunsa airfields previously. According to reports from the Indian side, “Last year also, we had closely monitored a movement of six Pakistani JF-17s that flew from the Skardu airfield opposite the western side of Ladakh in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir to Hotan where they took part in an exercise named Shaheen-8”.
An escalation from the Chinese side, especially when the world is literally locked down in the fear of COVID-19, and is facing an impending economic recession, was not at all expected. Global and regional players fear that any escalation between the three nuclear powers may easily lead to a nuclear confrontation, the devastation of which will be unbearable by the whole of humanity. Yet China felt compelled to act, why?
Perhaps China is feeling more and more threatened by a series of events that may lead to damage to its economic prowess and sovereign power. The US and Japan’s pressure in the South China Sea; the Trade War; the Hong Kong protests; and India’s disfavour of the CPEC Project, all seem like collectively pushing China to the wall, urging it to react.
Peace in the region could be achieved by inclusiveness and trust-building, but unfortunately, the two states have ended up in confrontation – a confrontation in which China seems to have the upper hand as yet – and in which China may attempt to teach India a decisive lesson.
The author is a columnist and author of the books ‘Understanding Geopolitics’, ‘Geopolitics from the Other Side’ and ‘Palestine and Israel – a Collection of Essays’.
// By Mazhar Iqbal / The two faces of the Kashmir conundrum are very visible and clear on 5th February 2021. India restores 4G internet in Indian held Jammu and Kashmir, perhaps, not at the country’s will, but, to provide a counter-narrative to a well-defined enemy.
Earlier on the same day (5th Feb) that is commemorated all over Pakistan and Pakistan administered Jammu and Kashmir as the Kashmir Day, Prime Minister Imran Khan announced that Kashmiri peoples’ goal of self-determination was not far.
The restoration of the 4G internet in Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistani politicians’ rhetorical statements over the right of self-determination are two faces of well-conceived strategies of both sides.
One side of the chessboard takes a practical step by either moving forward or backward and the other side responds quickly. “Pakistan will stand with you till you achieve your legitimate rights”, PM Imran Khan reminds Kashmiris while reiterating the age-old statement.
He further claims that Pakistan has always stood for peace in our region, but the onus of creating an enabling environment lies with India. Who knows how many filters this statement passes through before handing it over to the media?
The internet services were cut off in Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, 2019, hours before the Centre revoked Article 370 of the Constitution and split the state into Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Dhruv Rathee, a Twitter user aptly reminds both the governments that for one and a half years, Indians have been demanding restoration of 4G internet in Jammu and Kashmir but the government took no action.
After just one day of international headlines on how the internet is being restricted, human rights violated, the government has now decided to restore the 4G.
Yet, there are few others in India, who think the reason was Rihanna. Shibli Shekh thanked Rihanna for restoring 4G internet in Jammu and Kashmir. It took just one tweet from Rihanna to anger the Indian government and supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party, the MSN News reported.
“The pop star linked a news article in a tweet drawing attention to the massive farmer protests that have gripped India for more than two months. Now, senior government ministers, Indian celebrities, and even the foreign ministry are urging people to come together and denounce outsiders who try to break the country.”The restoration of 4G in the Jammu and Kashmir region was a befitting response to Foreign Minister Pakistan Shah Mahmood Qureshi who earlier tweeted that no level of blackout and censorship can silence the strong, unflinching resilience of Kashmiris’ in the face of such unspeakable atrocities by the rogue Indian state.
Domestic audience in Pakistan administered Jammu and Kashmir was another reason for a rhetorical statement over Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. The journalists and social media users claimed that there were thousands of people in Muzaffarabad jalsa (political gathering) 130 miles away from Kotli, where PM Imran Khan addressed a rally of his party supporters. The Muzaffarabad power show was organized by the opposition parties of the PM Imran Khan government.
Apples and oranges don’t mix. They grow in separate regions and in separate climates. They have separate shapes and separate tastes.
Jammu grows oranges, sweet and juicy. Kashmir grows apples, luscious and crispy. Put them together in a box. And market it as product of Kashmir. That is simply deceptive labelling. It should be marked as product of Jammu And Kashmir.
And that is the same subtle difference when Kashmir and Jammu are packaged together linguistically, socially and politically. And the entity is stamped as Kashmir.
The packaging is done and marketed by Kashmiri political traders.
As such the Kashmir issue in its present outlook does not justify to represent its true complexity.
The simple but mostly ignored reason is that the colloquial “Kashmir Problem” is not representative of all the diverse regions of the state, as well as those held by Pakistan. The occasional violence erupts only in the valley not in other parts of the state. We seldom hear about political protests and fury in Jammu or Ladakh regions, or even for that matter in Pakistan-controlled “Azad Kashmir”.
The entire Kashmir leadership is controlled by Kashmiri-speaking politicians and activists. There is no representation from the other regions.
Now a Union Territory, Jammu and Kashmir is extensively diverse: linguistically, culturally, religiously and geographically.
Ignorance of this reality generates the impression that everybody in the state is Kashmiri-speaking. The same applies to “Azad Kashmir”. Nobody there speaks Kashmiri, nor do they identify culturally with the Valley.
Unless a correction in the “Kashmir problem” is made to recognize the diverse realities of the state of the region, only then it can be discussed among all the concerned parties. In its present avatar, the Kashmir Issue itself is unrealistic, undemocratic and monopolized.
India took the matter of Jammu and Kashmir to the Security Council on 1st January 1948 and lodged a formal complaint against Pakistan.
In reply, Pakistan lodged a counter-complaint against India on 15th January 1948 and had also requested the Security Council to deal with other disputes between India and Pakistan, including Junagadh.
As a result, a Security Council meeting was held on 16th January, 1948 with the agenda “Jammu and Kashmir Question” in which the Kashmir issue was discussed.
Again, on 20th January, 1948 Zafarullah Khan wrote a letter to the President of the Security Council to call another meeting as earlier as possible to discuss all issues between India and Pakistan, other than Jammu and Kashmir.
The next meeting of the Security Council was then held on 22nd January, 1948 with a revised agenda named “India-Pakistan Question” instead of “Jammu & Kashmir Question.”
Here it is pertinent to mention that people over the years have held Zafarullah Khan responsible for this change of agenda name as if he had requested it.
For instance, Dr. Shabir Choudhry states in his book “Kashmir Dispute: A Kashmiri Perspective” that “Initially Kashmir was registered as a ‘Kashmir problem’ in the UN, clearly showing that the matter specifically related to Jammu and Kashmir.
It was the government of Pakistan that changed it to ‘India and Pakistan Problem’, hence making it a territorial dispute, in which world powers were hesitant to take sides but at that time were willing to support the right to self-determination and oppose imperialism.”[1]
Similarly, the founder of JKLF Amanullah Khan writes in his autobiography:
“In January 1948, India filed an application regarding the Kashmir Case at the United Nations, accusing Pakistan of aggression.
In response, Pakistan also filed a counter-complaint against India for her fraudulent role in Kashmir and also made some other accusations.
The issue was raised in the UN Security Council under the heading “Situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” but on January 20th, 1948, Pakistan claimed that there were other issues besides Kashmir.
Therefore, the discussion should be carried on under the “India-Pakistan Problem”. This demand of Pakistan was accepted.
After January 30, 1948, the Kashmir issue was renamed the “India-Pakistan Question” instead of “The Situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.” [2] Even late Justice Yusuf Saraf wrote that “due to Sir Zafrullah’s advocacy, the agenda was changed on 22nd January 1948 from the Kashmir Question to “the India-Pakistan Question.” [3]
Was the name changed upon the request of Pakistan? The answer to this question can be found in the details of the meeting of the Security Council on 22nd January, 1948.
[4] On the adoption of agenda (The India Pakistan Question), the president of the Security Council said that the alternation was made “in the consequence of a letter, dated 20 January, addressed to (him) by the Pakistan Minister for Foreign Affairs.”
The president had justified the change as a consequence of Zafarullah Khan’s letter of 20 January (document S/655), the text of which has been reproduced below:
“I beg to request that a meeting of the Security Council may be called as early as possible to consider the situations, other than the Jammu and Kashmir situation, set out in my letter dated January 15, 1948, addressed to the Secretary-General. All these situations have led to a very acute crisis between India and Pakistan.
More particularly the continued occupation by the armed forces of India of the State of Junagadh, which is part of Pakistan, and the oppression and spoliation of its Muslim population constitute a casus belli end may necessitate military action on the part of Pakistan unless urgent action is taken by the Security Council.” [5]
It can be seen that Zafarullah Khan’s letter did not imply, by any means, that the name of the agenda of the Security Council should have been changed. This fact was also conceded by his Indian counterpart Mr. Gopalswami Ayyengar, who, while opposing the change, said in the same meeting: “The item on the agenda on which the debates have so far proceeded has been described throughout as “The Jammu and Kashmir Question”. For the first time, this heading has been changed in the provisional agenda to “The India-Pakistan question.”
The justification for this change has been said to be the receipt of a letter from the representative of Pakistan dated 20 January 1948. The first sentence of this letter is as follows:
‘I beg to request that a meeting of the Security Council be called at as early a date as possible to consider the situations, other than the Jammu and Kashmir situation, set out in my letter dated 15 January 1948 addressed to the Secretary-General.”
This letter, therefore, refers to situations other than the Jammu and Kashmir situation, which we have been debating all these days. India does not contend that those situations should not be placed on the agenda of the Security Council. It is quite willing that those situations should be placed before the Security Council, but that step has not been taken yet.
It would be wrong in my opinion, merely on the strength of a request from Sir Zafarullah Khan that those questions should be put down for a meeting of the Security Council at an early date, to change the heading, and, therefore, the content of the matter on which the debate has proceeded so far.”
As the matter was being debated in the meeting, Mr. Noel Baker of the United Kingdom came up with his own proposal saying: “Since my legal adviser, Mr. Bathurst, called my attention to the item as it now stands on the agenda, to the change in the heading, I have taken the trouble to inquire how the item came to be included in the agenda as it now stands.
I understand that the heading of the item was decided upon by the President and the Secretariat. I am certain, of course, that the change was made in complete good faith, and I understand very well, I think, the arguments in favour of that change which seemed convincing to the President.
However, if I had been in the President’s place I think I should have handled the matter differently. Broadly, I agree with the representative of India. I think that I should have arranged the agenda as follows:
Adoption of the agenda;
The Jammu and Kashmir question [dealing with] (a) Letter dated 1 January 1948 from the representative of India to the President of the Security Council concerning the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. (b) Letter dated 15 January 1948 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General concerning the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
Junagadh and other questions [dealing the] letter dated 20 January 1948 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan addressed to the President of the Security Council.”
Similarly, the Russian representative had also opposed the change, whereas Syrian, Argentinian, and Columbian representatives supported the change and stood by the President which compelled the British representative to withdraw his proposal, saying:
“It seems plain to me that the proposal I put forward is not going to secure the support of a majority of the Council, and I, therefore, hope that I may save time and debate by withdrawing it now.”
Zafarullah Khan’s opinion in the meeting was: “‘The order in which it may appear convenient and reasonable to the Security Council to deal with these matters is eminently a matter for the Council to decide. As I have said, I am not concerned with the technicalities of the question.
So long as it is deemed that all these questions are before the Security Council and on its agenda, I do not insist that a particular heading be applied and I do not care whether the questions are set out as a, b, and c, (as sub-paragraphs under same question) or as 1, 2 and 3 (as different questions).
That is entirely immaterial to me. When it is said that we should proceed immediately with the question of Jammu and Kashmir, I have no objection to that, as I have already stated.
But I made it clear from what I said that my position was not that we must necessarily await the conclusion of the whole matter of Jammu and Kashmir before any of the other matters are taken up by the Security Council.”
To this Gopalswami Ayyengar replied: “I think that Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan took a very proper view, in his remarks, when he said that while the Security Council is seized of both sets of complaints, it did not matter to him how those complaints were dealt with or in what order they were considered on the agenda, and that he, for one, would not have objected to the amendment that was moved by the representative of the United Kingdom, which was unfortunately withdrawn.”
He also reiterated his stance as follows, “…that the determination of this question should be governed by rule 10 of the rules of procedure, which states: “Any item on the agenda of a meeting of the Security Council, consideration of which has not been completed at that meeting, shall, unless the Security Council otherwise decides, automatically be included in the Agenda of the next meeting.”
The president then called the representative of the UK Mr. Noel Baker to come forward and speak. He informed the Indian representative that he had to withdraw his proposal because he knew that he did not have the support of the majority in the Security Council.
To quote him; “I only want to say to the representative of India that I did not withdraw my motion because I thought it inelegant, inappropriate or wrong.
I withdrew my motion because I saw that it was not going to receive the necessary majority and I hoped that we might perhaps save time, and I felt then quite clearly that we were–all of us–agreed on the substance.”
The president then concluded before the formal adoption of the agenda, “The position is this: the United Kingdom representative has withdrawn a proposal he made earlier in the debate. We have no other resolution before us for a change in the provisional agenda.
The representative of India has asked me, as President, for a ruling. If I made such a ruling, which would touch upon the substance of the matter, I think I should be exceeding my powers, and I shall therefore ask the Council itself to decide on the matter.
The representative of India proposes that the debate follow the order in which it began, with the Jammu and Kashmir question and ail its implications taken first, and the other question discussed in due course.
The representative of Pakistan, if I understand him correctly, does not appear to oppose this order. I shall, therefore, if there is no objection, ask the Council to proceed accordingly.”
The president further said that if no member of the Security Council wished to speak, no formal vote was called for and there was no objection, he would proceed to the adoption of the agenda. No member of the Security Council had objected, so the agenda was formally adopted.
It can be concluded from the letter by Sir Zafarullah Khan on 20th January, 1948 and his speech in the meeting that he neither requested the change in the title of the debate, as is alleged nor did he speak in its favour in the Security Council’s meeting number 231 held on 22nd January, 1948.
The decision to change the title in order to accommodate the issue of Junagadh and other disputes between India and Pakistan was solely taken by the president of the UNSC and with the approval of the majority of the members of the Security Council.
References:
Dr Shabir Choudhry, Kashmir Dispute: A Kashmiri Perspective, p. 78.
Amanullah Khan, Jehed-e-Musalsal, vol. 3, pp. 42-43.
Justice Yusuf Saraf, Kashmiris Fight for Freedom, vol. 2, p. 325
Security Council Official Records, Third Year, pp. 143-164 Security Council 231st Meeting, 22 January, 1948 (Document S/PV. 231)
The late K.H. Khurshid was private secretary of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He later went on to become the president of Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK). As I turn the pages of the book titled “Tareekhi Mushahidat o Waqiat”, I see him as a beacon of light. This book is a compilation of various pieces of writings of K.H. Khurshid along with contributory articles from his wife cum editor of this book-Begum Surraya Khurshid. She herself is a woman of extraordinary stature, not because of her status as the wife of a former president but her personal character, integrity, and commitment to high moral values in life.
قائدِاعظم کے سیکریٹری کے ایچ خورشید کی یادداشتوں سے ماخوذ
For many, K.H. Khurshid was one of those super zealous Kashmiris who wished to live in the past. But, for many others, he was a true lover of democracy. For me, he is the only towering figure in a land of pygmies. The Lilliputians of his time possessed all the pretence of genuineness and representation of the opinion of masses but they were impotent to cage his opinion. So, they hypocritically and deceitfully ditched him simply to further their own agenda. Khurshid’s differences with President Ayub were genuine and grounded in his ideology for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. He did not pretend to be a champion of the rights of ‘his’ people as his successors in the government would have done. He had all the characteristics of a leader of a nation, but not a tribe. He stood steadfastly to protect the rights of the affectees of Mangla dam and questioned the legitimacy of the interference of the central government in the affairs of PAK.
Khurshid was a Pakistani to the core of his heart. Otherwise, he would not have bothered to visit Dhaka (formerly Dacca) to see Mujib ur Rehman and show his concerns over the boiling situation regarding the power-sharing quagmire with the West Pakistan leaders. Surraya quotes in this book that Quaid-e-Azam once said “Pakistan was achieved by my sister, my secretary, and my typewriter”. She refers to an editorial note by chief editor Nawa-e-Waqt Hameed Nizami written in 1959 which states ‘I am sure this secretary was K.H. Khurshid”. He worked hard day and night along with his leadership during the most tumultuous years of the partition of India. By showing his commitment, loyalty, and determination to the cause of the Muslim League and personal service to the founder of the nation, Khurshid proved that he was the right choice of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and perhaps, one of the most suitable candidates for the future leadership in the post-partition state of Jammu and Kashmir.
He was disciplined, talented, and visionary, just like his mentor. As a well-educated and highly qualified lawyer, he would have lived a happy, prosperous, and successful life in Pakistan or abroad but he spent all his life in a struggle for the betterment of his people. He lived life as a challenger of the status quo. Whenever challenged on his morals and values, he would not hesitate to speak the truth while looking into the eyes of the challenger and leave the corridors of power. In 1958, he spent four months in detention during the stormy years of the Kashmir Liberation Movement (KLM) but did not compromise on his principled stand on the Kashmir cause. His upstanding view of the right of self-determination of Kashmiris was wrongly interpreted as a deliberate effort to steer the liberation movement away to an independent Kashmir.
During detention, he wrote in his diary that this was the time when his closest and most trusted people started parting ways from him as they thought he was no more in the ‘good books’ of Pakistani authorities. A true democrat can never be in the good books of dictators. As a challenger, Khurshid introduced the democratic process in affairs of government by deviating from ‘selection’ to ‘election’ of the president of PAK. Earlier, the presidency of PAK was considered a nomination of a tribal chieftain. Khurshid is rightly named as Khurshid-e-Millat by his ideological followers as he was the first and the only voice from liberated land who wanted the PAK government to be recognized as the representative government of the people of all parts of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Basically, the purpose of this ideological and highly significant stance was to ensure a concerted and targeted struggle towards the liberation of the Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir. As a human being, he was a humble, self-restrained, and loyal person. But, as a Kashmiri, he was an idealist and optimist in and out as he was opposed to the idea of controlling or even subverting the will of the people.
The editor of the book has repeatedly referred to the political philosophy of K. H. Khurshid. Unfortunately, his political approach has always been misconstrued. He was not against the idea of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan but was greatly opposed to putting pressure on Kashmiris to accept a particular course of action with regards to the future of the state. His committed position was to make efforts to liberate the occupied territory and let the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide their future. He was motivated to showcase PAK as an integral part of the whole of Jammu and Kashmir; not an annexed or subordinate territory of Pakistan. Surraya has rightly documented Khurshid’s unwavering support to the cause of Kashmiriyat. As the major part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is yet not liberated, politicians and rulers in Azad (liberated) Kashmir should not live the luxurious life of the representatives of a free people. The liberated territory was genuinely a base camp for Khurshid and not a place to enjoy the freedom. He abhorred the idea of a luxurious living in the base camp.
He lived in the President’s House as a layman and true believer in simple living. This is the same base camp of the liberation movement where flag-bearing government vehicles are a norm. During the presidency of PAK, Khurshid’s 4-year-old daughter insisted to go to school in the flag-bearing car, and in a moment of emotional outpouring, her mother (Surraya Khurshid-the wife of president AJK) allowed her daughter to avail that facility. In the evening, Khurshid showed his anger and asked Surraya not to repeat that incident again. How many of state officials and present leaders of PAK would observe such a strict discipline in handling the state resources?
Surraya’s candid and honest analysis of the democratic journey of the people of PAK under the title of “Mr Khurshid ka astifa (Mr. Khurshid’s resignation”) is a documented evidence of one of the most significant aspects of Khurshid’s successful career as an influential and elevated politician. This shows the depth and reach of his visionary approach in bringing a political, social, and democratic change in PAK. Surraya writes “had Kashmir Liberation League not founded in 1962, the people of PAK were still miles away from political acumen that they enjoy today and they were still be governed by a clerk in the ministry of Kashmir affairs”. However, according to the Surraya’s opinion, this was a mistaken approach of the then rulers of Pakistan as they thought Khurshid was an active preacher and supporter of the idea of an independent Kashmir. He, in fact, was a sincere believer of the ideology of Pakistan; perhaps an idealist but a hard-core centralist.
Insight on Kashmir 