kashmir conflict | SabrangIndia

From Trenches to Trust: Reimagining South Asia’s Dividends of Peace

sabrang — Mon, 05 May 2025 04:21:56 +0000

“Tank Agay Chalay Ya Peechay Hatay

Kaukh Dharti Ki Banjh Hoti Hai”

(Whether tanks advance or retreat, it’s the land that turns barren)

Sahir Ludhianvi’s timeless words perfectly encapsulate India and Pakistan’s seven-decade conflict over Kashmir.

The recent Pahalgam tragedy, where unarmed innocent civilians were killed, epitomizes the structural violence festering beneath the veneer of negative peace. The traditional ‘social contract’—as Rousseau envisioned—demands the rule of law, not the rule of vendetta. Unfortunately, the response is the reverse.

To raze homes of Kashmiris, calling it dynamite justice—punishing kin for the sins of relatives—is to descend into ‘deep anarchy’. These acts are not justice but absurdity, rather a collective punishment violating every tenet of legal positivism and Kantian ethics. A house destroyed is not merely brick and mortar; it is the ‘polis’ itself collapsing.

State-enforced family separations create hardships for cross-LoC marriages, invoking psychosocial fissures through structural violence. This bifurcation of kinship echoes Luther’s paradox, where authority supplants marital bonds, weaponizing alienation. Collective anxiety fosters social malignancy from partitioned identities, exacerbating anomie and transforming love into geopolitical collateral.

Since 1947, Kashmir has oscillated between wars, sporadic armed rebellion, and ceasefires, with its people reduced to pawns in a zero-sum game of territorial absolutism. The nuclearisation of 1998, far from cementing mutually assured destruction as a deterrent, has instead institutionalised a security dilemma, where both nations invest resources into defence and security while poverty, illiteracy, and climate crises metastasize.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s lament—”Yeh daagh daagh ujala, yeh shab-gazida sahar…” (This stained light, this night-bitten dawn…)—mirrors the collective trauma of generations raised on conflict. Soldiers, romanticised as “heroes”, are, as Habib Jalib starkly reminded us, “Insaan ka khoon khoon hai yeh, paani nahin” (This is human blood, not water).

Each casualty fractures families, leaving orphans and widows whose grief is subsumed within geopolitical calculus. Tolstoy’s dissection of war’s banality of evil resonates here; conflict is not chess but chaos, a violation of human reason that thrives on moral disengagement—dehumanizing the “other” through confirmation bias and groupthink.

The Illusion of Victory

The realpolitik of retaliation—exemplified by the pyrrhic victories of 1947, 1965, and 1999—has yielded only frozen hostility. Even the 1971 bifurcation of Pakistan, which birthed Bangladesh, failed to thaw Indo-Pak relations. Today, Dhaka–Delhi ties strain under shifting geopolitical currents, underscoring the fragility of transactional alliances.

Kashmir’s agony, meanwhile, defies temporality, persisting through changing geopolitical eras. Militancy has morphed from tribal incursions to hybrid warfare, yet the core grievance—the people’s will—remains unaddressed. Track II diplomacy flickers intermittently, but without institutionalised peace architectures, hopes for positive peace (rooted in justice, not mere ceasefires) remain ephemeral.

The abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status and downgraded it to a union territory, has led to widespread disenfranchisement and an assembly without legislative power, deepening political alienation.

While some celebrated the move as integration, many Kashmiris faced harsh realities—witnessed various types of communication blackouts, detentions, and economic decline—exacerbating their suffering. The state’s portrayal of Kashmir as a hub of “violence” contradicts the cultural pride of Kashmiris, who see themselves as resilient custodians of heritage, not villains.

Central governance frames dissent as anti-national, sidelining local voices and dismissing their struggle for dignity, turning their quest for identity into a battleground of conflicting narratives.

Resource Wars and the Weaponization of Scarcity

The recent abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)—a rare triumph of hydro-diplomacy—signals a perilous shift towards resource militarisation. By leveraging control over the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers, India risks turning a 1960s-era confidence-building measure into a provocation for war.

For Pakistan, where 90% of agriculture relies on Indus-fed irrigation, this politicisation of water—a UN-recognized human right—poses an existential threat. The stability–instability paradox theorised by Kenneth Waltz looms large. Nuclear deterrence may prevent total war, but it incentivises sub-conventional conflicts, as seen in Kargil 1999.

Dividends of Peace a Non-Zero-Sum Framework

The dividends of peace are not abstract. India and Pakistan collectively spend $72 billion annually on defense—funds that could instead combat their true adversaries: poverty (22% of Indians, 39% of Pakistanis below poverty lines), illiteracy, and healthcare deficits.

A win-win framework could emulate the European Coal and Steel Community, which laid the groundwork for peaceful integration between France and Germany. Imagine a South Asian energy grid, cross-LoC trade corridors, or a climate resilience pact sharing Himalayan water data. The 2003 LoC ceasefire, though fragile, proved the dialogue’s potential; the IWT’s six-decade endurance—until recently—showcased functional cooperation.

The zero-sum game peddled by extremists—where one’s gain is another’s loss—is a fallacy. The ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ of geopolitics must yield to ‘non-zero-sum solutions’.

Kashmir’s Silenced Voices

Sheikh-ul-Alam, Kashmir’s mystic sage, proclaimed, “Kartal Featrim Teh Gari Meas Dreat” (Alas, I broke my sword and created a sickle from it!) This ethos—transforming instruments of death into tools of prosperity—must guide reconciliation. As Kashmir’s most revered poet Mehjoor implored: “Nayae travev mai thayev panwaen, pouz mohabbat bagrayev panwaen” (Forget the conflict, keep compassion with one another, and spread true love with each other). Let tanks rust into ploughshares. Let soldiers’ children inherit textbooks, not trauma.

In the words of Gandhi, “The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace.” Let that day begin in Kashmir. Enough is enough. Let the rule of law be our dharma, dialogue our doctrine.

Rumi said, “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing, there is a field. Let’s meet there.” Let us sow prosperity in this field. When Kashmir breathes peace, the world inhales hope. Kashmiris have consistently rejected violence, embraced love, and sacrificed for non-violence they deeply understand.

If one pricks Kashmiris, do they not bleed? Their blood is neither saffron nor green—it is red, a universal hue of humanity. Let Jammu and Kashmir rise—a phoenix from ashes—to reclaim its legacy as ‘heaven on earth’.

Dawn Over Darkness

Rabindranath Tagore’s vision of a world “where the mind is without fear” remains distant, yet attainable. Poverty, illiteracy, and indignity are the true enemies. Amartya Sen reminds us, “Development is freedom.” Let us wage war on want, not on one another.

Sahir Ludhianvi’s plea—”Isliye aye shareef insanoon, jang talti rahay to behtar hai” (O noble humans, it is better to avoid war)—is not idealism but an imperative. Reject rancour; embrace complex interdependence. Initiate the acumen of true diplomacy, not destruction; dialogue, not dogma.

Essentially, in the trenches of food security, farmers from India and Pakistan wage a relentless battle, their tractors as tanks and seeds as bullets in a war against hunger. These agrarian warriors, battle-hardened by droughts and floods, know the frontlines better than any combat zone, their arsenals stocked with grit and monsoon hopes.

While generals might strategise over maps, the real war of attrition is fought in sun-scorched fields where every harvest is a hard-fought victory. A military clash would be a scorched-earth policy, leaving both nations with barren trophies and empty granaries. Let the only fire be the midday sun ripening crops, not artillery; the only ceasefire a shared monsoon blessing both sides of the border. After all, no one wins a war where the collateral damage is tomorrow’s dinner.

Ahmad Faraz, echoing the South Asian ethos of romance intertwined with resilience, poetically asserts: “Hum Palanhar Hain Phoolon Kay, Hum Khusboo Kay Rakwalay Hain” (We nurture flowers, guardians of fragrance). This reflects a timeless regional identity, accepting one and each on the basis of togetherness, outrightly rejecting otherness.

For South Asia’s dawn to be lit by the sickle of peace, its leaders must heed the silenced voices scripting a future where no one loses—and humanity wins.

(Rao Farman Ali is a Kashmiri based researcher and author of a book titled ” History of Armed Struggles in Kashmir-2017 and five other books.)

Courtesy: Kashmir Times

The post From Trenches to Trust: Reimagining South Asia’s Dividends of Peace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Their Journey of Friendship Began in Hospital, Faces Pierced by Pellets

Thu, 10 Jan 2019 05:33:13 +0000

The three teenage Kashmiri girls, who are disabled now, were hit with pellets on October 31, 2016 – the 115th day of curfew in Kashmir after the killing of Hizbul Mujahedeen’s commander Burhan Wani.

Shabroza Akhtar,Ifrah Shakoor,Shabroza Mir

When the first time the three teenage girls met, they had bandages wrapped all over their faces and eyes. Their friendship started from ward number 7 of Sheri Maharaja Hari Singh Hospital (SMHS).

All of them were hit with pellets on October 31, 2016 – the 115th day of continuous day and night curfew in Kashmir that had started after the killing of Hizbul Mujahedeen’s commander Burhan Wani on July 9, 2016. At around 1:30 pm, a troop of Indian Army’s Rashtriya Rifles (RR) 53 battalion posted in Rohmoo, a village in South Kashmir’s Pulwama district, were patrolling in the area. A few soldiers reportedly asked the boys who were sitting near a gate to remove the posters paying tributes to Wani from the walls and the electric poles. When the boys resisted, the army men started allegedly thrashing them. People came out of their houses to rescue the kids, and in response, the army fired pellets and bullets at them, which led to clashes in the area, according to the locals.

The clashes reportedly intensified after many youngsters were hit with pellets.

Shabroza Mir, then a 16-year old girl, was alone in her house, as her family was visiting her sister-in-law. Youngest among the five siblings, Shabroza quickly locked the doors and windows of her house when she heard the sounds of tear gas canisters and firing outside. “I was feeling suffocated due to the pepper, chilli and tear gas, so I decided to go to my uncle’s home, which is behind our house,” she recalls.

Shabroza Mir

After stepping out, she moved really fast. However, when she was about to turn at the corner, she found some of the officers of the Special Operations Group (SOG) of J&K police running towards her house, perhaps chasing the stone-pelters.

“So, I sat near the corner of my house, I turned my head back to check whether they have left yet or not. But before I could realise what was happening, one of the men in uniform fired pellets directly at my face,” says Shabroza. She was then taken to the sub-district hospital from where she was referred to SMHS.

Ifrah Shakoor, then a 14-year-old girl, was sitting inside her home which is a few metres away from Shabroza’s house. When the clashes intensified, her mother Fareeda Bano asked her to look for her younger brother Rayees who is now 10 years old, as he was playing outside with other kids.

When she went out to check on her brother, and opened the gate, within no time, a cop allegedly fired directly at her face. It was a cartridge of pellets. “The cops saw me in a girl’s dress. They fired at me anyway. They grabbed me by my hair, and beat me black and blue. A few guys managed to rescue me, but only after they too were hit with pellets,” alleges Ifrah.

Like Shabroza, locals took her too to the sub-district hospital of Pulwama by the locals. She was referred to SMHS, was coincidentally assigned a bed to the left of Shabroza.

Both their houses are located in Karl-e-Baal (mountain of potters). Following the clashes, people from the region were aware of the situation, and many of them decided to assemble at one place for safety.

From the other side of Baal, a group of SOG and RR soldiers was reportedly heading towards the spot where clashes were taking place. They saw the group of people standing in the courtyard, and allegedly shot pellets at them. To see what was happening, then 16 years old Shabroza Akhtar looked back, but even before she could figure out what had happened, her face and eyes were riddled with several pellets. She was admitted in the same ward, with her bed on the right side of Shabroza Mir.

Shabroza Akhtar

Living in the same village, but strangers to each other, all the three girls were operated on the same day, and were introduced to each other by their parents. “I heard my mother talking to Ifrah’s mother. She told me that they are from our village itself. So, we started talking to each other,” says Mir.

Ifrah was a class VIII student, and was preparing for her exams, but couldn’t appear owing to her injuries.

Mir and Akhtar were studying in the same school, both were in class X, but in different sections. “We had seen each other on occasion, but we had never spoken,” said Mir.

For three days, all of them were talking to each other, without being able to see. They narrated how they were fired at, and were trying to relax with each other.

After three days, when the bandage was removed from their eyes, both Shabroza Mir and Ifrah were not able to see from either of their eyes. Ifrah had pellets in both her eyes, while Shabroza Mir had been hit with a pellet in her left eye, and her right eye was hit by an empty cartridge, making her vision blurry. Shabroza Akhtar had lost 75 per cent visibility in her left eye.

On realising that they had been blinded or partially blinded, they cried. The other patients from the whole ward and their relatives tried to console them, but the fact was that there was no cure, and their world was going to be deprived of light .

“There is no possibility of eye transplant either because all of us had major injuries in the retina,” says Shabroza Mir.

After seven days in the hospital, the three girls were discharged from the hospital, and were asked to visit again after seven days for another surgery, as pellets were still in their eyes.

On November 14, an ambulance was waiting for the girls to leave for SMHS (during those days only ambulances and armed vehicles were allowed to move). Onboarding, the girls decided to sit next to each other, and started talking about the severe effects of anaesthesia injection which they felt was a qahar (disaster).

“We weren’t able to talk freely, as our parents were sitting next to us, so we decided to talk our hearts out when we reach the operation theatre,” recollects Shabroza Mir.

After crossing many police checkpoints, they reached the hospital, and joined the queue where other pellet victims were waiting for their turn.

Girls were busy cracking jokes about the announcer who would call out names really loud, which seemed to annoy all the patients. They were getting nervous as they were getting closer to their turn, no one was expecting to be first.

Finally, the announcer called out the name, “Shabroza Akhtar”, and she went inside. Her screams could be heard from the theatre as she was given an injection in her eye, remember Mir and Ifrah.

Ifrah Shakoor

After Akhtar, it was Ifrah’s turn, but little Ifrah didn’t scream, which relieved Mir a bit, and another surgery was carried out. Mir’s right eye was recovering, but she had lost the vision of her left eye. Ifrah had only 20 per cent visibility in her left eye, and is completely blind from her right eye. Shabroza Akhtar had 35 per cent visibility in her left eye, while the right eye is unaffected.

Spending seven more days in ward no. 7, they got a chance to strengthen their bond. “We would discuss what happened, and would wonder if someone would marry us in future,” said Shabroza Mir.

They were discharged, but were given different dates for their third surgery, which upset them.

On reaching their villages, they said their goodbyes, but with a promise to stay in touch. They started meeting once a week. They had to drop their education due to their disability, but they tried to help each other to get over the trauma, however, with little help from society.

Mir says, “Once my mother had an argument with a neighbour, who made fun of me because of my eye.”

Once a badminton champion, Shabroza Mir is now asking her family to shift her to her maternal home, as people always remind her of, and tease her about her disability.

“I don’t reply to any taunts, I have left everything up to my Allah (God). He will help me to survive,” says Mir.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post Their Journey of Friendship Began in Hospital, Faces Pierced by Pellets appeared first on SabrangIndia.

How the Kashmir conflict is getting personal and putting families at risk

Tue, 04 Sep 2018 05:51:43 +0000

Srinagar: The conflict in Kashmir is on course to a dangerous turn with families on both sides being involved in the war. For the first time in three decades of conflict, militants abducted 11 family members of J&K Police officials in different areas across Kashmir. The move is seen as retaliation to the arrest of militant commander Riyaz Naikoo’s father and vandalizing properties of several families of the local militants.

Photo: TwoCircles.net

According to reports, on August 29 Government forces allegedly set fire to the homes of two militant commanders – Shahjahan, the district commander of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Syed Naved, the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) in response to the murder of four policemen in Shopian. The Police also arrested around 18 local youth across south Kashmir on the same day.

Two days later, Hizbul Mujahideen commander Riyaz Naikoo released an audio message claiming responsibility for the abduction of family members and relatives of policemen and set a three-day deadline for the release of all relatives of militants who are in police custody.
“We did not want to involve your families in this. We picked up your relatives so that you realise what (our) mothers go through when you arrest their innocent kin,” the voice attributed to Naikoo says in the audio clip.

“We kidnapped your relatives so that you know that we can reach you. We have set them free with full dignity this time but next time it will not be repeated… we will act according to how you act,” Naikoo said, adding that this was the last warning to the police.

Experts see this as a dangerous trend since innocent family members are being forcefully involved in the conflict. A former militant, who wished not be named blamed State authorities for this mess.

“It was the policy of Indian government forces since 1990’s that if they couldn’t find the militant or their sympathisers they would pick-up their family members to pressurize them. But this time they (militants) targeted them back and it has shaken the Indian establishment,” says the ex-militant adding, “For me, it’s the simple message from the militants to the Indian forces that if you target our families we will not remain silent.”

The family members of both sides have appealed that they shouldn’t be involved in the war.

Take the example of the family of Ghulam Nabi Sankar. One of Ghulam’s son, Nazir Ahmad Sankar, is a police officer and a few days ago, his brother Arif Hussain, a teacher by profession, was picked-up by the militants. In a conversation with TwoCircles.net, Ghulam said he believes that the militants are attacking the police families in what seems to be “tit for tat”.

“Army and police have been brutalising and vandalising the families of the militants. They were harassing their families and now they are doing the same to the police families,” says Ghulam.

“It is better the war should remain between gun and gun, involving families is senseless,” he adds.

In another incident, Aisha, a 50-year-old woman and her son Raja Faizan-ul-Bashir were watching television when some masked men barged into their house. As soon as Faizan heard some movement outside the house, he went to check what was happening.

“Faizan came running in, and told us that there were militants outside, who wanted him to accompany to his uncle’s (Mushtaq) house,” said Bashir Ahmad Makroo, Faizan’s father. They were looking for Faizan’s uncle, Mushtaq Ahmad Makroo, a policeman posted at District Police line, Kulgam.

Aisha tried to convince the militants to take her instead of her son but they refused.

“With fifteen minutes, the militants took away my son. After he was kidnapped, my brother called me up and revealed that the militants had come searching for Mushtaq too before they came to Faizan,” Bashir said.

Down the same alley also lives the Bhat family. The Bhat’s have two sons working in Jammu and Kashmir Police – Abdul Bari Bhat, 38, posted in Srinagar, and Mehmood Ahmad Bhat, 32, and posted in Pahalgam. Both are married, while their father, Muhammad Maqbool Bhat, is a retired government teacher.

Tufail Bhat, another son of Maqbool Bhat, said, that at 8:10 pm on Thursday, two militants appeared in their courtyard and started calling the names of his policemen brothers.

Just as Tufail was talking to the militants, his brother Zubair Ansari ran in and asked the militants to spare his younger brother and instead take him along.

The family members of abducted persons made a passionate plea to the militants for the release of their kin. While all the family members of policemen have been released unharmed, a stern warning has been issued that if the police targeted the family members of the militants, the next time the families of policemen would not be spared. The abducted person in different videos apparently shot by militants appealed top brass of State police administration to stop harassing family members of militants so that they won’t harass them in turn. Whether this will have a positive impact remains to be seen. What can be said for sure is, however, that unless attempts are made to change the situation, the conflict in Kashmir is only going to get more bloody, personal and dangerous.

Audio released by Militant commander Riyaz Naikoo regarding abduction
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxWe1vfG3Ktmpi-HSrjOkaNU4DkycKyA/review?usp=sharing

Courtesy: Two Circles

The post How the Kashmir conflict is getting personal and putting families at risk appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Meet JKLF chief Yasin Malik arrested today to prevent protests in Kashmir

Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:12:06 +0000

Even as the Joint Resistance Leadership (JRL) comprising of Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik had called for a protest shutdown on Thursday against the killing of senior journalist Shujaat Bukhari and civilians in security force action, Yasin Malik was arrested from his Srinagar home on Thursday. This is the first move after Governor’s Rule was imposed in the state.

Image Courtesy: Amar Ujala

Srinagar: Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) Chief Muhammad Yasin Malik was arrested from his Srinagar home on Thursday to prevent him from leading any protests against the civilian killings.

The Joint Resistance Leadership (JRL) comprising of Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik had reportedly called for a protest shutdown on Thursday against the killing of senior journalist Shujaat Bukhari and civilians in security force action. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has been placed under house arrest while Geelani also continues to be under house arrest.

He was recently arrested on the first day of Ramzan and released after six days.

He had been arrested in April after he started marching towards Lal Chowk of Srinagar after a press conference. “Following his detention, protests erupted in parts of Srinagar, with protesters clashing with the police. Prior to this in September 2017, he was arrested after gearing up to protest at the NIA headquarters in Delhi. Back in 2015 he was arrested and sent to jail on charges of attempted murder after a violent protest resulted in serious injuries to a police official. This illegal protest also saw Malik instigating his associates to disturb normal life,” a report said.

“Yasin Malik was arrested on the first day of Ramadhan and released on the sixth day of Ramadhan from police custody. During last Ramadhan too, he had to spend almost a full month in jail which is highly regrettable. It has become a preferred pastime of the rulers to arrest the JKLF chairman. As soon as anything happens anywhere, he is the first one to be put behind bars,” a JKLF spokesman said in a statement. He said, “These frequent arrests and incarcerations have put Yasin Sahib’s health in jeopardy which is fast deteriorating. The rulers should at least have some respect for the holy month of Ramadhan and should refrain from imposing harm to human beings,” The Greater Kashmir reported.

Yasin Malik
“Yasin Malik comes from a humble background. At a young age, he was one of the first five men who crossed the border in the mid-1980s, and later started an armed insurgency in the Valley. He has been arrested hundreds of times, and in the initial years of his incarceration, he was tortured badly. He suffered facial paralysis, deafness in his left ear and damage to one of his heart valves. Since the mid-1990s, after his release on health grounds, he has been espousing the cause of Kashmir’s freedom through non-violence. He has had little school education and lives almost a Spartan life in his ancestral house,” a report by Open Magazine said.

“Yasin Malik is the most prominent leader of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (Yasin Malik). His movement is a separatist one and he spent almost whole of his life in jail and in interrogations. Yasin Malik originally came to prominence as a militant in JKLF and underwent training on arms and ammunition in Pakistan based training camps. He has admitted to killing a group of unarmed Indian Air Force men while they were waiting for their transportation to arrive in the period of 1989-1994 in his interview with Tim Sebastian. He later surrendered and since 1995, Yasin Malik has renounced violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to come to a settlement on the Kashmir Conflict. Yasin Malik also considers the Hindu Kashmiris to be an integral part of Kashmiri society and has insisted on their right of return. Some senior leaders of JKLF like Javid Ahmad Zargar, Javed Mir, Salim Nannaji, Bitta Karate, Iqbal Gundroo and others formed a united JKLF with Farooq Siddiqi (Farooq Papa) as its chairman,” said Pakistan Herald.

In 2009 Yasin Malik married Pakistani artist Mushaal Hussein Mullick. They became parents to a girl named Raziyah Sultana in March 2012.

He was criticised for sharing a dais with LeT chief Hafiz Saeed in 2013 at a protest in Islamabad, Pakistan.

JKLF

Al Jazeera’s profile of The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front- JKLF was founded in the 1960s with the ambition of forming an independent state of Kashmir through the reunification of Indian-administered Kashmir with Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The JKLF enjoyed much support in the valley during the 1980s and is largely credited for leading the insurrection that began in 1989.

The organisation announced a unilateral ceasefire in 1993 and gave up armed struggle as a means to achieve its political goals.

After 1993, the JKLF was transformed from an underground guerrilla organisation into a political organisation committed to fighting for Kashmir’s independence through non-violent means. This change was largely attributed to the end of Pakistani material and moral support to the JKLF after the organisation refused to support Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan and continued its advocacy for an independent and united Kashmir

By the mid-1990s there was a division within the organisation when ideological disagreements led to a split along Pakistani and Indian-administered lines. The leader of the Indian-administered wing, Yasin Malik, wanted to halt all militant activities but the leadership of the Pakistan-administered wing refused to renounce violence. This rift would break up the organisation.

The JKLF in Pakistan-administered Kashmir is headed by its president, Sardar Saghir. Amanullah Khan, one of the oldest living and foremost ideologues of the JKLF, continues to function as its chief patron. The faction remains committed to the creation of a greater and independent Kashmir through peaceful means.

Yasin Malik remains the head of the JKLF in Indian-administered Kashmir. Under Malik, the JKLF remains a key Kashmiri nationalist party in the region. The party supports the inclusion of Kashmiris as a principal party in India-Pakistan peace negotiations on Kashmir.

“Chairman of one of the breakaway factions of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Amanullah Khan is for autonomy in Kashmir. Though based in Pakistan, he has contested Pakistan’s claim for Kashmir by advocating sovereignty for the region. The other faction is headed by Yasin Malik. JKLF has its origins in JKNLF which came into origin from the Plebiscite Front being headed by Mirza Afzal Beg. It is believed that Abdul Gani Lone’s backing to Yasin Malik prevented Amanullah Khan’s entry into APHC. Amanullah Khan’s name is also on the list of 20 that India wants extradited from Pakistan. Amanullah is one of the founders of JKLF which was formed in 1977 in the United Kingdom. In initial years, it functioned from UK and PoK. His group received a staggering setback when 37 of its members were killed in Hazratbal in 1996. Amanullah is based in PoK but his faction has lost much of its strength to the Yasin Malik headed faction,” said a report by Hindustan Times from 2002.

The post Meet JKLF chief Yasin Malik arrested today to prevent protests in Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The OHCHR report on Kashmir: Will India succeed in blocking discussions on the report in Geneva?

Thu, 21 Jun 2018 05:36:06 +0000

The United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), on June 14 published “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April 2018”. This is the first such report on Jammu and Kashmir by the UN. It covers both India and Pakistan controlled areas of the former princely state. Government of India has rejected the OHCHR report as “fallacious.” The spokesperson of India’s Ministry of External Affairs claimed that the report was overtly “prejudiced” and was seeking to “build a false narrative.” He said that the report violated India’s sovereignty and integrity.” He also pointed out that the report had described internationally designated and UN-proscribed terrorist entities (such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa/Hizbul Mujahideen) as ‘armed groups’ and terrorists as ‘leaders.’ India also rejected the UN High Commission’s reference to “Pakistan Administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan” as a separate entity on the ground that “The whole state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Pakistan remains in illegal occupation of a part of our territory. The two cannot and should not be equated.”

Indian government’s claim that the report was “fallacious” and “a selective compilation of largely unverified information” is problematic, as it was the Indian government which had turned down repeated requests of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for unrestricted access to Jammu and Kashmir. Explaining the methodology adopted by the team which worked on the report, the High Commissioner explains, “As OHCHR was denied access to Kashmir, it was not possible to directly verify allegations. OHCHR bases its findings on its methodology, using a “reasonable grounds” standard of proof.

On the issue of the Indian government calling the OHCHR report as a violation of India’s sovereignty and integrity, let us briefly examine the mandate of the UN Human Rights Council and India’s role in the Council which is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote and protect human rights around the world. Several member countries of the UN, including India were unhappy with the older UN body, the Human Rights Commission as they felt that the Commission was being manipulated by powerful countries such as the US which prevented the review of their friends and allies such as Israel. The Council was created by the General Assembly in 2006. The Council has 47 members elected by the UN General Assembly for staggered three-year terms on a regional basis. India has been a member of the Council for two terms till 2017. On being re-elected for a second term India’s Ambassador to the Council, Asoke Mukerji emphasised that India’s focus will be to make the UN human rights system more effective and address issues through a constructive approach. The Council set up the process of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) under which the human rights record of each of the 193 UN member countries is peer-reviewed every four or five years. Under the UPR process, the recommendations made by the Council members during the review of each country’s record are given to a “troika” of countries drawn through a lot. India has been a member of the Troika in the past.

In September 2017, India’s human rights records were examined under the UPR process. Among the issues raised during the UPR were continued discrimination, stigmatization and violence against Dalits; restrictions on free speech and on the work of human rights defenders; attacks on religious minorities; reports of excessive use of force by security officers, including in Jammu and Kashmir; combatting impunity and ensuring accountability and delays in judicial proceedings. Out of the 250 recommendations that were made, India accepted 152 and took note of the rest. Also, India undertook to fulfill its twenty year old promise that it would ratify the UN Convention Against Torture. India, having been an active member of the UN Human Rights Council, having submitted to the UPR process on three occasions, and as a member of the Troika made recommendations to other countries for improving its human rights situation, it is strange that the government now asserts that the OHCHR report on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of Indian sovereignty and integrity.

President Bush had taken the USA out of the Human Rights Council. President Obama had reintegrated the USA into the Council. President Trump is said to be contemplating pulling the USA out again. I wonder, if India under Prime Minister Modi’s stewardship will be following the path of President Trump.

The OHCHR report is based on information that largely is available in the public domain including what was obtained by Indian citizens through the Right to Information Act. The report has also made use of government documents and statements, questions in the parliament and the government’s response, court orders and police reports. It has relied largely on the Press Trust of India (PTI) for official statements of the government. Additionally, the report writers have also relied on the research and monitoring carried out by local, national and international non – governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights defenders. OHCHR team also conducted a small number of interviews to corroborate information.

While the OHCHR has elaborated on the sources of its data, explained the limitations and detailed the methodology it was obliged to adopt in the face of denial of access to Jammu and Kashmir by the government, the Indian government in turn, has given no reasoned or rational explanation for calling the report fallacious and based on unverified information.

Regarding India’s objection to the OHCHR reference to the “Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir” and “Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltisatan” as separate entities, it is pertinent to point out that multiple reports of the United Nations as well as the official correspondence of the UN Secretary General have used nomenclature such as “Kashmir”, “Jammu and Kashmir”, “State of Jammu and Kashmir”, “Indian administered side of the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir”, and “Pakistan Administered Kashmir” – while referring to the territory of the former princely state before 1947. Even as recently as August 2016, the UN Secretary General in a statement condemning the terrorist attack on the Uri military post used the term Indian- Administered Jammu and Kashmir. Indeed, I would argue that I have yet to come across a statement from government of India, objecting to any UN agency’s use of the term, “Indian-Administered Jammu and Kashmir”.

Government of India’s response to the OHCHR report has evoked mainly two kinds of responses. Supporters human rights within India and in other countries have called on India to act on the recommendations of the first-ever report by the United Nations on the human rights situation in Kashmir. Others, including supporters of the ruling BJP and the rightwing Hindu nationalist organisations have vociferously endorsed the Indian government’s rejection of the report.

One interesting comment has come from a well-known former editor, Mr. Sekhar Gupta. Mincing no words, he called the report “idiotic”. It is “idiotic not because of the quality of its research, but for its expectation that it will help the people of Kashmir,” he asserted. According to Mr. Gupta the report was “fatally flawed” and “dead on arrival. Debating its accuracy, fairness, methodology or motives is a waste of time.” An interesting position, that allows you to avoid any discussion on the content of the report. This is exactly what India’s official response has done when it condemned the entire report as “fallacious”. Mr. Gupta has also accused the OHCHR of allowing NGO-type activists take over the world’s premier human rights body and not allow “political oversight”. Clearly, Mr. Gupta believes that the global concern for human rights should be toned down by the political interest of states. Mr. Gupta claims that the report will not only fail to help the Kashmiris, “on the contrary, it will harden India’s approach. It will also encourage Pakistan to shove more Kashmiris and its own expendable youth into a jihad (holy war).”

The OHCHR has no political or military arm. The only way it can enforce its recommendations is through repeated requests and by naming and shaming. In a civilized world, it is expected that a sovereign and an honourable nation state would fulfill the promises that it makes to the comity of nations. India has not fulfilled its promise to ratify the UN convention Against Torture for more than two decades.

Mr. Gupta has argued that the report will not embarrass India as the country will be able to garner enough political support at the Council to block any discussion on the report and the recommendation for an independent investigation. India had been able to do exactly that in 1994 in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee) when confronted with Islamabad’s allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir. India was able to rally sufficient support from the members states including from “human rights rogues like China and Iran”. However, Mr. Gupta forgot to mention that the BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee, who was a member of India’s multi-party delegation sent to the UN by the then Prime Minister Narasinha Rao, at that time had said, “For a great nation like us, there was a certain humiliation involved in having to go around begging for votes on a human rights issue. Let us now use this reprieve to clean up our act in Kashmir or there will be a Geneva every few months.”

The attempt to avoid discussions on the content is an attempt to cover up the gross misuse of the coercive state apparatus against protesting civilians during the period 2016-2018. The discussions on the content will bring out issues highlighted by the OHCHR report such as the killings of about 145 persons and a very high number of injuries. The excessive use of pellet-firing guns that have blinded or injured the eyes of civilians, largely the youth. The awarding of Major Litul for using a Kashmiri civilian as a human shield even before the court of enquiry had completed its investigation. And the hard fact that in these last 28 years the India government has not allowed any civilian court to hear complaints of human rights abuse committed by the members of its security forces. Understandably, Indian government would want to avoid any discussion on the content of the report.

Will India be able to block a discussion on the report by the members of the Human Rights Council? Certainly, it will have to make a very serious effort to gather enough support to prevent the council from discussing the High Commissioner’s recommendation for an independent investigation. In this effort India will be joining the ranks of Myanmar which has been accused of committing genocide against the Rohingya. India could also point out that the Council’s guidelines do not require setting up such investigation in countries where avenues exist for recourse to judiciary for settling complaints of misuse of power by the state’s security agencies. India will then face a conundrum of its own making. Under AFSPA, it has granted complete impunity to its security forces.

Even if India is able to stymie an inquiry by the Council with the support of Saudi Arabia, UAE and possibly China, Russia and the USA, its actions will be carefully watched by Geneva. Under these circumstances, it is possible that the Modi government may be forced to change its purely iron fisted approach. And that will be the achievement of this OHCHR report, with all its “flaws”.

Tapan Bose is an independent documentary filmmaker, human rights and peace activist, author and regular contributor leading journals and news magazines in India, Nepal and Pakistan. His award winning documentaries on human rights and democratic issues include An Indian Story (1982) on the blinding of under trial prisoners in Bhagalpur and the nexus between landlord, police and politicians and Beyond Genocide: Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1986). His film ‘Behind the Barricades; Punjab’ (1993) on the state repression in Punjab, as with the earlier cited films, was banned and after a long legal struggle was shown. His latest film is The Expendable People’, (2016) a passionate appeal for justice for the tribal peoples of India, cheated, dispossessed, pauperised and criminalized in their forest homes, made to pay the price for extractive development.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/

The post The OHCHR report on Kashmir: Will India succeed in blocking discussions on the report in Geneva? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The never-ending wait for justice to Tufail Mattoo, whose death sparked the 2010 Kashmiri Intifada

Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:43:14 +0000

Srinagar: June 11, 2010, is now etched into the memory of the Kashmir conflict; a day that marked a generational shift in how Kashmiris opposed Indian rule. The Baton of ‘resistance against Indian rule’ was handed over to a new generation. The day marked a beginning of a famous 2010 summer intifada in which streets of Kashmir-mostly in Srinagar’s downtown- became battlegrounds between pro-freedom youth and government forces. The street stamina was overpowered by state stamina by coming down hard on the protesters, resulting in the death of 120 Kashmiris, mostly youth.

5 Rs coin of Tufail Mattoo Photo courtesy: Sana Irshad Mattoo

The first casualty of 2010 summer was a teenager: Tufail Mattoo. The lone son of his family, Mattoo’s name is a synonym to the bloody summer. The son of a handicraft businessman- Mohammad Ashraf Mattoo, Tufail was killed by government forces’ tear gas shell that hit his head. Mattoo senior handed over a Rs 10 note to his son as bus fare when he was going to a tuition centre. Tufail was preparing for a medical entrance test. Mattoo didn’t know that the Rs 5 coin that was with Tufail would remain as “souvenir” for him and his son wouldn’t return.
He was at home when some neighbours rushed to him with the news that shattered his life, forever: his son had been killed.

Tufail was hit by a teargas shell fired at him from a close range by the J&K police on June 11, 2010, near Gani Memorial Stadium –about 8 km from his home in Saidakadal.

His skull was bust open with the tear gas shell and he died on the spot with the five-rupee coin in his right hand. Tufail’s death led to widespread protests triggering months’ long anti-India summer uprising during which men in uniform killed nearly 120 people, mostly youth.
Witnesses in the locality said the police started chasing Tufail when they saw him. As he began to run, the police fired a teargas shell at him hitting him in the head. He died, instantly.

The autopsy of Tufail also confirmed that he was killed by a teargas shell which damaged his brain and skull, busted the police claims that it was a case of “mysterious death”.

The then Chief Minister of J&K state, Omar Abdullah, appointed a retired judge Justice ML Koul to probe the civilian killings of 2010. The Koul Commission report was handed over to the present Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti in December 2016 in which it was recommended that a CBI enquiry should be ordered in Tufail’s case. The report has not been made public, however.

In December 2012, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the J&K Police, which had first investigated the case, had also closed the investigation by declaring culprits “untraced”.

On the eighth death anniversary of Tufail, who is buried in Martyrs’ graveyard Eidgah, people from all walks of life came and paid tributes to him.

In February 2015, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ordered a fresh probe into Tufail Mattoo killing. It was after Amnesty International called on Jammu and Kashmir Government in June 2013 to reopen the investigation into 2010 killing of Tufail Mattoo.

Father of Tufail, Mohammad Ashraf Mattoo

On the long-drawn battle of Mattoo, political commentator Gowhar Geelani maintained that the trigger that led to the 2010 summer uprising was the extra-judicial killings in Machil in which three civilians were lured for a job and killed in fake encounter by Indian army along the Line of Control (LoC).

“Later, a young teenage student Tufail Mattoo became a reference point. His killing by government forces in a way was a paradigm shift in seeing a new generation of Kashmir at war with the state and the idea of India in Kashmir. And the government at war with a new generation. A new generation which has a new vocabulary, that way it was pretty significant in Kashmir narrative,” he said.

Geelani said that denying justice in Tufail Mattoo’s case is a telling commentary on “how India operates in Kashmir and how brazenly it shields perpetrators and gives a free license to armed forces to commit rights violations, and also encourages the guilty personnel to believe they can get away with anything”.

An FIR was filed 11 days after Tufail was killed after the family had run from pillar to post and pleaded with the magistrate to order police to do it.

“I don’t see any progress in the case, the reason is police haven’t done a fair and proper investigation and when police are themselves involved in the crime how can one expect a fair investigation,” said noted human rights activist and lawyer Parvez Imroz. “Tufail’s father is a brave man who is fighting for the justice for last eight years but you have to understand that government forces are enjoying impunity in the state of Jammu and Kashmir where they get easily,” he added.

Human rights activist Khurram Parvez said that Tufail Mattoo was brutally killed at a time when the anger was already brewing up among the people against the killing of three innocent Kashmiris in a fake encounter by Indian Army. “In Srinagar city, such kind of killing also took place after a long time where a child who was coming back from tuition centres was killed by government forces so this killing became the news and people in large number came on roads to protest against the forces repression in Kashmir.”

“Everybody thought that there is no one safe in Kashmir and at that point of time it led to a huge public mobilisation,” he added.

Ashraf has attended more than 50 court hearings in past 8 years and he has lost all hopes on Judiciary. “I tried my best to give the opportunities to the state government for delivering justice by arresting the culprits but unfortunately they, in turn, shield them and they not only murdered the justice but their so-called democracy as well, they have been doing it in Kashmir since three decades.”

Khurram observed that since 2010 the street protest continues in Kashmir. “Whenever there is the killing of a civilian or even we can see when a militant is being killed in an encounter people start protesting in a large number. The uprising is ongoing.”

“The protest trend is not according to calendar given by Hurriyat (Conference) now; the trend is according to the killings be it a civilian or a militant,” he added.

“There is no will shown by the side of the government to investigate any crime whether it’s killing of Tufail Mattoo, rapes, torture and disappearances. They are reluctant to provide justice to the people, therefore, they are not allowing any investigation which means there is complete unwillingness of Government of India and from the state government to allow process of justice, they don’t allow these processes to function as a normal process where accountability can be created so they have given absolute impunity to armed forces and there is no deterrence and therefore these crimes are getting repeated again and again,” he maintained.

“So, his killing was actually the trigger that became the reason for the summer uprising,” he added.

Noted journalist and editor Najeeb Mubarki said that Kashmir is a cotton balefire, where enforced ‘normality’ never douses the smouldering embers and which only needs a spark to rage once again.

“Tufail’s killing in 2010 was one such spark, there have been others since and, given the fact of neither the political conflict being resolved or even the killers being ever given punishment, unfortunately, there will be other such sparks in the form of killings or other abuses. But Tufail also became a symbol, that of Kashmiri youngsters being killed by a brutal military regime calling itself a democracy and of a younger generation becoming the spearhead of resistance against the state of utter brutality,” said Mubarki.

Ashraf said, “When 120 youth were killed after my son’s killing, the parents of those youth decide not to fight the case because they were aware that they will not get the justice from the government. I decided to fight the case as I was believing and I was a staunch supporter of democracy…Today when they meet me, I told them that your decision of not fighting the case was right as justice seems to be elusive to me as well,” he said.

Referring to notes from his son’s case file, Ashraf said that it takes a lot of time for the common people to even register an FIR.

“Our application was rejected by the Police and they accepted it only after court’s direction and when it comes to probing, they do it in a way that culprits are saved and the court hearings are stretched so long that the victim gets exhausted and he ultimately gives-up the case” he explained.

“Investigation in Kashmir is a cruel joke; they do it to hush-up the case that is why I rejected the recommendations of the Justice Koul Commission of Inquiry, which had recommended a CBI investigation into the killing,” he said.

“I am the father of the victim and the points I had raised in my letter before the (Koul) commission were not even touched and thus the real perpetrators had been let off,” he alleged.

He is buried at two places, his body is buried at martyrs graveyard in the old city and the fragments of his brain that lay scattered on the ground were gathered by locals and buried nearby. “This haunts me all the time,” says Ashraf.

Courtesy: Two Circles

The post The never-ending wait for justice to Tufail Mattoo, whose death sparked the 2010 Kashmiri Intifada appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Continuous internet ban in Kashmir affecting livelihood of media persons, says Valley-based Journalist body

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:56:40 +0000

Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir Young Journalist Association (JKYJA) on Monday, October 16 strongly condemned the continuous clampdown of 3G and 4G Mobile Internet services in Kashmir.

A photo jounalist covering protest in maisuma area of srinagar photo credits Raqib Hameed Naik

The JKYJA said that the Internet ban not only heightens the state of paranoia amongst the citizens but also affects the work of journalists in Kashmir, adding that the internet ban also attacks the livelihood of dozens of people including professional journalists whose work is dependable on the Internet.

The JKYJA said that the over the past years, the repeated suspension of mobile internet services has become common in Kashmir which reflects the total indifference of government towards the prosperity, development, economic and educational upliftment of Kashmiri people in addition to the promotion of tourism.

Considering the adverse impact on the economic prospects due to the Internet Ban, the JKYJA appealed people from IT sector, tourism, lawyers, traders, entrepreneurs, students and teachers to condemn the Internet ban in Kashmir.

“Depriving people of even basic internet facilities has a significantly disproportionate impact on the fundamental rights of everyone in Kashmir particularly the journalist in the ground,” said JKYJA.

The association has asked the authorities to guarantee freedom of expression in Kashmir and to seek a solution by a democratic process for the issues which lead to the unjustified internet ban. It further said that the association will come with a complete course of action in coming days so as to raise voice against the serious issue of internet ban.

Courtesy: Two Circles

The post Continuous internet ban in Kashmir affecting livelihood of media persons, says Valley-based Journalist body appeared first on SabrangIndia.

31% Rise In J&K Terror-Related Deaths Year After ‘Surgical Strikes’

Fri, 29 Sep 2017 06:59:16 +0000

There has been a 31% increase in deaths due to terrorist-related incidents in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) in one year since the Indian Army conducted what are called “surgical strikes” in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), according to an IndiaSpend analysis of data from the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) run by the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, a non-profit.

The increase in terrorist-related deaths from 246 in 2015-16 to 323 in 2016-17 (till September 24, 2017) indicate that terrorist attacks and infiltration in J&K continue unabated a year after the surgical strikes.

This comes even as Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat hinted that more surgical strikes could be mounted “if necessary”.

“The strike was a message we wanted to communicate to them, and they have understood what we mean,” Rawat was quoted as saying in Mint on September 25, 2017.

He said terrorists keep infiltrating into India because their camps remain operational in PoK.

“Even we are ready. We will keep receiving them (infiltrators) to dispatch them two-and-a-half feet below the ground,” Rawat said.

Source: South Asia Terrorism Portal
Note: * Data for 2016-17 until September 24, 2017

SATP compiles data on deaths due to terrorism from media reports. The data are provisional, and current as on September 24, 2017.

The number of terrorists killed by security personnel increased 24% from 157 in 2015-16 to 194 in 2016-17.

The number of security personnel killed in terrorist violence has declined 2.5% from 79 in 2015-16 to 77 the following year, according to an analysis of data compiled by SATP.

The number of civilian casualties from terrorist-related violence increased almost five times to 52 in 2016-17 from 10 in 2015-16.

The increase in terrorist casualties compared to the marginal increase in deaths of security personnel can be seen as an indicator of the growing effectiveness of counter-terrorism operations of the Indian armed forces in J&K.

The Indian Army killed three terrorists in Uri, J&K on September 25, 2017. The Army thwarted a major terrorist attack, similar to the one on an Army base in the same area that left 19 soldiers dead and 17 injured on September 18, 2016.

The surgical strikes, or forays into Pakistan by special forces, last year were touted as a revenge for the Uri attack.

On September 29, 2016, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control (LoC) into PoK to carry out “surgical strikes” on terror “launch pads,” Director General of Military Operations Lt. General Ranbir Singh had announced.

“The operations were focused to ensure that these terrorists do not succeed in endangering lives of citizens in our country. During the counter-terrorist operations, significant casualties have been caused to the terrorists,” Singh had said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other political leaders had hailed the Indian Army for the surgical strikes. Modi had likened the strikes to the exploits of Israel, which is known to regularly conduct military strikes against militants and unfriendly countries.

Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah had lauded Modi and the Army over the surgical strikes, calling it a “frontal fight against terrorism” which would make India feel “secure”.

(Sethi is a Mumbai-based freelance writer and defence analyst.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post 31% Rise In J&K Terror-Related Deaths Year After ‘Surgical Strikes’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Challenging Article 35(A): A sinister plot

Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:25:37 +0000

Two weeks ago, Jammu and Kashmir chief minister, Mehbooba Mufti, speaking at a public forum in Delhi, warned of any tinkering with Article 35 (A) of Indian Constitution, pertaining to special status of the state. She averred that if this happens, “there will be nobody left in Kashmir to hoist the national tricolor”. Omar Abdullah cautioned that any bid to tamper with this constitutional provision would amount to playing with fire.

Image: Kashmir Observer

The desperation in the tone matched the unusual bonhomie between her and her main political adversary, Farooq Abdullah, patron of National Conference (NC), on August 8. Media reports said that Mehbooba called on Farooq to discuss the current political situation in the state. Article 35 (A) was said to be the main agenda of the meeting that was held in a ‘cordial’ atmosphere, as vouched by Omar Abdullah in a tweet. Ever since, other opposition parties including the Congress have called for a united voice against this move: rising above party and partisan politics and getting together, in one voice, against any tinkering or weakening the article. They have also suggested an all party delegation led by chief minister Mehbooba Mufti to petition the Centre on this issue; to apprise the people there about the disastrous fallout of the weakening or abrogating Article 35 A.

The row over Article 35 (A) has not only brought Mehbooba’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and NC on the same page but also the separatists who have called for protests against moves to tamper with the Article 35 (A). The move is seen as having a potential of inflaming the already tense and sensitive situation in the state.

At the heart of this controversy, which is likely to throw up unique political equations at a certain level, is a petition filed by an RSS backed NGO in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of this constitutional provision. The petition has been pending in the apex court since two years.

Despite persistent pleas by the state government, the Centre has refused to challenge this legal intervention in the Supreme Court, enhancing the dangers of a possible lopsided hearing on the issue. Owing to the overtly sensitive politics of the state and in view of the historic special status, the issue assumes even greater significance.

Article 35(A) empowers the J&K legislature to define “permanent residents” of the state. This section was added to Article 35 through a Presidential Order called The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 1954, issued under Article 370. The order superseded an earlier order issued in 1950, which provided the framework for division of powers between J&K and New Delhi under Article 370. The Article incorporates the safeguards for the citizens of the state provided in the state subject law promulgated by the Maharaja Hari Singh-led government in 1927.

Article 370 which remains the constitutional link between India and Jammu and Kashmir and also guarantees special status to the state stands eroded today and diluted through a slew of central amendments right since 1950s. The permanent resident provision, protected by the Article 35 A, today remains the core of this special status that the state enjoys. Striking down this crucial provision, Article 35 A, which was not passed by the parliament or ratified by the state legislature but came as a presidential order, may create a constitutional crisis, impacting several other such presidential orders altering the state’s special status, including the recent one on GST.

Any debate on Article 35 (A) naturally invokes one on Article 370 as well, as the former was supposed to be a clarification provision to the latter. In 2015, a division bench of J&K High Court interpreted Article 370 as a permanent provision. “The Article 370, notwithstanding its title ‘temporary provision’ is a permanent provision of the Constitution. It cannot be abrogated, repealed or even amended as mechanism provided under Clause (3) of Article 370 is no more available”, pronounced the court in October 2015. Even if this verdict be challenged, a debate on these issues re-open the entire debate on accession, which is hinged to the constitutional provisions of Article 370 that form the vital link between Jammu and Kashmir and rest of the state.

The legal and constitutional technicality apart, the debates on Article 35 (A) and Article 370 are red rags that will further muddy the waters in Jammu and Kashmir, politically as well as socially, with dangers of not just a more lethal backlash in the Valley but also possible polarisation of state on dangerously communal lines. The issue thus brings political adversaries, NC and PDP, as well as Hurriyat on the same page. The consequences of attempts to tinker with the special status of the state in any way have been well grasped by political parties across the spectrum, barring the BJP. All of them have been advocating for initiation of dialogue and confidence building measures for resolution of Kashmir dispute. The BJP-RSS agenda, on the other hand, is to take away whatever little privileges the state enjoys owing to its special status.

In the midst of this fresh crisis, another petition pleading for striking down Article 35 (A) and Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir constitution has been filed in the apex court by a Kashmiri Pandit woman, Charu Walikhanna, who has maintained that she was denied the right to buy land in Jammu and Kashmir because she had married outside the state. The petition contends that the Article 35 (A) perpetuates gender inequality and strips a woman marrying outside the state of her permanent resident status. This narrow interpretation of the law, which is actually silent about gender, is erroneous and based on ignorance.

Section 6 of the J&K constitution lays down: “Nothing in foregoing provisions of this part shall derogate from the power of the State legislature to make any law defining the classes the persons who are, or shall be permanent residents of the State.” It further states, “A Bill marking provision for any of the following matters, namely:
(a) defining or altering the definition of, the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State;
(b) conferring on permanent residents any special rights or privileges;
(c) regulating or modifying any special rights or privileges enjoyed by permanent residents; shall be deemed to be passed by either House of the Legislature only if it is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of that House. It also states, “The permanent residents of the State shall have all the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India.”

The Article 35 (A), thus, defines and qualifies the permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir as well as guarantees fundamental rights and right to equality to these citizens as per the Indian constitution. Its silence on the rights of women marrying outside the side is settled by the clause that upholds the citizens’ constitutional rights which make no distinction on basis of caste, creed, religion or gender.

The apprehensions raised by the woman moving the Supreme Court are not without reason, however. The flawed interpretation stems from myths perpetuated for a long time, made worse by politicking by political parties over the issue.

In 1960s, the then Jammu and Kashmir revenue minister issued the orders for stamping the permanent resident certificates of women with a stamp saying, “Valid till marriage”. Noted political analyst Balraj Puri writes, “The fact is that neither the state subject law of 1927 nor the act under the state constitution (after which the earlier law in any case lapsed), provide for cancellation of the state subject; nor for different treatment of men and women. The state subject of Mrs. Ghulam Kabra and her right to inherit property was, for instance, challenged in the State High Court as early as in 1939 in Maharaja’s time on the ground that though a State Subject by birth, she had lost that status by marrying a non-state subject. The Court held that Ghulam Kabra was legal heir of the property which she could inherit.” (PUCL Bulletin, April 2004)

On the executive order of 1960s, Puri writes, “this order which lacked the force of law was differently interpreted.” He quoted the case of daughter of a senior bureaucrat of the state, SAS Qadri, who married, Mehmood-ul-Rehman, an IAS officer from outside the state, in 1973. “Her status as a permanent resident of the state and her right to inherit property of her father under that was declared valid by the Revenue Minister on the ground that ‘the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any other law does not provide for deprivation of a permanent resident of the state of his or her status’.”

Similarly, in 2002, a full bench of the High Court in a case, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Dr Sushila Sawhney, said that daughter of a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will not lose status as permanent resident of the State on marriage with a person who is not permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. One judge struck a discordant note with the argument that the rights of the woman should be limited only to inheritance of property.

Several similar petitions pending in the courts filed by women whose seniority or jobs were challenged on grounds that they had married non permanent residents since the 60s were also clubbed together by the Supreme Court which finally sent them back to the state government with the direction to come up with a suitable way that addresses the issue.

Later, the state government appealed in the Supreme Court against the high court judgement of 2002. In 2004 the then PDP government in 2004 withdrew the appeal and moved a Bill in the Legislative Assembly seeking disqualification of a woman marrying a non-State Subject. The bill was passed in the assembly unanimously without anyone raising a whimper but failed the test on the floor of the upper house of state legislature. The BJP turned the issue into an opportunity to give the controversy a saffron colour by equating the state’s autonomy with gender oppression. The row took an ugly turn with regional divides being played up by BJP, Congress and Valley based parties and soon assumed communal overtones.

(To say that Jammu opposes Article 370 and Article 35 (A) would be an over-simplified and also an erroneous view. Interestingly, when it comes to preserving the interests of locals, there has been strong opposition to attempts to tamper with the article. Last winter, chemist shops in Jammu were shut for three days to protest against the PDP-BJP coalition government’s decision to allow a non-state subject to open 57 pharmacy shops in violation of the Article 370.)

In the face of stiff resistance from Jammu based women groups and some political parties in 2004 to the Permanent Resident Disqualification Bill, the government created a select house committee to look into the lacunae which left the law open to interpretation. The contents of the report tabled by the committee are not fully known but it has not sought any changes in the law, nor advised anyone’s disqualification. Successive governments, thereafter, have desisted from bringing back the contentious bill in the legislature. More significantly, the state subject certificates of women no longer bear the stamp ‘Valid till marriage’ since the last one decade.

There is no way that legally the right of the woman to purchase property or retain her state subject right can be challenged. Article 6 of the J&K Constitution clearly upholds the right to equality as laid down in the Indian Constitution. Article 35 (A) clearly makes no reference to women losing their rights as permanent resident.

This kind of politicking in challenging the women’s status in courts or within the legislature has, thus, stood on a sticky wicket. There are enough safeguards in the existing laws to ensure that women’s status as permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be challenged.

Walikhanna’s petition thus raises anxieties that are exaggerated and based on myths, deliberate or otherwise. Is her petition based on presumptions? Did some officials of revenue department prevent her from going ahead with purchasing land? Is it possible that perpetuation of myths and lies has created space for multiple interpretations of the law? Is it just a case of ignorance or a case of poor implementation of law? It is neither. The petitioner in question was never a permanent resident of the state and is Kashmiri by ancestry. Her petition that is based on the rejection of her claims to residentship of Jammu and Kashmir, made in a letter to the Governor, mentions that her family was part of the Kashmiri Pandit exodus during the Afghan period in the 18th century, at a time when the state was not even formed.

Interestingly, her petition to the Supreme Court includes the case of Sushila Sawhney, in which the High Court ruled against depriving her of her permanent resident status after her marriage with a non-permanent resident. The petition does not mention the verdict but selectively picks up the court’s observation (in Sushila’s case), “no law defining the Classes of persons, who are or shall be the permanent residents of the State has so far been enacted by the State Legislature in exercise of its power under section 8 of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution” to argue that “under the guise of Article 370 and 35A, the men and women state subjects are subjected to different treatments and discriminated based on gender.”

These anxieties are as misplaced as the apprehensions created in the Valley of a demographic change through marriage patterns. That having been said, any bid to strike down the Article 35 (A) does enhance the dangers of alteration of the demographic profile of the state. Such fears are not off the mark.

For decades, the RSS has had a historic penchant for suggesting that the demography of the state needs to be changed to resolve the Kashmir issue permanently. Two months ago, union home minister Rajnath Singh suggested, without spelling anything, that the government had found a ‘permanent solution’ to Kashmir dispute. In recent weeks, Article 35 (A) has been raised, again, by right wing groups who are calling for a debate or simply demanding to revoke it along with Article 370. As for Walikhanna’s case, it is not known if it is inspired by presumptions based on half baked knowledge or plain mischief.

In this current context, for Kashmiris suspicious of the designs of the Hindu right wing, it is not difficult to connect the dots and see the RSS’ historic resolve, Rajnath Singh’s remarks, the present discourse, the Centre openly favouring a larger debate and the petitions in the apex court challenging the state’s special status as part of the same project. There is enough potential in the controversy for further causing provocation in an already volatile Valley, besides polarizing rest of the state on communal lines. The dangers of stirring this hornet’s nest are unimaginable.

The post Challenging Article 35(A): A sinister plot appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What Modi Government Must Ask Itself: Amarnath Yatra Attack

Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:45:26 +0000

The cowardly and barbaric terrorist attack on Amarnath pilgrims has killed seven of them, including five women, and injured many more. The central government has expressed its resolve to identify, apprehend and punish those guilty of this dastardly crime. Every citizen of India would want this to happen without any delay. The CPI(M), while strongly condemning the attack, has expressed its deep condolences to the bereaved families and wished a speedy recovery to those injured.

There is also legitimate concern as to how such a terrorist attack could take place in spite of the heavy security measures which were said to have been made for the annual pilgrimage to Amarnath. It is reported that intelligence agencies had issued an alert about terrorists plan to attack the yatris. There are also reports that the bus disregarded the rules laid down for all participants of moving in a convoy, the times for movement and so on. The government must conduct an urgent inquiry into these issues including whether there were any security lapses and take appropriate measures.

There have not been such direct attacks on the Yatra for the last fifteen years. The last time such horrific attacks took place on the Amarnath Yatra were in the three consecutive years of 2000, 2001 and 2002 when the Vajpayee Government was ruling at the centre and its then ally, the National Conference, was ruling the state. The worst attack in terms of numbers of those killed was in 2000 when the base camp in Pahalgam was attacked and over 80 people were killed.

Seven pilgrims were killed in the Amarnath Yatra terror attack

While it is yet to be established as to which terrorist group is behind the present attack, the role of Pakistan in promoting, patronizing and sponsoring such dastardly attacks has been well established.

The politics behind this attack and steps to defeat the nefarious aims of the terrorists is as important to understand and address as are the administrative measures the government must take. This in turn is linked to the turmoil in Kashmir and the widespread disaffection and alienation of the people of Kashmir from the Indian establishment and its policies.

The smooth conduct of the Amarnath Yatra with the support of local people along its route has symbolized the pluralist culture of Kashmir and Kashmiriyat. There have been numerous examples when it is the locals who have come to the assistance of yatris. Even last year, when the Valley was riven with militant protests, firings and curfew in the wake of the killing of Burhan Wani, the example of locals helping out yatris caught in a tragic bus accident, even as the rest of the convoy sped past, was an example of this culture. The political aim of those who mastermind and who carry out terror attacks on innocents, targeting religious beliefs, is precisely to destroy what remains of this culture. The difference between 2000 and 2017 is the harsh reality that religious extremists owing allegiance to the most sectarian Islamist ideologies, far removed from the culture and way of life and traditions of Kashmir, are gaining influence, especially among a section of the youth.

Family members mourn the victims of the Amarnath Yatra terror attack

But instead of understanding the different dimensions of the issues, instead of initiating a political dialogue the present central government and its coalition government in the state have gravely erred by looking at Kashmir only through the narrow prism of "security" while refusing to address the political dimensions. The Modi Government has turned its back on what Vajpayee-ji had said as Prime Minister in his Independence Day speech in 2002. "For us, Kashmir is not a piece of land…it is a test case of secularism. India has always withstood the test of a secular nation. Jammu and Kashmir is a living example of this."

But today we are failing this test, we have ignored the needs and voices of the people of Kashmir, we have reduced the entire issue to one concerning Pakistan, thereby strengthening and helping their goal of keeping Kashmir in a state of permanent turmoil and disaffection while the anti-Kashmiriyat forces gain support. The very same population which today is so alienated had created history just three years ago when it turned its back on the militants' call for a boycott of the assembly elections with the largest turnout in each of the five phases of the elections: from the lowest at 49 per cent to the highest at 72 per cent and an average voter turnout in all the phases of around 65 per cent. The Prime Minister had visited the Valley as part of the election campaign several times and in his speech at the Sher-i-Kashmir Stadium in Srinagar had declared, "I have come to share your pain and sorrow. Your sorrow is my sorrow, your pain is my pain, your problem is my problem…" The people gave his government a chance. The sense of betrayal therefore is all the greater.

According to reports, intelligence agencies had issued an alert about terrorists plan to attack the yatris (File photo)

Equally tragically, the aim of the terrorists to decimate the culture of Kashmiriyat gets a big boost when, in the rest of India, the ruling party patronizes and promotes politics to divert the attention of the people from the failures of the government in their day-to-day lives with slogans and actions to deliberately polarize and divide people on communal lines. In the name of nationalism, the worst kind of jingoistic, chauvinistic and communal politics is propagated day after day, the target being all those who oppose the Hindutva agenda of the ruling combine. Kashmiris in particular are soft targets when they migrate in search of a livelihood to other parts of India, or when as students they seek better educational facilities than are available in the Valley. When Kashmiri shopkeepers in Mussoorie are threatened with eviction, or when Kashmiri students in Delhi or Rajasthan are beaten or viewed with hostility and suspicion on the understanding that every Kashmiri is a terrorist, it fuels the alienation in the Valley. It is most welcome therefore that at this time, the Home Minister of India, Shri Rajnath Singh, has reiterated that the job of his ministry is to maintain harmony. Each form of fundamentalism and communalism strengthens the other.

While mourning for those innocents who were brutally shot down on their way back from a pilgrimage to Amarnath, while committing ourselves as citizens to fight terrorism, our resolve to fight all those forces who divide people in the name of religion, whether we are in Srinagar or in Delhi, must be strengthened.

Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha.

This article was first published on NDTV, Republished with Authors Permission.

The post What Modi Government Must Ask Itself: Amarnath Yatra Attack appeared first on SabrangIndia.