Satyashodhak Historical Research Institute
‘Revealing the Truth’
A Research Project on 370 Article
----------By Suryakrishna Pillai.
M.A, MPhil (History).
Introduction
The incorporation of Article 370 in the Constitution of India was purely a temporary measure, but even after the lapse of nearly 60 years it continues to operate as a mandate of the state. It may be recalled that only within a few days of Partition, Pakistan waged a proxy war against India to grab Kashmir. It took the plea that the attack had been launched by the Azad Kashmir Forces. Pakistan had attacked on October 24, 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 and empowered the Union of India to have absolute jurisdiction in respect of three subjects namely defence, foreign affairs and communication.
In executing the said Instrument the Maharaja’s sole object was to save his state from the onslaught of Pakistan and its allies. It was jointly decided that the final decision from which there would be no change regarding accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India would be taken by the Constituent Assembly and till that is done the sate will have a special status. In order to grant that special status stipulated in the Instrument of Accession a purely temporary provision was made by incorporating Article 370 in the Constitution of India.
After the execution of the Instrument of Accession the Constituent Assembly was convened by the people of Jammu & Kashmir on the seventeenth day of November 1956
`whereby they adopted, enacted and gave to themselves a new constitution which they called the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. In this context the most important point to remember is that according to the agreement between the erstwhile ruler Jammu & Kashmir and the Union of India the final decision regarding accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India was taken on November 17, 1956 by the Constituent Assembly which made a written commitment in the Preamble to its newly framed Constitution that Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.”
There was no question of retaining Article 370 in the Constitution after the Constituent Assembly acting on behalf of the people of Jammu & Kashmir finally decided that Jammu & Kashmir was an integral part of India. The matter ended there for good and the only task left before the Centre was, and still is, to amend the Constitution for abrogating Article 370 and to repeal the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir which grants special status to that state.
It is true that when the Constituent Assembly representing the people of Jammu & Kashmir had taken the final decision regarding the accession of that state to India and the Constitution thereof had also proclaimed that “the State of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India” (Article 3), the Centre took no action to make the guaranteed integration real. Instead of abrogating Article 370 and abolishing special status of Jammu & Kashmir by annulling its unconstitutional constitution the Nehru government evolved the obnoxious and unwise policy of appeasement of Muslims in the Kashmir valley and thus committed the blunder of making a non-issue an issue. It is also true that the subversive elements were active even at that time, both in Pakistan and India, but who prevented the then Prime Minister Nehru to crush them with the help of the armed forces which were always at his disposal. Nehru went on committing one blunder after another. Even today the Centre is pursuing the same cowardly and conciliatory policy towards the enemy.
Article 370, which according to part XXI of the Constitution of India, was a temporary, transitional and special provision ought to have been firmly annulled either by invoking Presidential power under Clause (3) of the same Article or through constitutional amendment under Article 368 read with Article 355. When the Instrument of Accession was executed on October 26, 1947 and the Constituent Assembly acting on behalf of the people of Jammu & Kashmir accorded final sanction to the said accession on November 17, 1956 the Kashmir chapter was closed for ever for the supreme good of both the Hindu and Muslim masses. Why a closed and concluded matter was made a subject of controversy again? Clause (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution of India clearly states, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify.”
The word “New Kashmir” which occurs in Article 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir constitution does not and cannot mean independent Kashmir. It only means “better Kashmir” whose prime object would be the promotion of the mass of the people by establishing a socialist & democratic society free from all exploitation of man by man.
It should never be forgotten that Article 370 incorporated in the Constitution of India at the behest of Nehru has become a strong shield of protection in the hands of terrorists and their patron the state government. It is due to this particular Article which gives special status to Kashmir that more than 30,00,000 Kashmiri Pundits comprising 78,000 families, have been forced to leave the Kashmir valley and live a miserable life as refugees in their own country.
Article 370 has been used to build political oligarchy in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Although the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir talks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship no such thing exists there in practice. After the formulation of Operation Topic by the then dictator of Pakistan Zia-ul-Haque in November 1987 a reign of terror was unleashed in Kashmir which continues unabated even today. In the very beginning of the said operation more than 800 Kashmiri Hindus, 100 non-Kashmiri Hindus and a number of Sikhs had been reportedly killed in the most unsympathetic manner.
The mass attack on the Hindus had begun in a pre-planned manner in January 1990. It culminated in gangrape, kidnapping, loot, arson and murder in the most unthinkable manner as time rolled on. Poor and innocent people belonging to Hindu community were butchered like beasts. The servants of Satan masquerading as messengers of Allah gangraped a school teacher working at Bandipora and subsequently sliced her on a mechanical saw. Neither the Centre, nor the State government took any meaningful measure to nab the culprits and punish them. Sporadic attacks had started as early as February 1986 when, according to authentic reports, 56 temples and 150 houses were burnt in a single day and more than 1500 houses belonging to Hindus were looted. All these calamities would have been easily averted had the centre taken pre-emptive action by giving army a free hand after giving a deathblow to the special status to Jammu & Kashmir on the basis of its own constitution as well as on the grounds already existing in the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir referred to above in the foregoing paragraphs. Article 370 and the resultant special status of the state of Jammu & Kashmir have given rise to many anomalies. Article 5 of the Indian Constitution recognizes only one type of citizenship but the so-called constitution of Jammu & Kashmir accords recognition to a particular category of citizens whom it designates as permanent residents. In view of the fact that as per entry 15 of the first schedule of the Constitution of India, Jammu & Kashmir is a state of this country and every citizen of this sovereign state called Bharat’ ipso facto becomes a citizen of that state too and is entitled to reside and settle there and hold property to carry on any occupation, trade or business. But the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir makes unlawful discrimination between permanent residents defined in Article 6 and others who are citizens of India within the meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution of India. Due to this anachronistic law a citizen of India who is not a permanent resident of the sate of Jammu & Kashmir faces great difficulties in the enjoyment of his fundamental rights there.
An Indian citizen who is an ordinary resident of Jammu & Kashmir is not allowed to contest elections there. Does it not show that Jammu and Kashmir has become virtually an oligarchic state run by Muslims although both the constitutions i.e. the Constitution of India and the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir unequivocally declare that it is an integral part of India?
There is no doubt that all these legalistic problems arise only because of the special status granted to this anachronistic state by incorporating Article 370 in part XXI of the Constitution of India. The moment this mischievous Article is abrogated and the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir is annulled by an all of Parliament followed by a non-communal government with a strong will and arms to eradicate terrorism from the valley comprising three regions all these baffling problems will be solved and the valley will be no more a place for terrorists to indulge in heinous crimes and deadly sins in the name of religion and God. There are two options for the abrogation of Article 370. The first option is to invoke Presidential power exercisable under that Article itself. Article 370 lays down: “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Article the President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative. Only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify. Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the state referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary enforce the President issues such a notification.”
The other efficacious remedy is to abrogate Article 370 and declare the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir null and void being ultra vires the Constitution of India by amending the Constitution under Article 368 read with Article 13(2) and Article 355. Since the very day India was declared to be a Sovereign Republic persons in power have never cared to change obsolete and obnoxious laws which have been plaguing our great motherland for several decades. There is an urgent need for drastic changes in the entire legal system. Section 18 of the Indian Penal Code framed by Macaulay doesn’t regard the state of Jammu & Kashmir as a part of India. It says: “India” means the territory of India excluding the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Why has not this utterly false, unlawful and objectionable section been repealed by the Indian Parliament as yet? The continuance of this section speaks to the ignorance, selfishness and callous indifference of politicians in power to the interests of our nation.
BACKGROUND
Kashmir is situated in the heart of the Asian sub-continent, with an area of 86,000 square miles and a population currently estimated at approximately 12 million. It is surrounded by four countries: India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China with the narrow Wakhan Strip separating it from the Central Asian Republics.
India and Pakistan's bitter dispute over Kashmir has proven to be one of the world's most intractable problems. The tensions in Kashmir have stubbornly endured half a century and two major wars. Many geopolitical strategists pinpoint the dispute as the most likely flash point for the world's first nuclear war. The present cease-fire line, known as the Line of Control, between India and Pakistan has currently divided Kashmir into two parts. One is known as Jammu & Kashmir and is under Indian administration. It comprises 63% of the whole territory with a population of approximately 7 million. The second part is known as Azad (Free) Kashmir which has its own separate government, but is under indirect Pakistani control and also includes the northern region of Gilgit and Baltistan which is directly administered by Pakistan. It comprises 37% of the whole territory and 2.5 million people. There are approximately 1.5 million Kashmiri refugees in Pakistan, 300,000 in Great Britain and another 1,00,000 are scattered around the world.
When one considers the human toll of suffering on ordinary Kashmiris one must conclude that a human disaster of epic proportions is in the making. Kashmir needs and deserves the intervention of faith-based intermediaries to play a positive role for all concerned: Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis, in the cause of peacemaking, reconciliation and justice.
Article 370 & Kashmir
Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which is of a temporary nature grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir. In view of its importance the text of the article 370
1. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution: a. the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, b. the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to; i. those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and ii. such other matters in the said Lists, as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation—For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;
c. The provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to this State;
d. Such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify
i. Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State.
ii. Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of the Government.
2. If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon. 3. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of the article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may notify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
4. In exercise of the powers conferred by this article the President, on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, declared that, as from the 17th day of November, 1952, the said art. 370 shall be operative with the modification that for the explanation in cl.(1) thereof the following Explanation is substituted namely:
Explanation—For the purpose of this Article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the *Sadar-I-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.
Implications of Article 370
This article specifies that except for Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications, (matters specified in the instrument of accession) the Indian Parliament needed the State Government's concurrence for applying all other laws. Thus the state's residents lived under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to other Indians.
Similar protections for unique status exist in tribal areas of India including those in Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Nagaland however it is only for the state of Jammu and Kashmir that the accession of the state to India is still a matter of dispute between India and Pakistan still on the agenda of the U.N.Security Council and where the Government of India vide 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord committed itself to keeping the relationship between the Union and Jammu and Kashmir State within the ambit of this article .
Brief History
The 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord mentions that "The State of Jammu and Kashmir which is a constituent unit of the Union of India, shall, in its relation with the Union, continue to be governed by Article 370 of the Constitution of India”.
On October 26, 1947 Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, signed the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to the Dominion of India. Under this Instrument, he surrendered the jurisdiction of three subjects - Defence, External Affairs and Communications to the Central Government. Lord Mountbatten, presumably with the knowledge and consent of Pt. Nehru, unwisely insisted that the final decision of the accession would be ratified by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir.
Was it not a blunder committed by Nehru to follow Lord Mountbatten blindly? When neither Maharaja Hari Singh nor Sheikh Abdullah demanded the ratification of the Instrument of Accession by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, it was wrong on the part of the Government of India to insist on the ratification. It was an utter blunder committed by Nehru.
For the transitional period, from the date of execution of the Instrument of Accession to its ratification by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, some temporary provisions in the form of Article 370 were made in the Indian Constitution. Under the Article those parts of Indian Constitution which pertained to Defence, External Affairs and Communications could be extended to Kashmir in consultation with the state government. The parts that dealt with subjects other than those could be extended with the concurrence of the state government. The executive of the state was thus being given not just a legislative function, it was being given a legislative function in regard to the Constitution under which the people of the state were to live. This is how Article 370, which made the bulk of the Indian Constitution inapplicable to Jammu and Kashmir, was incorporated in our Constitution.
During the annexation of states to the Union of India, Sardar Patel had been paying little attention to Kashmir. But once Pakistan invaded the Valley, and as the situation went out of control, the Sardar stepped in, and it was his clarity and firmness, along with the valour of our Army and Air Force which saved the Valley. Soon enough Pt. Nehru inducted Gopalaswami Ayyangar as Minister without Portfolio to help him take charge of policy regarding Kashmir. The Sardar had not been consulted regarding Ayyangar's induction, although it was to impinge directly on his responsibilities. This increased the rift between Nehru and Sardar and led to the resignation of Sardar from the government. With Mahatma Gandhi's intervention the Sardar was made to stay.
Sheikh Abdullah apprehended that if Hindus, who migrated from Pakistan to India, were allowed to settle in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, they would transform the majority of Muslims in the valley into minority. Hence he pressurized Pt. Nehru to get Article 370 incorporated in the Constitution of India, which harmed the entry of non-Kashmiris into the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Thus the nefarious plan to continue outnumbering Hindus in the valley was fulfilled by the dint of Article 370. If pernicious Article 370 had not been incorporated in our Constitution, Hindu immigrants would have settled in the valley to reduce the Muslims to minority, and the problem of Kashmir would have been solved for ever.
Pt. Nehru had finalised the draft Article in consultation with Sheikh Abdullah. The Sardar had not been taken into confidence. The draft finalised, Nehru proceeded abroad on a tour, instructing Ayyangar to see the draft through the Constituent Assembly. In the Congress party there was a strong body of opinion, including Sardar, which looked askance at any suggestion of discrimination between the Jammu and Kashmir state and other states as members of the future Indian Union and was not prepared to go beyond certain limits in providing for the special position of Jammu and Kashmir. When Ayyangar put the draft before the party meeting, the announcement was followed by a storm of angry protests from all sides. Both Ayyangar and his proposal were torn to pieces by the party.
Later Ayyangar called on Sardar for help, explaining the genesis of the proposals he had put before the party and appealing to the latter to come to his rescue. The Sardar convened a meeting of the Congress Executive the following day. The meeting was one of the stormiest the party had ever witnessed, the opinion in opposition to the Article was forcefully and even militantly expressed and the issue even brought in the sovereignty of the Constituent Assembly to draw up the Constitution without being tied down to the apron-strings of the Kashmir State Constituent Assembly. That was the strength of opinion in the party against the draft Article.
The Sardar intervened "to plead that because of the international complications a provisional approach alone could be made leaving the question of final relationship to be worked out according to the exigencies of the situation and the mutual feelings and confidence that would have been by then created". Later the Sardar told his private secretary that he had done so because in Nehru's absence Ayyangar was acting under orders and had the Sardar opposed him, people would have said that he was taking revenge on Nehru's confidant when he was away. Ayyangar had appealed to him for help, so how could he let him down in the absence of his Chief.
When the draft Article was placed before the Constituent Assembly no substantial objections were tabled. Sheikh Abdullah, who had jointly devised the provisions with Nehru, had tried, once Nehru had left on his tour, to stiffen the provisions further in favour of the Kashmir Government, which of course meant himself, saying that he had to discharge his duty towards his people, and that in any case the Working Committee of the National Conference was not agreeable to the draft. Ayyangar had capitulated, altered the draft and reported the change to the Sardar. The Sardar shot down the change, writing to Ayyangar, "I do not at all like any change after our party has approved of the whole arrangement in the presence of Sheikh Sahib himself. Whenever Sheikh Sahib wishes to back out, he always confronts us with his duty to the people. Of course, he owes no duty to India or to the Indian Government, or even on a personal basis, to you and the Prime Minister who have gone all out to accommodate him." And added, "In these circumstances, any question of my approval does not arise." Thus, the changes were shot down but the original draft went through without a murmur.
The Sardar died just a few months later on 15 December 1950. Barely two years after his death, on 24th July 1952, when the Article came in for criticism in the Lok Sabha, in defence Nehru took the stand that the Article was dealt with by Sardar in his absence and he was not responsible for it. He said "This came to an end in November, I think, of 1949 when we were designing our Constitution in the Constituent Assembly. Well, we could not leave everything quite vague and fluid there. Something had to be stated in our Constitution about Jammu and Kashmir State. That problem had to be faced by Sardar Patel. Now, he did not wish to say very much, he wanted to leave it; we all wanted to leave it in a fluid condition because of these various factors, and gradually to develop those relations. As a result of this, a rather unusual provision was made in our Constitution relating to Jammu and Kashmir. That provision is now in Article 370 in Part XXI..." Thus, the authorship of that to which the Sardar was so emphatically opposed was attributed to the Sardar!
Pt. Nehru, on 27th November 1963, during the Question Hour in the LokSabha said, "Our view is that Article 370, as is written in the Constitution, is a transitional, in other words a temporary provision. And it is so........As a matter of fact as the Home Minister has pointed out, it has been eroded, if I may use the word, and many things have been done in the last few years which have made the relationship of Kashmir with the Union of India very close. There is no doubt that Kashmir is fully integrated.......So we feel that this process of gradual erosion of Article 370 is going on......"
From the above details we can safely derive the following inferences: Article 370 was not a device to give Kashmir some special status vis-à-vis India. It was a device for extending provisions of the Constitution of India a step at a time to Kashmir. The very text of the Article makes this manifest. By the mechanism of this Article, part after part of the Constitution of India was to be extended to Kashmir. It was to be a temporary device - one that was to be used for this purpose till a Constituent Assembly of the State could be constituted and could, as was expected then in Delhi, do the job in one go. The members of the Constituent Assembly who were so insistent on ensuring democratic norms and control in every nook and cranny of the Constitution enacted this manifestly undemocratic arrangement because the device was to be in use for a very short while only. How different parts of the Constitution would apply to Kashmir was to be determined by a constituent assembly of the state, and this was to be constituted soon.
There was tremendous opposition to the Article within the Congress itself. The Congress was militantly opposed to this facility being made available in the case of Kashmir. But for the Sardar setting his better judgement aside, and that for reasons which had nothing to do with the merits of the Article, the provision would have been scotched by the Congress itself.
Today's Position
And today, to even ask that this temporary provision be removed is to go back on "our solemn commitment to the people of Kashmir", is to be communal. The reasons for this are: The first reason is crass ignorance - the average Congressman has not read accounts of his own party's position on the matter, he knows nothing of what was said in the Constituent Assembly or Parliament, nor does he know anything about what the very men - Pt. Nehru and Sardar Patel - whose photographs he hangs on his walls had said and thought on the matter. So someone tells him there was "a solemn commitment" and he starts shouting there was "a solemn commitment". The second reason is that the demand for scrapping this Article has been espoused most of all by the BJP and its predecessor the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. Every other party has therefore come to espouse its retention. As by their (all other parties' ) definition, the BJP is "communal", the demand that the Article be scrapped, espoused as it is by the communal party, is communal! And, ipso facto, asserting that it must not be scrapped is secularism! The third reason is simplicity itself, and it is fatal. The transformation of the Article - from being a very temporary provision to one keeping which unchanged is our "solemn commitment" - is but an aspect of the progressive enfeeblement of our State. As the country and its rulers have lost the capacity to enforce its laws, they have dressed up that incapacity in principle.
Horrendous Consequences of Article 370
1. Secessionism spread to other states
The venomous tendencies of secessionism and separatism, strengthened by those, who incorporated the baneful Article 370 in the Indian Constitution, later on spread to Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Punjab.
2. Regionalism and parochialism
The Article 370 tanned and fed the forces of regionalism, provincialism, parochialism and obscurantism. It created regional conflicts, collisions and controversies in truncated India.
3. Denial of fundamental right to settle permanently
Under Article 19 (1) (e) and (g) of our Constitution, it is fundamental right of the citizens of India to reside and settle permanently in any part of the country, and to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business. But Article 370 deprived the citizens of India of the right to settle permanently in Jammu and Kashmir. Is it not a strange discrimination that citizens of Jammu and Kashmir could settle in any province of India but the citizens of India could not settle in Jammu and Kashmir, because of this discriminatory Article 370? Even Pt. Nehru, the Prime Minister of free India, could not settle in his own ancestral land Jammu and Kashmir, because of the baneful barrier of Article 370. No citizen of India could go to the state of Jammu and Kashmir without a permit issued by the state government, headed by Sheikh Abdullah. Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of Bharatiya Jana Sangh (the progenitor of BJP) defied the permit system and entered the territory of Jammu and Kashmir without permit. He demanded from Nehru Government the abrogation of the detrimental Article 370, which smacked of secessionism. Consequently he was arrested on May 11, 1953, and detained in Srinagar Guest House. On June 23, 1953, Dr. Mookerjee breathed his last, while in police custody in the Srinagar Hospital under suspicious situation: The unofficial probe pointed to medical murder. Thus the founder of Bharatiya Jana Sangh sacrificed his life for the abrogation of the venomous Article 370.
4. Denial of Fundamental right to purchase property
Under Article 370, citizens of India cannot purchase immovable property in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but the people of Kashmir can purchase property in other states of India.
5. Deprivation of the right to vote
The citizens of India cannot become the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. Due to Article 370, they are deprived of their right to vote in the elections to the state assembly or municipal council or panchayats.
6. Denial of Jobs
On account of Article 370, Indian citizens cannot get jobs in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. All the jobs in the state are reserved for the citizens of the state.
7. Detrimental to women of the state
Article 370 is highly detrimental to the women, who are even born and brought up in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. If a woman, who is permanent citizen of the state, gets married to a man who is not a citizen of the state, she loses her property. She is deprived of even her ancestral property. In the state of Jammu and Kashmir, domicile certificates issued to women are valid up to their marriage only. They have to acquire fresh 'Permanent Residence Certificate' after their marriage.
8. Denial of admission and job to Kashmiri women after marriage
If a woman, who is born and brought up in Jammu and Kashmir and is permanent citizen of the state, marries a citizen of India, she cannot get a job in the state, nor can she get admission in medical, engineering or agricultural colleges established with the financial aid by the Union of India.
9. Victimization of Hindu Immigrants - Supreme Court helpless:
On account of unholy partition of our holy Motherland, unfortunate Hindus were ousted from their ancestral homes in West Pakistan. A few thousand Hindu families migrated to Jammu and Kashmir and settled there. Though, fifty five years have elapsed since their migration, yet they, their children and even grand-children have not been granted citizenship on the ground that outsiders cannot settle permanently in the state on account of Article 370. Consequently, these unfortunate Hindus are deprived of their fundamental rights. They cannot purchase land for construction of their houses. Their names are not included in the electoral rolls of the state assembly. Hence, they cannot exercise their franchise in elections. They cannot get Government or semi-government jobs. They arc not sanctioned loans by the state government. They are not granted government licenses for the purpose of business. Their children are not granted admissions in medical or engineering colleges of the state, though the Government of India bears most of the expenses of the said colleges. Thus, they are treated as second-class citizens in a state, which is declared as an inseparable part of India. Having seen no other alternative, the unfortunate displaced persons knocked the door of the Supreme Court. It is a matter of irony, agony and astonishment that though the Supreme Court realized the injustice rendered to them; yet, it could not give any relief to them because of the discriminatory Article 370. It is a heartrending tale that the honorable judges of the Supreme Court, in spite of having recognized their grievance as justifiable, expressed their inability in their judgment to give any relief to the unfortunate Hindu immigrants in view of the peculiar constitutional position prevailing in the state.
10. Incapability to alter the boundaries of Kashmir
Under Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, the Parliament has the right to change the boundaries of any province, provided the President consults with the authorities of the concerned province before signing the bill. But, on account of Article 370, the Parliament of India cannot alter the boundaries of Jammu and Kashmir. For doing so, it has to seek approval from the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. It indicates that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir is above the Parliament of India. Had Pt. Nehru not applied Article 370 to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Parliament could have split Kashmir into various parts and annexed the said parts to the adjoining provinces. The only solution to the problem of Kashmir is to abrogate Article 370, split Kashmir into parts and annex the said parts to the adjoining provinces in such a way that the Muslims may lose the majority, and Hindus may be induced to settle permanently in the said parts with overwhelming majority. The well-planned systematic dispersal of Muslim population and settlement of Hindu population in its place is the only remedy to the malady of Kashmir.
11. Non-acceptance of Hindi
The decision of the Union of India pertaining to Hindi as National language could not be applied to Jammu and Kashmir because of Article 370. No member could speak in Hindi in the State Assembly without prior permission of the speaker.
12. No CBI in Kashmir
On account of baneful barrier of Article 370, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was not allowed to work in Jammu and Kashmir. Thus Sheikh Abdullah and his accomplices were let loose to collude with Pakistani conspirators and infiltrators. The reports of his collusions and conspiracies with Pakistani agents and spies could not reach the ears of the ruling leaders of India.
(Based on A SECULAR AGENDA by Arun Shourie and HORRENDOUS CONSEQUENCES OF ARTICLE 370 by Kanayalal M. Talreja, RASHTRIYA CHETANA, March2004)
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT
Regardless of how much I have listened dispassionately to all parties of the conflict over the course of six analysis, it seems clear that the conflict in Kashmir is based on four historical events. The first historical event involved the sale of Kashmir by the British to the neighbouring Dogra prince of Jammu in 1846. Kashmir had been independent for over a thousand years until the Afghans established their rule over the territory in 1752. In 1819 the Sikhs from the Punjab replaced the Afghans as the rulers of Kashmir. The British defeated the Sikhs in 1846 and forced them to relinquish control. However, instead of extending British colonial rule over Kashmir, the British sold the territory to the Dogra prince. The Dogras ruled Kashmir as an independent principality until 1947, despite deep resentment from the primarily Muslim population. Kashmiris felt like chattel, being sold by one owner to another. This perceived injustice constitutes a historical wound and forms part of the collective identity and memory of Kashmiri Muslims.
The second historical event involved the accession of Kashmir to India on October 26, 1947 without any plebiscite to ascertain the will of the people. The words "Kashmiri Self Determination!" have rung like a mantra through many of my meetings in Srinagar, Islamabad and Muzaffarabad. During the period of the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, there were guidelines stipulated by the British that Muslim majority areas that were contiguous would form part of the new state created for Muslims. The Muslim majority in Kashmir Valley assumed that they would become a part of the new state of Pakistan. For a variety of reasons, the status of Jammu and Kashmir was not resolved in this manner, but became part of a deal between the Maharajah, Hari Singh, and the Indian government. Fearing Kashmir's Hindu ruler would side with India, Pakistan launched a covert operation to infiltrate the valley and overthrow the government. In reaction to this development, Singh appealed to New Delhi for military assistance, agreeing in the process to become part of the Indian union. This resulted in Jammu & Kashmir, in fact, becoming part of the Indian federal state system and the secular democracy that emerged from it, a development that only served to deepen the wound mentioned above.
The third historical event involves the advent of Kashmiri militancy in 1989 and the reaction of Indian security forces (over 700,000) to that militancy. The police actions of these security forces (regardless of perceived need or purpose on the part of Indian officials) have enraged older opposition leaders, radicalized the current generation and contributed significantly to the growth of a distinctive Kashmiri identity. In addition the violence of militant groups against the security forces and their own people have caused extensive suffering and a sense of weariness of the conflict among average Kashmiris. The resulting spiritual, emotional and moral wounds represent a formidable obstacle to rebuilding a civil society.
The fourth historical event was the forced migration of Kashmiri Pandits (4,00,000) from the Kashmir Valley to refugee camps around Jammu in 1989. This resulted in loss of life, property, businesses and homeland.
If one were to take a strategic view of the healing/reconciliation process that will be required, one must conclude that a political settlement alone will not bring peace to the region. Any political settlement, if it is to be lasting, will have to be part of a larger process of sociopolitical healing in which people of faith have a major role to play. A political settlement amongst the power brokers of India, Pakistan and Kashmir will collapse if it is not accompanied by a movement of faith-based reconciliation among the people that (1) restores pluralism to the Kashmir Valley; (2) fosters individual and collective forgiveness; (3) promotes social justice; (4) restores a sense of community across regional boundaries; (5) addresses the historical wounds; (6) imparts a new basis for political order and civil society; and (7) seeks to provide an alternative identity for Muslims who are otherwise negatively influenced by the larger geopolitical currents in the Islamic world.
WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THE CONFLICT?
There are generally a host of background factors contributing to the cause of a conflict. Depending on whether one is talking to a Kashmiri, Indian or a Pakistani, they share different perceptions of how and why the conflict began. Among the causes are:
1. Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir as a way of infusing Kashmir with Islamic fundamentalist ideology.
2. India's denial of any right to self-determination to Kashmiris and its refusal to honor United Nations resolutions.
3. Ethno-religious tensions in Kashmir, with religion playing a significant role in communal identity.
4. The political mobilization of Kashmiris caused by increased education, greater media exposure and a resulting tendency toward political activism.
5. Institutional decay of regional and local Indian governing structures that has contributed to an increased centralization in Delhi of decision-making on Kashmir.
6. The stifling of Kashmiri political expression under Indian rule.
To what extent does religion play a role in the cause of this conflict? I have asked this question many times to numerous individuals. It appears that religion plays a role as part of the communal identity of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists in a broader context of ethno-religious nationalism. This conflict is not primarily about religious
fundamentalism despite the attempts of outside militant groups to push the conflict in this direction. The form of Sunni Islam in Kashmir has been profoundly influenced by Sufism and is thus resistant to political radicalization.
To what extent can religion play a role in the resolution of this conflict? Based on considerable exposure to the dynamics of this conflict, I conclude that faith-based intermediaries may have an important role to play in its resolution, particularly in relation to Muslims. In the Muslim heart, faith and politics are inseparable and secular approaches are inherently unacceptable to a practicing Muslim. In spite of this reality, I have been unable to identify a single indigenous religious leader who has been a force for peace and reconciliation in Kashmir. It would appear that the ICRD approach of combining faith and diplomacy is ideally suited to this situation.
During the opening of the Institute for Reconciliation in Srinagar
1. The formal opening of the Institute for Reconciliation in Srinagar was held at the Hotel Broadway on July 18, 2002. Approximately 125 people were invited and expected for the event and almost 300 people actually attended. Every school of thought was represented; Hurriyat, militants, National Conference, Jammu & Kashmir government, civil service and key civil society leaders. The event was attended by many influential personalities and intellectuals, and leading journalists covered the event. Bashir Manzar, Editor of Kashmir Images daily newspaper gave the welcoming address, and gave the keynote address. There was also a major address by Professor Kamal Chenoy, Professor of International Studies at Jawaharal Nehru University in Delhi and a prominent Indian human rights activist.
The address was followed by a Question & Answer period with the audience. Clearly, the concept of faith-based reconciliation stirred up a vast array of questions and led to a very vigorous and passionate exchange which included a discussion with a group of seven former militant leaders.
In retrospect, the opening of the Institute For Reconciliation was very skillfully planned by Firdous Syed and the core group. It was truly "an event" in the Kashmir Valley. It was reported on the front pages of the leading Kashmir newspaper. Awareness of the event filtered through to Hurriyat, National Conference, the governments and intelligence services of India and Pakistan, militant sympathizers and Al Qaeda militant leadership in Pakistan. There is now an institutional presence of our work in the Kashmir Valley.
In subsequent discussions with Firdous Syed and Raouf Rasool about the nature and structure of the center it was agreed that Brian Cox will serve as Chairman of the Board of Governors, Firdous Syed will serve as President, and Raouf Rasool will serve as full- time salaried Executive Director. The Board of Governors will consist of the Chairman, President and seven other voting members (two from Kashmir, two from India and three from outside of India). A set of bylaws will be developed. Application will be made for incorporation and non-profit status with the Indian federal government. A hard currency account will be established and an office set up and furnished in conjunction with the Kashmir Foundation for Peace and Developmental Studies. The center will be an independent entity, but will work in close cooperation with the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy in Washington DC. The Board of Governors will exercise spiritual, strategic, legal and financial oversight of the center. Implementation of major initiatives and routine administration will be overseen by the Executive Director.
2. To conduct a faith-based reconciliation seminar for Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits in Gulmarg, July 19 - 22.
Team Members
Team members included: Brian Cox (USA), John Parsons (USA), Richard Tiff (USA), Firdous Syed (Kashmir), Raouf Rasool (Kashmir), Bashir Mir (Kashmir), Gowhar Fazili (Kashmir), Ejaz Malik (Kashmir), Javid Geelani (Kashmir), Hamid Rafiabadi (Kashmir), A. S. War (Kashmir), Shahid Saleem (Jammu), Daoud Iqbal (Jammu), Iftikhar Bazmi (Jammu), Karamat Qayoom (Jammu), Athar Pervaz (Jammu), Tabarak Hussain (Jammu).
Brian Cox and John Parsons made the presentations and members of the core group from Srinagar and Jammu augmented by two Islamic Scholars served as small group leaders. John Parsons and Richard Tiff served as the prayer and fasting component of the team.
Participants
There were a total of 50 participants with 26 Kashmiri Pandits from Jammu, 18 Kashmiri Muslims from Srinagar and Jammu, and three Sikhs from Jammu. This seminar was marked by the scope and breadth of participation representing the array of religious communities and political ideologies. There were extremists from both sides of the spectrum; hardline Muslim militants as well as Pandits representing the ideology of Panum Kashmir. The participants included a combination of professionals and university students. There were six Islamic scholars, seven former militants, a former Islamic judge involved in the militant movement, an Indian Supreme Court judge, a prominent Imam, attorneys, civil servants, journalists, educators, scientists, research scholars, professors, engineers and leaders of local NGO's. The 26 Kashmiri Pandit participants were all from the refugee camps around Jammu. For them, this represented a deeply emotional return to the Kashmir Valley inasmuch as this was the first time that they had set foot in the valley in thirteen years. The age range of participants was 22-60, with the vast majority being under 35 years of age.
Venue
The seminar was held at the Hotel Highlands Park in Gulmarg, approximately two hours from Srinagar and 3 kilometers (as the crow flies) from the Line of Control. Our meetings were all conducted in a large, colorful tent erected especially for the seminar. Participants were assigned to one of eight small groups.
The Seminar (This is based on Brian Cox conversation during the Seminar)
The seminar began on Friday evening at 6:30pm and concluded on Monday afternoon at 2:30pm.
This seminar, which brought Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits together for the first time in a context of faith-based reconciliation, represented a bold and courageous turning point in their work. As participants arrived on Friday afternoon, there was a heightened awareness of the historic nature of the gathering. The seminar was known about and being watched from Srinagar, Jammu, Delhi and even Islamabad. There were expressions of concern for the security of the Pandits in Gulmarg from a possible militant attack during the seminar. As they began the seminar there was a palpable climate of suspicion, pain, and anger and awkwardness as Muslims and Pandits sat down together in their small groups. Presentation on Friday evening, realization that this was a moment of truth in which we were bringing antagonists together for the first time. This would prove to be not only our greatest challenge to date, but also a seminar that would expose the very depths of pain, loss, anger, hatred, suffering and unforgiveness in the collective soul of Kashmir.
At one point during the course of the seminar, I spent almost three hours with twelve Kashmiri Pandits listening to the stories of their migration from the Kashmir Valley to Jammu in 1989. They expressed anger and mistrust toward Muslims, Kashmiri and Indian politicians and Americans. They told stories of being forced to leave a land that was part of their very soul. They told of family members killed, houses burned and miserable camp conditions. The question they asked over and over was "where was God then?" To a person, they held out the hope of returning with their families to live once again in the Kashmir Valley.
They arrived with hearts filled with pain, anger and mistrust. But there was also a sliver of hope that this seminar could be the first tentative step toward healing one of the most gaping and painful wounds in the collective soul of Kashmir.
The various seminar presentations were assigned as follows:
Introduction: The Journey of Reconciliation: Brian CoxReconciliation As A Moral Vision: Brian CoxBuilding Bridges: John ParsonsDemolishing Walls of Hostility: Brian CoxConflict Resolution: John Parsons/Brian CoxSocial Justice: Brian CoxHealing Relationships: John ParsonsHealing the Wounds of History: Brian CoxBecoming An Instrument of Reconciliation: Brian Cox
For the most part the presentations proved challenging and thought-provoking to the participants. Clearly, the concept of faith-based reconciliation and its component parts is still a fresh idea in Jammu and Kashmir, although many of the participants had been introduced to the concept through prior contact with core group members. We sought to present the materials in a manner that showed respect for Islamic, Hindu and Sikh traditions and which enabled the participants to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation for the reconciling principles.
Based on their previous experiences in Gulmarg and Jammu, we anticipated that the most challenging presentations would be on the subjects of social justice, individual and political forgiveness and healing the wounds of history. These three presentations were all given on the second day. Firdous Syed and he attempted to prepare the spiritual and emotional framework for the day in two ways. First, during the early morning team meeting I spoke about submission to God and its manifestation in the form of humility. I explained that a sign of our submission to God was our willingness to listen to the pain of the Kashmiri Pandits without seeking to justify Muslim actions, argue the politics of it or correct their perceptions of history. Humility meant dignifying their pain and restoring their humanity by speaking words of healing.
Second, at the beginning of the morning session Firdous Syed spoke as a former militant leader in acknowledging the part that Muslims played in the forced migration of the Pandits, expressed moral culpability, apologized to Pandits and expressed the commitment of the Institute For Reconciliation to work for the return of the Pandits to the valley. I spoke as an American and acknowledged the role that America had played during the 1980's of indirectly introducing the gun into Kashmiri politics. I apologized and expressed our commitment as an American NGO to be part of the solution to the problem.
This was our first time utilizing the Gandhian Edition of the Reconciliation Basic Seminar. For the most part, the materials were well received by the participants as being respectful of their religious traditions and having a solid integration of spiritual and intellectual substance. One Hindu participant complained that we spoke too much of the Abrahamic tradition and submission to God (which pleased the Islamic scholars). One Muslim participant complained that we talked too much about Mahatma Gandhi (which pleased the Hindus and Sikhs). Hence, we seemed to find the right balance in our non-sectarian faith-based approach. A couple were initially suspicious that perhaps we had a hidden agenda to convert all the participants to Christianity. However, by the end of the seminar they were among our most enthusiastic proponents and expressed the desire to invite their network of friends to future seminars.
Each participant received a presentation packet (presentation outline and exercise) at the beginning of each presentation. On the final afternoon each person received a complete training manual as well as a study booklet for use in the reconciliation cell groups. These materials were brought with us from the U. S.
The Question & Answer periods following the various presentations were animated, intense and punctuated with speeches and arguments on the part of the participants. Many of the questions reflected an underlying tone of hostility toward the U.S. owing to the U.S. role in introducing the gun into Kashmiri politics by training the first anti-Soviet militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1980's. This gun culture soon found its way into Kashmir and led to the militarization of the valley and over 30,000 deaths. It is remarkable that we were received as esteemed people of faith despite our American identity. This, I believe, reflects the depth of relationship building and trust that has been established by ICRD officials and teams. Given the troubled and complex U.S. relationship with the Islamic world, it requires people of faith who radiate a humility as well as conviction to operate in this context.
The small group exercises were helpful in facilitating relationship building, discussion and teaching new skills. Some of the new skills that we taught the participants included: sharing one's life journey in relationship building, identifying core values, analyzing one's collective identity, applying the core values of faith-based reconciliation to policy and program development, dialogue on contentious issues, prejudice analysis, negotiation and mediation principles and techniques, analyzing broken relationships, analyzing societal group privilege, conducting an honest conversation about history, developing strategies for healing, and examining one's own sphere of influence for reconciliation opportunities. The participants enjoyed the exercises which provoked much lively interaction in the small groups.
Since a key component of the seminar involves transformation of hearts and relationships, we knew that the Service of Reconciliation would be a moment of truth. All of our teaching and the small group exercises led up to this decisive moment. Truly we witnessed the powerful intervention of God with results that far exceeded our expectations. The Service of Reconciliation was conducted in the lounge area of the hotel on Sunday evening and included three key components.. During the course of the Reconciliation Circle two respected Islamic leaders from Kashmir Valley stood up and humbly acknowledged the culpability of the Muslim community in the forced migration of the Pandits. They apologized and asked forgiveness on behalf of Kashmiri Muslims and expressed a commitment to work for repatriation of Pandit families to the valley. These two very emotional expressions were followed by other Muslim participants making statements of acknowledgement and apology. This was followed by expressions from several Kashmiri Pandits who shared the painful stories of their forced migration; murdered parents and siblings, burned homes, destroyed property and lost businesses. This was accompanied by profound sobbing. As one Kashmiri Pandit sobbed, two Islamic leaders went over to him, embraced and comforted him. I was later told by several core group members that in Kashmiri culture for someone to express the pain of his heart and sob publicly was a profound breakthrough. The fact that Muslims went beyond pointing the finger of blame or justifying the history to listening to the Pandit pain, acknowledging their culpability, asking for forgiveness, making commitments to work for repatriation and attempting to comfort the Pandits created a powerful spiritual and emotional dynamic of healing.
In addition two former militants stood up and shared the pain of witnessing the butchery of family members and asked for forgiveness for their violent actions that had caused suffering to so many ordinary Kashmiris.
State FLAGS of Jammu & Kashmir
The state flagIndia has (had) a flag for Jammu and Kashmir. This was red, to symbolize labour, with three white vertical stripes in the hoist (which do not run the whole height of the flag). These stand for the three districts of the region (Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh). In the hoist, also in white, a stylized agricultural implement (?) A plough (?) Stuart Notholt, 22 September 1996
I don't know what the device is, but I also believe it is a plough of some kind, even if it looks to me more like a weird kind of iron. Smith gives this as a state flag, with 2:3 proportions, so this wouldn't be a flag used by the Kashmiris, but by the regional government. Željko Heimer, 24 September 1996
Kashmir, because of its special status under the Indian Constitution (it is, for example, the only province where non-natives of the province are prohibited from owning real estate), is the only Indian province with a flag. Princely State flags (as discussed elsewhere) continue to be used in appropriate areas, without any official sanction. The National Flag is the national flag and Indian law and custom are adamant on this point. The plough is, by the way, really a plough. Really.Ed Haynes, 24 September 1996
Valentin Poposki, 31 January 2007
The State flag issue in Jammu and Kashmir recently caused violent debated; in "Greater Kashmir", 7 February 2007, Afir Haleem reported the last developments of the affair as follows:
In a significant development, the government today supported the bill moved by
National Conference seeking one year imprisonment for a person who dishonors the State flag. The government at the same time opposed the bill moved by Panthers Party seeking only one flag for the State. The bill to amend Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Insult to the State Honor Act 1979 was moved by the National Conference legislator Mir Saifullah. The bill says any person entitled to display and exhibit flag of the State who fails to display and exhibit the flag with due honor shall be punished with imprisonment for one year and fine. Saifullah said that the flag of the State represents people of the State and deserves due honor and respect. The insult to the flag is insult of the State, he said. Responding, the Law Minister Tariq Hamid Qarra said that the government will not oppose the bill. The bill was later approved for consideration with voice vote.
The Government at the same time opposed a bill to amend constitution of Jammu and Kashmir moved by Panthers Party [The Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party] member and former Education Minister Harsh Dev Singh. Singh had proposed an amendment through private member’s bill number 9 of 2007. Elaborating reason behind moving the bill, Singh said it was not justifiable to have “two flags within the same country.” Besides, Singh said, the present flag resembles flag of one particular political party. He said “Jammu and Kashmir was integral part of the India and there should be uniform flag for all states.” Singh had sought support from all the members. However, law minister rejected the bill and later House too rejected it with a voice vote.
Flag use in Jammu and Kashmir
I have seen some designs of Kashmir's flags: first the flag of the indigenous state; second, the flag of the state (?) in the 1970's (the design comes from the Catalan Encyclopedia and the book by Whitney Smith); third, two flags probably nationalist flags, that I have seen on TV in the last two years:
by Jaume Ollé
Green, red, green horizontal
by Jaume Ollé
Green over red horizontal, and, in the hoist, a polygon figure in white
by Jaume Ollé
A triangular design, similar to the Philippine flag. This flag seems to be used by nationalists (neither pro-Indian nor pro-Pakistani), for instance on the following URL
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8215/struggle.html, which is a page of the J&K Liberation Front. Thanh-Tâm Lê, 28 January 1999.
From
Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front:
Our organisational flag is of three colours i.e. Green, Red and White. Each colour has two meanings. Green represents the Muslim majority and the greenery of the State. Red represents our revolutionary ideas as also our belief that we can not achieve our objective unless we shed our own blood and that of the enemy too. The White colour represents the religious minorities (non-Muslims) of the State and our peaceful efforts on political and diplomatic fronts to achieve our objective. The ratio of Green and White portions of the flag is the same as that of the Muslim and non-Muslim populations of the whole State (IHK, AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan)
Located by Esteban Rivera, 30 May 1999
by Jaume Ollé
A flag, probably with a 1:3 ratio, the top (2/5) divided in vertically yellow and green and in the green a crescent and star in white; in the bottom (3/5) bars white and green, green being the bottom bar.
Jaume Ollé
Kashmir Postal Service
by Jarig Bakker, 19 Apr 2001
[A green triangle] is the flag of the Kashmir Postal Service if I don't remember wrongly.Jaume Ollé, 11 June 1999
Around the year 1000 Himalayan postmen took a stick of two feet long, split it on top and stuck in the gap a letter; the messenger carried the stick as a small flag in front of him (source: A Springer, 'Die Post-und Reiserouten des Orients', c. 1880, reprint c. 1970)The dak-runners (postmen) continued their services at least until the beginning of this century, since Aurel Stein received post from 'his' dak-runner in Lop-nor (Sinkiang) in 1907 (v. 'Ruins of Desert Cathay', 1912, vol I, p.407) When a flag was instituted I don't know.Jarig Bakker, 11 June 1999
Published: August 13, 2008
Pakistani Flag Hoisted in Kashmir University
By Fayaz Wani
Srinagar, Aug 13: The situation in Kashmir took a new turn Wednesday evening, when the students of Kashmir University, highest seat of learning in Kashmir, hoisted a Pakistani flag on main gate of the campus.
The locals of Hazratbal, some 12 kms from the summer capital Srinagar, said that hundreds of students of Kashmir University came out on roads on Wednesday evening. Raising pro-freedom, pro-Pakistan and anti-India slogans, the university students hoisted the Pakistani flag on the main gate of the university. They also removed the "Gandhi Bhavan" board in the campus and raised pro-freedom slogans. The board has been named after the Indian father of nation, Mahatma Gandhi.
The Pakistani flag was also hoisted on the office of Vice Chancellor's Secretariat. The Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University, Prof Riyaz Punjabi is the Indian track-II diplomat.
The students have virtually taken over the control of the University, which is the highest seat of learning. Thousands of students are studying in the university.
One of the university students was told over phone that the university is witnessing a total revolution with students virtually in control of the University.
Fayaz Wani reports on life in Srinagar, Kashmir.
What historians say about Kashmir?
Historians have traced the history of Kashmir to the 7th century. Some have written that in the 2nd century A.D. Kashmir was annexed by Emperor Kanishka who made it a part of the Kushan Empire (which later became part of ancient China).
It is known that during its long history Kashmir existed as an independent sovereign state for good 10 centuries and flourished as a model state in the region. The most glorious and talked about was the period referred to by the Kashmiris as the 'golden era' of Sultan Zain-al-Abadin (1420-1470), commonly known as the 'Badshah'.
Kashmir's long history of independence came to an end when in 1586 the Mughal's conquered it but the real tragedy began when in 1752 neighboring Afghan rulers finally succeeded in taking over. They established a ruthless reign, which lasted for over two generations. The Afghani occupation was followed in 1819 by an equally brutal and oppressive rule by the Sikh Maharaja of Punjab which in turn was overturned by the British in 1846.
The state of Jammu -Kashmir (including Ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit territories) was handed over to a Dogra prince of Jammu by the British under the terms the notoriously infamous
'Treaty of Amritsar' in March 1846. The Dogra dynasty lasted until 1947.
Despite occasional resistance against the Dogra exploitations, they ruled J&K with an iron fist but as a sovereign independent princely state.
In July 1931, a spontaneous but popular rebellion took place, which became the milestone of the Kashmiri freedom movement. (It gave rise to Quit Kashmir movement even before the idea of separate Islamic Pakistan was formalised by Indian Muslims).
In August 1947, when the British Raj came to an end and the paramountency relinquished, two separate countries, namely India and Pakistan, were created as nation states. The semi-autonomous states such as Kashmir (not under direct British rule) became sovereign independent states by default with options to remain independent or accede to one or the other of the newly created dominions. Kashmir's misfortunes were not to end here.
India and Pakistan both had their reasons to seek accession of Jammu-Kashmir to their country. Their designs to win the race through political intrigue, deceit and naked aggression (to annex Kashmir) brought the conflict and their expansionist territorial ambitions out in the open.
In the military conflict that followed Kashmir was divided into two parts, two third of which (63%) went under Indian occupation and the rest (37%) under Pakistan. Pakistan justified its move by claiming that majority of Kashmir's Muslims wanted to accede with newly created Islamic Pakistan. India's justification of her invasion on 27th October 1947 was based on the fact that Indian leaders were able to persuade the autocratic ruler of Kashmir to sign a temporary 'Instrument of Accession 'in her favour just a day earlier. However, the authenticity of the date on that 'treaty' remains subject of a fierce dispute even today
Maharaja Hari Singh was faced with a popular rebellion against his continued inhumane rule and draconian laws from his subjects. In order to save his crown he is said to have signed this temporary "Accession Treaty" drawn up by India which gave her powers to enter Kashmir. The Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, however, made it clear that the treaty was subject to a later ratification by the people of J&K which never took place. As the Maharaja did not seek to test the will or satisfy the wishes of his subjects it gave rise to further disquiet by the Kashmiri population.
The 1947 revolt against the Maharaja, lead by members of Muslim Conference, which was formed as a result of the 1931 rebellion resulted in liberation of a third of the country but for Kashmiris that small victory was short lived. Muslim Conference had been split into two factions but on 4th October 1947 a provisional government known as Republic of Azad-Kashmir was declared as a people's representative body deposing the Maharaja off his throne. That provisional administration was quickly replaced by another regime aided by Pakistan, which eventually lost all self-assumed powers to 'friendly' Pakistan. (Ever since then it has remained a subservient authority under Pakistan's control, despite 'electing' its own Prime Minister and President).
On 1st January 1948, India took the issue to the United Nations (referred to as India and Pakistan Question). The UN Security Council took action and in order to restore peace imposing a
cease-fire between the Indian and Pakistani forces fighting in Kashmir. It was able to persuade the two warring nations to agree to a complete withdrawal of their troops from J&K on paper. A commission was setup and several resolutions were passed in the following years but no outcome satisfying Kashmiri aspirations was arrived at. Both India and Pakistan fought for their respective interests at the UN but Kashmiri case was not pleaded properly due to lack of representations.
United Nations Military Observers were sent in the area who have remained there for over half a century. Both Indian and Pakistani leaders pledged to the world to withdraw from Kashmir and to allow the people of J&K to exercise their right of self-determination but subsequently both reneged to take steps to fulfill those pledges.
The cease-fire demarcation divided Jammu-kashmir into two parts. Families and communities were split in the middle. During the process of that bloody partition tens of thousands were massacred in the Jammu region. Many families continue to endure the trauma of that everlasting nightmare even today.
The unprecedented human tragedy, which has caused immense suffering in the area, continues to unfold even today. In 1947/48 young Muslim men were killed off in the Jammu regions and their girls taken by non-Muslims and non-Muslim girls forced to convert and marry Muslim men only to be given the opportunity later to go back to their original religion but leaving the children behind.
As India continued to dig deep in order to perpetuate her hold on Kashmir it lost a large Kashmiri territory to China in a war in 1962. Over the years, while the UN became an instrument in the international power game the world community lost interest in the
plight of the Kashmiris. India and Pakistan went to war again in 1965 with a result that the question of Kashmiri self-determination was pushed further down the agenda. Both India and Pakistan continue to battle for hegemony in the region. Half a century on - with United Nations membership of free countries almost doubled - the Kashmiris are still waiting to exercise their alienable right to self-determination.
In 1997/98 Kashmir became the battleground for the largest military conflict in the region. Indian armed forces on active duty are exceeded over half a million in numbers. Indian troops are alleged to have killed over 60,000 Kashmiris so far. Thousands of young Kashmiri men women and children are languishing in Indian prisons and many have disappeared. Hundreds have been maimed and disfigured in torture cells. Billions worth of properties have been looted or destroyed. Kashmir's historically peaceful and docile people continue to pay a heavy price for demanding to exercise their right to self-rule. While Pakistan now claims to support Kashmiri peoples right to self-determination India continues to defy all international laws and obligations. Both India and Pakistan have now become nuclear powers when Kashmir has become a nuclear
flashpoint in the region.
Over the last 50 years the Kashmiri struggle for re-unification and independence has continued in different phases and manners but it has now become a nationalist movement and is gaining strength on both sides of the divide. While both India and Pakistan continue to blame each other instead of offering the Kashmiris their right to self-determination, world pressure has begun to mount to seek a peaceful resolution. Kashmir's peaceful struggle was transformed into armed resistance when in 1984 India illegally hanged a Kashmiri revolutionary leader
Maqbool Butt.
In 1988, JKLF came into prominence when it took the center stage of Kashmiri politics by storm. Since than it has become the biggest challenge for the occupation forces of J&K.
The KashmirGuts ! Whatz that Omar ?Omar Abdullah , Former Union Minister in Indian Cabinet and current President of J&K National Conference did finally have to bow down .
Omar, a youth leader who has taken to blogging would have never imagined that his blogging could have made such a news. And this time it was with refrence to his observation of the role played by muslims in Kashmir during the exodus of Kashmiri Hindu minorities from Kashmir in 1990.
On
May 14th., Omar quotes ” Its so easy to say that we””””ll lay down our lives to bring Kashmiri pandits back to the valley and I appreciate the sentiment as I””””m sure the Kashmiri Pandits reading it will. Pity that sentiment was missing when our mosques were being used to drive these people out. None of us was willing to stand up and be counted when it mattered. None of us grabbed the mikes in the mosques and said this is wrong and the Kashmiri Pandits had every right to continue living in the valley. Our educated, well to do relatives and neighbours were spewing venom twenty four hours a day and we were mute spectators either mute in agreement or mute in abject fear, more often than not it was muteness driven by fear because the guns turned against the Pandits found their target elsewhere as my party workers found, but mute none the less. “
This was an Omar who perhaps believed that blogging and being trutyhful on net may not effect the politician in him , but he was wrong . And he started realising it soon , the pressure seemed to have been building upon him eversince to win back the muslim voters of Kashmir , which many of his partymen would have felt may have been upset over his blog and media statement regarding the role of Musilms during 1990.
on
May 16th., he tries to win counter what he believed was his mistake by playing the same old card of defaming the Indian Army . Omar Quotes
“Who investigated the allegations? The army. Who passed judgement? The army? Who carried out the sentence? The army. Yet we are supposed to believe that the process was transparent, fair and free from bias.”
The worst was yet to come . Some of the Kashmiri Pandits who had perhaps believed that Omar was a welcome change from corrupt & communal leadership of Kashmir Valley had their optimism shortlived .
On
May 20th Omar Quotes “Suddenly Times Now claimed that I had accepted a genocide where I had done nothing of the sort. Though how less then two hundred and fifty deaths in a total of more than sixty thousand qualifies as a genocide is a matter of a completely different discussion.”
I wonder what made Omar believe that less than two hundred fifty Kashmiri Hindus were killed by terrorists in Kashmir. If he believes the Govt version, then Omar needs to quotes around 16,000 as the number of total civilian deaths in Kashmir in last 18 years, and this includes the Muslims as well as Hindus. And if Omar asks me my source, I would gladly share it with him, provided he starts to quote those figures only. And if does not believe in those figures , he needs to stop referring 250 as the number of Kashmiri Hindus killed in Kashmir by Islamic terrorists.
Bibliography
For writing the research project “370 Article & Kashmir” I have referred to the list of internet sites, articles, e-books, etc.
1. News Blaze
2. Tech and Trek (an Article)
3.
www.kashmir-information.com 4.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8215/struggle.html 5.
Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front 6.
Jammu and Kashmir (Princely state) 7.
Azad Kashmir (Pakistan) 8. Indian Constitution (Ref. to 370 Article)
9. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference
10. History of Kashmir traces from the 7th Century (V. Sundararaj)
11.
http://indpride.com/Article%20370.html12.Article 370: Law & Politics (Frontline Volume 17- Issue 19. Sept 16-29, 2000)
_files/in-ka1.gif){kind=link}
_files/in-ka3.gif){kind=link}
_files/in-ka2.gif){kind=link}
_files/in_ka4.gif){kind=link}
_files/in_kashp.gif){kind=link}
