Sanaullah declared dead after attack by Indian inmates

A Pakistani prisoner jailed in India has died after he was attacked by another inmate in an apparent revenge attack for the death of an Indian prisoner in Pakistani jail.

Sanaullah Haq, also known as Sanaullah Ranjay, who was admitted to a hospital in northern Indian city of Chandigarh with serious head injuries, had suffered renal failure late on Wednesday, the doctor said on Thursday.

“His condition was extremely critical. He died early morning,” a senior doctor at the government hospital said on condition of anonymity.

“Although it’s scant consolation I’d like to offer a sincere apology to the family of Sanaullah Haq and my sympathies for their loss,” Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir state where Haq had been imprisoned since 1999, wrote on Twitter
on Thursday.

Last week, Pakistan said the assault was “condemnable” and called on India to punish the attacker. India said it regretted the incident and gave consular access to Ranjay.

The hospital would hand over the body to two of his relatives who had arrived in India from Pakistani city of Sialkot “as per the instructions of the government”, the doctor said.

Ranjay, who has been serving jail term for a 1990s bomb attack that killed 10 people, was attacked by a prisoner identified as a former Indian army soldier just 24 hours after Sarabjit Singh’s death in a Lahore jail that drew strong reaction from India.

Last weekend demonstrators took to the streets in Pakistan-administered Kashmir to protest against the attack on Ranjay.

The prison violence could fuel tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, whose relations were hit by a border flare-up earlier this year.

The neighbours have fought two of their three wars over the disputed region of Kashmir, which they each control in part but claim in full.

New Delhi says 535 Indian prisoners, including 483 fishermen, are in Pakistani jails, while 272 Pakistani prisoners are behind bars in India.

Pakistan refutes Indian media reports about ignoring Kashmir’s issue

Pakistan has categorically rejected reports that it has decided to shelve the Kashmir dispute ‘for the time being’ due to internal crises.

Reacting to a report published in a section of the Indian media which claimed that “Pakistan may junk the Kashmir issue temporarily,” Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit called it ‘misleading and far-fetched’.

The Times of India had reported that the Pakistani establishment, in a bid to carry forward its peace plan on Kashmir, had invited leaders of both factions of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to Islamabad for talks to explain its ‘changed position’ on the long-standing dispute.

Pakistan’s High Commissioner in New Delhi Shahid Malik, accompanied by a few other members of the diplomatic staff, drove to hard-line APHC leader Syed Ali Geelani’s winter address in Delhi on Saturday and handed him an invitation from Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

The report said: “Malik has already invited the chairman of the moderate wing of APHC, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, along with Shabir Shah and Nayeem Khan to Pakistan for talks on its change perception on Kashmir.”

However, Pakistan denies the assertion.

“There was no change in Pakistan’s principled position on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute,” added the Foreign Office spokesperson.

“The government and people of Pakistan strongly believe that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute should be resolved in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Pakistan will continue extending its moral, political and diplomatic support to valiant Kashmiris in their legitimate struggle for right to self-determination, Basit added.

Muslim based NGOs in Jammu & Kashmir face discrimination

Jammu and Kashmir has 158 NGOs authorised to collect foreign donations, 17 of them Christian religious organisations, besides 10 Buddhist, four Hindu and two Muslim organisations.
And in the last five years, two of the Christian NGOs, most of them working for the downtrodden sections of society and victims of violence, and one of the Buddhist organisations have received foreign donations over Rs 1 crore. The highest donations have gone to Catholic Social Service Society, which is not registered as a religious organisations.

None of the other Buddhist religious NGOs, nor any of the Hindu or Muslim organisations, received over that amount in that period, government figures show.

The top three received over Rs 36 crore between them. According to the Union Home Ministry, which maintains records of these NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), Jammu-based Catholic Social Service Society got Rs. 15.26 crore from five foreign countries. According to its website, CSSS works in 172 villages of Jammu region.

Diocese of Jammu-Srinagar St Mary’s Church received Rs. 14.74 crore, the donations coming from nine countries. And Kashmir Evangelical Fellowship received Rs 6.06 crore from Canada, USA and UAE in last four years.

The list of Hindu organisations includes the Amarnath Shrine Board, Ramkrishna Mission and two trusts related to Mata Vaishno Devi. The two Muslim religious groups are Madarsa Taleemul Quran and Salfia Muslim Educational Research Trust. Among the 10 Buddhist NGOs, the one that got over Rs 1 crore is Mahabodhi International Meditation Centre.

The CSSS website lists its target groups as “youths, minority, victims of violence, differently abled people, drug users”.

The 17 NGOs got FCRA registration after they had declared themselves “religious, Christian” organisations. The CSSS is registered as a “social” organisation.

Some of these organisations are based in areas that were earlier heavily affected by terrorism, such as Anantnag, Baramula, Srinagar. But the bulk, 10 of the 17, are based in Jammu, which is a Hindu-majority area.

Says the website of Kashmir Evangelical Fellowship, while calling for donations for terror-affected families, “Our missionary families are called by God and resolute in their commitment to reach their world for Christ in the face of great obstacles and under threat of life from terrorist groups.”

The 17 Christian religious NGOs listed as such include Society of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary (Baramula), North India Pentecostal Fellowship (Jammu), St Paul’s Church (Jammu), Diocese of Jammu (Jammu), Jammu-Kashmir Presentation Society (Jammu), Krist Jyoti Social Welfare Society (Jammu), CMI Service Society (Jammu), J&K Darul Fazal Home for the Zoram Evangelical Fellowship (Srinagar), Perfecture Apostolic of J&K Catholic Church (Srinagar), Emmanueal Mission Hostel (Jammu), Indian Pentecostal Church of God (Udhampur) and Samjee Pappy Kallimes Church of Christ.

Kashmir is calling

Azam Khalil

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.” – John Stuart Mill

Huge protests continue in Indian Occupied Kashmir where even school going children are now clamouring for their right of self-determination. Nearly 150 people, who were armed with stones – that replicated the struggle of the Palestinian youth against the Israeli atrocities – have been brutally killed or injured by the Indian occupation forces.

So, in a dramatic move on December 6, senior Congress leader for Jammu and Kashmir and State’s Minister for Health Shyam Lal Sharma addressed a rally in Kathua district, calling on the Indian (federal) government to divide the occupied territory into three parts. According to him, Kashmir should be given independence; Jammu be made a separate state; and the region of Ladakh be declared a union territory of India. Thus, India will find it very difficult to continue their hold on the disputed territory by sheer force. Recently, the number Indian troops in the valley have been raised to 900,000; it will not only create problems for the Kashmiris, but also for the occupation forces.

In the recent past, the Government of Pakistan has not followed an aggressive and firm policy vis-à-vis the issue of Kashmir, which has allowed the Indian leadership to continue to suppress Kashmiris, who were betrayed by the British, the then Hindu administration and Maharaja Hari Singh. In this context, India has always tried to downplay the struggle of the Kashmiri people and, at the same time, has carried out a vigorous propaganda campaign against Pakistan trying to equate a just cause with terrorism. In case the Government of Pakistan does not carry out a rigorous approach to highlight the miseries and human right violations in IHK, it may perhaps result in further delay to achieve the objective of the freedom struggle.

Before Sharma presented his formula for Kashnir, Arundhati Roy, an Indian civil rights worker, and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a veteran Kashmiri leader, were charged with sedition, and a case was registered against them for highlighting the Kashmir cause in a seminar in New Delhi. One can now say with certainty that whatever the Indian leadership or its forces do, time is fast approaching when a just solution, which is acceptable to the people of the occupied valley, need to be found. In case it continues to resist reason, there will be a danger that the other oppressed regions like Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, and the Sikhs in Punjab, may also join the Kashmiris to demand their right of self-determination from the Indian government.

But the question is what should be Pakistan’s role so that a peaceful, positive and productive decision can be achieved in Kashmir? For this, the Pakistanis need to highlight the miseries of their Kashmiri brethren in the United Nations in an effort to remind the international community about the pending implementation of the resolutions passed by it long ago.

Pakistan should make it clear to the international community, especially the US and EU, that the struggle for self-determination cannot and should not be bracketed with terrorism. Moreover, Islamabad should inform Beijing that, while they have no objection to China’s trade relations with India, its leadership must advocate the cause of the Kashmiri people with the Indians when they visit New Delhi this month.

Besides the efforts made by Pakistan, it is the responsibility of the Muslim countries to exert diplomatic and moral pressure on the Indians to reach an amicable solution for the disputed state.

Pakistan was provided with an opportunity initially when the puppet Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah demanded the federal government to repeal the Special Armed Forces Act, which it had enforced in the occupied territory. And now when one of his Cabinet ministers (Sharma) demanded Azadi for Kashmir, because he believes that this is the only solution which would allow the people of Kashmir to progress. Hence, such pressures are expected to increase on New Delhi in the coming days, which may force it to have a tripartite meeting, including the Pakistani and the genuine Kashmiri leadership, for a negotiable settlement of the issue.

Pakistanis should make it clear that no progress is possible with the Indians, unless and until real progress is made on the disputed territory. We should also make it clear to the Obama administration that it is time the US comes out and supports the just cause of the Kashmiris – if they are serious to win the war on terror in this strategic part of the world. Also, the Americans must understand that without the resolution of this issue, it may not be possible for Pakistan and the West to eliminate the menace of terrorism from South Asia.

Having said that, it will be desirable to see a visible shift in the foreign policy of Pakistan, especially on Kashmir. That it will respond properly to the Kashmiris’ call not showing any hesitation whatsoever, and simultaneously support them to achieve their right of self-determination.

More so, the Government of Pakistan should learn from the WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which prove that backdoor diplomacy will not always be productive. Therefore, whenever this government talks about principles there should be no contradiction whatsoever in its backdoor contacts or open discussion, especially on the issues that are critical for Pakistan.

Finally, the PPP-led government should also exercise its right to respond against India’s blatant interference in Balochistan, and if it does not retreat or sever its ties with insurgents, who are creating havoc in our country by indulging in acts of terrorism, then the least it can do is to raise the issues of other oppressed people in India whose rights have been suppressed or who are living as second or third class citizens. So, I believe that there is no harm if the Indians are made to test the same medicine, which they prescribe for others. Perhaps, then they will be able to understand the real reason why we are at war, and eventually behave like a good neighbour.

Kashmir is an issue of self-determination, not just a dispute of land

Kashmir Media Service

London, In London, Stop the War Coalition (STWC), a United Kingdom group has passed a resolution on Kashmir in its general conference. The resolution, which was moved by Khaja Aslam,

a journalist from Indian occupied Kashmir, on behalf of Britain/south Asia solidarity forum (BSASF), condemned the recent killings of over 111 innocent and unarmed young men and teenagers in the occupied territory.

It maintained that Kashmir was not a dispute of land between India and Pakistan but was a core political issue concerning to the future of millions of oppressed Kashmiris who had been deprived of justice since the partition of Indian sub-content. “The issue of Kashmir is the issue of self-determination which was guaranteed under successive United Nations Security Council resolutions. The self-determination of peoples is a basic principle of the United Nations Charter, which has been reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and applied countless times to the settlement of many international conflicts,” it added.

“Presence of 700,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces without any moral, political and legal code has made Jammu and Kashmir the heaviest concentration in human history,” it added. It pointed out that India had put in force draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Disturbed Areas Act in occupied Kashmir that gave Indian troops to act with impunity.

The STWC resolution said that the lingering dispute needed the immediate attention of the world powers. It emphasised that the time had come when the world powers especially the US President, Barack Obama, who is going to visit India next week, should play an effective role in helping to secure a permanent settlement to the dispute in accordance with the Kashmiris’ aspirations.

It is to mention here that the STWC was founded in October 2001, one month after the then US President, George W Bush announced the ‘war on terror’, and has since been dedicated to ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing the troops home and forcing the British and US governments to change their disastrous foreign policies.

It is for the first time that SWTC has included the Kashmir dispute in its agenda. In the conference it was decided that in future there would be a full day discussion on the Kashmir issue to highlight it on international forum.

Held Kashmir “assembly” has no authority to decide State’s future: Pakistan

UNITED NATIONS, Pakistan reminded the international community Monday that the Constituent Assembly of Indian-occupied Kashmir has no authority to decide the future of the disputed State, saying it’s final disposition must be made by the will of Kashmiri people. Reacting to statement made by a representative of India in the General Assembly’s Decolonization Committee, Pakistani delegate Tahir Andarabi, also said that Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India, nor has it ever been.

He said the UN Security Council had recognized that region as a disputed territory. Earlier, speaking in the committee’s debate on decolonization matters, Indian representative Charan Das Mahant cliamed that Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that its people have regularly exercised their franchise in free and fair elections.
The Pakistan delegate challenged the Indian statement, citing several UN Security Council resolutions. “No electoral exercise conducted by Indian authorities in Jammu and Kashmir can substitute a free and impartial plebiscite mandated by these Security Council resolutions.”
“I would like to remind him (the Indian representative) that the Security Council in its resolution 91, denied the authority of the Constituent Assembly formed by India in occupied Kashmir, to decide the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and reminded the parties that final disposition of the State is to be made in accordance with the will of the people of Kashmir,” Andarabi said.
“Security Council resolution 122 of 24 January 1957 further reaffirmed that action taken by that Consituent Assembly would not constitute disposition of the State in accordance with will of the people expressed through free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the UN auspices.”

Tactical shift?

Dr Maleeha Lodhi

Until a few weeks ago Delhi showed little enthusiasm for deepening the process of diplomatic engagement with Islamabad and even less interest in discussing issues of Pakistan’s concern.

But this seemed to change two weeks ago ahead of the start of the United Nations General Assembly session. Pakistani officials were approached by their Indian counterparts for a meeting between the foreign ministers of the two countries on the sidelines of the General Assembly at New York. Pakistan welcomed the diplomatic opening but asked what would be the substantive outcome of such parleys.

For days this query met with evasiveness. Instead, Indian diplomats placed the emphasis on the improved atmospherics that would emerge from such a meeting. Pakistani officials saw the futility of an aimless meeting and accordingly conveyed the foreign minister’s lack of interest in a photo opportunity.

But Islamabad did more. It sought to persuade Delhi to pick up from where the ill-fated July meeting between Foreign Ministers Shah Mahmood Qureshi and S M Krishna had left off. The talks in Islamabad on July 15 had resulted in deadlock with negotiations unable to reconcile differences over the agenda and modalities for the dialogue ahead. The deal breaker was the Indian refusal to include Kashmir, Siachen and peace and security in future talks within an agreed timeframe.

The Indian delegation had offered to proceed on other issues, insisting that the three issues of priority for Pakistan be discussed later at an unspecified “appropriate time”. The Indian focus remained almost exclusively on terrorism.

The effort to de-link substantive issues and disputes, including Kashmir, from the future dialogue was at odds with India’s publicly declared willingness to “discuss all issues”. This urged Pakistani officials to reject what they portrayed as a “selective” approach. Quite apart from the acrimony in which the Islamabad talks ended they left unanswered the question of how to align clashing priorities and approaches to the dialogue.

So when Indian officials approached Islamabad a fortnight ago for the New York meeting, Pakistani officials sought to test the Indian side by proposing an “outcome” statement that would emerge from such an encounter. This included discussion of “Jammu and Kashmir” and “Peace and Security” at foreign secretary-level talks which were suggested for October, ahead of the foreign ministers’ meeting now slated for early next year. The draft outcome paper also set out a roadmap for “comprehensive” talks on other issues.

While Delhi signalled willingness to discuss all issues and accept Islamabad’s draft outcome suggestion it said it expected Pakistan not to raise the Kashmir issue at the General Assembly and indicated it would reassess the matter in that light. The Indian desire for an anodyne Pakistani statement on Kashmir did not materialise. Nor could it especially given the inflamed situation in the Valley. Qureshi’s UN speech was a robust statement of Pakistan’s position on Kashmir, which he reiterated in other forums.

The sharp verbal clashes between the Pakistani and Indian foreign ministers quashed the possibility of any meeting. Mr Krishna accused Pakistan of stirring trouble in Kashmir to divert attention from its internal situation. At another forum he called on Pakistan to “vacate” the part of Kashmir it “occupies.” As the chance of a meeting vanished, a leak in The Times of India laid the blame for this on Qureshi who was seen to have “scuttled (the) expected meeting” by voicing “Islamabad’s familiar rhetoric on Kashmir.”

Several questions emerge from the latest diplomatic encounter between the two countries. Where does this leave the apparent agreement to discuss “all issues” in the months to come? Will the agreed roadmap of meetings survive the verbal tussle at the UN? What has brought about an ostensible change in Delhi’s posture? Is this stance just tactical?

Answers to the first two questions will have to await the passage of time. As for the other questions, two linked factors appear to be shaping India’s attitude towards talks with Pakistan. The first is the game-changing Kashmir uprising and the second President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to India in November.

The mass protests in Kashmir have redefined the freedom struggle and put the issue on the front burner, however much anyone would want to wish this away. A bloody summer in the Valley has seen over a hundred civilians killed in just over a hundred days. Weeks of stifling curfews, unending strikes and youth-led popular demonstrations have escalated into a full-blown crisis. Kashmir has been on fire and Indian authorities have been at a loss about what to do. For years Delhi cast the Kashmiri movement as “terrorism,” but today that effort has collapsed in the face of a peaceful and indigenous struggle that has raged for three consecutive summers.

The Indian government’s dithering and faltering effort to defuse the crisis by offering an eight-point “confidence-building” package has been rejected by Kashmiri leaders. They have described the steps as an “eyewash” that fail to address the causes of the uprising. “Short-term management” rather than a commitment to resolve the substance of the dispute is how APHC leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq portrayed Delhi’s “peace” overture.

In this back drop agreeing to include Kashmir in future discussions with Islamabad is another way for Delhi to defuse this explosive situation, while also signalling to the international community that it is engaged in addressing the crisis. Whether this is just a tactical shift will be tested in the dialogue ahead, and especially by the seriousness India shows in addressing the substance and not just the manifestation of the Kashmir crisis.

There may be another reason for Delhi’s shifting posture on talks with Islamabad. This has to do with President Obama’s much anticipated visit to India. Delhi is anxious to pacify the protests in Kashmir and be seen as discussing Kashmir with Pakistan to ensure that the issue stays off the agenda with a president who, as candidate Obama, had acknowledged the need to solve the dispute to secure US objectives in Afghanistan. He became the first American politician to talk so pointedly about Kashmir.

With Kashmir in deep ferment, doubts linger in Delhi circles about whether President Obama might privately urge a Kashmir solution as a way of achieving regional stabilisation. The Times of India, for example, speculated last week that Obama might “push” Kashmir by offering “incremental” support for India’s candidature for the UN Security Council.
Exacerbating these anxieties is the attention that the Kashmiri protests continue to receive in the American media. Influential analysts in the US have also been arguing that the time has come for a diplomatic initiative on Kashmir.

For example, Bruce Reidel, who undertook the Obama administration’s first review of Afghan strategy, recently wrote: “Obama’s strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a Kashmir component to succeed–that need is more urgent and obvious now.” And he stressed that the president’s trip to India “will be a key to addressing it.”
Similarly Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation, wrote last month in the New Yorker that the US could benefit from a sense of urgency on Kashmir. In a more recent article, in the New York Review of Books, Coll called for a revised US approach and for Obama to return to his pre-election position on resolving Kashmir.

Whether or not any of this translates into urging Washington to consider a diplomatic effort — quiet or otherwise — it is already obliging Delhi to make pre-emptive moves, out of concern that these could be the leading edge of a growing trend. Meanwhile, the popular upsurge in Kashmir has sent a powerful and unmistakable message about what the people of Kashmir want. This cannot be cast aside or marginalised in any Pakistan-India dialogue. To do so would denude the peace process of substance and make it unsustainable.

The diplomatic challenge ahead for Pakistan is to engage the Indian government on the issue and to convince the international community that Kashmir needs to be addressed by resolving and not defusing the issue.

Unforgivable

Asif Ezdi

The current wave of pro-Azadi demonstrations which began in Occupied Kashmir on June 11 with the death of a teenage boy at the hands of the Indian forces entered its 100th day on Saturday. Nearly a hundred young Kashmiris have been killed by the occupation forces during this period for daring to raise their voice against Indian rule. More than a thousand have been injured, some maimed and disabled for life. Yet, in spite of the use of brute force to suppress it, the “Quit Jammu and Kashmir” movement has been growing and has gripped not only the major urban centres but also remote towns and villages of the Kashmir Valley. It has also spread to some of the Muslim-majority areas of Jammu. Eidul Fitr, and especially the following day, saw an explosion of popular anger against Indian occupation on a scale not seen since the nineties.

What began as a largely spontaneous and sporadic outburst of popular anger at the highhandedness of the occupation forces has now assumed the proportion of a mass rebellion. It has knocked the bottom out of the Indian case that the freedom movement is fed and instigated by Pakistan and that, by participating in the State Assembly election of December 2008-in which India claims that a phenomenal 65 per cent of the electorate took part-the Kashmiri people rejected the “hardliners” who demand Azadi. As APHC chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has said, the protests are a form of referendum showing that the Kashmiris want freedom from India.

Another reason for Indian concern is that the “Quit Jammu and Kashmir” movement is a resounding rejection by the Kashmiri people of the “settlement” that Musharraf was negotiating with Manmohan Singh through the backchannel, which would have sanctified the division of the state along the Line of Control and given India permanent control over the occupied part. According to former foreign minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, most of the APHC leadership had been on board and the only significant opposition had come from Tehreek-e-Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani. His lieutenants are now spearheading the current movement and setting the pace of the protests, with the “moderate” faction of the APHC mostly playing catch-up.

The reactivation of the backchannel negotiations has been a key element of Delhi’s Kashmir policy and it has been working quietly with Washington’s discreet support for this purpose. But the Zardari government has been dithering, not so much by design as by default. Kashmir is not on its radar screen because its main preoccupation is to hold on to power and save Zardari from corruption charges. With the upsurge in the Azadi movement, a return to the backchannel will become even more difficult to sell to the Pakistani public. Even Kasuri, the most persistent and ardent advocate of the backchannel in Pakistan, has fallen silent on this issue.

The popular rebellion in Kashmir has upset also the “domestic” part of Delhi’s Kashmir agenda which is focused on engaging the “moderate” APHC faction led by the Mirwaiz in talks on some form of autonomy within the scope of the Indian constitution. On Aug 25, Indian home minister P Chidambaram expressed the hope that in the next few days Delhi would be able to “restart the process of dialogue that will lead to a solution.” In response, Geelani laid down five conditions, which have been endorsed by the Mirwaiz. These include terms that are totally unacceptable to Delhi, like acceptance of Kashmir as an international dispute and the commencement of complete demilitarisation of the state. This has pushed back the prospects of the internal dialogue with Kashmiri parties sought by Delhi, especially after the massacre of a score of peaceful demonstrators in one day last week.

In short, the Kashmiri intifada has wrecked, or at least severely compromised, three main elements of Manmohan Singh’s Kashmir policy: the showcasing of the election to the State Assembly as an endorsement of Indian rule; the resuscitation of the backchannel deal; and the activation of the “internal” track of dialogue with the “moderates.” Besides, this summer’s popular uprising shows once again that even six decades of repressive Indian rule have not succeeded in suppressing the freedom movement. The baton has now been taken up by a new generation of Kashmiris. Instead of the armed struggle of the nineties, they have turned to mass street protests, often organised by educated young men through Facebook and mobile phones. It is no wonder that the Indian establishment and political parties of all hues have been unnerved.

There is every indication that in its desperation, Delhi will resort to even more violence to quell the popular agitation. This was signalled also by the deliberations of the all-parties meeting called by Manmohan Singh last week. All that the meeting decided was to send a delegation of politicians to Kashmir to meet all sections of the people and assess the ground situation. The meeting could not agree even on a token relaxation of India’s iron grip, such as a proposal by Omar Abdullah, the state’s beleaguered chief minister, for a dilution in the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFPSA). Nobody imagines that a change in the law would ease Indian repression in Kashmir, but even such a purely cosmetic measure was vetoed by the Indian armed forces.

An even harsher crackdown against the civilian population is now imminent. The Indian authorities have begun deploying the army to support the state police in enforcing the curfew and to prevent popular protests against the Indian occupation. Large numbers of “miscreants” are being rounded up and a manhunt has been launched to arrest Masarrat Alam Bhat, deputy leader of Tehreek-e-Hurriyat, who has played a key part in organising anti-India protests.

The international community has been a silent spectator to the reign of terror unleashed by India. One reason is to be found in the geopolitical plans or strategic interests of the US and other countries of the West. The last time Obama uttered the K-word was nearly two years ago. The Indian reaction was immediate. Since then the US president has carefully steered clear of Kashmir.

Another reason, one even more deplorable, for the indifference of the international community to India’s brutal repression of the Kashmiris, is the failure of the Pakistani government to raise the issue at the international level. In his recently published memoirs, former British prime minister Tony Blair recalls his surprise when during his visit to Pakistan after the 9/11 attacks Musharraf asked him to resolve Palestine rather than the Kashmir issue. The present government has also given the same low priority to Kashmir. In fact it is doubtful if it has a Kashmir policy. Its only response to the recent earth-shaking developments has been to issue two blandly worded statements. One of them calls for “restraint” by the Indian government, suggesting that if less force were used Pakistan would have no objection. The other statement refers to the occupation forces as “security forces” as if they were engaged in a legitimate activity to provide security.

Issuing statements from Islamabad will not be enough. The government must also devise a proactive policy to mobilise international support for the peaceful Azadi movement in the occupied state. Its failure to do so is unforgivable. As an immediate step, the government must forcefully take up the issue at international fora and bilaterally with Washington and other key countries. The prime minister (but please not Zardari) should address the UN General Assembly during the general debate beginning this Thursday and urge the international community to take steps to safeguard the human rights of the Kashmiris. The prime minister should also write letters to key heads of government. In addition, the foreign minister should address the Human Rights Council meeting currently in Geneva. Like the government, our parliament and political parties should also wake up to their responsibility to the people of Kashmir as they face the onslaught of the 700,000-strong Indian occupation force in the state.

Kashmir Chief Becomes Target of Mounting Public Frustration

CNN

The Kashmiri capital has been dominated by news of stone-throwing protests this summer, but on India’s Independence Day, Aug. 15, it was a shoe – not a stone – that grabbed the headlines. During the morning’s flag-raising ceremony, a police sub-inspector threw his shoe at Omar Abdullah, the state’s embattled chief minister, while Abdullah stood at attention before the Indian tri-color. The shoe didn’t come close to its target, and the policeman was immediately arrested, but the damage to Abdullah’s already battered reputation was done. Abdul Ahad Jan, the shoe-pelter, meanwhile, became an instant hero, as hundreds later gathered outside his house in support.

A shoe is hurled towards Jammu and Kashmir state Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, right, during Independence Day celebration in Srinagar on Aug. 15, 2010

In an interview with TIME a few hours after the incident, Abdullah brushed it aside. “It was a shoe,” he said. “If it had hit me, it probably would have caused a bruise, but that’s about it.” The police claim that Jan was mentally unstable and had been suspended previously, but so far they have been unable to explain how, in that case, he was allowed into the VIP seating area. “I would obviously like to know how somebody got into the main enclosure who clearly had no business being there,” Abdullah said. “But that’s a job for the police and the investigating agencies.”

The brown leather brogue was only the latest indignity for a man with one of the world’s most thankless jobs: as chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Abdullah must try both to sell the Indian government’s policies to Kashmiris, many of whom would like to be rid of India, and to uphold the interests of Kashmiris in the Indian government. The region has endured decades of conflict, not only between India and Pakistan, whose talks over Kashmir have been stalled for nearly two years, but also between Indian forces and an armed militancy, which was put down after 20 years of brutal conflict.

Still, the dream of “azadi,” or freedom, has never quite died, and Kashmiris’ unresolved issues against India have taken a new form: a mass protest movement against the Indian military presence, symbolized by young “stone-pelters.” Over the last two months, they have been in almost daily conflict, and nearly 60 people have been killed since June 11, most of them shot by security forces. As the death toll has risen, so has public criticism of the official response to the riots, but Abdullah’s pleas for calm have been ignored by protestors, and his calls for restraint have not changed the troops’ tactics.

Every death fuels a new round of protests, and the security forces continue to use live ammunition to fire on protestors armed only with stones. “How do we deal with these protests, and deal with them in a way that we don’t lose more lives?” Abdullah said. “Obviously the security forces need to be as restrained as possible.” But as a state official, Abdullah does not have ultimate control over the central government’s security forces, and Kashmiris complain that he seems powerless to control the forces, let alone address protestors’ demands for a withdrawal of troops, the removal of bunkers and the repeal of draconian security measures that have oppressed day to day life in Kashmir for years. “He will not dare to take any step,” says Rashid, a regular among the stone-pelting protestors. “He cannot.”

Central government officials recently advised Abdullah to go out more among the people and show them that he feels their pain. Like his friend Rahul Gandhi, Abdullah is the scion of a powerful political dynasty, the son and grandson of Kashmiri chief ministers. And like Gandhi, Abdullah faces the widespread perception that he is out of touch with the common man. He has tried to reach out. Abdullah went to console families of the injured last week at Srinagar’s largest hospital, where one angry mother caught him by the collar and berated him. The father of the youngest victim, 8-year-old Sameer Ahmad Rah, when asked whether he would want the Indian Prime Minister to visit, said: “Even Omar Abdullah does not bother about us. So how can you talk about Manmohan Singh?” Abdullah insists that he has tried to help this family but acknowledges that he has not met all of them. “Some I’ve done, some I haven’t,” he says. “At this point, my primary focus is trying to normalize things.”

With another week of protests beginning, that seems like a distant goal, and Srinagar is full of speculation about whether Abdullah may soon resign. He insists that he has not considered it. “It’s my responsibility to bring this state as close to normalcy as possible and that’s my immediate priority,” he says. Even if he does step down, at this point, it may have no impact on Kashmiri anger, which is much bigger than just one man. “New Delhi and the media are very keen to put Omar Abdullah on trial,” says Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, leader of a moderate separatist faction. “People know that our problem is not Omar Abdullah; our problem is New Delhi.”

Mobile services suspended, curfew still in place in Kashmir

ZONEASIA-PK

Srinagar: Mobile services have been suspended in north Kashmir and SMS services have been blocked in the entire Valley, with the situation remaining tense on Tuesday morning. Sources said this has been done to stop rumour mongering in an already incendiary situation.

Sources also said curfew would continue in Sopore, the town worst hit by violent protests over civilian deaths allegedly in the use of force by CRPF against agitators. Restrictions under Section 144, which prohibits assembly of more than four persons, are in place in and around Srinagar and Baramulla. Additional companies of the CRPF have been deployed in Sopore.

Read Complete Article: http://www.zoneasia-pk.com/ZoneAsia-Pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:mobile-services-suspended-curfew-still-in-place-in-kashmir&catid=41:securityissues&Itemid=62