Indian brutality push Kashmiris towards violenceFebruary 15, 2010
Indian Occupied Kashmir: Aflame. It has happened before. High handed brutality by the Bharati (aka Indian) Security apparatus pushes the peace loving Kashmiris towards resisting occupation with violence. The United Nations charter gives people the right to resist occupation by any means. This cannot be called terror, it is a freedom struggle. Nehru’s commitment to the people of Kashmir
The freedom struggle in Kashmir is being waged because the impotent United Nations fails to implement its resolutions on holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people on whether they want to join Bharat or Pakistan. Those were the two choices given to all 570 states in South Asia, when the British colonialists left. Hyderabad was not given that choice–she was forcibly incorporated into Bharat. Why can’t Hyderabad be independent? Junagarh and Manvadar acceded to Pakistan but were forcibly occupied by Bharat. That occupation is null and void and illegal. Kashmir & Junagarh are Pakistani territory. Kashmir was forcibly occupied by Bharat, as the fake article of accession was supposedly signed after Bharati forces had already landed in Srinagar, and all the dates on the article of accession are wrong with people signing the article when they were present elsewhere and their presence elsewhere is officially documented. To make matters worse, Delhi now claims that the article of accession is lost–as if it ever existed.
The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, whose state was situated between the two new countries, could not decide which country to join. He was Hindu, his population was predominantly Muslim. He therefore did nothing and pretended an attack of colic, which had spared him the decision Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General had wanted him to take before August 14.
Instead he signed a “standstill” agreement with Pakistan in order that services such as trade, travel and communication would be uninterrupted. India did not sign a similar agreement.
THE protests in Indian-administered Kashmir during recent weeks are threatening to engulf the region in yet more violence and bloodshed. Anti-India sentiment has deepened after India’s Border Security Force admitted on Wednesday that “prima facie evidence points towards a constable” being responsible for last week’s shooting of an innocent boy. It is encouraging that the Indian administration has promised to pursue justice. Nevertheless it must be noted that the region was paralysed on Thursday by a major security lock-down following a general strike called by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. There are fears that protests could morph into widespread demonstrations, particularly if the administration persists in its heavy-handed response.
This is deeply disturbing on many counts. A move towards peaceful resistance was becoming evident in recent months, and this represented the only way forward for a region that has for decades witnessed mass suppression and bloodshed. But the Indian administration’s disproportionately forceful clampdown on even peaceful demonstrations stands in danger of pushing the Kashmiri people back against the wall and leaving them with no option other than violent agitation. There is no doubt that people have the right to air their grievances in a calm manner. If they are stripped of that right, they may be forced to resort once again to violence.
There are two further aspects to be considered in terms of the consequences of heavy-handedness by the Indian administration. First, such tactics of oppression are the hallmarks of a dictatorship, not a democracy. If India wants the world to see and treat it as a credible democracy, it must follow through on basic principles. This includes allowing the Kashmiri people their right to protest peacefully, and pushing towards a long-term solution for the region. Second, in order to take the wind out of the sails of the Islamist militants operating in the region, it is essential that India take a more nuanced approach. The militants justify their violent tactics by pointing towards the brutality of the Indian forces. In the absence of such brutality, instigating violence would lose all justification. Kashmir clampdown Saturday, 13 Feb, 2010
Exactly when did Hari Singh sign the Instrument of Accession, has been hotly debated for over 59 years. Official Indian accounts state that in the early hours of the morning of October 26, Hari Singh fled from Srinagar, arriving in Jammu later in the day, where he was met by V P Menon, representative of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and signed the Instrument of Accession. On the morning of October 27, Indian troops were airlifted in to Srinagar to repel Pakistani’s raiders.
However a research from British sources quoted by Victoria Schofield, author of Kashmir in Conflict has indicated that Hari Singh did not reach Jammu until the evening of October 26 and that due to poor flying conditions, V P Menon was unable to get to Jammu until the morning of October 27, by which time Indian troops were already arriving in Srinagar.
Pakistan immediately contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India, when “standstill” agreement with Pakistan was already in force.
Pakistani’s also argued that because Hari Singh fled from the valley of Kahmir, he was not in control of his state and therefore not in a position to take a decision on behalf of his people.
In the context of the Pakistan’s claim that there is a dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the accession issue forms a significant aspect of their agreement.
However Jagmon in his book My Frozen Turulence in Kashmir quotes gists of Maharaja Hari Singh’s letter of October 26, 1947 to Lord Mountbatten and latter’s reply to Maharaja on October 27, 1947, which reads as:
Maharaja Hari Singh said: “With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from Indian Dominion. Naturally they can not send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so and I attach the Instrument of Accession for acceptance by your Government.”
Lord Mountbatten in reply to Maharaja’s letter writes: “In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my government has decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. It is my government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people. Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness’s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.”
On the basis of Maharaja’s “accession” India claims ownership of the entire State which includes the approximately one third of the territory currently administered by Pakistan.
The Kashmiris want freedom, freedom from Bharat and freedom to join Pakistan. If they wanted to join Bharat, why wage a struggle for sixty years. If they wanted the status quo, why would they sacrifice 100,000 souls to the freedom struggle. If they wanted to be with Delhi, why would they fly Pakistani flags on August 14th, and black flags on August 15th.
Pushing the Kashmiris towards a fate of Sikkim by created tiny emirates in the Himalayas serves no purpose at all and is a diversionary tactic by Bharati agents.
Kashmiris have lived with Pakistanis on the banks of the Indus for five thousand years. Why change things now?
If the current spate of cruelty against the Kashmiris continues, an war akin to the war in Afghanistan will begin in Kashmir, and it will engulf all of Bharat.