The Kashmir dispute basically involves the lives and future of
the people of the land. Because of its affect on relations between
India and Pakistan however, it directly impacts the peace and
stability of the SouthAsian subcontinent. This is a region
which contains a large segment of the human race.
In 1947, Britain liquidated its empire in the subcontinent and
the area known as "British India" was partitioned into
the two sovereign states of India and Pakistan. At the time that
the suzerainty of the British monarch lapsed in the region, 584
states were under its paramountcy. Each of these was given the
opportunity to decide their own future affiliation.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir was then under the rule of Dogra
Maharajah Hari Singh. Faced with the very real possibility of
insurgency by his people, who had been joined by a few hundred
civilian volunteers from Pakistan, he fled to Jammu on October
25, 1947. In Jammu, after he ascertained a commitment of military
assistance from the government of India to crush the impending
revolution in Kashmir, he signed the "instrument of accession"
to India.
Lord Mountbatten conditionally accepted the "Instrument of
Accession" on behalf of the British Crown, and furthermore,
outlined the conditions for official acceptance in a letter dated
October 27, 1947:
"In consistence with their policy that in the case of any
(native) state where the issue of accession has been subject of
dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance
with the wishes of the people of the state, 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."
Then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in a speech aired
on AllIndia Radio (November 2, 1947), reaffirmed the Indian
Government's commitment to the right of the Kashmiri people to
determine their own future through a plebiscite:
"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharajah has supported it, not only to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but also to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when
peace and law have been established to have referendum held under
international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to
be a fair and just reference to the people and we shall accept
their verdict."
The Government of India accepted the "instrument of accession"
conditionally, promising the people of the state and the world
at large that "accession" would be final only after
the wishes of the people of the state were ascertained upon return
of normalcy in the state.
Following this, India moved her forces into Srinagar and a drawnout
fight ensued between Indian forces and the forces of liberation.
The forces of Azad Kashmir successfully resisted India's armed
intervention and liberated onethird of the State. Realising
it could not quell the resistance, India brought the issue to
the United Nations Security Council in January 1948. As the rebel
forces had undoubtedly been joined by volunteers from Pakistan,
India charged Pakistan with having sent "armed raiders"
into the state, and demanded that Pakistan be declared an aggressor
in Kashmir. Furthermore, India demanded that Pakistan stop aiding
freedom fighters, and allowing the transit of tribesmen into the
state.
After acceptance of these demands, coupled with the assurance
that all "raiders" were withdrawn, India would enable
a plebiscite to be held under impartial auspices to decide Kashmir's
future status. In reply, Pakistan charged India with having manoeuvred
the Maharajah's accession through "fraud and violence"
and with collusion with a "discredited" ruler in the
repression of his people. Pakistan's counter complaint was also
coupled with the proposal of a plebiscite under the supervision
and control of the United Nations to settle the dispute.
The Security Council exhaustively discussed the question from
January until April of 1948. It came to the conclusion that it
would be impossible to determine responsibility for the fighting
and futile to blame either side. Since both parties desired that
the question of accession should be decided through an impartial
plebiscite, the Council developed proposals based on the common
ground between them. These were embodied in the resolution of
April 21, 1948, envisaging a ceasefire, the withdrawal of
all outside forces from the State, and a plebiscite under the
control of an administrator who would be nominated by the Secretary
General. For negotiating the details of the plan, the Council
constituted a fivemember commission known as "United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan" (UNCIP) to implement
the resolution.
After the ceasefire, India began efforts to drag the issue
down, and under various pretexts tried to stop the UN resolution
from being implemented. To this day, India pursues the same plan,
and the resolution of 1948 has yet to be realized.
India and Pakistan were at war over Kashmir from 194748
and all early U. N. Security Council Resolutions contained admonishment
for both countries demanding an immediate casefire, which
would be followed by a UN directed Plebiscite. However, disregarding
that some fifteen resolutions were passed by the United Nations
to this very effect, India and Pakistan again initiated military
skirmish in 1965. At this point, another ceasefire agreement
was effected after United Nations intervention, followed by an
agreement at Tashkent with the good offices of the USSR.
In 1971, India and Pakistan once again became locked in war. Efforts
to bring the latest conflict to an end resulted in the Simla Agreement
and was signed by both India and Pakistan and declared commitment
to reach a "final settlement" on the Kashmir issue,
but this has yet to happen.
The possibility of a bloodier third war, very possibly nuclear,
has by no means been eliminated.
Since 1989, the people of Kashmir are facing a massive escalation
of Indian repression that aims at silencing the people's demand
for the implementation of UN resolutions regarding their right
to decide their future. Atrocities are being perpetrated by the
Indian occupation forces with no fear of a corrective international
response. This situation prevails in what is recognised
under international law and by Canada as a disputed territory.
It represents a Government's repression not of a secessionist
or separatist movement, but of an uprising against foreign occupation
by indigenous peoples. An occupation that was expected to end
under determinations made by the United Nations decades earlier.
The prospects for peace in South Asia are inseparably linked to
the recognition of the Kashmiri people's right to decide their
own future, and that is dependent upon the will of the international
community to make a positive contribution toward resolving the
dispute within this
framework.
The role of Canada is important since it has the moral stature
to promote a meaningful dialogue, and thereby offer a real opportunity
for peace in South Asia.
A mountainous region of approximately 86,000 square miles, bordering
China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. An estimated population
of 13 million (Census of 1990).
Kashmir is a disputed territory. Presently, the ceasefire
line between the forces of India and Pakistan has divided Kashmir
into two parts. One part is under Indian occupation: this comprises
63% of the whole territory and includes the Vale; it has a population
7.5 million. The other part, with approximately 3 million people,
includes Azad Kashmir, and the northern region of Gilgit and Baltistan
and is administered by Pakistan. About 1.5 million Kashmiris are
refugees in Pakistan: some 400,000 live in Britain, and about
250,000 are scattered around the world. The present arbitrary
bifurcation of Kashmir has resulted in the division of thousands
of Kashmiri families.
Although India's occupation of Kashmir has thus far been left
undisturbed by the international community, its validity has never
been accepted. At no stage however, have the people of Kashmir
shown themselves to be reconciled to it. There have been several
uprisings, notably in 1953 and 1964, and even the relatively calmer
interludes have witnessed continuous peaceful protest met with
unrelenting force. Kashmiris' record of opposition to its annexation
by India can by no standard be reckoned as less genuinely demonstrated
than that of the countries of Eastern Europe under the dominance
of the Soviet Union. But while the popular revolt in the countries
of Eastern Europe was observed and reported by the international
media, the Kashmir scenario remained largely hidden from the world's
view. Some facts of the situation are:
* By settling one million nonKashmiris in the State, India
has altered its demographic composition, thereby reducing the
ratio of Kashmiris in the population.
* India has subverted Kashmir's traditional autonomy by taking
Kashmir's higher level judiciary and administrative services under
the total control of the Government in New Delhi.
* Over the 48 years of occupation, India has so managed Kashmir's
economy as to make it dependent on Indian subsidies and supplies
on necessities as basic as food; excluding a southern pocket adjacent
to India, not even a beginning has been made towards industrialisation;
with the object of imposing severe economic penalty upon its release
from Indian occupation, Kashmir was turned into a deficit area.
* Compared to Azad Kashmir, which has a 56% literacy rate and
a per capita income of $450, Indian Occupied Kashmir has a literacy
level of 26% and a per capita income of $260. These figures exist
as such even though it is the latter which traditionally contains
the more settled and developed parts of the State.
* To make the Kashmir dispute as unamendable to a rational solution
as it can, India has taken advantage of the undemarcated frontier
with China in the northeast, and militarily asserted claims which
are challenged by China.
* There are 16 Indian known secret service agencies which ubiquitously
blanket every individual Kashmiri.
Kashmir could not remain untouched by the tide of freedom which
rolled across the world in the late 1980's. The tide that swept
away the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraqi occupation
of Kuwait, South Africa's 70year old rule over Namibia,
and unpopular establishments in Eastern Europe. Inspired by these
historic events, and also encouraged by the emergence from limbo
of the United Nations as a central peacemaking agency, the
people of Kashmir intensified their struggle against the unwanted
and tyrannical Indian occupation.
Their uprising entered its current phase in October of 1989. The
scale of popular backing for it can be judged based on the fact
that on a few occasions in 1990, virtually the entire population
of Srinagar came out on the streets in an unparalleled demonstration
of protest against the oppressive status quo. The further fact
that they presented petitions at the office of the United Nations
Military Observers Group shows the essentially peaceful nature
of the uprising and the people's wish to portray their work as
sincere and not that of terrorists or fanatics. Terrorists do
not compose an entire population, including women and children;
fanatics do not look to the United Nations to achieve pacific,
rational settlement.
How India has responded to the uprising and is still reacting
to it is clear from the following:
To give the uprising the colour of violent religious strife, Indian
authorities engineered the evacuation from the Vale of Kashmir
a major proportion of the Hindu community by creating a scare
and then providing transport and financial aid for their flight
to Jammu or Delhi. Parallel to this scheme is the importation
into the State of armed gangs from the extreme rightwing,
and Hindu extremists organisations, the Shiv Shena and RSS. The
stage had been thus set for raping and mass slaughter for which
the Indian government would be quick to put the blame on the 'Muslim
fanatics and militants.'
The Crimes of Indian occupation forces, numbering wellover
600,000, against the people of Kashmir have now reached genocidal
proportions, presenting the worst example of state sponsored terrorism.
Over the past six years in particular, the suffering of the Kashmiri
people has reached an indescribable intensity and magnitude. All
human rights enshrined in the Charter, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and human rights covenants have been flagrantly
violated by the Indian security forces. An estimated:
*42,000 Kashmiris dead (since October 1989);
*5,300 women raped;
*thousands maimed;
*thousands detained without recourse to legal bid;
*torture, extrajudicial executions, and disappearance is a daily phenomenon;
*wilful destruction of property and forced displacement are all too regular occurrences; and
*the story is just beginning to unfold.
An iron curtain hangs across Kashmir as India refuses to allow
visits by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch/Asia and other
human rights and humanitarian organizations. However, these restrictions
notwithstanding, some commendable organizations have been able
to document the abuses perpetrated by India in occupied Kashmir
in report after report:
Security forces have also repeatedly raided hospitals and other
medical facilities, even pediatric and obstetric hospitals. During
these raids, the security personnel have forced doctors at gunpoint
to identify recent trauma patients. Because of their injuries,
the security forces have suspected these patients of militant
activity. Injured patients have been arrested from hospitals,
in some cases after being disconnected from lifesustaining
treatments. The security forces have also discharged their weapons
within hospital grounds and inside hospitals, and have entered
operating theatres and destroyed or damaged medical supplies,
transports, and equipment. Doctors and other medical staff have
frequently been threatened, beaten, and detained. Several have
been shot dead while on duty; others have been tortured. [1]
The Indian army is operating 65 known interrogation and torture
centres. The most notorious of them all, cut out of the hills
bordering Badami Bagh, in Srinagar city, has come to the notice
of outside world.
Many of those seeking medical care are released detainees who
have been subjected to torture. In fact, virtually everyone taken
into custody by the security forces in Kashmir is tortured. Torture
is practiced to coerce detainees to reveal information about suspected
militants or to confess to militant activity. It is also used
to punish detainees who are believed to support or sympathize
with the militants and to create a climate of political repression.
The practice of torture is facilitated by the fact that detainees
are generally held in temporary detention centres, controlled
by the various security forces, without access to the courts,
relatives or medical care. [2]
Methods of torture include severe beatings, electric shock, suspension
by the feet or hands, stretching the legs apart, burning with
heated objects and sexual molestation. One common form of torture
involves crushing the leg muscles with a heavy wooden roller.
[a] This practice results in the release of
toxins from the damaged muscles that may cause acute renal (kidney)
failure. This report documents a number of such cases which required
dialysis. Since 1990, doctors in Kashmir have documented 37 cases
of torture-related acute renal failure; in three cases the victims
died. [2]
Rapes:
On 23 February 1991, a particularly serious incident occurred
in the mountain village of Kunan Poshpura. More that 800 soldiers
of the 4th Rajput Regiment surrounded the village. They rounded
up the men outside and then broke into houses in search of arms.
Many women were attacked. The delegation was told that somewhere
between 23 and 60 women were raped in the course of that night.
[3]
We wished to investigate the nature and importance, as well as
the socio-psychological and political details of the issue, by
questioning women attacked by the Indian security forces. [3]
We were able to identify seven cases of rape and one case of sexual
molestation, where no sexual act occurred. The victims come from
several villages in the Kashmir valley. One of these cases took
place very recently (in 1993), while the others occurred in 1991-2.[4]
With regard to the testimonies of these women, as well as to information
obtained from other women who related what they knew about the
rape of neighbours or relatives, the following points should be
made.[4]
It cannot be said that the rape of Muslim women is a systematic
or generalised practice. It is only carried out by the Indian
security forces (there is no case of rape committed by either
the police or by non-Muslim civilians). Rape is sometimes linked
to pure acts of vengeance for colleagues killed or wounded by
the militants. Sometimes it is simply gratuitous aggression combined
with sadistic impulses, which may stem from a soldier's humiliating
living conditions and from a general inhumane attitude towards
unarmed civilians. It is often committed by soldiers under the
influence of alcohol.[4]
The most horrific sexual attacks occur when a family member is
believed to belong to an armed militant group.[4]
There are also cases of rape and/or sexual humiliations of various
kinds which take place during the interrogation of suspected militants.
Such acts may be committed against a family member forced to attend
the interrogation in order that a maximum of information may be
extracted. [4]
It is not possible to confirm that rape is being used systematically
by the Indian security forces as a weapon to provoke a mass exodus
of the population. However, it is certain that army officers are
turning a blind eye to catalogue of sexual attacks and that the
security forces are acting with impunity. [4]
It should be noted that young, unmarried women are sometimes taken
away for days to the soldiers' camps. This practice is mentioned
in the testimony of four women from different areas. Some of these
young women, having become pregnant, have committed suicide, preferring
to die rather than to dishonour their families. [4]
The Indian forces raided the house of Gulam Hassan Dar at Kanget,
a village near Handwara town of Kupwara. During search operations,
his young daughter Hasina, was gang raped. After the incident
she became mental wreck. She could not bear the disgrace; she
consumed insecticide in considerable quantity became unconscious.
She was taken to hospital at Baramulla where she was declared
dead.
In Jammu and Kashmir, paramilitary groups, especially the
Border Security Forces (BSF) and the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF), are primarily responsible for unacknowledged detentions,
"disappearances" and other human rights violations;
a smaller number are perpetrated by the army. The police are rarely
accused of committing such acts and are themselves reportedly
critical of excesses committed by the security forces. Although
all the security forces theoretically operate under the supervision
of the Director General of the Jammu and Kashmir Police, presently
M.N. Sabharwal, in practice the army and paramilitary forces act
independently of the local police.[5]
Security forces routinely detain young men whom they suspect of
supporting armed secessionists, or to have either harboured militants
or their arms and ammunition. Relatives of such people are also
detained. In practice, any young Muslim man living within a village,
rural area, or a part of any town noted for activities of any
of the proindependence or proPakistan groups, can
become suspect and a target for the largescale and frequently
brutal search operations described in Jammu and Kashmir as "crackdowns."
These involve arbitrary arrests of dozens or even hundreds of
people who are routinely tortured. [3]
Recent press reports indicate that a "catch 22" situation
has developed; Kashmiris, who may not have been in favour of secession
in the past have become so alienated by what they perceive as
the Indian Government's persistent sanctioning of grave human
rights violations by security forces, their sympathies for secessionist
groups have increased. This, in turn, makes virtually the whole
population suspect in the eyes of security forces. Police officer
Kumar told Reuters on 19 April 1993: "Anyone who utters the
word independence can be arrested. That means everyone."
[5]
In most cases, the victims of these killings are picked up during
"crackdowns" cordonandsearch
operations in which security forces surround neighbourhoods or
villages and compel all male adults and teenaged boys to assemble
for identification. Hooded informants then point out alleged militants
or militant sympathizers. Those pointed out are almost inevitably
detained, and a certain number are executed within hours of their
arrest. These executions are not aberrations and they are not
occasional excesses of overzealous security officers. These killings
are calculated and deliberate, and they are carried out as a matter
of policy. [6]
On April 2, Indian soldiers viciously burned and brutalized a
man to death and set fires that gutted more than thirtyfive
buildings in Mawar Bala, Hinadwara in Kupwara district. Mawar
is a small village located about one hundred kilometres from the
Line of Control the ceasefire line with Pakistan
and about the same distance from Srinagar. Most of the
inhabitants here are farmers. [6]
Human rights violations have risen dramatically in Jammu and Kashmir
since late 1989, the start of the campaign for secession or for
the state to join Pakistan. Many thousands of Kashmiris are arbitrarily
detained under special laws that lack vital legal safeguards,
and provide security forces with sweeping powers to arrest and
detain. They are held for months or years without charge or trial.
Torture by security forces is a daily routine and so brutal that
hundreds have died while in custody as a result. Scores of women
claim to have been raped and efforts by relatives to use legal
avenues to obtain redress have been persistently frustrated. Court
orders to protect detainees are routinely flouted and the legal
machinery in the state has broken down. A judge of the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court said in October 1994 that the rule of law in
the state had ceased to exist.[7]
Initially, the authorities made hardly any efforts to disguise
deaths in custody. The disfigured bodies of the victims were simply
dumped on roads or in rivers, or were returned to the police or
relatives. More recently, the government has sought to cover up
such killings by attributing them to "encounters" between
militants and security forces, or claiming that the victims died
in crossfire. However, the government has consistently failed
to provide any evidence to support its version of events, and
in many cases there is incontrovertible evidence
including medical reports and police records indicating that victims
died in the custody of security forces. [7]
The army and paramilitary forces continue to torture and kill
detainees with virtual impunity. There is evidence that officials
at the highest level condoned a "catch and kill" policy:
suspected armed separatists picked up through "crackdowns"
are shot dead rather than arrested and taken to court. Vital legal
safeguards have been suspended under special laws which give security
forces broad powers to arrest and detain and to shoot to kill,
which is in direct contravention of international human rights
standards. Special laws making security forces immune from prosecution
encourage them to act with impunity. [7]
The Indian Government has proclaimed that its policy regarding
Jammu and Kashmir is one of openness and transparency, however,
it has consistently refused to cooperate meaningfully with United
Nations mechanisms for human rights protection. United Nations
experts on torture and extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execution
have not been invited to visit India as they requested, and international
human rights monitoring bodies such as Amnesty International continue
to be denied access to the state. [7]
The government's failure to respond to numerous complaints of
illegal detention, torture and deaths while in custody has made
a mockery of its expressed intention to eradicate human rights
violations. Investigations into allegations are unreasonably rare,
and on the occasion they are carried out, it is not by an independent
and impartial body. In fact, the government has chosen to simply
deny all allegations of torture and deaths in custody raised by
Amnesty International in the past. [7]
The summary execution of detainees by the Indian army, the Border
Security Force (BSF) and other security personnel has been a hallmark
of counterinsurgency operations in Kashmir. There is no precise
figure for the number of persons killed in custody since the conflict
began in 1990, but records kept by human rights groups suggest
that the numbers are at least in the hundreds, and perhaps higher.
In the first half of 1994, human rights groups in Kashmir record
200 such deaths in custody. The Jammu and Kashmir Bar Association
reported fifty summary executions between midMay and midJune
alone.[8]
The entire civilian population is at risk of torture in areas
where Indian government forces are engaged in counterinsurgency
operations against armed groups fighting for independence or for
the state to join Pakistan. Most of the victims are young men
detained during "crackdown" operations to identify armed
militants. Typically, security forces round up hundreds of people
in towns or villages and any that are suspected of having links
with militants are then taken away. Scores of women claim to have
been raped and the relatives of those taken into custody are often
not told why they have been arrested or where they are being held.
Almost all of those arrested are tortured and many do not survive;
others are left mutilated and disabled for life. The severity
of torture by Indian security forces is the main reason for the
appalling number of deaths in custody. [9]
Not long ago, Indian security authorities made a great fanfare
over what they described as the discovery of a huge cache of Pakistani
arms destined for Sikh and Kashmiri rebels. "Made in Pakistan"
was stencilled in bold letters on the crates of weapons and ammo.
However, one eagleeyed reporter looked closer and discovered
on the bottom of the crates, "Bangalore Arsenal, India."
The feisty Indian press had a field day flaying the redfaced
RAW officials who had perpetrated such a comically inept fraud.
[10]
Two days after the first four tourists were kidnapped, the Bangkok
Post carried a story from Ethan Casey, its foreign correspondent
who was on the scene in Kashmir. Casey interviewed an American
woman who was robbed in the same incident along with her Kashmiri
guide. He wrote, "There is evidence, less than decisive but
intriguing, that the 'Muslim' militants behind the kidnapping
might not even be Muslim." He concludes with these words:
"At the very least, it seems the Indian forces around Pahalgam
were guilty of gross incompetence for having allowed the kidnapping
to take place. At worst, complicity in the kidnapping by the Indian
government may not be out of the question."
Consider also that the kidnappers might be working for the Research
and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's powerful intelligence agency,
in a false-flag operation designed to discredit the Kashmiri resistance.
[10]
In what is perhaps more an act of desperation than diplomacy,
they are cautiously opening their own channels of communication
with local militants, asking them for help in securing the release
of the hostages. Except for the IkhwaneMuslimoon
a group widely suspected to be backed by the Indian Government
the diplomats have met virtually every major group
in the Valley from Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) to
the JamaatulMujahedin. [11] Not
that it has been of much help, local militant groups have branded
the AlFaran a "governmentsponsored organisation,"
suggesting that they don't want to have anything to do with it.
Says a diplomat: "All of them tell us the same thing, that
they have never heard of the AlFaran and therefore don't
know who to contact or send message to. We, in turn, are at a
dead end, not knowing what to do." [11]
The diplomats are also upset that the Government is no longer
forthcoming. Earlier it routinely handed over the transcripts
of its negotiations with the AlFaran, but recently, the
Government declined to share what transpired between the AlFaran
intermediary and the DirectorGeneral of Police, M.N. Sabharwal,
in the crucial two days before talks broke off. "It's now
censoring information," says a diplomat. Result: none of
the diplomats knows whether the AlFaran asked for the ransom
or whether it was a government offer. Says an American diplomat:
"We don't know the nuts and bolts but we do know that we
were approached by the Government and asked if we were willing
to pay ransom, and we said certainly not." Union home ministry
officials say the abductors had asked for the money as a surety
bond it would have been returned once their demand
was met, that is, once the jailed militants were set free. [11]
This is perhaps the only place in the Valley where the landscape
is not dotted with security bunkers. Also, the only place where
militants strut around, AK47s slung casually across their
shoulders; where children play cricket with these gunmen; and
where the setting sun doesn't send people running into the safety
of their homes. [12]
This scene is Hajan, 50km from Srinagar, home and turf of Koka
Parray, Chief of the Ikhwanul Muslimoon, a militant
group with a difference. Like other secessionist groups, it's
also in the fray for Kashmir's independence. Unlike other such
groups however, Parry and his men are fighting for Kashmir's "liberation"
not from India, but from proPakistan Hizbul Mujahidin and
the JamateIslami. And with Parray, New Delhi and the
army have found a useful ally. But, according to knowledgeable
officials, by the time Parray embarked on his new role as a "governmentsponsored
militant," the army rather than the BSF, had won him over.
Admits a senior official is Srinagar: "Irrespective of which
agency is using him, he is playing a very useful role by taking
on the proPakistan outfits." [12]
Indian counterinsurgency operations have promoted KashmirionKashmiri
violence in the disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir; almost on
the similar pattern of blackonblack violence under
the apartheid regime in South Africa. The police allowed Inkatha
supporters to bear arms; but seized arms from Inkatha opponents,
that is, from African National Congress supporters. Vigilante
attacks by Inkatha supporters often followed close on the heels
of a police seizure of arms from African National Congress supporters.
The KashmirionKashmiri violence serves the interests
of the Indiansponsored IkhwanulMuslimoon, dacoits,
and thugs, because India gave it power and strength through its
forces. The group is involved in extortion, looting and running
an illegal trade in timber and precious walnut wood. All this
directly under the nose of the district administration and the
Indian occupational forces. More importantly, however, the KashmirionKashmiri
violence serves the political interests of India's unlawful occupation
of Kashmir. The violence helps India to discredit the legitimate
cause of Kashmiris. The violence creates the perception that Kashmiris
are undecided and disunited about their goal. The KashmirionKashmiri
violence helps India to forward an image of the Kashmiri freedom
struggle as being a terrorist and separatist movement, and not
a liberation movement.
The behaviour of the Indian occupation regime in Kashmir is singular
in so far as it has enjoyed total immunity from restraint imposed
through international action or persuasions. No word of disapproval,
much less condemnation, has been uttered by the international
community. There has not been a call on India to cease and desist
from the murderous course it has chosen for itself in Kashmir.
Faced with such passivity, such unfeeling, and such indifference,
let no one blame the Kashmiris for concluding that the world community's
inaction amounts to little more than encouragement of tyranny.
The unbearable suffering of the people of Kashmir cannot be brought
to an end, nor the constant danger to regional peace removed,
unless concerted pressure is brought on the Indian Government
to turn to the path of sane and civilized conduct. It would be
in the longterm interest of India itself to settle the unresolved
dispute of Kashmir.
The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) worked
out the concrete terms of settlement in close and continuous consultations
with both sides. These terms were crystallized in two resolutions
adopted on August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949, and as both governments
formally signified their acceptance of the Commission's proposals,
this constituted an international agreement as binding as a treaty.
A ceasefire was immediately enforced and the Commission
then started negotiations to draw up a plan for the withdrawal
of Indian and Pakistani armies from the state. This withdrawal
was to be planned in a manner and sequence that would not cause
disadvantage to either side, nor imperil the freedom of the plebiscite.
Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations representative who tried to
negotiate the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan
in order to prepare the stage for an impartial plebiscite under
the supervision of the United Nations, reported on September 15,
1950:
"In the end I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarisation in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of any such character,
as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted
in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other
forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness
of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
The Kashmiris' demand is very simple. They want to be free of
military occupation, and to be able to decide their own future
by a democratic and impartially supervised vote. The mechanism
for the exercise of this right has already been defined by the
United Nations Security Council, and was not only supported by
Canada but also cosponsored. This mechanism needs to be
activated and implemented as soon as possible.
While India pursues a policy of terror, the Kashmiri people and
their leadership have consistently maintained their hope in peace.
The All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC) is the organisation
which brings together 34 political parties and groups representing
the entire spectrum of political opinion of the people of Kashmir.
The APHC seeks a peaceful and negotiated settlement through a
tripartite dialogue.
When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 19471948, Canada championed
the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be determined
by the will of the people of the territory, and that their wishes
must be ascertained through an impartial plebiscite under the
supervision and control of the United Nations.
Canada was one of the principal sponsors of resolutions 47, 51,
80, 96, 98 and 122 on the IndiaPakistan question. These
resolutions were jointly submitted by, among others, Belgium,
China, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and United States of America.
Following the resolution, Canada and other leading members of
the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan adhered to
that position.
It was the distinguished Canadian General Andrew McNaughton, who
as the president of the Security Council sponsored the proposal
for a basic formula for a settlement, and this formula was incorporated
in the resolution adopted on August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949.
The Kashmir dispute is dragging the two South Asian neighbours
into the dangerous competition of acquiring nuclear capabilities
and thereby, deadly arms race. Western military analysts say if
the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved, the place where nuclear
weapons are most likely to be used would be South Asia.
During a debate in parliament on the 199596 budget, the
Indian Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, announced that his
government was planning to deploy surface rockets. He further
asserted that India would not bow to foreign pressure on its missile
development programme.
An estimated $8 billion (US) was set aside for defence in the
199596 fiscal year. Defence spending increased by $611 million
to 7.9 billion in the federal budget to the current fiscal year
which began in April 1995. Rao also said that there would be no
delay in the development of Agni, a mediumrange ballistic
missile which was successfully tested for the first time in 1991.
India first tested the Prithvi, which can potentially carry a
onetonne conventional warhead, in 1988 and has made several
modifications in a bid to improve its accuracy before deployment.
Pakistan has voiced fears that the Prithvi, which has a range
of 250km, would destabilise regional security and trigger an arms
race in South Asia.
The Pentagon and practically every independent analyst say that
India will retain its 2-to-1 superiority over Pakistan in troops,
tanks, artillery and planes, but that hasn't stopped India from
negotiating to buy $600 million in new weapons from Russia, including
an aircraft carrier and MIG -29 fighters.
Prime Minister Rao publicly condemned the indefinite extension
of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty saying that the NPT,
as it was drafted, is "discriminatory." Justifying India's
position, Pranab Mukherjee, minister for External Affairs, said:
the consistent and principled policy on the subject of nuclear
disarmament and the NPT pursued by India enjoyed national consensus.
"We would like to see genuine nonproliferation which
can be ensured only when the nuclear weapon states agree to give
up their nuclear arsenal and eliminate them under international
verification."
Nuclear proliferation in South Asia is a direct result of the
fact that the Kashmir issue has gone unresolved. Kashmir is the
bone of contention between India and Pakistan and will be the
basis for a possible nuclear showdown, a scenario, if played out,
will kill millions of people and create catastrophic and irreparable
environmental damage.
A full cognisance of existing realities will be needed to resolve
the Kashmir dispute for peace and progress in South Asia. The
first and foremost reality of the scenario is the sustainability
and irreversibility of the Kashmiris' contemporary struggle that
is a more than sufficient reminder of unimplemented U.N. resolutions
and of the broken promises.
Kashmiri people have by now reasserted and reestablished their
primacy in the dispute. Any effort to initiate a "political
process" under the umbrella of the Indian Constitution and
troops is irrelevant in today's context. Secondly, the current
situation in Kashmir and its upcoming direction that flows from
the denial of the right of self determination, does not allow
an overemphasis on the IndiaPakistan bilateral dimensions
of the case, and also rules out the possibility of legalising,
with or without alterations, the "Berlin Wall" within
Kashmir.
"We are concerned about the potential for the conflict in
Kashmir and urge all parties to pursue a peaceful settlement.
To help lower tension and build confidence on the subcontinent,
as well as to strengthen the framework of global security, we
urge India and Pakistan to support international arms control
norms, accede to the NPT, and refrain from taking further steps
towards ballistic missile deployment, or any other measure that
might precipitate a regional arms race," Paragraph 26 of
the Chairman's Statement from the G7 Halifax Summit.
"The bitter dispute over Kashmir between India and Pakistan
is after Korea, the world's second most dangerous crisis. So conclude
two recent studies by the CIA and the U.S. National Security Council.
Both warn of a rising threat of war between India and Pakistan,
including use of "dirty" nuclear weapons that could
kill millions of people and disperse vast clouds of highly radioactive
dust around the globe," wrote Mr. Eric Margolis, for The
Toronto Sun published on September 4, 1994.
The solution of Kashmir is both urgent and vital. It has a far
more populous and strategic area than any other trouble spots
in the world. The arson and mass rapes committed by Indian occupation
forces are no less humiliating in Kashmir than in Bosnia. The
torture and imprisonment in Indianoccupied Kashmir is no
less intense than it is in Burma. In fact, the pain, suffering,
and humiliation in Kashmir is intensified because the people of
Kashmir have been under Indian occupation for nearly half a century.
Canada is uniquely qualified to play a role in resolving the Kashmir
issue and persuading India, just as it did to South Africa to
end apartheid. The Canadian government should encourage the government
of India to start tripartite negotiations involving the governments
of India, Pakistan, and the APHC.
Kashmiris do not want India and Pakistan to go to war. The clash
of the two armies could consume Kashmiris and will add salt to
an already open wound. The consequences of this will be felt beyond
the confines of South Asia.
How much blood must be spilled in Kashmir before we in Canada
acknowledge the conviction of the Kashmir people in seeking the
implementation of the United Nations resolutions regarding their
right to selfdetermination? The more pain inflicted upon
Kashmiris, the more pain the region will experience, and that's
the bottom line.
So long as wilful acts of violence against the people of Kashmir
continue, peace is not possible. Canadian foreign policy requires
respect for human rights. Also, to assure the Canadian economic
interests, peace in the region is essential. Without peace and
restoration of human rights, economic relationships between India
and Canada cannot be possible. The conflict in Kashmir must be
resolved to build peace in the region and to foster economic relationships
between India and Canada.
Given Canadian interest in peace and stability in the region and
its support for democracy and freedom, the KCC urges Ottawa to
work for a peaceful political solution for the conflict, and an
end to the misery in Kashmir.
Furthermore, we urge you to consider the following:
The actions of Indian occupation forces in Kashmir must cease;
The Indian military must withdraw immediately from Kashmiri towns and villages;
The Indian forces' bunkers, watch towers, and barricades must be dismantled;
All political prisoners released;
-Negotiations between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir must also include recognized representatives from Kashmir;
The status of Kashmir should become an integral part of any regional dialogue.
It is impossible to deal with the nuclear proliferation question in South Asia without simultaneously addressing the question of regional conflict in Kashmir;
The people of Kashmir must have final say in their future, determined by a majority of the population through a U.N. supervised, free and democratic plebiscite, it must be respected; and
Canada must show its proactive leadership role
in bringing the parties to the dispute to the negotiating table.
The KashmiriCanadian Council represents those Canadians
who are concerned about the gross human rights violations in Kashmir.
We ask you to lend them your support so that they can have peace
in their land, and with peace, the freedom to decide and shape
their own future. Above all, there is an immediate need to persuade
the Indian Government to stop the genocide in Kashmir.
Canadian influence at this stage can activate all these necessary
aspects, would entail no deployment of Canadian troops, would
incur no financial cost, and no adversary relations between Canada
and India would be fostered. Yet this would help in halting the
violations of human rights, and set a stage for a peaceful and
lasting solution.
Canada has a moral obligation to play a leading role in ensuring
a U. N.sponsored plebiscite in Kashmir. The role of Canada
is important as it has the moral stature to promote a meaningful
dialogue among all involved parties, and thereby, lay the groundwork
for peace in South Asia.
Footnotes
1 Human Rights Asia Watch 1993 "The Crackdown in Kashmir: Torture of Detainees and Assaults on the Medical Community."
2 Physicians for Human Rights and Asia Watch 1993 "The Crackdown in Kashmir, Torture of Detainees and Assaults on the Medical Community."
3 Federation International Des Ligues 1993 "Violations of human rights committed by the Indian Security Forces in Jammu and Kashmir."
a, These techniques, in particular the stretching of the legs and the roller treatment, are used by the police and security forces throughout India, and have been widely documented in Punjab.
4 Federation International Des Ligues 1993 "Violations of human rights committed by the Indian Security Forces in Jammu and Kashmir."
5 Amnesty International 1993 "An Unnatural Fate 'Disappearances' and impunity in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab."
6 Human Rights Watch Asia 1994 "Continuing Repression in Kashmir: Abuses Rise as International Pressure on India Eases."
7 Amnesty International 1995 "Torture and deaths in custody in Jammu and Kashmir."
8. Human Rights Watch/Asia (August 1994) "Continuing Repression in Kashmir."
9. Amnesty International 1995 "Torture and deaths in custody in Jammu and Kashmir."
10. Eric Margolis, The Sun's foreign affairs analyst. "An Old War, Newly Discovered," published in The Toronto Sun, on August 24, 1995.
11. India Today, October 31, 1995, "Credibility on the Line," by Harinder Baweja.
12. India Today, December 15, 1995, "Propping up the Enemy's
Enemy," by Harinder Baweja in Srinagar.