Why Not Write Against India - Part Two

Why Not Write Against India - Part One

I have travelled to different countries to project the Kashmir cause and highlight human rights abuse in the Indian side of Kashmir. Like many other Kashmiris, I thought by exposing the Indian abuse in Kashmir and by focussing our attention on that side of Kashmir, we were doing a service to the Kashmir cause, and our nationalist cause.

But as my colleagues and I got more experience and political maturity, and we directly interacted with diplomats and political activists of different countries, we realised that if Kashmir is occupied by more than one country then we are not doing any service to the cause by opposing one country only.

When we focus all our energy to criticise and condemn the role of one country, and remain silent over the role of the other, then the world outside see us with scepticism, and regard us as a ‘B team’. So we decided to have balance in our approach and try to shun this image of a ‘B team’, and criticise both countries for their role in Kashmir. We thought it was only appropriate that people in the area where injustice and oppression is taking place lead the opposition against the country guilty of this injustice, and people working at the international level support it.

Despite this ‘balanced approach’ we adopted in mid 1990s, I have participated in only one demonstration against the Pakistani role in the State, and that was against the upraising of Mangla Dam, arrest and detention of political activists in Islamabad and closure of K2, the only newspaper in Gilgit and Baltistan. This is to be compared with hundreds of demonstrations I have organised and participated against India, and if people still think I am anti Pakistan then I can only pray for them. 

In many articles and booklets, hundreds of Statements and public speeches, I have condemned atrocities in the ‘Indian occupied Kashmir’, and strongly opposed Indian presence there. On this side of the divide, which is increasingly known as ‘Pakistani occupied Kashmir’, I have never condemned Pakistani presence there, however I have tried to expose duplicity in the Pakistani stand on Kashmir.

At the beginning like Pakistan, the Indian stand on Kashmir was also full of duplicity and contradictions. Both had territorial aims but both were trying to get Kashmir in the name of helping the people of Kashmir, and being their well - wishers and friends.

In 1950s India decided to end this duplicity by declaring that Kashmir is ‘Atoot Ang’, integral part of India. To the Kashmiri people it was a declaration from India that we are usurpers of your independence. Whatever India did in Kashmir after that was to bolster its position there, and could not even pretend that it was done in the best interest of the people.

Once it is established that a country, a group or an individual is an enemy, then you don’t need any more elaborations or explanations- the enemy is the enemy and that is end of it. In view of many people there is no need to spend time and effort to prove that India is the enemy of Kashmiri peoples independence, and to the best of my knowledge, for many years, India has not claimed that its actions in Kashmir are to get the people their national independence.

Pakistan on the other hand, still has territorial aims in Kashmir, but wants to do everything in the name of Kashmiri peoples independence. Agenda of the Pakistani territorial aims is conducted in the name of ‘Islamic brotherhood’, ‘friend’, and ‘well – wisher’ of the Kashmiri people; but in view of nationalist Kashmiris it is an ‘imperialism’ dressed up in Islamic clothing.

It is because of this duplicity and clear contradiction in the Pakistani stand on Kashmir that nationalist Kashmiris think we need to expose this by explaining legal and constitutional position in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan. We need to tell people that Pakistan is also interested in Kashmiri territory; the independence of Kashmir and the welfare of the people is not close to the hearts of the Pakistani elite.

It is quite logical, once a clear distinction is made that Mr X is a friend and Mr Y is an enemy, then it becomes easier to formulate a policy to deal with them appropriately. The people of Kashmir have understood India’s role in Kashmir, and they have formulated a policy to deal with that; but despite 55 years of experience and maltreatment in some respects, they are not too sure about the role of Pakistan. So it is imperative that facts are made available to them that in the light of undeniable facts people of Kashmir could formulate an appropriate policy for Pakistan.

No one can deny about gross human rights violations on the Indian side of the divide, even some Indians are acknowledging that now, but does that mean Pakistan should once again get a free hand to uproot the people of Mirpur in order to satisfy the needs of Landlords and industrialists of Pakistan? Does it also mean that people of Gilgit and Baltistan should be denied their basic rights, even a right to vote?

When Kashmiris protest against this unfair treatment, their loyalty to the Kashmiri movement becomes questionable. In other words to be ‘loyal’ to the Kashmiri movement we have to remain quiet about whatever Pakistan does, and swallow every pill given to us. Kashmiri patriots are not going to accept this ‘prescription’ and ‘dose’ anymore, because as thinking people they know best what is good for the Kashmir and the Kashmiri movement for unification and independence.

This new thinking was clearly visible in a demonstration against the upraising of the Mangla Dam in Manchester, where Kashmiris said, if India is guilty of killing Kashmiris, Pakistan is guilty of drowning them and uprooting them. It would be foolish to adopt ostrich like attitude and dismiss this by saying it is only a few troublemakers. Demonstrations against Pakistani policies have been held in various cities of the world, including every major town of Azad Kashmir.

Because of clear contradictions and duplicity in the Pakistani policy on Kashmir, apart from other nationalist Kashmiris, my colleagues and I thought more effort should be made to expose the Pakistani stand on Kashmir. After all it is not only India that occupies the Kashmiri territory; and it is not only India from whom we are seeking independence. We Kashmiris need to learn from our past mistakes and call spade a spade; and our Pakistani brothers need to be a little more understanding and accommodating, and they must realise that we are not against Pakistan but against Pakistan’s Kashmir policy which is affecting our lives.

www.victorynewsmagazine.com