Pakistan: Now or Never?

Expectations are low and will remain low since Pakistan is committed to using terrorism as an instrument of state policy and as a negotiating tool.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti cle/ALeqM5iT_K8Fq4Uw8l72MfuAqOV8dKGDNQD9 GU7CK80

@Myra,

Please read new article in above link. Pakistani State officials cavort with militants, proving beyond a doubt, that Pakistan is fomenting terrorism and unrest in Kashmir India.

How can any talks happen between India and Pakistan, whilst Pakistan continues its multi-front strategy of terrorism against India, terrorism against the NATO mission, via Afghan Taliban and a whole slew of radical youth trying to cause terrorism in almost every western country?

Pakistan is playing with fire, hoping this gamble will pay off, it seems that Pakistan has intensified its actions against NATO, and this is seen with the high troop deaths this and last month and now… the Kashmir unrest. All this is being done, while its own internal security is weakening, especially South Punjab where the militants are galvanizing their foothold and the militant nurseries and madrasas are churning out new radical islamists.

It all points to Islamabad getting desperate to re-affirm its hold on adjacent territories, hoping that once those re-solidify or reach some progress, that internal terrorists can be reigned in to continue the proxy wars into India and Afghanistan.

With Pakistani’s unwillingness to destroy the Haqqani’s and Hekmatyar to its unwillingness to arrest and jail the LeT leader and other militants and criminals, it is becoming clearer than ever that Pakistan is incapable of living honestly with anybody. It just seems to be one game and one lie after another.

This is a repeating back and forth tale Myra. The terrorism and lies and militantism will continue, as long as the Pak Army has a grip on civilian politics and Pakistan’s foreign policy.

All this discussion of militantism is actually the symptom of Punjabi Army Rule.

We should quit wasting time discussing symptoms and take the issue head on, those being how can Punjabi Army rule be reformulated to restore Pakistan to a proper functioning civilian democracy?

Afghanistan, Kashmir, Militantism in Pakistan, Terrorism on the west…at the end of the day…these are all symptoms of Punjabi Army rule. The world needs to single out the Army and call them out on everything and challenge all their actions openly in the media and lay everything out on the table. That is the only way that the people can know the truth.

All other discussions are merely discussions of the symptoms and not the actually root of the problem and are really just a waste of time and do little to create any sort of actionable change.

Myra, forgive me for digressing here, since Pakistani’s give the Kashmir issue the blame for every ill in their life, I think it is quite relevant and worth the discussion of what has gone on in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, which in the words of one UN commissioner, is that Pakistan is “is not free”, but in fact has undergone extensive Sunni migration from other areas of Pakistan, to skew the demographic make up and increase the Sunni population. The Shias and Ismaili’s in Kashmir have been pushed aside through what ever means and their populations, along with Hindus in PoK have dwindlwed. As Rajeev, I and others have said earlier, all these factors deserve a proper discussion.

“As in Indian administered Kashmir there has been ongoing political unrest in Pakistan administered Kashmir. The Balawaristan National Front has stated its goal of seeking independence from Pakistan. Abdul Hamid Khan Chairman of Balawaristan National Front states that ‘The Pakistani administration has also been involved in efforts to alter the demographic profile of Pakistan-occupied Gilgit Baltistan, reducing the indigenous people to a minority.’ The Gilgit-Baltistan area is administered directly by Islamabad. The population here, primarily Shia Muslims, was brought under one federally administered territory administered by Pakistan on November 16, 1947, in the name of Islam.’[19] Other groups like Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement are demanding full autonomy for the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan.[20] On January 8, 2005 11 people were killed following an armed attack on a Shia leader.[21] According to B.Raman of India, the main reasons for the unrest were military induced changes in demographic composition by encouraging the migration of Sunnis from the other provinces. As a result, the Shias and the Ismailis, who constituted about 85 per cent of the population in 1948, today constitute only about 53 per cent of the population in 2005.[22] A 2008 report by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Pakistan administered Kashmir was ‘Not Free’.[23].

@GW
It would appear that even BBC is now biased against India. Why do’nt you send your post to their Indian representative to enlighten him of your views? Indian military and the political leaders have gone bonkers.
Rex Minor

There is a huge lack of parity in the attention we are giving PoK and India Kashmir.

Posted by G-W

==
GW,
Do you think this is coincidental? Myra Rocks!

The Westerners are the biggest and most improtant sponors of Pakistan’s jihad against India for 63 years. That has always been the case.

US of A – Champion of democracy and pluralism!

Look how many articles are on Kashmir in this blog titled “Pakistan- Now or Never”.!!

Kashmir has nothing to do with the Pakistan problem- the development of jihadi terrorist, intolerant state, source of trouble to themselves and the rest of the world.

Ironically the westerners spill their blood and lose their treasure waging wars with the aim of “spreading democracy” and their “values”.. …but are hell-bent and committed to sponsoring Pakistani jihadi terrorism on the most populous, pluralistic democracy in the world.

And we are alone! We have always been alone. If we could handle it in 1965, 1989, 1999, we’ll handle it in 2010 from a much stronger position.

G-W,

We are dealing with current and past world powers. They are used to controlling others. They get cold turkey if they lose that control. It is not something that is easy to let go. If you look at the defense industries in these countries, that should explain a lot. These are very expensive industries to run and sales depends upon geo-politics. Only if there are enough conflicts in the world, can sophisticated missiles, fighter planes, choppers, bombers, howitzers, smart bombs, mines, guns, night vision goggles etc can be sold. This is not like the car industry. This relies entirely on geo-politics and unrest. Look at the US defense budges. It is somewhere around 650 billion dollars. UK is somewhere in the 50 to 100 billion dollars. There is a lot of money to be made. These industries have evolved over time and these countries are done fighting each other. They have achieved a considerable level of comfort and lifestyle. But like prostitution, the defense industry has grown too big and cannot be shrunk suddenly. The fear is that they’d lose the edge if their size and investment are cut. How many countries in this world can make air-craft engines and special alloys and composite materials for them? – US, France, UK, Russia. They are probably a hundred years ahead of others in terms of technology in this field. How do you demonstrate their performance and reliability in the field? A few stunts in an air show would not suffice. A real war, even a short one would do it. Only then one gets to see the Tomahawk missile or the Drones in operation. And immediately there are enough countries wanting to possess them like the I-phone. Why do you think Pakistan has been allowed to survive all these years? It is a testing field for high altitude warfare (Siachien), Kargil conflict (Mortars and howitzers), fighter jets (F16 versus Sukhoi). It is not just military hardware. There are training for commandos, counter insurgency, intelligence gathering etc which can bring in more contacts and money. What kind of conflict is going on in the region? Commando style attacks, insurgency and mini-conflicts. India buys more helicopters, radar equipment and what not. Immediately Pakistan buys from a different country to counter that. The two countries supplying all the military hardware to both parties have nothing against each other. Their representatives meet and party after the sale. Who cares if these people kill each other? A divided subcontinent will help sell more military equipment and test them out in real wars. The more they can divide, the more is the sale.

Then there are energy companies, which rely on the defense companies to cut inroads into conflict zones. The two industries together drive the geo-politics around the globe. Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go. But conflicts have been consistent and the policies towards them have been consistent as well. During Rajeev Gandhi’s time, India was arm twisted into buying British made helicopters when the Indian defense department zeroed in on a French made one. UK basically told India that it would support Pakistan’s cause in the region and the sales deal was made. Relying on the Soviets helped India stand up to these countries for a long time during cold war. The Soviets had to counter every move made by their adversaries and as a result let India buy their latest MIGs and Sukhoi jets.

This is a huge system in which defense companies, establishments, energy companies and lobby groups stage everything. Media, Human rights organizations etc are unleashed to bias everything in their favor. Everything is projected beyond shape and then countries are arm twisted into “peace negotiations” that they do not agree for if they do not make the defense deals.

One has to see the broader picture and see how things fit in so nicely. Countries like UK have no business in the outside world. Yet they are everywhere fighting in wars and selling military hardware.

Unfortunately these powers have ignored China’s growth and have underestimated its potential to become a power. It is going to bite them hard. They are more worried about China than India now. And going against Pakistan would invite China’s wrath. So they have to play a middle game for now.

The greatest issue in indo/pak relationship has been the disputed province of Kashmir. The hostilities began in October 1947, when the Hindu ruler of Kashmir signed a treaty giving his Muslim province to India, which is predominantly Hindu. Pakistan’s rejection of this agreement would lead to a war with India shortly thereafter. The province would be partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1949, and the established border remains today. Both nations still claim all of Kashmir. The situation has been complicated by the religious differences in the region between Muslims and Hindus. Further exemplifying the problem are the various versions of history that both sides present in their arguments for ownership of Kashmir. When the previous and current situations are analyzed, it is clear that it is Pakistan that has the legitimate claim to Kashmir, as India’s claim is based on fraud and violence.

Kashmir is located in the northern part of the Indian Subcontinent, occupying an area of 220,000 km². As per the United Nations cease- fire agreement that partitioned Kashmir on January 1, 1949, India occupies a majority of the disputed region. India has organized its territory as the state of Kashmir and Jammu. The capital is Srinagar. Pakistani controlled Kashmir is referred to as Azad (free) Kashmir. The capital is Muzaffarabad. Historically, the significant districts of Kashmir are the Poonch, Srinagar District, and Mirpur. The current population of the entire region is thirteen million, of which approximately sixty-four percent are Muslim. The demographics have barely changed since the dispute began in 1947. In 1941, of the four million people living in Kashmir, over 3,200,000 practiced Islam. Though a clear majority of the citizens were Muslim, the region was ruled by a Hindu prince.

The Maharaja Hari Singh presided over Kashmir during the end of British imperialism in South Asia. During the British partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947, the princely states were supposed to accede to either India or newly created Pakistan. Hari Singh wanted neither, and delayed his decision. Both Jawaharel Nehru, the leader of

India, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, urged the maharaja to join their respective nation. In early September, a Muslim rebellion seeking unity with Pakistan erupted in the Poonch district. India accused Pakistan of sending Pashtun fighters into the Poonch to sabotage the pending decision of Hari Singh. By mid October, the rebel army was only four kilometres away from capturing Srinagar. It was at this point of desperation, that Hari Singh reportedly signed the Treaty of Accession with India. The Indian army would enter the province the same day, and would be at war with Pakistan within a month. The validity of this treaty would be the basis of both nations’ claim to Kashmir.

Historians often disagree with one and other about the interpretation of the dispute in Kashmir. There are three main concepts that are used by supporters of India to justify India’s occupation of Kashmir. The first is that because of the Treaty of Accession, India’s actions and claim to Kashmir are legal. A.G. Noorani, a lawyer in New Delhi, whose Indian bias has clouded his judgment about the Indian claim, and author of The Kashmir Question, summarized India’s long- standing stance regarding the treaty in his book’s introduction:

“ Kashmir is legally [because of the Treaty] a part of India, Pakistan is therefore an aggressor and must be asked to vacate her aggression; having become a part of the country, Kashmir cannot claim self- determination; her accession is final and irrevocable as there is in law no such thing as a provisional accession.”

The appeals India has made to the United Nations all reflect this attitude. As Nehru argued in a complaint issued to the UN in 1948, because India has a document that states Kashmir belongs to India, all Pakistani claims and actions in the region are void and aggressive, as well as demonstrating a blatant disregard to international law and procedure.

In an effort to gain public support from the international community, India has rallied behind two popular slogans. These are: democracy and multi-culturalism. As an article in the January 19th, 2002, edition of the Economist indicated, these have had considerable success in brandishing Pakistan as an evil, rogue state. After all, India promotes itself as a secular democracy. India embraces its minorities. Pakistan, on the other hand, has always been an Islamic State, has been ruled by successive military governments, and tarnished by civil war. The Kashmiri people, India argues, would be better suited in a secular nation that embraces the rule of law. Legality. Democracy. Multi-

culturalism. These are the three concepts that form the basis of the Indian claim to Kashmir. The relevance and truth of these ideas are questionable.

Historians supportive of the Pakistani claim believe that the Treaty of Accession is void because of the conditions and historical discrepancies pertaining to its signing. India acted aggressively and irresponsibly in forcing the agreement with a leader that did not represent the majority of his population. The Maharajah was a Hindu prince. During the time of accession, seventy-seven percent of the Kashmiri people were Muslim. Indian historians, on the other hand, have debated even the importance and truth of this fact. Prem Shankar Jha, editor of the Hindustan Times, and author of the book Kashmir: 1947, writes that the figure is exaggerated and misleading because the Muslims of Kashmir “belonged to at least three frequently antagonistic sects, two-thirds sharing a strongly synergetic tradition of Islam that had a good deal in common with the Bhaki tradition in Hinduism.” Mushtaqur Rahman, author of the brilliant analytical Divided Kashmir, counters the relevancy of this claim by stating that while the Muslims consisted of different sects, their beliefs separated from them other Muslims no less so than the differences between Kashmiri Hindus and Indian Hindus. Indeed, these Hindus possess their own dialect, dress, and food. In response to questions over why the demographics of Kashmir have changed (Kashmir is now estimated to be 64% Muslim.), he reminds readers that it is estimated that over 4 million Muslims have fled Indian occupied Kashmir since 1947. Despite the exodus, civilians in Indian controlled Kashmir still have great ethnic similarities to Pakistan, as noted by famed historian Richard Reeves, in Passage to Peshawar describing his experience in the region: “When I crossed from Azad Kashmir, in Pakistan, to Kashmir in India – across the disputed northeastern border established after the countries’ 1948 war – the people looked the same. They should have, because many of them were cousins of Pakistanis and practiced the same religion.” In the end these discrepancies and arguments pertaining to how Islam is divided into many types is merely nitpicking by supporters of India, highlighting facts that have no significance to the larger picture. In a census taken in 1941, of 4,021,698 people living in the entire region of Kashmir, 3,101,247 of them were Muslim. In the turbulent Kashmiri Valley (site of most of the recent violence in Kashmir) 94% ( 1,615, 478 to 1,728,705) of the citizens were Muslim. Under the provisions of the divisions of the Indian Subcontinent, regions that were mostly Muslim were designed to accede with Pakistan. Thus, in the natural course of history, if had India not acted irresponsibly, and the Kashmiris’ had a leader that represented their interest, Kashmir would have gone to Pakistan.

The Maharajah Hari Singh never represented the will of his subjects, creating tension between the Hindu rulers and the Muslim population of Kashmir. Muslims in Kashmir detested him, as they were heavily taxed and had grown tired of his insensitivity to their religious concerns. The Dogra rule (the name of the municipal governments) had excluded Muslims from the civil service and the armed services. Islamic religious ceremonies were taxed. Historically, Muslims were banned from organizing politically, which would only be tolerated beginning in the 1930’s. In 1931, in response to a sermon that had tones of opposition to the government, the villages of Jandial, Makila, and Dana were ransacked and destroyed by the Dogra army, with their inhabitants burned alive. A legislative assembly, with no real power, was created in January, 1947. It issued one statement that represented the will of the Muslim people: “After carefully considering the position, the conference has arrived at the conclusion that accession of the State to Pakistan is absolutely necessary in view of the geographic, economic, linguistic, cultural and religious conditions…It is therefore necessary that the State should accede to Pakistan.

This is one of the rare instances that an elected block of the people of Kashmir had been given the chance to speak. Representing the subjects who elected them, they sought accession with Muslim Pakistan. Prem Nath Bazaz, founder of the Kashmir Socialist Party in 1943, a reliable primary source of history, reiterated that a majority of Kashmiris were against the decision of the Maharajah in his book, The History of The Struggle of Freedom In Kashmir. He writes, “The large majority of the population of the State, almost the entire Muslim community and an appreciable number of non Muslims was totally against the Maharjah declaring accession to India.” This statement, and the decision reached by the legislative assembly are important because they dispel any belief that the Kashmiris’ religious ties with Pakistan did not necessarily indicate a will to unite. Indeed, the ethnic bond between Kashmir and Pakistan influenced a majority of the people to seek accession with Pakistan. The Hindu Maharajah would not listen, and continued to delay his decision about which nation to join. Still, even though Hari Singh’s actions were wrong, they do not compare to the deplorable pressure and tactics applied by India to capture Kashmir.

India relentlessly pressured Hari Singh to accede to India. While Pakistan agreed to sign a standstill agreement that would continue trade, travel, and transportation with Kashmir, India refused until the Maharajah did as they wished. India encouraged neighbouring provinces to pressure Kashmir to accede to India. Nehru said that if

Kashmir joined Pakistan the chances of resuming any diplomatic or economic relationship with India would be remote. Pakistan took no such action. While the traditional view has been that Nehru sent his army into Kashmir only after the Treaty of Accession, there is growing evidence that this is not true. Alaistar Lamb, author of a series of books on Kashmir, has discovered evidence based on declassified military papers that India had Patalia gunners at the Sringar airport by October 17 1947, and has scoffed at the Indian apologists who propose that India’s invasion of Kashmir was the triumph of improvisation. Instead, he states that India had troops mobilized for an invasion of Kashmir by October 25th This would mean that India’s army was in Kashmir before the decision of the Mahrajah. With India’s army already in Kashmir it is obvious why the Maharajah would hand his country over to India. Because of the injustice displayed by India, the Treaty of Accession, if it was even signed, is nullified and void.

India claims to represent democracy in the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. If upholding democracy was indeed India’s motivation in their actions over Kashmir, one has to question why a plebiscite has never been issued. The Kashmiris have always demanded one, and India has always resisted. Even Nehru has conceded that Kashmiris do not want to remain under Indian occupation. When asked about never holding a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1965, Nehru responded, “Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and we would lose it. No Indian government responsible for agreeing to a plebiscite would survive.” This logic is more fitting for describing an autocracy, not a nation claming to represent democracy. As for the issue of whether Pakistan is a theocratic state, it certainly cannot be, as its political power is not held by priests and religious heads claiming to represent a God. Islam may be the only official religion of Pakistan, but that does not warrant the title of a totalitarian theocracy. The historians supporting India have no grounds for saying that India has behaved better because it states itself to be the only democracy.

Apologists for Nehru and the successive governments of India have also made the peculiar claim that if Kashmir were to vote to succeed from India, it would lead to other revolts and demands for independence in other dissatisfied regions of India. Victoria Schofield, author of the comprehensive Kashmir in the Crossfire, has researched and analyzed the response of Kashmiris bewildered that a “secular democracy” would use this argument. Kashmiri independence groups have pointed out that it is the only region in India that has already been granted a plebiscite (that never materialised) in a United Nations Security Council Resolution that was actually approved by India. Even if politicians are worried about

the possibility of India disintegrating because of losing Kashmir, this does not warrant the suppression of the Muslims in Kashmir, and the Kashmiris are indeed oppressed. Amnesty International has repeatedly decried atrocities committed against separatists in Kashmir, and they estimate that 34,000 civilians have been killed.

India basing its claim on adhering to diplomatic rule of law and the decision of a nation’s leader is made even more laughable because of its actions in Hyderabad and Junadgh. Hyderabad, located in central India, was the opposite of Kashmir. There, a Muslim ruled over a Hindu majority, and did not want to join India. The Indians did not accept the leader’s wishes and invaded Hyderabad in September of 1948. In Junadgh, the situation was similar. Nehru forced the ruler of Junadgh to hold a plebiscite after the latter claimed that he could not make the decision because he did not represent his people. That Nehru agreed to the principles of self-determination and ethnicity when it served his interests, and not in Kashmir, illustrates the hypocrisy of the Indian claim to Kashmir. As Mushtaqur Rahman reiterates in his book, it even renders the Indian claim illogical:

“Their arguments were that it made no sense geographically, that a ruler had acceded to a region of different religion then his people. Logically then, India should have supported the Muslims majority of Jammu and Kashmir and let them join
Pakistan.” Mr. Bazaz was also mystified by the hypocrisy in India’s actions, as he writes:

“Obviously in accordance with the basic principle governing the partition the consideration of the religion professed by people in different parts… the Jammu and Kashmir State, whose population is preponderating (77 percent) Muslim – almost the same as is the ratio of Hindus in Junagad and Hyderabad to the total populations of these States – should legitimately and unconditionally belong to Pakistan and must in fairness go to it.”342

What the hypocrisy and determination of India to take Kashmir at the expense of logic and the will of Kashmiris does illustrate is the underlying motivation of India to serve Nehru’s interests. Nehru’s family heritage originates in Kashmir. This appears to be one of the only two possible reasons India has so forcefully demanded it be given Kashmir. The second cause is that of deep resentment over the creation of Pakistan.

If one were to base India’s claim on Kashmir on actual principals that are present in its actions, they would be: pride, resentment, and aggression. The government of India’s desperate attempt to validate

its hold on Kashmir is merely just India rejecting the concept of Pakistan in general. Nehru and the government of India’s rejection of Pakistan is well known. Liaquat Ali Khan, the vice-president of Pakistan during accession, reiterated this in a telegram to Nehru when he wrote, “India never wholeheartedly accepted the partition scheme but her leaders paid lip service to it merely in order to get the British troops out of the country. India is out to destroy the state of Pakistan . Indeed, this attitude would explain why India visibly rejected the mandate of the creation of Pakistan, as well as the common sense of ethnicity in Kashmir. The Indian resentment of the creation of Pakistan is not just a rumour started by Karachi. Even A.G. Noorami, sympathetic to the Indian claim to Kashmir, writes, “We are a secular State and we do not believe in the “two-nation” theory. But is it necessary for that purpose to retain Kashmir in India against the will of her people?” Perhaps most telling of this pride and hatred towards Pakistan is the response given by a representative of the Indian government to peace talks offered by Pakistani President Jinnah, which was, “for the prime minister to come crawling to Jinnah, when India was stronger would be a step which the Indian people would never forgive.” With such sentiment, it is little wonder that peace in Kashmir has been hard to achieve.

India continues to use its military superiority over Pakistan to resist negotiating any terms of peace with Kashmir. Unfortunately, as noted by Time correspondent Edward Desmond, the international community shows no signs of challenging India’s claims. “No country was willing to risk its entire agenda with New Delhi over the Kashmiri cause, especially when it was clear that New Delhi had no intentions of backing down.

Due to the contradictions and falsifications that India has used to present its argument towards ownership of Kashmir, and its inaction towards holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, it cannot reasonably be argued that India has the more legitimate claim to Kashmir. In reality, India has kept its army in Kashmir to maintain hostile relations with Pakistan because of the formers rejection of the “two-nation” theory that created Pakistan. India cannot claim to represent the interests of the Kashmiri people and their democratic rights because it refuses to let them decide their future. Its relentless pressure on the Maharajah, as well as Hari Singh’s inability to properly lead, nullifies the relevance and significance of the Treaty of Accession. That the Indian army landed in Kashmir even before Hari Singh had conceded his nation to India proves it never intended to respect his decision anyways. India has ignored the rules set out in the partition of the sub-continent, dividing the region by ethnicity. Instead, the leaders of

India have sought only to use Kashmir to illustrate their superiority in the subcontinent. As long as India continues to act on flawed and aggressive notions, the Kashmir conflict will not be resolved.

http://www.balochwarna.com/modules/artic les/article.php?id=2074

A letter to Ban Ki Moon on deteriorating Human Rights situation in Occupied Balochistan

Subject: Deteriorating human rights situation in Pakistan and Iranian controlled Balochistan

Dear Secretary General,
On the occasion of International Day against Torture in support of victims of torture on 26 June, we would like to draw your kind attention towards the inhuman treatment of the Baloch by the Iranian and Pakistani security agencies.

Baloch are facing the cruelest state oppression in the contemporary history. Cultural, social, historical, economical and political marginalization by both states is the hallmark of the subjugation of the Baloch. The Baloch have been resisting subjugation measures by peaceful political mobilization. The religious fundamentalist states of Pakistan and Iran have been reacting to the genuine Baloch demands for cultural, economic and political emancipation with the use of crude military prowess. Kidnappings, torture, solitary confinement and extra judicial killings of the Baloch by state intelligence agencies are the usual ways adopted by the Pakistani and Iranian States and have been graphically reported by various international human rights organisations affiliated with the United Nations.
Whereabouts of thousands of the Baloch civilians are still unknown. Pakistani govt. officials have accepted of more then 1000 missing person themselves last year and we genuinely believe that their lives are in grave danger. Abductions of students, doctors, teachers, journalists and human rights activists is going on daily basis in Balochistan. The Chief Minister of Balochistan, the Governor of Balochistan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the President of Pakistan have admitted the worsening human rights situation in Balochistan and have shown their helplessness against Pakistani army and its notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) agencies. In addition of this, the Pakistani military establishment has created numerous religious terrorist organizations as proxy “Hit Squads” and with the help of these organizations consisting of dacoits and robbers and working with different nomenclatures is fully determined to get rid of the Baloch political and human rights activists by their physical extermination by these proxy hit squads. This is being done in order to silence the voice of the democratic and secular people of Balochistan. A large number of prominent Baloch social, intellectual and political figures have been targeted and eliminated by these hit squads being controlled by the state securities agencies. Recently these organizations were reportedly involved in the killing of students in Khuzdar district of Balochistan and acid throwing on the Baloch women in the name of religious values.

A brutal military operation is being carried out by the Pakistani State in Balochistan for the last five years in which thousands of innocent men, woman and children have been mercilessly killed. By all accounts, the acts of terror on the part of the Pakistani military establishment are tantamount to acts of genocide against the Baloch people and the tactics of killing the innocent Baloch adopted by the armed forces, paramilitary forces, civilian administration and state security agencies of Pakistan are in violation of international conventions regarding human rights.

Your Excellency,

Pakistan and Iran are combining their efforts for the genocide of the Baloch. The handing over of Abdul Hameed Rigi, the brother of Abdul Malik Rigi by Pakistan to Iranian authorities is against international conventions and a prime example of both countries respect of human rights and international laws. The abduction and subsequent murder of Mr. Abdul Malik Rigi would not have been possible without the involvement of Pakistani security agencies. Both brothers are among hundreds of the Baloch political, social and religious workers whom Iranian authorities hanged publically without proper court hearing and the chance of defending themselves. Hundreds of Baloch activists are lavishing in Iranian torture cells to be hanged and humiliated.

The irony is that the UN and international community are watching silently the violation of human rights and annihilation of an entire people by Iranian and Pakistani states. The silence of the UN and international community can not be justified in the name of the principle of state sovereignty. Pakistan is a state created in the name of religion and religious fundamentalism is the basic pillar of its state ideology.

Now it is an open secret that Pakistan is exporting religious terrorism in India, Afghanistan, UK, Chechnya and other parts of Europe. UN and international community should not forget that the Pakistani State is in the possession of Islamic nuclear bombs and Iran is busy of making its own Shia version of Islamic nuclear bombs. Pakistani Islamic bombs are in the hands of the known rogue army establishment in the contemporary world and Iranian Shia bombs will be in the hands of Shia fundamentalist Mullahs.

Your Excellency,

The situation for the Baloch is alarming, The Baloch are finely being minced by the powerful jaws of the world’s two most notorious and brutal states of Pakistan and Iran. We believe that we are justified in asking for the immediate intervention of UN in order to pressurize both fascist states for an immediate end to genocide acts being committed on the Baloch.

The Baloch Human Rights Council (UK) therefore requests your immediate intervention. We strongly request you to press the Pakistani and Iranian States to stop all atrocities against the Baloch political, social and human rights activists and civilians. We request that this petition be taken as an urgent humanitarian appeal. Your immediate intervention could save not only countless innocent lives but could also prevent the present situation from developing into a total genocide of the defenseless Baloch people. We will be grateful if the UN could establish an international commission to investigate the heinous crimes against humanity committed by the Iranian and Pakistani states establishments in Balochistan.

Yours sincerely
Baloch Human Rights Council (UK)
info_bhrc@yahoo.co.uk
26 June 2010

@tupak_shakir/Usman,

You coward, stop polluting Internet! You could have provided link to your article instead of pasting entire “Quran” here.

Should I paste it for you? Your site may get couple of more hits…

http://reformistani.wordpress.com/2010/0 7/12/pakistan-has-the-legitimate-claim-t o-kashmir-by-steven-meurrens/

Tribals were asked by kashmiris to provide arms – source – kashmir conflict victoria schofield

kashmiris are the kinfolk of pakistanis – they are not australoids.

dogras were hated by kashmiris well before 1947.

this is not pakistani narrative. The article was written by a neutral westerner. you just assumed this because you cant imagine india ever being wrong.

finally, how was pakistani tribals invading kashmir any different than indian state invading hyderabad? take a look at yourself in the mirror for a change.

For those interested Shakir has lifted this whole article:

Pakistan has the legitimate claim to Kashmir by Steven Meurrens – available on heaps of sites including The Pakistani Defence Forum.

You could at least have given the author his due.

Like I said the two topics Indian and Pakistan leaders need not discuss are the “Kashmir and Terrorism”. The tempers are above the body temprature and without the Ace Hammer, the blood pressures are likely to go up particularly in the summer heat. They should discuss ways to improve the life of people in their countries, including kashmiris and the so called terrorist resistance people. The territorial disputes should be left to the genius korean sitting in the UNO?
Rex Minor

@kashmiris are the kinfolk of pakistanis – they are not australoids.”
–Tupak

–Kashmiris are Kashmiris PERIOD.
Rest all is “Mohammad bin Qasim was a Pakistani” type of discussion. LOL

@Shuqaib.Bhutto/tupak/usman

“The mask is slipping.”

No, its not slipping. It has been snatched from your triple-faced fake identity on this blog. And we thought, Pakistanis were proud people at least!

Own it up and try being honest for a change.

RexMInor:

@ Do you genuinely believe that even after sixty years Indian military would somehow hang on to the territory regardless of its citizens loyalty.
If the answer is yes, then you are living in a cuckoo land and believe that come what may the current Indian leaders should pass on the buck to the next generation.”
-posted by Rex Minor

—–Do you genuinely believe that you can get away without asking the same question about POK, officially called “Azad Kashmir”. Do not count out Northern Areas when I talk about Kashmir under Pakistan occupation.

I am not going to label you a citizen of cuckooland over this, but do read a bit on constitution of Azad kashmir. Read which segment of Kashmiris (Nationalists for your taste!!!) is not allowed to be part the political process there. That place is not Azad, subject to human rights violations that your one track mind will not begin to think of. Dawn article calls Azad Kashmir as “paradise turned into a living hell”.
Read “”"Azad Kashmir today”"”

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/edit orial/16-azad-kashmir-today-hs-05

I can understand Tupak and Shaquib’s problems that they are Pakistani and are shy to address that isssue, you being a non-Pakistani can do that.

It is impractical to even think that India alone will pack up and handover the region to any Ram or Rahim. The fact remains that Kashmiris hate Pakistan as much as they hate India. You may want to work on finding why.

The other option of begging India or yelling at it is not going to help the Kashmir cause. It is childish.

Here is something for Tupak-Shakir to chew on:

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/colu mnists/irfan-husain-who-will-cast-the-fi rst-stone-470

Kashmiris can go to the land of milk and honey called Pakistan and live happily ever after.

Thank you Seth. Always glad to be forewarned. Interesting bio.

If India thinks it can keep Kashmir occupied and keep committing aggression on its Muslim population and oppress them, it is sadly mistaken. Relations with Pakistan will never improve until the dispute is settled. The sooner India realizes this the better it will be.
India has a better economy and stronger military but Pakistan has the courage and will to challenge India and it always will. No wonder once the situation in Afghanistan and FATA gets better I suspect Kashmir freedom struggle will be revived and another uprising will begin against India on a much larger scale than previously in 1989. And this time there will be no stopping.

” Pakistan is also in possession of weapons of mass destruction……………..international community must take steps to take custody of nuclear weapons to prevent any catastrophe.”
…………………………………………………

Molon Labe !!! (google it)

The rest are the same pathetic excuses we’ve been hearing for 63 years. There were no NSAs from the time of Nehru’s promise till his passing away. And yet India showed no interest whatsoever in the peaceful settlement of the dispute. Every decade India comes up with a new excuse (democracy, secularism, akhand bharat etc etc) to delay the settlement in Kashmir and this shows exactly how insincere India has always been.

By delaying a peaceful settlement on Kashmir, India hopes to (1) invalidate U.N. resolutions on Kashmir through political and diplomatic means (2) win over the Kashmiris to the Indian side with economic incentives. The ‘establishment’ in Dehli does not realise that a million boots will not win over anything. As a matter of fact, they may actually be causing the people of the disputed territory to revolt again and again. As for the UN resolutions, they will not be changing anytime soon thanks to China.

Pakistan would never be able to ‘do’ anything in Kashmir unless there was some sort of a political opening (No fire without the fuel). So perhaps the Indian establishment should look in the mirror when they want to find the guitly party in Kashmir’s latest political turmoil instead of blaming it on imaginary cross border infiltrators. Pointing the finger at Pakistan will not help and making excuses will not bring peace to Kashmir. Excuses will only show how insincere India has always been with regards to peacefully settling the Kashmir dispute and THAT is why expectations are low.

As for the nukes, as I’ve said to the Indians before, ‘Molon Labe’.

I have clarified our position regarding Kashmir on this blog and no Indian has so far refuted it. You seem adept at surfing the web so it should’nt be a problem for you to locate it.

(HINT: Its in one of Myra’s previous blog entries on Kashmir. Now you are most welcome to try.)

OR

Like always, you will continue to bring in diversionary issues (e.g. nukes, NSAs, democracy in Pakistan) as a reason not to even come to the table and peacefully work out the modalities for a resolution of the ‘core issue’ i.e. Kashmir.

Umairpk: “India has a better economy and stronger military but Pakistan has the courage and will to challenge India and it always will.”

If Pakistan’s goal is to only challenge India and nothing else, that makes it easy. Keep challenging because there is nothing else in Pakistan. It becomes a hollow state. Such states collapse easily from within.

“No wonder once the situation in Afghanistan and FATA gets better I suspect Kashmir freedom struggle will be revived and another uprising will begin against India on a much larger scale than previously in 1989. And this time there will be no stopping.”

We know all this. But it is a huge assumption that things in Afghanistan and FATA will ever become normal with Pakistan sitting nearby. Pakistan will not have the support and money it was getting from the US in 1989. Things have changed a lot between then and now. So a repeat of 1989, be it larger scale or not, will speed up the economic collapse of Pakistan. Military logistics costs enormous money. If Pakistan is hoping to raise the money by selling nuclear bomb technology, components and missiles, it will not get the American connivance like it did in the past. All it takes is one instance of being caught in the act and the US will clamp down hard on Pakistan. Remember that it is still a power with a lot of military budget.

Your warning clearly says what Pakistan itself is up to. You guys never learn and that will lead to your doom. Kashmir will burn Pakistan down.

@Umair,

I keep hearing you Pakistani’s say things like:

“India’s Plans for the region”, or “Pakistan has the ability to challenge India’s will”…

Please be absolutely and factually honest, just what the hell is India doing that is so horrible?

Indian army would not be in Kashmir, if Pakistani’s had not re-assigned all Jihadi’s to expand sunni empire in Kashmir, after soviets left, we had to maintain security and it was the right thing to do…to challenge your militants in Kashmir. 911 may not have happened if Afghanistan was not kept as a Pak militant nursery for 20 odd years even after the Soviet occupation. Do you see the pattern here?

What did Indians do that was so bad in Afghanistan? What the hell did we do? We built highways, schools, mosques for the Afghans, are we truly so evil?

On the other hand, you Paks did nothing, but instill the Taliban in Afghanistan and rolled Afghans back to the 7th century, so if Indians are so bad, what does that make Pakistani’s? Let’s get real here Umair, you Paks did nothing for Afghans, except used and abused them and played with their futures for your own benefit. Indians are providing direct benefit to the Afghans and their work there is legit, it is not of a military nature.

Secondly, Pakistan is occupying the other side of Kashmir, why don’t you gets get the Fxxx out of there? Why the double standards?..

You fzzzen army people like living off the civilians and using any religious political issue to involve anybody and everybody to make the most profit you can and can’t make an honest living without robbing or stealing from someone others.

Be honest with yourself Umair, you cannot have everything and eat your cake too. Your BS proxy wars in Kashmir and the BS proxy undermining the Afghan mission has to stop.

We all know this is the tentacles of Sunni imperialism..operating the region like a double dealing lawless biker gang, if this does not stop, it will set the entire region of fire and Pakistan will not survive being ravaged by its own demons.

I am still seeing all perceived threats by Pakistanis about India as just hollow threats and BS. Indians have not done anything aggressive against Pakistan, except hard diplomacy. You guys started all wars, 1948, 1965, 1971, Kargil and Mumbai upon India.

What big military war did India ever choose to inflict upon Pakistani’s? Muslims are the biggest murderers of muslims in Pakistan, not Indians, not Hindus. With the historical restraint that India has showed time and against, we Indians are too damn nice to a fault. Your army has been lying to your people and mindfxxxd them with religious and political propaganda and that is what was done in Kashmir.

If the Chinese were in the same situation with Pakistan as India has been, the Chinese would have destroyed and occupied Pakistan, regardless of your nukes. They would have ravaged Pakistan, just look at how they treat minorities like the Buddhists and Uighers.

Go get your fxxxen military head checked and quit playing games, just because you are from an Army background, have the balls to think outside once in a while and be your own man. Grow up.

Mortal, RajeevK, Dara, G-W, Keith et al,

I strongly recommend you guys to read “Nuclear Deception” by Adrian Levy and Catherine Clark. If not in the book stores, it will be in a library for sure.

This book was an eye opener for me. It not only details how AQ Khan and others stole the nuclear technology from Holland and France, but also the complicity and co-operation of greedy industries in these countries, the efforts taken by the CIA and State Dept to block any effort to curtail Pakistan from pursuing its goal (because of the fear of American efforts being jeopardized in Afghanistan), and on top of all that, how the Pakistani military and ISI planned everything towards the end of the the first Afghan war to launch its offensive against India, the American connivance again, the humiliating treatment for Benazir Bhutto and so on. I could not believe the degree to which Musharraf was engaged in propping up Harkat Al Ansar, JeM, Taliban etc. He was playing a secular front on one side and was up to his neck in dealing with the radicals. Musharraf was directly involved in the campaign in Siachien. Pakistan is burning today not only because of Zia Ul Haq, but also because of Musharraf.

Interestingly Zia, Musharraf, AQ Khan etc were Indian Muslim immigrants. They have the worst hatred for India. I think they were severely affected by the partition violence when they were very young and it never left them. The book describes how frenzied Musharraf or AQ Khan become when India is mentioned. Until these mad psycho generation disappears, Pakistan will be influenced by them. I think the local Pakistanis who never had to emigrate can reconcile and move on.

If Pakistan pursues the wrong policy of conflict again, they are definitely doomed this time. In 1989, they had all the opportunity to turn their country around and make it an economic powerhouse. The Americans would have done anything for them in gratitude. They wasted that away and began to launch their offensive against India and have brought their country to the brink. If they do not see the light and start making the same mistake again, they are going to fall apart. Taliban is not just going to return to Afghanistan. It will spread into Pakistan and take over. These emotional idiots have no idea what they are walking into. Kashmir conflict is only a diversionary tactic and it will not give them any solace that they are seeking. It helps them justify their miserable condition.

@As for the UN resolutions, they will not be changing anytime soon thanks to China.”
–Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto

—Do you think that support came free? and that too from China? LMAO

To win Chinese support, Pakistan gifted 4853 sq km of the Kashmiri territory in the Shaksgam Valley to China in 1963.

There is enough historical evidence of Pakistani misdeeds to prove that you hardly care about Kashmir and the Kashmiris–”kinfolks” or else.

3:21 pm EDT@For the world will have to learn to live with a Nuclear Pakistan.
Posted by Umairpk
—As long as Pakistan lives!

Rajeev-
-Pakistan is surely here to stay, 1971 was a watershed moment, thereafter Pakistan manufactured and maintains WUDs (Weapons of Ultimate Destruction). In case of Pakistan and India it is a doctrine of mutually asuured destruction, if you attack us we will attack you in retaliation. Its that simple. No more East Pakistan, this time there will be no prisoners. No missile defense shield. No second strike status.

Mortal:
“One major problem with your fantasy: You forgot to look at the calender. This is not 1989 & things have drastically changed since then. ”

-O yeah, what an irony things have surely changed drastically, back then Pakistan was just another country. Today it is the world’s first and so far only Muslim nuclear power.

While I am not threatning nuclear war, Pakistan nuclear doctrine is not offensive in nature, as I stated, Pakistan’s nuclear capability is for minimum credible deterrence. But surely, that status has given Pakistan a chance to embolden its stance on a number of issues. What I advocate is peace between India and Pakistan and resolution of all disputes in a fair manner. If not, status-quo will prevail.