The Issue of Kashmir

In light of recent developments in Kashmir and on advice from one of our readers we post here a translation of a chapter from the Arabic booklet ‘Political Issues – Occupied Muslim Lands’ issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2004. This chapter gives background information to what is happening in Kashmir and highlights some of the atrocities committed by India against the Muslims there.

KASHMIR

India conducts its wild campaign against Kashmir, while repeating the rhetoric of terrorism and terrorists, so as to place a thick cloud on the issue. It wants some people to think that Kashmir is one of the Hindus properties,

and it is supposed to be under their rule in the first place. The reply of Muslims in Kashmir to the aggression of India against them is, in their view, considered rebellion against the Indian state, which has the right of destroying them. Thus, they want to give a false portrayal of the issue. In reality, Kashmir is an Islamic land; rather the whole of India is an Islamic land, which Muslims conquered and enlightened after it lived in darkness. The authority of Islam continued in it till the middle of 19th century when Britain aggressed against India and committed massacres and violations against humans and nature.

In reality Kashmir is an Islamic land, which Muslims conquered and Islam entered in it towards the end of the first Hijri century. This came within the conquests of Sind and Hind at the hands of the Muslim General, Muhammad al-Qasim, which started in 94 AH (712AC). Islam then spread in it and the remaining parts of the Indian subcontinent in the time of the Abbasid Khaleefah, al-Mu’ tasim, 218-225 AH (833-839 AC). The authority of Islam continued in it and the whole subcontinent, which is known today as India, Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh was part of it.

British invaded the Indian subcontinent in 1819, where it was faced with strong resistance from the Muslims. The war continued with alternate success between the Islamic authority in the subcontinent and invading Britain with the help of some kufr forces of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. Britain could not achieve stability and control over it except after 27 years of vigorous wars with the Muslims, ie in 1846.

Britain managed after that to extend its authority over the region, and she divided it into three parts: she directly ruled one of these parts, which represents 55% of the subcontinent, and Muslims are majority in it. It ruled the other part through governors of provinces that include Hindus and Muslims. These governors were appointed over 565 provinces of autonomy. The third part, which is Kashmir, it leased to a Hindu feudalist for 100 years, in accordance with a lease contract signed in (Amristar), and became known later on in the name of Amritsar agreement. This agreement covers the period between 1846 and 1946.

Thus, Kashmir, the Islamic land came to be governed by Hindus in accordance with the mentioned lease agreement.

Kashmir is about 217,935 sq. km., surrounded by Pakistan, India, China and Afghanistan. Its population is 12 million; 85% of them are Muslims, while the remaining 15% are of the other sects, like Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. The Muslim conquerors called Kashmir the ceiling of the world or the garden of Allah on earth because of its good climate, abundant forests and sources and the existence in it of the highest (Himalayan) mountain peaks in the world. Kashmir is a country that is rich with its waters and rivers, for it has the rivers of Sind, Jhelum and Chenab. Most of its land is above the sea level by about 1200 m. It is crossed by the famous Silk Road, and it is the only link between China and Pakistan. In 1983, sapphire and ruby were discovered in it, a matter that increased India’s obstinacy in the occupation and constant domination over Kashmir.

This is the Kashmir that was occupied by Britain, the criminal and belligerent state. It usurped from its Muslim population and rented it to a tyrant Hindu who was an enemy to its people. They come now to say that Kashmir is property of state of India, and that the Muslims resistance against them is considered terrorism and aggression. The Hindu Maharaja who governed Kashmir in accordance with the lease contract made with the English had used all types of tyranny and torture against Muslims to the point that one of his ministers resigned because of the horrible crimes committed by the rule of the Maharaja against the people of Kashmir. That minister declared the people of Kashmir are herded like cattle, and they are oppressed and suppressed without being listened by any official. He added that the government in Kashmir is completely isolated from the people. This is what the enemy say; so what about the reality itself?

The Hindu rule in Kashmir used to defile the Muslims sanctities such as the Glorious Quran and the mosques as it happened in 1931, when one of the Hindu security officers defiled the Glorious Quran that led to the breakout of the Muslims uprising there. The Muslims of Kashmir are known for their resolve and determination in truth. One of their wonderful marks of their firmness is the incident of 13/7/1931, which Muslims of Kashmir compare with the battle of Mu’tah. On that day, many Muslims of Kashmir met to announce their solidarity with a person called Abdul Qadir Khan who gave a speech in the Friday prayer against the decisions of the Hindu king, which were hostile to Muslims. A Hindu security officer stopped him from giving the speech and he was then thrown in the prison. During the solidarity meeting they held in the prison yard, the time of noon (zuhr) prayer came, so one of them read the azan (call for prayer). The Hindu security forces shot at him immediately and killed him. Another man stood up and continued in reading the azan, but he was shot and killed. His companions stood up to continue reading the azan one after the other till 22 people were killed in this incident before the whole azan was read.

Though the agreement expired, the Hindu ruling continued by the support of the English, sometimes openly and sometimes secretly. In 1947 the English divided the Indian subcontinent, apart from Kashmir, into two states: India and Pakistan, in accordance with the population. However, the Hindu governor of Kashmir joined India against the will of the Muslim population. It is worth mentioning that when Britain divided the Indian subcontinent between India and Pakistan, the British ministerial mission confirmed in its memorandum dated in 12/5/1946, which was directed to the governors of the 565 Indian provinces, that they have to abide by the wishes of their people regarding the decision of their provinces unification with one of the two states, India and Pakistan.

However, the unification of three provinces to Pakistan had been obstructed, which were Hyderabad, Jonagra and Kashmir. The reason of this obstruction was that the governors of provinces of Hyderabad and Jonagra were Muslims, while the majority of their population were Hindu, so they were annexed to India. However, the majority of Kashmir population were Muslims and its governor was Hindu, yet it was annexed to India as well. The bias of the English towards the Hindus was the factor that enabled India to annex the three provinces, particularly Kashmir, to it. This led to many wars between India and the Hindu ruling from one side, and Pakistan and Muslims of Kashmir from another side. Thus, India occupied two thirds of Kashmir (65%), while another part (30%) remained with the Pakistani side; China took over (5%) of Kashmir. This is the current situation of Kashmir.

At the beginning of the war, in 13/8/1948, the first resolution regarding Kashmir was issued by the Security Council, which decided ceasefire and formation of International Observation Force for the sake of the assurance of continuous ceasefire.

This was followed by another resolution for the withdrawal of the Indian and Pakistani forces from Kashmir in preparation to conducting a referendum, in which the people of Kashmir decide their final future. In 5/1/1949 India and Pakistan accepted the resolution, however India rejected to withdraw. Then Jawaharlal Nehru decided in 1956 to annex the part of Kashmir controlled by the Indian army to India, and he hoisted the Indian flag on top of the government offices, and considered it an indivisible part of India.

In 14/2/1957 another resolution was issued by the Security Council that confirmed the necessity of the withdrawal of the Indian forces from the province. However, as usual, it ignored the resolution, in collusion with Britain. Then it started to study the styles and means that were used by the tyrants to attack Islam and Muslims, and to seduce them from their deen, so as to use these styles and means in Kashmir.

Therefore, it sent in 1965 a delegation of experts to Spain so as to study the way Muslims were eliminated in Andalusia after the fall of Granada. India entrusted also its ambassador in Moscow to study the styles of eliminating the Islamic character used by the old Soviet Union against the Islamic presence there. Then the Indian authorities increased its cooperation with the Jewish state after it recognised it and accepted its seizure of Palestine, and started to study the Jews plans they used in their massacres against Muslims. Their declarations have revealed this cooperation.

Benyameen Shan, a member in the previous government of Shamir said: “India and Israel face a common danger, which is the Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine and Kashmir. We understood how to deal with the Arabs and Muslims, and in turn we are going to provide India with our experience in this field”.

India persisted on using different styles in Kashmir so as to create generations detached from their deen, or ignorant of the proper understanding of their Islam. This is because it believed it could remove Islam from Kashmir after some years. However, the results were far from what they wished. Muslims increase their attachment to Islam, and their loyalty to Islam strengthens after every vicious attack the Indian authorities wage against Muslims, whether the attack was through oppression, torture or any other devious styles of distortion and delusion.

India committed massacres in Kashmir in 1989 that resulted in the murder of 25 thousand shahid; then it followed these with other massacres in the following years. The broadcast of the committee of Kashmiri Muslims relief announced based on statistics obtained from UN sources, India media, International Media agencies and from Kashmiri sources that the Indian authorities in Kashmir committed, since January 1990 till December 1998, the following crimes:

– 63,275 martyrs were murdered with gunshots.

– 775 people of politicians, ulema and imams of mosques were eliminated.

– 3,370 martyrs were tortured to death.

– 81,161 people are locked in prisons without hearing in court.

This is in addition to incidents of violation of honour and sanctities, wounded and lost, which count in hundreds of thousands. The reports of International organisation are full of atrocities committed by India in Kashmir, like the report of International Amnesty issued in 6/2/1999.

This is a part of the oppression and torture committed by the Indian authorities in Kashmir. As regards the other styles of distortion and deception, the authorities embarked on discontinuation of teaching the Glorious Quran and Arabic language in the state schools, besides introducing the Hindi language as compulsory language. Then they used the media for carrying out intensive campaigns against the Islamic values of family and women dress. This was in addition to promotion of alcohol in Kashmir and the laws of mixed marriage between Muslims and Hindus, followed by the implementation of birth control plan through using surgical operations to the point that the province of Kashmir known of its Muslim majority had won the highest medal in birth control.

This is the Kashmir that suffered and still suffers of the barbaric activities committed by the Indian army and police against Muslims there. Its issue looks more similar to that of Palestine. Hindus occupied Kashmir at the same period Jews occupied Palestine and established a state for them there. The rulers of Pakistan have neglected Kashmir in terms of its protection and liberation the same way the Arab rulers surrounding Palestine did to Palestine.

Pakistan for a long period, from 1947, the year of division (of Indian subcontinent) and independence (of Pakistan), till 2003, called for the implementation of the international resolutions and granting the people of Kashmir their right of self determination. However, India continued to reject these resolutions the same Israel does. Then a change happened in the position of Pakistan at the beginning of 2004, where Pakistan abandoned the negotiations based on international resolutions and the right of self-determination, and accepted instead bilateral negotiations with India with need of internationalising the issue. It further accepted to give up Pakistan’s conditions related to Kashmir’ s right of self-determination.

The reason behind the loss of Kashmir and abandoning the defence of its Muslims do not come from the weakness of Muslims in Pakistan. This is because they are capable to regain it from India easily. It is rather due to the fact that rulers of Pakistan are agents to America, which made them give to India continuous concessions regarding Kashmir. General Ayub Khan waged a war in 1965 because of Kashmir, but he surrendered to India three rivers that were Pakistan’ s share. As regards to Yahya Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, they lost in 1971 East Pakistan that became Bangladesh. At the time of Zia ul Haq, the Indians occupied the mounts of Siachen. At the time of Nawaz Sharif, the mujahidoon and the Pakistani army were deprived of keeping Kargil heights in 1999 after Muslims were about to realize victory. However, in compliance with US orders, Nawaz Sharif gave his orders to the army and the fighters to withdraw. This was in support of Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister at that time, creating a heroic popularity for him before his opponents of the Congress party, on the account of Muslims blood.

Ultimately, in the time of Pervez Musharraf for the first time, giving the people of Kashmir the right of self determination and their liberation from the authority of the Indians have been abandoned. The issue of Kashmir has been seriously submitted for discussion since Musharraf’s visit to America and his reception by Bush in Camp David in 24/6/2003, for that visit was a turning point regarding the political and military action towards Kashmir. Not a single ruler in Pakistan dared in the past to speak about a solution for Kashmir through negotiation with India, in order to divide it. It was rather quite clear in every political proposal about it before that all of Kashmir, which includes Azad Kashmir that is with Pakistan, and Jammu Kashmir that is with India, becomes all of it independent from India. India used to reject that and considered Jammu and Kashmir are part of it, as it came in the declaration of Nehru in 1956.

Musharraf explicitly announced in that visit his approval on a Road Map to solve the issue of Kashmir, on the same model of Middle East. He added about his readiness to give important concessions for reaching a permanent solution about Kashmir. This proposal of concessions was given during discussions with American (congress) representatives in Washington in 26/6/2003, during that visit. He added by announcing that he will stand on the face of the Muslim ‘extremists’ , i.e. the jihadi groups in Kashmir.

So, Pervez Musharraf called, in 11/8/2003 for negotiations to solve the disputes with India. The statements of Musharraf that emphasised his commitment to discussions with New Delhi came one day after a statement given by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister, calling for the necessity of stopping the bloodshed between the two countries.

The news agency of Reuters reported in 17/12/2003, after an interview with Musharraf, “that he is ready to be brave and flexible regarding the peace efforts between the two nuclear neighbours. Musharraf displayed in the interview flexibility regarding Kashmir. He said that if we wanted to solve this problem, then the two sides need to speak to each other with flexibility, disregarding the declared positions and meeting in the midway” .

After that Musharraf went on issuing laws, one after the other, for preventing and harassing any opposition from the Muslims to the occupation of Kashmir by India. At the end he met Vajpayee in 5/1/2004, where the practical foundations for negotiation with India regarding Kashmir were laid down.

The close positions in negotiation between the two countries started to appear. Lal Krishna Advani, the Indian deputy prime minister said in 12/3/2004 that his country, “is ready to take and give, in attempt to conclude peace with Pakistan regarding the area of Kashmir” under dispute.

Then Vajpayee said on Friday 18/4/2004, within a rare proposal to Pakistan, that dialogue is the only way to bring peace to Kashmir. Jamali rushed to welcome this call, saying that this represents ‘a positive development’ . Zafarullah Kahn Jamali, the Pakistani prime minister, welcomed the proposal for holding talks regarding Kashmir, which was presented by the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Jamali informed the media correspondents in Islamabad, saying: “The position of Pakistan is still as it was. However, once the negotiations started…….there will be flexibility from both sides” .

India and Pakistan had resumed in 16/2/2004 the dialogue that was disrupted between them when the tension reached its climax two and a half year before. The delegates of the two countries conducted talks in Islamabad for the purpose of drawing an agenda and framework for negotiations, which will hopefully lead to settle the dispute between them over Kashmir, as being the main point in the dossier of differences. The US endeavoured since some time to improve its relations with India. This came after the breakdown of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the nineties. After America completed the stage of containing China at that period, it started the stage of reducing (cut the size of) China. Since India has traditional enmity with China, besides it also has huge human resources and military capabilities, it was the best candidate to play this role. America understood the value of India for this role. It actually tried since the Independence of India in 1947 to have the influence in it. However, the English and The Congress party prevented that. Through a significant development, America enhanced the level of her attempts in 1990, where she sent Robert Gates, one of the CIA officials, to India, but her attempts did not produce the desired success except after the advent of her agent, Vajpayee, in 1998. There was a talk inside the American circles about central or leading states in the various regions of the world, where the USA would promote them to lead the regions they exist in; and she recommended India to lead the region of South Asia.

Since the issue of Kashmir was a burden for India, and it was like a thorn in its side, America endeavoured to remove that pain from the side of India, so that its complete attention will be focused on its disengagement as a rival for China in the region. This is also to prevent the hot issue of Kashmir from having influence on the American war in Afghanistan.

Therefore, once the two states of India and Pakistan became under the influence of America, she endeavoured to create mutual understanding between them over Kashmir. She also changed her original view regarding the solution of the problem. She wanted at the beginning to internationalise the issue, but she now urges the both sides to solve it bilaterally. The current view of America regarding this solution is to divide Kashmir, where the liberated part of Kashmir will go to Pakistan, while that part which is under the authority of India will go to India. The parts of Kashmir occupied by India, which are of Muslim majority, will be given some form of autonomy, but stay under the authority of Indian government. Despite that Musharraf and Vajpayee (before the last Indian elections) were under the control of America, however there are some obstacles before this division plan, which are represented in some elements in the Pakistani, army and some Hindu hard liners. The events of September 11 2001, allowed America to confront these obstacles head on. America’s strategy was to force Pakistan to make several compromises over Kashmir. Consequently Pakistan made several concessions, which ultimately strengthened Vajpayee’s position amongst the hard liners.

The concessions consisted of withdrawing support to the jihadi groups, closing down training camps, decreasing Pakistani troops from the LOC (Line of Control), and abandoning any support for the Kashmiri Muslims. Finally, the situation reached the point that Pervez Musharraf, the eminent agent of America and the prime enemy of Muslims in the region, announced in his visit to America, as we mentioned above, about his approval of a Road Map to solve the issue of Kashmir, on the same model of the Road Map of the Middle East. This map would lead to direct negotiations with India regarding the study of the American solution. He said he would confront the Extremist Muslims, ie the jihadi groups in Kashmir and the Islamic parties and organisations in Pakistan.

America hoped these concessions would increase the popularity of Vajpayee and his party in the sight of the Indian electoral, particularly it used to support Vajpayee militarily and to prevent Pakistan from owning developed weapons (such as postponing the handover of the fighters deal despite Pakistan had paid its price) .It also entered into a treaty of strategic partnership, so that Vajpayee appears before the Indian Public as the cause of their military superiority over their opponent, Pakistan.

She also supported Vajpayee economically to create economic revival. She did all of that because it saw the strong support of the Congress party, and that BJP has a coalition that cannot stand before the Congress without support.

However the vulnerable spot of BJP came from this support, particularly the economic one. This is because USA gave plentiful economic support, discharged funds to the government of BJP and pushed it to adopt the (privatisation). This policy created huge companies and economic revival according to the capitalist model, i.e. more concentration of the wealth. This policy however does not suit a country in which poverty prevails. Therefore, rich people, finance companies and factories increased in the cities, but the poor increased in poverty, particularly in the countryside and villages.

Another factor was added, which is the deep-rooted nature of the Congress party, and its political shrewdness that follows the British style. So, it challenged the hard line position of the religious BJP through displaying the secularism of the Congress, which is not taking side with any particular religion. It also attacked the capitalist nature of privatisation through displaying the Congress leftist face, by calling for creation of projects, which the state takes charge of them and thus creates jobs for the labours and the poor. The Congress party then focused on the position of BJP regarding Kashmir, where it showed its weakness before Pakistan. This is because the Congress party does not accept occupied Kashmir to be subject of negotiation, since Nehru annexed it by a declaration in 1956, and considered it an indivisible part of India.

Thus, the results of the general elections in 10/5/2004 came as a loss to the ruling party of BJP and victory to the Congress party that supports Britain. This led to blowing up of America’ s plan to solve the dispute over Kashmir through creation rapprochement between the two states. The loss of (BJP) had levelled a blow to the wider plan of America, which is putting India in the face of the growing power of China.

The victory of the Congress means India would strengthen its hold on Kashmir more than (BJP), as it came to surface after its victory. On 09/05/04 India’ s now national security adviser JN Dixit said, “We will have a firmer policy on Kashmir …There cannot be any territorial alienation of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. There can be marginal adjustment along the Line of Control in Kashmir.” On 23/05/04, India’s External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh said that the bedrock of India’s relations with Pakistan was the 1972 Shimla Agreement and subsequent agreements and declarations between the two countries. On 24/05/04, Musharraf responded to Natwar’ s remarks and said, “If he (Natwar Singh) means that there will be no movement or a status quo decision, well I beg to totally differ with him. That is not the solution. If the Line of Control is to be made permanent and that is all, this is not the solution. If he means we will go by the Shimla agreement, then I don’t agree with him.”

Despite that the Congress party explained it wants friendly relations with America, as Natwar Singh said, “it is in our interest, it is in their interest and the interest of the world community that relations between India and the US should be on a steady course and not episodic”. However the security, defence and policy agenda paper written by Congress for its 2004 Manifesto states: ” Sadly a great country like India has been reduced to having a subordinate relationship with the USA where the USA takes India for granted. This is the result of the BJP/NDA Government’s willingness to adjust the US priorities and policies without giving due attention to India’s own vital foreign policy and national security interests…

The Congress will give the policy of non-alignment a new direction keeping in view political and economic changes that are taking place in our region and elsewhere.’ The Manifesto also calls for India’s foreign policy to be built on Nehru’s vision thus indicating a return to a pro-British foreign policy. It states ‘The most important task of the Congress would be to retain for India freedom of options in conducting its foreign relations…This is the essence of India’s foreign policy on which Jawaharlal Nehru built a national consensus, a consensus that has been eroded during the tenure of the BJP-led NDA government.’

All of this means that America will now have to reconsider her position with India. The option of using Pakistan to foment a new Kashmiri uprising to weaken the Congress party and her coalition partners may seem attractive in the short term. But given the strong feelings for the return of Islam and it peak, jihad, amongst the Muslims of Pakistan and Musharraf’s precarious position, it is unlikely that the US will risk such a policy. Worse for America, is that the congress party has begun to restructure the armed forces, which enjoyed warm relations with the US military. Congress has already initiated a purge of pro-American officers. No doubt this will weaken America’ s ability to gain influence inside the armed forces. Hence this leaves America with little option but to wait. Most likely it will be after the US elections before there is any firm movement on putting together a new policy for India. Under no circumstance America will easily abandon India after she penetrated it during the whole period of Vajpayee government. Thus, the issue of Kashmir will remain in the hands of the unbelievers, where they will shove it around according to their interests and influence.

How can we then put an end to these treacheries of Pakistan rulers against the mujahideen and Muslims of Kashmir?

The answer to this question is confined in the active work of the Muslims of Pakistan to throw away the government of Musharraf and establish an Islamic state in Pakistan that stands up for reclaiming Kashmir by jihad and by force. It also continues the struggle with India till it restores the entire of the Indian subcontinent to the authority of Islam as it was before for a long time. This is not impossible with the presence of strong iman, resolution and determination to continue this course except till the Muslims realise and aim in liberating their country from the filth of the Hindus. This is feasible, because Pakistan has a huge military force and nuclear power, which it can hint to it for liberating Kashmir, which the diplomatic means failed to achieve through a period of more than half a century.

O Muslims:

Indeed Kashmir is an Islamic land, as well as the entire of India. As the Islamic Khilafah had conquered it in the first hijri century, it can bring back again the authority of Islam to Kashmir and the entire Indian subcontinent. It can as well remove the oppression, tyranny and barbaric practices of the Hindus and their followers against Muslims. The Muslims in the subcontinent are capable to do so.

Pakistan alone is capable to do so when a sincere ruler, a righteous khaleefah that governs it by the law of Allah, leads it and fights with it against the enemies of Allah. Pakistan has the resources necessary for the Khilafah rashidah that will regain the might of Muslims and deliver them from the disasters that fall on them day and night, not at the hands of the unbelievers only, but also at the hands of the puppet rulers, who squander the vigour of the army in fighting their own Muslim brothers everywhere, so as to protect the interests of America and India.

O people of Pakistan; you are capable to ignite again the torch of goodness, raise high the banner of Khilafah, the banner of la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadun Rasulullah.

وَلَيَنْصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ

“Verily Allah will help those who help Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.” [TMQ 22:40]

written by Editorial of http://www.hizb.org.uk/