User:PoK

[edit] Background

All five regions — the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan are perceived to be disputed and part of the Jammu and Kashmir state, as they were at the time of partition after the Indo-Pakistan War of 1947.^[1] Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto promulgated the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act of 1974 to virtually annex the PoK.

[edit] 1974 act

Azad Jammu and Kashmir act declared Islam to be the state religion of PoK, disqualified non-Muslims from election to the Presidency and forbade activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan (Article 7).It prescribed in the oath of office the pledge 'to remain loyal to the country and the cause of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan'. The PoK Constitution states: 'No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan'. Under Section 5(2) (vii) of the PoK Legislative Assembly Election Ordinance 1970, a person would be disqualified for propagating any opinion or action in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, the ideology of PoK's accession to Pakistan, or the sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan. The same caveat applies to anyone who 'defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary of AJK ("Azad" Jammu and Kashmir), of Pakistan, or the Armed Forces of Pakistan'.

[edit] Divisions

[edit] Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Azad Jammu and Kashmir (better known as Azad Kashmir, abbr. AJK) is part of PoK. It does not include the other territories of PoK like Northern Areas and Saksham Valley. Using the name "Azad" is a mockery as although "Azad" means free in several Indo-Aryan languages, the place in reality has been listed as "Not-Free" by a Freedom House International^[2]

[edit] Northern Areas

Pakistan unilaterally amalgamated Gilgit, Skardu and Baltistan regions of PoK with Pakistan by redefining these as the Northern Territories administered directly by Islamabad. The arbitrary takeover by Pakistan of these territories was challenged in the High Court of POK and even the court felt impelled to declare Gilgit, Skardu, Baltistan etc, as part of POK. There were public protests even in these so-called territories as well as in POK but the Government in Islamabad not only ignored the protests but also the courts verdict. Northern Territories, stretch across 60000 km with a population of 1,000,000.^[3]

[edit] Shaksam Valley

The Shaksham Valley was undisputedly an intergral part of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan unilaterally arbitrarily transferred parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir without their peoples' consent to China as a goodwill (and sometimes viewed as cowardly) gesture to China. It ceded nearly 5180 km² of the Northern Territories to it.^[4].

[edit] Political status

Misguided Pakistani trained Muslim hardliners favouring Pakistan never reveal the true picture of PoK. Unlike the special status given to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in India due to article 370 of Indian Constitution, PoK does not hold any special status in Pakistan. Wealthy Pakistanis from Punjab, have got land and property in POK. Those asking for "Azadi" (freedom) are few and the majority want to be with India and are more concerned wants jobs, peace and development of the region. Various surveys in the 90s clearly indicated that the joining Pakistan option is not desired by residents of the Kashmir Valley. While India has around 140,000,000 Muslims, only about 5,000,000 live in Kashmir. Indian Muslims have never asked for a separate nation.^[5] Pakistan covets Jammu and Kashmir territory and its water resources, not its people.^[6]

[edit] Constitutional status in pakistan

The provision in the 1974 Interim Constitution forbids any political activity that is not in accordance with the doctrine of Jammu and Kashmir as part of Pakistan. The interim Constitution demands that candidates contesting for a parliamentary seat in PoK, referred to as the Azad Kashmir by Pakistan, must sign a “declaration of loyalty”.^[7]Since independence, Pakistan has devised and changed three written constitutions and the fourth one was drawn up in 1985.

[edit] Puppet Government

[edit] AJK

Although "Azad" means sovereignly independent, Pok is a defacto puppet government that is administered and controlled by Pakistan. Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce “meaningful and representative democratic structures” in PoK.In this context, the absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly and the fact that PoK is governed through the "Ministry of Kashmir Affairs" in Islamabad. Further that the Kashmir Council is dominated by Pakistani officials and the chief secretary, inspector-general of police, accountant-general and finance secretary in the PoK are all from Pakistan.^[8]PoK government was not a provisional regime but a declaration proclaiming POK as an integral part of Pakistan.^[9]"Pakistan occupied Kashmir is completely lacking in democracy, people suffer oppression and have no voice,” said BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad, citing a 2007 report of the European Parliament to buttress his argument.^[10]

[edit] Northern Areas

On 28th May 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan said: 'it was not understandable on what basis the people of Northern Areas can be denied the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution' i.e. right to equality before law, right to reside and move freely, right to vote, right to be governed by their chosen representatives, right to form political parties, right to assemble peacefully, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to habeas corpus and against illegal detention, right to acquire, hold and dispose property, and the right to have access to an appellate court of justice for the enforcement of all other rights guaranteed under the latest constitution of the country.^[11]

[edit] Islamic Terrorism and Fundamentalism from PoK

The report by the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament, which was submitted in April 2007, states that “there is considerable evidence that over many years Pakistan has provided Kashmiri militants with training, weapons, funding and sanctuary and has failed to hold militants accountable for atrocities they have committed on the Indian-administered side”. ^[12]

[edit] Sponsored terrorism and relations with India

If Pakistan was seriously committed in implementing CBM, the terrorists training centres in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) had to be demolished.^[13] Terrorism has completely devoured up the perplexed issue of 12,000 PoK "unofficial refugees" to the background.^[14]

[edit] Comparison with the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir

The European Parliament report draws attention to the fact that India is “the world’s largest secular democracy” and has “devolved democratic structures at all levels”. In contrast, the report states that Pakistan “still lacks full implementation of democracy in occupied Kashmir and is yet to take steps towards democracy in Gilgit and Baltistan’.^[15][16]

[edit] Indian and global viewpoints regarding the Kashmir conflict

The following are Indian and global viewpoints by neutral scholars as to why Kashmir should remain with the secular-natured Republic of India rather than the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

• Pakistan invaded and stole a piece of Kashmir even before the Maharaja (King) of Kashmir (Maharaja Hari Singh) had decided which country to choose to join.

• Kashmir was officially ceded to India by Maharaja Hari Singh. It was agreed by India, Pakistan and the British Government that the King decideds to who his state should be ceded to. Maharaja Hari Singh chose India.

• It is irrelevant for Pakistan to use the "Muslims for Pakistan" argument as India has states with a larger minority populations (in percentage) than Jammu and Kashmir (e.g. Lakshwadeep: 99% Muslim, Nagaland: 89% Christian). People of these states have never been persecuted by the government for being minorities in Hindu majority India. This should be compared with Pakistan's treatment of minorities, which have been systematically reduced from >12% of the population in 1960 to about <3% today.

• It is irrelevant for Pakistan to use the "the majority of people should vote on what country they want to join" argument, becuase by that logic Pakistan should have never been created in the first place because the majority of people (including Muslims) didn't want to break up India to create a sovereign Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

• It is irrelevant for Pakistan to compare the Kashmir issue to Junagadh because Junagadh was a majority Hindu state. By accepting Junagadh into Pakistan, Pakistan would have contradicted its "Two Nation Theory" which explicitly stated "Hindus and Muslims can't live together as one nation". This policy has never been accepted by India. Till today India is secular (i.e. for everybody) while Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (i.e. for Muslims only).

• It is irrelevant for Pakistan to compare the Kashmir issue to Hyderabad state because Hyderebad never showed any interest in joining Pakistan. The Nizam (Ruler) of Hyderabad proposed independence, which was completely turned down by the British. Moreover Hyderabad was bordered by all sides by India. This would be a threat for India, and a bigger threat for Hyderabad (had it not joined India) as it would have had to depend on India for all external affairs (e.g. imports, exports, telecoms). India annexed the State of Hyderabad in 1948 because the Nizam employed Razakars (rouges) to attack the local populace in neighbouring states (which were already a part of the Indian Union). As such, India retaliated by overthrowing the Nizam, afterwhich the populace willingly joined India. Moreover Hyderabad (and Berar) were majority Hindu areas and would not have accomodated Pakistan's theory of creation (i.e. Two Nation Theory, whereby Hindus and Muslims cannot live as one state).

• Pakistan claims that they advocate the notion of "self-determination of the people of the land". That's why they are fighting to "free" the Kashmiris from "Indian rule", who they claim "have determined" wanting free state called Kashmir. To this, the question arises as to why then don't they practice that same notion for the Balochis and Pashtuns who want to seperate from Pakistan and have their own homeland? Why won't they respect the Pashtuns and Balochis "self-determination" to be free, and free them?

• Azad Jammu and Kashmir act (Article 7) declared Islam to be the state religion of PoK, disqualified non-Muslims from election to the Presidency and forbade activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan. It prescribed in the oath of office the pledge "to remain loyal to the country and the cause of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan". With this, it is worthy to ask how Pakistan is going to accomodate the non-Muslims in Ladakh and Jammu. How are these native Kashmiris who are non-Muslims going to be represented?

• Pakistan is constantly calling for a plebiscite. However for the UN has made it clear that for a resolution mandating a plebiscite to be valid, Pakistan should first vacate its part of Kashmir, as they are unrightfully occupying the area against the will of the Maharaja.

• Pakistan sends in Islamic terrorist groups to Kashmir, and these groups have systematically forced out Hindu and Sikh Kashmiris, while also scaring Muslim Kashmiris that may want to side with India, and so therefore it is unfair to ask for a plebiscite from the Kashmiris. If a plebiscite is done, it should include the Kashmiri Pandits who were expelled from the state by Muslims driven by Pakistan.

• While Pakistan supports a free Kashmir, India does not because Pakistan has been sending in insurgents to instill fear in the local populace for support. A free Kashmir will only increase Pakistan's grip over the region and it will end up being an insurgent training ground like how Pakistan is today. In a future conflict, it is clear that the Kashmiris trained and instigated by Pakistan will not be neutral towards India. Moreover, Hindus and Buddhists in Jammmu and Ladakh will be systematically expelled like the Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir Valley.

• Pakistan claims it "Kashmir is a part of Pakistan as much as how Pakistan is a part of Kashmir". It is then noteworthy to ask why did they give a large piece (almost 50,000 sq. km) of Kashmir to China in 1965, more so without the consent of the people? Till today, Pakistan recognises that area as a part of Xinjiang although the area has historically been a part of the Princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan accuses India of "tearing Kashmir apart", but does not realise that India claims Kashmir in full, while Pakistan claims only 5/6th of Kashmir. Hence, it is Pakistan who has torn Kashmir apart. The reason is deduced to be simple; because Kashmir does not rightfully belong to Pakistan, they have no qualms giving parts of it away. As many scholars put it, which country would give away land which is rightfully theirs?

• Although, Azad means "independent", Pok is governed by a defacto puppet government whose independence is not recognised by any nation including Pakistan itself. It is administered and controlled by Pakistan. Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce "meaningful and representative democratic structures" in PoK. In this context, the absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly and the fact that PoK is governed through the "Ministry of Kashmir Affairs" in Islamabad proves how sincere they are regarding "Azad". Further that the "Kashmir Council" is dominated by Pakistani officials and the chief secretary, inspector-general of police, accountant-general and finance secretary in the PoK are all from Pakistan.

• The international community queries that if Pakistan is so passionate about Kashmir, why then don't they develop it as how they develop the rest of Pakistan? It is worthwhile Comparing the economy of Indian Kashmir with PoK. Indian Kashmir's economy is about 12 times the size of PoK's. Indian Kashmir has one of the lowest poverty rates compared to all Indian states (lower than even Maharashtra, home to India's financial capital Mumbai). In comparison, PoK is one of the poorest regions in all of Pakistan.

• While Pakistan always accuses India of curbing freedom of Kashmiris, the World Freedom Report report proved Indian Kashmir to be "Partly Free", while Pakistani Kashmir was "Not Free". There is worse off persecution in PoK, but this doesn't get reported as there is no freedom of speech in Pakistan, as how there is in India.

• Students from PoK accept India's sovereignity over the area by demanding seats in famous Indian Institutions of Higher Education. The seats in these premier institutions are primarily reserved for Indian nationals.^[17]

• Pakistan argues that they had already designated the "K" for Kashmir (in the name PAKiS -tan, i.e. Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan), so it's rightfully theirs. It would then be foolhardy not to think why didn't they designate a "B" for Bengal / Bangladesh when it formed a prominant part of Pakistan pre-1971? Did it mean by that accord alone it wasn't theirs, because there's no "B" designated?

[edit] Recent developments

• Kashmir opened its new high security international airport to international traffic Saturday in a move officials hope will lead to a tourism boom. The upgraded airport terminal, equipped with modern features including escalators, aero-bridges, central heating systems and lifts, was inaugurated by Sonia Gandhi, the chief of India's ruling Congress Party. The airport is to increase the socio-economic standing of Kashmiris. State officials say they hope to see tourists return to the scenic Himalayan region as it enjoys a period of relative calm following the start of the peace process.^[18]

• Jammu & Kashmir polls held in December 2008 were extremely succesful with voter turnout of 61.5%, one of the highest percentages in history, despite a boycott call by Pakistan sponsored separatists. People thronged to voting stations and proved to the world that democracy prevails. Voter turnout was also influenced due to the heavy and assuring presence of the Indian army and due to less severe weather.^[19] The ruling congress president Sonia Gandhi held that this upliftment of democracy is a lesson to be learnt by neighbours (Pakistan). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted that the large turnout is a vote for democracy. It is a vote for national integration.^[20]

• India is currently constructing the world's highest rail bridge in Kashmir. This bridge over the Chenab is slated to be higher than the Millau Viaduct, currently the highest bridge in the world in southern france. The bridge will be completed at a cost of about $150 million (USD) by 2012. It spotlights India's commitment to uplift the Kashmiri people and to integrate the valley to the rest of India which is usually cut off due to snow storms during winter months.^[21]

[edit] Foot note

[edit] China-Aksai Chin

PoK does not include the territories of Former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir that is presently under Chinese control, Aksai Chin.

[edit] Jammu and Kashmir

The areas of former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that is presently under Indian control is called as the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which is further subdivided into Jammu plains region , Kashmir] valley region and Ladakh plateau region.

[edit] References