Confronting Cross-border terrorism in Kashmir

October 31, 1999, Washington Times

Navtej Sarna
Counsellor (Press & Information)
Embassy of India

Zia Ur Rahman Khan's article "At the heart of the conflict" (The Washington Times, Commentary, Oct. 24) is sheer disinformation, replete with half-truths and distortion of facts and history.  It is necessary to correct the basic issues that have been camouflaged and obfuscated.

First, the State of Jammu and Kashmir (referred to as simply Kashmir in American press) was not forcibly occupied by India in 1947, and nor did India violate any UN Security Council resolution.  The ruler of Jammu & Kashmir had the choice to accede to India or to Pakistan at the end of British rule. 

Faced with an invasion by Pakistani regulars and tribals, the ruler acceded to India through an Instrument of Accession subscribed under the India Independence Act, 1947 - an act of British Parliament. 

There is clear evidence in the form of reliable British accounts of those days, government memoranda and later revelations which establish Pakistan's complicity in the invasion.  Because of that invasion the Indian security forces then had to come to the assistance of the Maharaja and the civilian population.

Under the U.N. resolutions, Pakistan had to first withdraw its forces from the part of the State illegally occupied by it before any further steps could be considered.  This was not done by Pakistan for fear of losing in a referendum. 

Pakistan is still forcibly occupying a third of the State and hence, the first pre-condition of the UN resolution was never met.

The problems that have occurred in Kashmir in the last decade are chiefly sponsored by Pakistan.  The presence of foreign mercenaries, Pakistani-trained militants, and supply of modern arms and ammunition to terrorists have all been documented and known to agencies of US and other countries. 

If the human rights of the people of Jammu & Kashmir have been violated, then the blame for these violations rests squarely on the terrorist elements which have cynically used the people of Jammu & Kashmir for their own narrow political ends.  This prevalence of terror has resulted in large-scale migrations from the Valley and loss of life and economic livelihood for innocent civilians.

If cross-border terrorism were to end, the people of J&K comprising the Muslim community, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, would be able to take fuller advantage of the democratic processes in India to seek redress to grievances.

While it is the constant attempt of the Government of India to strengthen the democratic institutions in the state, there are invidious attempts by the terrorists to halt this process.  Recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir in which terrorist outfits, including many headquartered in Pakistan, killed or injured candidates and intimidated voters are a case in point.  The people of Kashmir were often faced with a stark choice between the bullet and the ballot.  In the pre-poll violence, Bharatiya Janata Party's candidate, Ghulam Hyder Noorani and several others were killed.  Former Union Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, State Minister Mustafa Kamal and a State legislator Javed Shah narrowly escaped attempts on their lives. 

Despite this, Jammu & Kashmir had a poll turnout of over 32 per cent with Kargil registering nearly 70 per cent.

On this point, Zia ur Rahman Khan's logic is incomprehensible for he contends that democracy has been a greater failure in India than in Pakistan. The absurdity of this contention makes a rebuttal unnecessary.

India's democratic traditions and institutions, its free press, an independent judiciary and a national Human Rights Commission are there for the world to see.  The exercise of popular will as evidenced in recent elections and in several elections since independence has no parallel in scale - with India's population now 1 billion - anywhere else in the world.  In questioning this democracy, Dr. Rehman only puts his own credibility into question.

Mr. Khan's main point seems to draw a rough (have been to somehow draw) parallel between the situation in Kashmir and the recent human rights tragedy East Timor.  However, the situation in the Indian state is entirely different than the break away of East Timor from Indonesia. This has been publicly acknowledged by the current U.S. administration and other powers.  To forge this kind of parallel is to ignore the realities on the ground and the undeniable constitutional fact that the Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India.