[Reader-list] Baggage of JKLF is too heavy to carry-by

[junaid]

Dear Sonia,All I am pointing toward is that I am circumspect when people tell me to take an "objective", "neutral", "dispassionate" look at Kashmir. I would rather doubt the state version of stories, than call what common people, with no immediate interests, tell me as just another "conjecture". I would question the power more than its victims. It is easy for the government to erase evidence, forge wrong cases, dissemble, fudge DNA's, and foist the charge of terrorism on a people's national liberation struggle. So many other states have done it. It was done to Indians too. It suits a government well to first communalise a movement to tell the world that Kashmir's struggle is all about Muslim terrorists ethnic-cleansing Hindus, and then say its all international Islamic terrorism, which is crushing the innocent Kashmiris themselves. (I hope you still remember how Indian government reported Al-Qaeda in Kashmir to Colin Powell, only a few days after 9/11). It is basically like this: What common people say is a "conjecture" till found otherwise, and what government says is a "fact" until proved otherwise. Now it is doubly difficult for people to convince the government of its own complicity. As late Faiz once said: Bane hain ahle hawas mudayi bhi munsif bhiKise wakeel karen kis se munsafi chahen"our oppressor is the prosecutor and the judge himselfwho will plead our case, who will we go to for justice."Kashmiri seperatists have been hauled over fire in these forums a lot: their private wealths (if they have), Indian state protection (and, yet it seems, it is not enough when their "political masters" want to bump them of), their medical bills (it must run into zillions since it is mentioned here, but I have no idea how much it really is), it is like Godess Sita's agnipariksha. But I agree with you these seperatists must be questioned, since they are claiming to fight a struggle which is morally-based, and democratic. And probably they each need to spend dozen more years in jail. Geelani should go for twelve years again, Yasin must go for ten more years. Shabir Shah should spend another 21 years in jail. Azam Inquilabi should spend a few dozen more in prison. While the rest of them should continue to live their lives underground like they have been. And those who have been killed, they must be taken out of their graves, or nameless graves, and shot dead one more time. Then possibly their chastity will be proved. Meanwhile, those who are really making blood money by killing innocents, and labelling them terrorists, may not worry. The courts, CBI, Congress top leadeship, and special laws are in their favour. In fact, even those who are making a living out of Kashmir, 'experts' and 'interlocutors' and 'peace builders' and 'government pointmen' and 'NGOs' and 'media' shall have a field day, because according to what we are told they are 'resolving the conflict', 'healing wounds', 'working toward peace'.I would not question your assertion that Hizbul in its initial years of ascendancy sought to delegitimize and discredit JKLF. It was a common aim of Indian and Pakistani intel to restrict pro-independence movement. And yes Hizb did kill a number of KLF fighters. It is a fact which Kashmiris dont deny. However, it can never be used as a counter-argument to give a clean-chit to what Indian forces did. Indian govenrment turned all heat on JKLF because they wanted to kill the independentist thought. They watched as Hizb grew in power. Typically, it was like in Palestinian intifada of 1988 when the rising Hamas was watched over by Israel, as PLO was decimated. Hizb was not some alien group. They were Kashmiris too. Many JKLF men joined Hizb in those years. JKLF in its beginning was not really clear in its programme (although its leaders might have been, but they did not control individual cadres). At the same time, JKLF had not much control over the movement itself; it was under no one's control, and if at all, it was under people's control. JKLF had different kinds of people, with different kinds of ideas in it. Some were independentist, some pro-Pakistan, some real fighters, some simple robbers, some helped people, some harmed them. A number of Hizb arguments to crush JKLF was that JKLF was not serious, and was fast aleinating the people. A number of such arguments, though, were not based on fact. But one Hizb analysis was right: JKLF, with its leadership fighting among themselves, and without Pakistan support, was not capable of sustaining a long term armed movement. These were calculations made by Pakistan and Hizb leadership, and as always I have no intention to defend them. Your question, however, about who killed more JKLF fighters is factually still wrong because Indian forces killed way many more than Hizbul. Its intended assertion, that it was Hizb attrocities toward JKLF that Ikhwanis became renegades, is again wrong.Ikhwanis. Even before them it was Muslim Mujahideen (MM) which broke ranks with Hizbul. Both Ikhwanis and Muslim Mujahideen were staunchly pro-Pakistan. Muslim Mujahideen broke ranks with HM due to rival claims on leadership. MM could not break away a large part of HM with it though. HM blamed MM leaders for hobnobbing with Indian agencies, a charge that was soon proved right. HM had no desire to see rivals emerge, even among pro-Pakistan groups. It wanted to be the biggest, and if possible the only group opertaing in Kashmir.  Ikhwanis came from Students Liberation Front, and later rechristened themselves as Ikhwanul Muslimeen. For them it was a turf war with HM. The reasons may be plenty, but one cannot help but ask what Indian agencies were doing at that time. Did they engineer the split? Did they lure, arm and fund some militants to turn them against their own. It was not that they did not have a template ready. They had succesfully armed and used counter-insurgency militias in Punjab. MM and Ikhwan was a good bet for them, because by mid 1990s JKLF was out of the scene, and now it was time to deal with HM. Indian forces had not been able to achieve much success against the HM. Ikhwan and especially MM were groomed and unleashed on the Hizb upper ground. Soon, Jammat-i-Islami were targetted brutally. Families of HM cardres were either killed or harrassed, and their houses were destroyed.     It proved effective for sometime, till HM hit back. Now, MM and Ikhwan leaders were getting kiled one after the other. Government which had in the initial years declined to own up the renegades, had to claim them as the latter were coming under fire. For a number of years of raising the counter-insurgent militias government would just say it was simple infighting.      All these leaders you have mentioned, have had, in general, a pro-Pakistan or a pro-independence attitude through most of their careers. I am not saying who killed them, for I really don't know, nor has anyone claimed responsibility. Who will? You say their "political masters" had reason to kill them, I say their "politcal opponents" also had reasons to kill them.  That is not, however, the point here. These cases cannot be used to strike a neutrality in the debate about Kashmir. There cannot be equal responsibility or culpability here. The conflict in Kashmir is an insurgency against a huge Indian state machinery, its vast armies, and umpteen intelligence organisations. How does one maintain neutrality in a "war" between Goliath and David? You are asking Kashmiris who are crushed under the weight of India to offer a Truth and Reconciliation? How can truth come out from under the weight of fibs, cover-ups, evidence-erasures, floors mopped of traces of blood, propaganda, dissimulations? What should Kashmiris 'reconcile' to? Ask the Zulus about the Truth and Reconciliation. Regards,Junaid  , 10 May 2008 09:20:52 +0530From: "S. Jabbar" Subject: To: junaid , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"Dear Junaid,You ask why anyone else (besides the Indian intelligence agencies) wouldwant to kill anti-India political figures? This is precisely the line ofreasoning that a researcher in the US or UK ignorant of the ground inKashmir would take. I'd expect a little more nuance from a researcher ofconflict and that can only happen if one takes the trouble to do a littlemore work in the field.If you are a Kashmiri old enough to follow the careers of people like MoulviFarooq, Qazi Nissar, Abdul Ghani Lone, Dr. Guru, Prof Wani, Ghulam QadirWani and many others you will realize that each was killed at the point whenhe tried to assert an independent line of thinking or advocated talks withIndia or did not quite bend to the will of his political masters inPakistan. As I have said earlier in this forum no one in their right mind can defendwhat the Indian troops and intelligence agencies have done in Kashmir, but Ithink if one is to try and make some sense of what you have rightlydescribed as a dirty war, one needs to first take a dispassionate view ofwhat went down in the last two decades. This includes apportioningresponsibility-- as far as it is possible-- for the political assassinationsand the massacres.And why do you call the Ikhwanis 'my poor' favourite whipping boys? I hadclearly said I held no brief for them. Did you not read my post carefully ordo you still choose to read me selectively? The reason I pointed out theirrole of the fall guy was that they are the mere foot soldiers and not thegenerals that dictate the course of this war. If blame is to be pinned itfinally must be the general who takes the rap.Of course some Ikhwani leaders have made a lot of money and it is alldespicable blood money. But this is well known. Why is it that you are notas vocal about the blood money and the palatial homes of the separatists?What is their source of income, how have they grown so rich in the lasttwenty years, how do they fund their political activities, and how is itthat the Indian state allows it? Not only that, the Indian state pays themedical bills for many separatist leaders who have been periodicallyhospitalized and provides security cover for them with J&K Police guardingtheir homes and offices.Why is that? Is this usual or unusual? Does the endless dragging on, theseeming intractableness of the situation have anything at all to do withthis? Can you imagine the Sri Lankan state doing the same for Prabhakaran?For me these are far more interesting questions and if one tries to answerthem honestly a far more complex picture develops than the simple one of thebad Ikhwani-- who, incidentally was good when he fought for Pakistan andbecame bad the moment he switched sides in 1994.And why did the Ikhwanis switch sides? Were they all congenital 'gaddars'and 'mukhbirs' or were there other compulsions? Of the many JKLF fighterswho were wiped out in the early '90s how many fell to the bullets of theIndian army and how many to the Hizbul Mujahideen?I ask all these questions because it is vital that Kashmiris themselves, atleast privately, begin to ask them. For all the talk of the Kashmiri'salienation from India, nobody speaks of the alienation within Kashmir.Kashmiri society is deeply divided between those who are labeled Indianagents and Pakistani agents, between those that everyone knows benefitedfrom the war and the ordinary citizen, between the Jamaatis and the rest.This has been the most tragic fallout of the war-- this and the terriblesilence that surrounds the killings and rapes by the militants. It may seemunthinkable but one day there will be peace in Kashmir. How will thissociety heal when there are these terrible divisions, fear, suspicion?Once South Africa won its independence it constituted the Truth &Reconciliation Commission. This was because the ANC leadership was matureenough to realize that though history belongs to the victors it would bedisastrous for future generations if South Africa were to whitewash its pastwhere terrible atrocities were committed on both sides. But truth was tocome before reconciliations, and this was often a bitter and painfulexperience where family members had to confront the killers of their lovedones. I'm not sure whether the South African experience had a fairytaleending but it seems to me the right direction to take for societies to healpost-conflicts. Will this ever happen in Kashmir or indeed in South Asia? I have my doubts.We have a terrible knack of sweeping things under the carpet and pretendingit never happened. All cataclysms have been dealt with, with tiresomefamiliarity, whether mass rapes by the Pakistan Army in Bangladesh (forwhich incidentally only women's organisations in Pakistan apologized) or theIndian state's involvement in 1984 anti-Sikh Pogrom or Gujarat or the NE orKashmir. And where does one start the truth & reconciliation part between Kashmir andthe rest of India when the government has blatantly shielded officers in theIndian Army despite being chargesheeted by institutions like the CBI? Wheredoes truth & reconciliation begin between Muslims and Pandits when it isstill widely believed that Jagmohan engineered the exodus? Or betweenfamilies of the Ikhwan and the rest or families of the Jamaatis and therest? It requires a certain honesty and moral courage to answer thesequestions squarely. I hope some day at least some of us will be able torise to the occasion.And finally, please stop referring to me as Ms. Jabbar. My name is Sonia andI'd prefer it if you just used that.Best wishes,SoniaOn 5/9/08 10:21 PM, "junaid" wrote:> Ms Jabbar,In a dirty war like Kashmir, where it is difficult to determine who> the real killers of these pro-independence Kashmiri leaders are, people would> naturally point the finger at the government. These leaders,> throughtout their lives, espoused the cause of> Kashmir's separation from India; and it should have been reason> enough for government agencies to get rid of them. Why would anyone else> have reason to kill all these anti-India figures? And these were not the only> ones, there are thousands more. And if people say government killed them,> then as always it falls upon the people's shoulders to prove the> government's complicity! And it is not easy. Kashmiris don't have the> kind of resources to resolve all these cases to convince you. (There> is no CIA, or Western support, or people coming to blow out Olympic torches on> Western streets). Cases like Pathribal killings, and G M> Padder's case, or even the sex abuse scandal, are only a few that> ever come out to blow the tightly-held lid off Indian government's> actions in Kashmir. Well even those cases don't seem to produce any> doubt in Indian people about what their goverment tells them to> believe. The role of government-sponsored renegade militias in> Kashmir, though not as bad as the actions of actual Indian troops, is> terrible. The untold miseries they inflicted upon their own people, under> the cover of Indian agencies, is not really well documented. I dont> expect any probe from the Indian government ever into it. But I am sure> if you actually listen to common people, instead of just> "visiting" as "experts", they will tell you. Public memory in Kashmir is> quite strong, and impervious to "healing touches" and "hearts and> minds". Well, though you have no reason to believe the Human Rights> Watch, I am still sending you a link which indicts your poor> "favourite whipping boys", who are now living in palatial houses next to army> camps.http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1996/Junaid  ****** >     Partha,Akhila Raman is based in the US and this 2002> article is one that has beenput together from secondary sources. Her> allegations about Chittisinghporaand attributing the assassinations of> politicians like Dr. Guru, MirwaizFarooq and Abdul Ghani Lone to the renegades> is mere conjecture. Though Ihold no brief for them they are everybody's> favourite whipping boys. But thepicture is far more complex than the one> presented by this article.BestsoniaOn 5/9/08 2:58 PM, "Partha Dasgupta"> wrote:> Hi,Interesting article on 'renegade militants' being used by the> governments> onboth sides of the>> border.http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11241Rgds,>>