Kashmir conflict-India should act now?

[amoy]

.btw Xinjiang demographics has be changed long since china occupied it by settling han population there

Such distortion of history to serve your point is not brilliant
HISTORY OF XINJIANG

Back to J&K what's your idea on its future, while acknowledging below

Most of the people of kashmir wants independent kashmii state because of the life threating situation created by india and pakistan.

 

[Agantrope]

Such distortion of history to serve your point is not brilliant
HISTORY OF XINJIANG

Back to J&K what's your idea on its future, while acknowledging below

I am leaving Xinjiang now.
Coming back to Kashmir, If they dont want in Indian Union then why the hell they are voting in the election by EC of India. Again im on your wiki way chk this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir_state_assembly_elections,_2008

around 60% of turnout in an average. Now tell me that Indian army threatened them to vote.

Also take a look at this page of Indian Election Commission http://www.indian-elections.com/assembly-elections/jammu-kashmir/election-result-08.html

 

[ajtr]

Such distortion of history to serve your point is not brilliant
HISTORY OF XINJIANG

Back to J&K what's your idea on its future, while acknowledging below

Same as of life threatening situation created in tibbet snd xinjiang and the china proper past 60 yrs by the colonial rule of CPC.

 

[amoy]

Same as of life threatening situation created in tibbet snd xinjiang and the china proper past 60 yrs by the colonial rule of CPC.

Have u ever clicked 'History of Xinjiang' to get a glimpse of its linkage to China dated back to Han Dynasty (206 BC – AD 220) at war with Huns (Xiongnu in Chinese) for Xinjiang, then called 'Western Territory'?

Let's discuss on basis of facts!

 

[ajtr]

Have u ever clicked 'History of Xinjiang' to get a glimpse of its linkage to China dated back to Han Dynasty (206 BC – AD 220) at war with Huns (Xiongnu in Chinese) for Xinjiang, then called 'Western Territory'?

Let's discuss on basis of facts!

Facts as told by chinese created history out of thin air?the thing is in present 21st centuries status of tibet and xinjiang is illegally occupied territory of native people by oppressive regime of CPC.And last year of Muslim oppression by CPC confirms that.

 

[ajtr]

China Whitewashes the Historic Reality of East Turkestan

China’s State Cabinet on today released a white paper called “History and Development of Xinjiang” aimed at perpetuating Beijing’s illegitimate occupation of East Turkestan and serving China’s contemporary political interests by whitewashing the historic reality of this region. It is clear from the timing of the release and purpose of this document that it is a work of Chinese politicians. This Machiavellian type of white paper, which is full of word games and distorted historical accounts, was probably released to serve the following two purposes:

First, it attempts to convince the international community that the Uyghur people who have been demanding freedom and independence from China do not have a legitimate cause since “Xinjiang” is an “inseparable part of China since the ancient times”. This message is sent to mislead foreign governments and those foreigners who support the Uyghur people to believe that the Uyghurs don’t have a legitimate ground to demand anything from China, and they should be happy with the status quo. This is aimed at cutting

off foreign support and sympathy toward the Uyghur cause and people. This is the way to further isolate Uyghurs in the world and justify Chinese crackdown in the name of fighting against so-called three evils, “separatism, extremism, and terrorism”. According to the Chinese government, all of these “evil” labels are applied to the Uyghurs only. The Uyghurs call their motherland “East Turkestan” because it is the eastern part of ancient Turkestan. It is the land of Turkic peoples, not Chinese. The western part of Turkestan includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. The Uyghurs along with Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, and Turkmens are all Turks by race that share same language, culture, religion and history. They are the offspring of a common Turkic ancestry. They have nothing in common with Chinese neighbor who have always coveted their lands. The Turkic peoples belonged to the western Turkestan became free and independent after the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991. Today, they are the masters of their territory and destiny. Unfortunately, East Turkestan, which fell prey to communist Chinese designs in 1949 with Soviet support, is still an occupied country.

China invaded and occupied the East Turkestan Republic, which existed from 1944 to 1949, in 1949. Now Beijing shamelessly claims it as “part of China since ancient times”.

The People’s Republic of China changed the name East Turkestan into “Xinjiang” in 1955 after it was designated an Uyghur autonomous region. It is true that during the Great Game period Manchu Qing Dynasty occupied East Turkestan and changed its name into “Xinjiang”, which means “new territory” for the first time in 1884. The communist China not only inherited the territories occupied by Manchus, foreign invaders considered by both Chinese people and historians, but also gradually picked up its foreign policy.

According to the white paper, “Xinjiang” means “old territory returned to the motherland”. This is a new fabrication that can not be found in any Chinese encyclopedia or historical accounts. In fact, the ancient Chinese called East Turkestan and beyond as “Xiyu” meaning “western regions”. According to Chinese historian Zhang Xiaodong, “The Chinese term Xiyu forgotten for more than a hundred years can be used to cover all the regions from the Middle East to South Asia”. In simple words, “Xiyu” means foreign territories beyond China. East Turkestan was part of “Xiyu”, which was not part of historic China. If East Turkestan was part of China, then, the Chinese government should claim all the regions from the Middle East to South Asia as part of its territories.

Another fact to note is that the Chinese government sources say Qin Shihuang unified China for the first time in history during the Qin Dyansty and built the Great Wall of China to prevent foreign encroachment. The Great Wall of China, which was China’s real boundary, crumbles to pieces at Jiayouguan, far from the border of East Turkestan. The Chinese white paper seems to perpetuate the notion that the ancient territories of China have always been as big as the People’s Republic of China, or bigger. This is not historically true. The fact is that the ancient China is much smaller consisted of the eastern part of today’ s China and the Middle Plains. Manchuria, (Inner) Mongolia, East Turkestan, and Tibet were not historic Chinese territories. The communist China simply reoccupied all the territories of Manchu Dynasty and claimed as part of China since “ancient” times. The word “ancient times” is misleading contrary to the historic facts.

The fact is that China has learned a bitter lesson in the case of Tibetans’ freedom struggle. China knows it has lost the public relations war, and as a result, it cannot justify its heavy-handed policies there but has to negotiate with Tibetans under pressure from the United States and other European countries. This is one of the reasons why Dalai Lama’s envoys are in Beijing now and meeting with Chinese officials. China doesn’t want to lose the public relations war in the case of Uyghurs’ freedom struggle and negotiate with them about a settlement as well. This is more a preemptive measure aimed at isolating the Uyghurs and discrediting their interpretation of the historic reality of East Turkestan, the motherland of Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples.

Second, the white paper seems to perpetuate the notion that the Chinese have always been the ruling class in what is now the People’s Republic of China and all the minorities have been their subjects who have no right to rule or separate their countries from China by any means. This is to justify contemporary Chinese chauvinism and create a Chinese nation state, a country of, by, and for the Chinese, not minorities. That is why China claims all the glories of history as exclusively “Chinese”. This is not historically true. In fact, most dynasties the Chinese government claims as “Chinese” were not Chinese dynasties. Tang Dynasty was an ethnically mixed dynasty. Yuan Dynasty was a Mongol Dynasty. Qing Dynasty was a Manchu Dynasty. The Mongols and Manchus didn’t establish a country for the Chinese but occupied China and established their own empires.

Today’s government of People’s Republic of China is not a successive inheritor of any previous dynasties or empires established by Han, Yuan, Ming, Qing or any other. To claim all the territories occupied by any dynasty, especially the last Manchu Qing Dynasty, as part of China since “ancient times” is nothing but imperialism. It is not any different from today’s Mongolian government claiming all the territories occupied by Ghin-gizkhan, the founder of Mongol Empire, as its own territories since “ancient times”.

The Chinese white paper fails to explain the root causes as to why the Uyghurs have for more than a century wanted to establish an independent East Turkestan and why after Beijing’s great development in this region since 1949 still want to separate from China. Why are they sometimes even ready to sacrifice their lives for independence? What is really wrong with the Uyghurs if they have been treated as China claims they are? Apparently, the truth speaks louder than fabricated myths by the Chinese government.

According to the U.S. State Department 2002 Human Rights Report, The People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP or Party) is the paramount source of power…The Government severely restricted freedom of assembly and continued to restrict freedom of association and freedom of movement. While the number of religious believers continued to grow, government respect for religious freedom remained poor and crackdowns against Muslim Uyghurs continued”. The report, which was released on March 31, 2003 says,"In Xinjiang, where security remained tight, human rights abuses intensified… Throughout the year, the Government continued a national "strike hard" campaign against crime, characterized by round-ups of suspects who were sometimes sentenced in sports arenas in front of thousands of spectators. At year's end, this campaign, which was originally scheduled to last for 3 months at its inception in April 2001, showed no signs of abating in some areas. Some dissidents, "separatists," and underground church members were targeted. The campaign has been especially harsh in Xinjiang, where those deemed to be "splittists" by the Government were targeted. As part of the campaign, officials reportedly carried out over 4,000 executions during the year, frequently without due process”.

The human rights report notes that “Many observers raised concerns about the Government's use of the international war on terror as a justification for cracking down harshly on suspected Uighur separatists expressing peaceful political dissent and on independent Muslim religious leaders. According to reports from Xinjiang's Uighur community, authorities continued to search out and arrest Uyghurs possessing written or recorded information containing unapproved religious material”.

This is one piece of the puzzle why the Uyghurs want to freedom and independence from China. This is only one drop of what the Uyghur people have been suffering under the Chinese rule. Many reports over the years from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the Laogai Foundation can testify the reality on the plight of Uyghurs.

The fact is that Rabiye Kadir, a prominent Uyghur businesswoman whose only crime was to send publicly available newspapers to her dissident husband in the U.S., is still serving her eight-year prison terms in notorious Chinese prison in Urumchi. The fact is that Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a semi-military unit of nearly three million strong, is fulfilling its historical mission of colonizing East Turkestan and enslaving the Uyghur farmers bydepriving their land, water, and agricultural means. The fact is that the Uyghur language still cannot be used at any university as the language of instruction. The fact is that the Uyghur history books are burned at the pleasure of Chinese officials. The fact is that the Uyghur chairman of the “autonomous” region represents the highest interest of the Chinese government by betraying the interest of the Uyghur people. The fact is that the Uyghurs autonomy has become a Chinese colony. These are the hard facts that have driven the Uyghurs to seek separation from China.

The fact is that the Uyghurs will struggle for their freedom and independence as long as China continues to deny their fundamental human rights and their right to be the master of their motherland and destiny. China was wrong before and is wrong again. China is wrong to assume that the Uyghurs will simply give up their goals after Beijing deceives the world by portraying them as “terrorists”. China has for the past fifty years failed to hide the East Turkestan Question because hiding is not a solution. It is time that China should realistically look at the issue and negotiate with the Uyghurs to find a permanent solution, much like the way it treats the Tibetan Question. China has no choice but sooner or later it has to resolve the question. The fourth generation of Chinese leaders, instead of lying about the Uyghurs and East Turkestan as it lied over SARS, should boldly seize the initiative and resolve the East Turkestan Question as soon as possible for the posterity of both the Uyghur and the Chinese nations.

 

[Koji]

Facts as told by chinese created history out of thin air?the thing is in present 21st centuries status of tibet and xinjiang is illegally occupied territory of native people by oppressive regime of CPC.And last year of Muslim oppression by CPC confirms that.

Illegal considered by which international body?

 

[ajtr]

by opressed Xinjiang Uygurpopulace

 

[Koji]

by opressed Xinjiang Uygurpopulace

That is not an internationally recognized governing body, and thus they have no legitimate law. I bet you won't find ONE single government that will call Tibet and Xinjiang illegal. If you do, let me know, it'll be news to me.

 

[ajtr]

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/111/fei061609.pdf

Oppressed Uighurs in East Turkestan (China’s Xinjiang province) are neglected relics of the “big power” politics that informed the 1945 Yalta Conference’s cynical division of Europe and Asia. As President George W. Bush declared in Riga, Latvia on May 6, 2005, “[T]he Yalta Conference was a huge mistake in history.” And Uighur subjugation under Chinese Communist (PRC) tyranny has intensified.

The Uighur people occupy a corner of Central Asia called “Xinjiang or the New Territory” by the PRC. During the Nineteenth Century, they were a pawn in the hands of the Russian and British Empires. Sporadic uprisings against their oppressors eventuated in the short-lived establishment of an independent Uighur republic in 1944. But Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin quickly exerted control over the new republic through KGB infiltration of the Uighur leadership. As a derivative of the Yalta Conference, Stalin signed the Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty on August 14, 1945, which sold out the independent East Turkestan to China. The United States acquiesced because it wished to strengthen the hand of Generalissimo Chiang Kai Sheik in his civil war with Communist Mao Tse Tung. Further, the United States then thought that the Soviet Union would be a cooperative partner in advancing its policies in the Far East. The 1945 Pact was followed by the Sino-Soviet Treaty inked by Stalin and Mao in Moscow on February 14, 1950, which extinguished any idea of an independent Uighur republic for the duration of the Cold War. Chairman Mao is said to have clucked, “Xinjiang is a colony, a Chinese colony.”

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Central and Eastern Europe escaped from Soviet clutches. In 1991, the Soviet Union disintegrated. Uighurs believed their hour was at hand. In April 1990, they organized the Barin Uprising, followed by a large scale non-violent demonstration in the Hotan region in 1995. From February 5-7, 1997, Uighurs in Ili region demonstrated peacefully for freedom from Chinese rule. The PRC crushed the demonstration with military force slaying 407 unarmed civilians. Many Uighurs were arrested and sentenced to execution within seven days.

With the witting or unwitting assistance of the United States, Uighur persecution has climbed since the 1997 atrocities. In the aftermath of 9/11 and to elicit the PRC’s non-opposition to invading Iraq, the United States designated the East Turkistan Islamic Party (ETIM), a phantom organization, as a foreign terrorist organization in August 2002. The PRC exulted at the counter-terrorist pretext available to destroy Uighurs and their non-Han Chinese culture. Uighur activists were falsely accused of terrorism and executed. The Uighur language was purged from the classroom and cultural events. At a meeting of the National People’s Congress on January 18, 2008, Mr. Rozi Ismail, head of the Department of Justice in Xinjiang, reported more than one thousand political cases during the previous five years. More than 15,000 Uighurs had been arrested and sentenced to prison for a term of years, for life, or for execution.

Since 2002, the PRC has forcibly relocated young Uighur women. In 2007, the number of relocations surpassed 1.5 million, and approximately 130,000 had been directly relocated to Han Chinese regions, such as Tianjin, Shandong, Jiansu, etc. Of that number, more than 80% were Uighur women. During the last three years, relocations reached 3.3 million, and more than 90,000 were moved directly as cheap labor to factories in Chinese villages and hamlets. At the same time, the PRC dispatched large numbers of Han Chinese in the opposite direction to achieve demographic ethnic cleansing. The United States has remained largely mum to avoid friction with the PRC and jeopardizing its financing of staggering United States debt.

The State Department’s 2007 human rights report on China documents a government campaign of discrimination and persecution of Uighurs and the destruction of their cultural identity by changing the demographics in favor of the Han Chinese in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

The report relates: “Racial discrimination was the source of deep resentment in some areas, such as the XUAR, Inner Mongolia, and Tibetan areas.

The government’s policy to encourage Han migration into minority areas resulted in significant increases in the population of the Han Chinese in the XUAR.

The migration of the ethnic Han into the XUAR in recent decades caused the Han-Uighur ratio in the capital of Urumqi to shift from 20 to 80 to 80 to 20 and was a deep source of Uighur resentment. Discriminatory hiring practices gave preference to Han and discouraged job prospects for ethnic minorities.

The XUAR government tightened measures that diluted expressions of Uighur identity, including measures to reduce education in ethnic minority languages and to institute language requirements that disadvantage ethnic minority teachers.

Since 2001 authorities have increased repression in the XUAR, targeting in particular the region’s ethnic Uighur population. In January XUAR Party Secretary Wang Lequan again urged government organs to crack down on the ‘three forces’ of religious extremism, ‘splittism,’ and terrorism, and to ‘firmly establish the idea that stability overrides all.’ It was sometimes difficult to determine whether raids, detentions, and judicial punishments directed at individuals or organizations suspected of promoting the ‘three forces,’ were instead actually used to target those peacefully seeking to express their political or religious views. The government continued to repress Uighurs expressing peaceful political dissent and independent Muslim religious leaders, sometimes citing counterterrorism as the reason for taking action.

Uighurs were sentenced to long prison terms, and in some cases executed, on charges of separatism. On February 8, authorities executed Ismail Semed, an ethnic Uighur from the XUAR, following convictions in 2005 for ‘attempting to split the motherland’ and other counts related to possession of firearms and explosives. During his trial, Semed claimed that his confession was coerced…On April 19, foreign citizen Huseyin Celil was sentenced to life in prison for allegedly plotting to split the country and 10 years in prison for belonging to a terrorist organization, reportedly after being extradited from Uzbekistan and tortured into giving a confession…During the year the government reportedly sought the repatriation of Uighurs living outside the country, where they faced the risk of persecution.

Possession of publications or audiovisual materials discussing independence or other sensitive subjects was not permitted. According to reports, possession of such materials resulted in lengthy prison sentences.”

In sum, Uighurs in the XUAR are denied every human right protected by the United States Constitution, including self-government, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of press, due process, protection against invidious discrimination, ex post facto laws, torture and arbitrary detention.
.
.
The Government of China alleges that many Uighurs are part of ETIM, which was listed by the Secretary of State under Executive Order 13224 on September 3, 2002. Whether such a group constitutes a genuine terrorist organization is doubtful. A story in The Washington Post (December 5, 2006, A13), reported that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage met with Chinese officials in Beijing in late August 2002 to discuss Iraq. He said at the time that ETIM was placed on the foreign terrorist list by President Bush after months of discussions with China, while making clear that China should respect the human rights of its minority Uighur population.

“They had been after us to put ETIM on the list,” Armitage said in a recent interview. He said the decision did not have anything to do with winning China’s tacit approval with the Iraq invasion. “But at the time, we didn’t know when we were going to invade Iraq. It was done in response to information gathered by the intelligence group.”
.
.
.
.
BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE - June 16, 2009

 

[Koji]

The fact is ajtr, NO REAL STATE calls the occupation illegal.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

China has manipulated countries into silence but it does not prevent the uighurs and tibetans from calling it illegal.But turkey saudi all have said east turkmenistan occupation is illegal with the rest of the muslim world
http://www.radicalparty.org/en/content/china-whitewashes-historic-reality-east-turkestan
http://www.murdererchina.com/2009/07/freedom-to-uyghurs-freedom-to-turkistan.html
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...agename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs/MAELayout
http://beijingwideopen.org/2009/03/10/support-for-tibetan-freedom-from-all-corners-of-the-world/

 

[Koji]

People in Turkey and Saudi Arabia may contest Beijing's rule, but the government you'll find speaks the exact contradiction. When the riots happened, those governments urged restraint, but didn't mention anything about the legality of rule.

 

[ajtr]

China-Turkey and Xinjiang: a frayed relationship

The violent unrest in China’s western region has cast a chill over the prevously warming links between Ankara and Beijing. The deeper roots of their dispute lie both in history and modern geopolitics, says Igor Torbakov & Matti Nojonen.

(This article was first published on 31 July 2009)

The violent ethnic clashes in China's northwestern province of Xinjiang on 5-6 July 2009 have had effects far beyond the region. The pressure from the Chinese government to halt the showing at the Melbourne film festival of a documentary film on the exiled Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer - followed by the withdrawal of Chinese films from the programme and electronic harassment that disabled the festival's website - is but one example.

Igor Torbakov is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)

Matti Nojonen is director of the Transformation of the World Order programme at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
The countries which host significant numbers of the Uyghur diaspora, or which have close ethnic or cultural ties with the Uyghurs, are among those that have expressed concern about the bloody events in Xinjiang and Beijing's ruthless crackdown's. Where such countries also have valuable economic and trading links with China, the potential for the violent episode to create political complications is evident.

This indeed is the situation with regard to Turkey, whose government has as result been torn between its desire to protect its economic ties with China and pressure from public opinion that it does something to stop the Chinese persecution of their Muslim and Turkic kin in "East Turkestan".

In this position Ankara, under the leadership of the Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (Justice & Development Party / AKP) of prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is attempting to perform a delicate balancing-act. But the difficulties of the moment - reinforced by the AKP's desire to be seen as no less nationalistic and pro-Uyghur than the opposition - raises concern that Turkey and China could be on a collision-course.

A positive dynamic

The two countries have forged a good economic and political relationship in recent years. This was symbolised only one week before Urumqi erupted, when the Turkish president (and former foreign minister) Abdullah Gul made an official state visit to China, which included a stopover in Xinjiang - the highest-level ever Turkish visit to the region.

Also on the Xinjiang crisis in openDemocracy:

James A Millward, "China's story: putting the PR into the PRC" (18 April 2008)

Henryk Szadziewski, "Kashgar"s old city: the politics of demolition" (3 April 2009)

Yitzhak Shichor, "The Uyghurs and China: lost and found nation" (6 July 2009)

Henryk Szadziewski, "The discovery of the Uyghurs" (10 July 2009)

Kerry Brown, "Xinjiang: China's security high-alert" (14 July 2009)

Dibyesh Anand, "China's borderlands: the need to rethink" (15 July 2009)

Temtsel Hao, "Xinjiang, Tibet, beyond: China's ethnic relations" (27 July 2009)

Ross Perlin, "The Silk Road unravels" (28 July 2009)
The state visit had taken place on the invitation of the Chinese president, Hu Jintao. It reflects the Chinese leadership's appreciation of Turkey's positive efforts to promote constructive dialogue with Beijing - which has included Turkey's repeated emphasis that Xinjiang is an integral part of China (including references to "Chinese Xinjiang").

Indeed, Beijing's trust in Ankara's "one-China" stance is measured in its granting President Gul the rare opportunity to deliver a speech at Xinjiang University. In his 28 June address the president said that Xinjiang constitutes one of the most important bonds between the two countries, and that the Uyghur people in Xinjiang form a bridge of friendship between China and Turkey.

Many of Turkey's economic ties with China have been through Xinjiang, one of China's least developed areas. It seemed a good strategy for both sides: mainly low-end Turkish products cannot compete with domestic Chinese brands in the developed coastal regions of China, but could provide an entry-point for Xinjiang to international markets and help diversify China's sources of foreign direct investment (FDI).

More widely, the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet reports that the visit to Beijing secured trade deals involving eight Turkish companies and worth $3 billion. There have also been expectations of more strategic ties, including a plan by the Chinese company Chery Auto to build a car-factory in Turkey (though this will depend on government support).

This gradual development of political trust and economic exchange makes the Xinjiang crisis - and the Turkish reaction to it - all the more unsettling for both countries.

Turkey's dismay

The boisterous and competitive Turkish media intensively reported the Urumqi events from the start. The majority of victims of the initial rioting (197, according to the official death-toll) may have been Han Chinese, but many media outlets announced hundreds of casualties among the Uyghurs. This contributed to a steep rise in nationalist sentiment in Turkey in which the Uyghurs seemed confirmed as a close cousin of the Turkic family.

"China should know that when East Turkestan is hurt, Turkey is hurt", one commentary in the Bügün daily warned. "East Turkestan is bleeding", echoed Sabah; "Turkey cannot remain indifferent to the sufferings of its ancestral lands."

Some Turkish commentators even invoked the idea of independent Xinjiang - an argument destined to enrage official Beijing. "Although the riots failed to be successful today, they will open the way of hopes for tomorrow", wrote Sabah's columnist Nazli Ilicak; she added that one day East Turkestan might free itself from China's oppressive rule and become an independent country like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

The weight of press coverage, reflecting widespread public sentiment, had near-instant political effects. The opposition was quick to criticise the government's initially muted response to the "Urumqi massacres", leading the AKP leaders to toughen their own rhetoric. Regep Tayyip Erdogan, at the G8 summit in Italy - from where Hu Jintao had abruptly returned to China on news of the unrest, described what had happened as amounting to "almost genocide" against the Uyghurs and urged China to stop the "assimilation" of its Uyghur minority.

Turkey's prime minister was emphatic: "No state, no society that attacks the lives and rights of innocent civilians can guarantee its security and prosperity. Whether they are Turkic Uyghurs or Chinese, we cannot tolerate such atrocities. The suffering of the Uyghurs is ours." Erdogan said that Turkey, as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, was determined to bring the issue of the Chinese crackdown onto the council's agenda.

Bülent Arinc, a co-founder of the AKP and currently deputy prime minister, echoed his leader, saying "we have profound historical ties to our brothers in the Uighur region" including a 300,000-strong Uighur community in Turkey. The industry minister Nihat Ergün went even further when on 9 July he called on businessmen and consumers to boycott Chinese products (though this was followed by a qualified retraction).

These acerbic remarks have begun to impinge on the potentially disruptive issue of Turkey's stance towards Rebiya Kadeer, the millionaire businesswoman-turned-political dissident living in the United States whom Beijing accuses of masterminding the Urumqi riots. Ankara has in fact twice refused to issue a Turkish visa to Kadeer, in an apparent wish to avoid upsetting the Chinese leadership. This attitude seems to be changing, with Erdogan (on 9 July) saying that a new visa application would be accepted. Kadeer responded by telling the Cihan news agency that she planned to visit Turkey soon, and that believed "Turkey wouldn't sell out the Uyghurs, who have Turkish blood in their veins."

China's retaliation

For its part, Beijing took a week before responding to the first official Turkish outcry. In an official statement China demanded that Turkey withdraw its leader's remarks on genocide and assimilation, which the state-owned China Daily denounced as "groundless and irresponsible." The Chinese foreign minister also made a personal phone-call to his Turkish counterpart strongly advising Ankara to retract its harsh words.

At the same time, the Chinese media reported the Turkish public commentaries in a quite restrained manner, certainly when compared to the frenzied denunciation of France's government and media over perceived support for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan protestors' cause in 2008. Even the notoriously partisan Chinese blogosphere seemed not overly agitated, with writers confining themselves to warning Turkey about interference in China's internal affairs or questioning the nature of the relationship between Uyghurs and Turkey; though some netizens are reported in official media as having called for Turkey to be "punished" over its attitude.

Beijing's stance would of course significantly harden if Turkey's leaders indeed host Rebiya Kadeer. The director of the Turkey project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Bulent Aliriza, says: "All hell is going to break loose if she shows up in Turkey, especially after the comment that Erdogan made."

China's sensitivity over Rebiya Kadeer is clear in the formulaic comment of Qin Gang, China's foreign-ministry spokesman: "We resolutely oppose any foreign country providing a platform for her anti-Chinese, splittist activities."

The pressure on Turkey could escalate. China squeezed the French nuclear and aircraft industries in the wake of the Tibet controversy in 2008, and citizens' boycotts of French goods targeted Carrefour department-stores. France refused to make the unilateral apology China demanded, but the two sides did agree a joint communiqué on 1 April 2009 in which both sides "(reiterated) their commitment to the principle of non-interference" and France affirmed its (objection) to all support for Tibet's independence in any form whatsoever." The question now arises: does Turkey have the economic and political leverage to demand a politically face-saving joint communiqué, or will it too have to yield to making a unilateral apology?

Turkey might already be looking for ways to compromise. A group of Turkish parliamentarians plans to visit Xinjiang, and intend (according to the Turkish media and the head of parliament's human-rights committee) to be "careful" - neither interfering in China's internal affairs nor harming Sino-Turkish economic relations. A Turkish media delegation that has already been allowed to visit Urumqi (representing mainly the state-run media outlets) was instructed to make conciliatory noises. There were no problems between Turkey and China, one member of the delegation was quoted as saying.

Ankara's isolation

There are three strong reasons for Turkey to avoid embracing too zealous a nationalistic or even outright pan-Turkist stance over the Xinjiang events. First, it risks isolation. The international community - including the United States - is in no mood to annoy the Chinese leadership at a time when it needs China's cooperation over managing the global financial crisis and addressing climate change. Most powerful states are preoccupied more with China's stability than seeing it progress toward democracy and inter-ethnic harmony.

China in any case has already dismissed Erdogan's proposal to discuss the crisis at the UN Security Council, saying the incident was of no concern to the outside parties, a position backed at the Yekaterinburg summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on 12 July (in which China plays a leading role together with Russia).

Second, Turkey itself is open to severe criticism over how it deals with ethnic and national minorities on its territory. A Turkish analyst argues: "If Turkey were to go beyond calls to respect human rights in the (Xinjiang) region and appear to be supporting Uyghur separatism, it is clear that this will rebound - with China referring to the Kurdish issue and minority rights in this country."

Third, any Turkish sponsorship of the Uyghurs may actually hurt the Turkic population in Xinjiang; for this could make them "more of a target in China" and even "lend credence to Chinese paranoia over foreign plots."

It is indeed striking that Ankara appears to have found itself diplomatically isolated, globally and even regionally, in its pro-Uyghur position. The prominent foreign-policy analyst Cengiz Candar noted that "we don't see any Turkic republics or a single Muslim country or a single western ally standing beside Turkey." This state of isolation, Candar warns, makes Ankara vulnerable to possible "fierce" retaliation by China.

A volatile region

It might appear that in the brutal calculus of modern geopolitics, Ankara has made tactical mistakes over the Xinjiang violence. But in a broader historicalcontext, the tensions provoked by the incidents in Urumqi are near-inevitable: rooted in the political, cultural, and national faultlines of the larger region.

The territories of greater central Asia were divided between the Chinese (Qing) and the Russian (Romanov) empire in the 19th century. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of five independent "Stans" in what used to be Russian-ruled Turkestan released powerful social forces - including the nationalisms of the local Turkic peoples and the rise of Islam. It is only natural that these same factors are at play across the Chinese border in Xinjiang - historic East Turkestan. It should also come as no surprise that, in the wake of the Soviet Union's unravelling, Ankara's interest in the "Turkic world" - an interest that lay dormant since the time of the Young Turks and Enver Pasha's (and the historian Ziya Gökalp's) fantasies of Turkish central-Asian empire - has undergone a certain revival.

These lands are a mosaic of utmost social, cultural and ethnic complexity. Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan have sizable Uyghur populations - there are 50,000 in Kyrgyzstan and 300,000 in Kazakhstan (including the country's prime minister, Karim Masimov). The pattern works the other way, with an estimated 1 million ethnic Kazakhs in Xinjiang. The "Stans" today live in the shadow of China's rising power, mindful of their own vulnerability, and keen to partake in Beijing's financial largesse; these considerations to a great extent undercut any particular interest in promoting the Uyghur independence cause.

Amid these regional complexities, Turkey is trying to position itself as a rising regional (even global) power - making a degree of tension with China natural, even if there are many contingencies in the current situation. Ankara's policy elite sees its ethnic, cultural and religious ties to the Turkic world as valuable strategic capital; and its ability successfully to mediate in the security and political crises that punctuate the region as a sure way to enhance Ankara's international stature.

So long as the lands of historic Turkestan remain volatile and their geopolitical status uncertain, the outside powers' competition for influence in the region - often quiet, occasionally sharp and vocal - will continue. It seems that Turkey intends to press its claim to be one of these main players - alongside China, Russia and the United States. This means that, however the current Xinjiang crisis ends, Ankara and Beijing might well again collide over "greater Turkestan".

 

[ajtr]

Turkey attacks China 'genocide'

Turkey's prime minister has described ethnic violence in China's Xinjiang region as "a kind of genocide".
"There is no other way of commenting on this event," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.
He spoke after a night-time curfew was reimposed in Xinjiang's capital, Urumqi, where Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese clashed last Sunday.
The death toll from the violence there has now risen from 156 to 184, China's state-run Xinhua news agency reports. More than 1,000 people were injured.
Turkey is secular but the population is predominantly Muslim and it shares linguistic and religious links with the Uighurs in China's western-most region.


Quentin Sommerville, BBC News, Urumqi


After Friday's prayers, a small group of Uighur Muslims marched along an Urumqi street demanding the release of men detained for their alleged role in last Sunday's riot.

A large number of riot police surrounded the group, they punched and kicked the protestors - one officer used his baton to beat one of the Uighurs. A number of foreign journalists had their equipment seized, some have been detained.
Earlier the group said they feared for their safety. There's no word from the authorities as to what happened to them.
In pictures: Closed mosques
New media openness
Q&A: China and the Uighurs
"The event taking place in China is a kind of genocide," Mr Erdogan told reporters in Turkey's capital, Ankara.
"There are atrocities there, hundreds of people have been killed and 1,000 hurt. We have difficulty understanding how China's leadership can remain a spectator in the face of these events."
The Turkish premier also urged Beijing to "address the question of human rights and do what is necessary to prosecute the guilty".
Mr Erdogan's comments came a day after Turkish Trade and Industry Minister Nihat Ergun urged Turks to boycott Chinese goods.
Beijing has so far not publicly commented on Mr Erdogan's criticism.
But it said that of the 184 people who died, 137 were Han Chinese.
Uighurs defiant
Earlier on Friday, the Chinese authorities reimposed a night-time curfew in Urumqi.
The curfew had been suspended for two days after officials said they had the city under control.
Mosques in the city were ordered to remain closed on Friday and notices were posted instructing people to stay at home to worship.

XINJIANG: ETHNIC UNREST
Main ethnic division: 45% Uighur, 40% Han Chinese
26 June: Mass factory brawl after dispute between Han Chinese and Uighurs in Guangdong, southern China, leaves two Uighurs dead
5 July: Uighur protest in Urumqi over the dispute turns violent, leaving 156 dead - most of them thought to be Han - and more than 1,000 hurt
7 July: Uighur women protest at arrests of menfolk. Han Chinese make armed counter-march
8 July: President Hu Jintao returns from G8 summit to tackle crisis

Taboo of ethnic tensions
Profile: Rebiya Kadeer
Xinjiang: Views from China
But at least two opened after crowds of Uighurs gathered outside and demanded to be allowed in to pray on the holiest day of the week in Islam.
"We decided to open the mosque because so many people had gathered. We did not want an incident," a policeman outside the White Mosque in a Uighur neighbourhood told the AP news agency.
After the prayers, riot police punched and kicked a small group of Uighurs protesters, who demanded the release of men detained after last Sunday's violence, the BBC's Quentin Sommerville says.
Meanwhile, the city's main bus station was reported to be crowded with people trying to escape the unrest.
Extra bus services had been laid on and touts were charging up to five times the normal face price for tickets, AFP news agency said.
"It is just too risky to stay here. We are scared of the violence," a 23-year-old construction worker from central China said.
The violence began on Sunday when a Uighur rally to protest against a deadly brawl between Uighurs and Han Chinese several weeks ago in a toy factory in southern Guangdong province turned violent.
Tensions have been growing in Xinjiang for many years, as Han migrants have poured into the region, where the Uighur minority is concentrated.
Many Uighurs feel economic growth has bypassed them and complain of discrimination and diminished opportunities.

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

Why are we discussing China in this thread, this thread is about Kashmir, lets stick to it.
IMO there are good amount people in Kashmir valley that either want's to separate or merge with Pakistan, the rest does not care as much, that is why we get 60% voting because majority does not care. We have done a good job so far of managing Kashmir, people are now tired of violence and will not support terrorist. There is no need for any action from India on Kashmir, as it will give Pakistan the reason they are looking for, so just continue to do what we are doing.

 

[johnee]

Why are we discussing China in this thread, this thread is about Kashmir, lets stick to it.
IMO there are good amount people in Kashmir valley that either want's to separate or merge with Pakistan, the rest does not care as much, that is why we get 60% voting because majority does not care. We have done a good job so far of managing Kashmir, people are now tired of violence and will not support terrorist. There is no need for any action from India on Kashmir, as it will give Pakistan the reason they are looking for, so just continue to do what we are doing.

Well said, but we could do better than what we did in the past because of our new vibrant economy, global influence and deteriorating situation in Pakistan. GOI needs to advertise whats happening in Pakistan more and also influence the media so that the majority(that doesnt care) can than become pro-india and the minority(that wants to separate) can become neutral(stop caring). Also, this is the time to once and for all to bribe off the separatists and those that we cant need to be eliminated. Aam aadhmi needs to be given visible sops. This is the time for clincher, not in the military sense but in a political and social way. Army can keep doing what it has been doing.

 

[ajtr]

US Special Representative Favors “Friendship” With Indian Muslims

NEW DELHI: Farah Pandith, United States’ first Special Representative to Muslim Communities, was here on a four-day visit to apparently “win over” the Indian Muslims and improve President Barack Obama administration’s image among them. Farah has come and gone (Feb 16-19), leaving many questions unanswered about the role such visits can really play in improving United States’ image among the Indian Muslims. Asserting that her visit was “not a popularity contest,” Farah said that it was an “effort to engage with people and strike partnerships to find a common ground of interest for the common good of all.”
Farah, an American of Indian origin, was born in Kashmir. It was her first visit to India as an US Special Representative, a new position created by Obama administration to improve Washington’s image in the Muslim world and also to actively “listen and respond” to their concerns in Europe, Africa and Asia. Sworn to this position last year on September 15, Farah has visited 12 other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iraq and Kuwait. Her visits are a part of Obama administrations to reach out to Muslims dominated by “propaganda, stereotypes and inaccurate generalizations” about Washington. This is the message Farah conveyed during her addresses in New Delhi at Jamia Millia Islamia University and India Islamic Cultural Center (IICC).
Farah played her part in displaying her consciousness about her religious identity as a Muslim and also in fulfilling the responsibility assigned to her in reaching out to Muslims across the world. She kept her head bowed as a cleric recited from the holy Quran at the function held at IICC. Farah began her brief address with the traditional Muslim greeting: “Asalaam Alaikum.” It was President Obama’s “vision to build partnerships with Muslim communities across the globe on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect,” she said. “I repeat that it is based on mutual interest and respect and I extend my hand of friendship and partnership with you,” she asserted.
Highlighting the significance of her position, Farah said: “Never before America had an envoy for Muslim communities. This is the first time an envoy for the Muslims was appointed. My job is to work with our embassies worldwide to engage with the Muslim communities and focus strongly on the new generation.” “Secretary (Hillary) Clinton has asked me to engage with Muslim communities around the world at the grassroots level, and to build and extend partnerships through the US embassies in both Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority countries. I have to look at out-of-the-box ways to engage, based on mutual respect. That is my job, my mandate,” she said.
“With one-fourth of the world’s population that is Muslim, of course our country (United States) wants to do as much as we can to build partnerships across the board,” Farah stated. “We can and we want to extend the partnership in a very strong way that will allow us to develop long-term relationship with Muslims all over the world,” she said.
Drawing attention to Islam being practiced in United States and the diversity there, Farah pointed to having learned reading holy Quran at a mosque there. She also tried convincing the audience that she was “this was not an effort to increase popularity of America by a few percentage points.” Nevertheless, while interacting with Indian Muslim leaders, she pointed to Obama administration being serious about working closely with Islamic world. This, she said, was marked by appointment of Indian born Rashid Hussain as envoy for the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). Obama’s advisory council for faith also includes Eboo Patel, an Indian-American Muslim from Chicago.
The US government can act as a “convener, facilitator and intellectual partner” and help forge partnerships on basis of common ideas and common goals, the benefits of which will be useful not only for Muslims, but everyone, Farah said. Elaborating on her mission to reach out to the young generation, she pointed out that 45 percent of the world population is under the age of 30. “I will focus more on the young generation in Muslim world and I want to understand the diversity of Islam in different countries and communities as well,” she said.
Though Farah expressed that she was “interested in talking to the Facebook generation, the youth,” she evaded questions posed at Jamia University on United States’ foreign policy on issues that have bothered Muslims across the world. To a question regarding Israel-Palestine, she said: “That is not my job. I am not George Mitchell (US Mideast envoy).” On Washington’s policy regarding West Asia and Pakistan, Farah replied: “I am not Richard Holbrooke (US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan). It’s not my job to work on Kashmir or Pakistan.”
Irrespective of whether Farah succeeds in improving image of Obama administration among the Muslims, her own identity has certainly played some part in compelling the world to revise the stereotyped image they have of Muslim women. The Obama administration is apparently hopeful that Farah’s image as a “modern Muslim” will help win over the young generation. Suggesting this, Farah said: “This generation is having to navigate through that and understand what it means to be modern and Muslim and also is really searching for a way to be connected.”

 

[ajtr]

How we turned a Cold War into a hot potato

Far too many innocent men, women and children have died and many more uprooted from their homes in the Kashmir tragedy since its emergence as a violent and volatile issue in 1947. Its essential history, however, is at variance with most contemporary narratives of India-Pakistan rivalry, brutal military occupation, rabid religious zealotry and an indigenous struggle to keep a moderate inclusive Islam as its nodal characteristic.
I have often wondered who among the Pakistani stakeholders in Kashmir is today more keen for an early solution to the dispute – is it the army, which has its hands full with a raging insurgency in the northwest but may see advantages in getting even with India by establishing the centrality of the prickly discussion as a requirement to meet its vital international obligations of containing anti-west Muslim extremists elsewhere? Assuming and not conceding that Pakistan has its way in Kashmir, with or without overt international help, is it ready for the consequences of adding one more ethnic headache to its existing four or five? And are the Kashmiris going to be happy with an overstretched nation state which is already in a turbulent flux?

Or is it a strategic quest for the narrow-minded religious militant groups who see in the eclectic and primarily Sufi Kashmir a staging post for their wider jihad against India and against everybody who fits into their crosshairs, including, ironically enough, the current pro-west state of Pakistan. The world on its part doesn’t seem to be excited about another Islamic state much less a religious nursery in this part of the world, and India will not allow what it considers to be its territories to be pared down to make itself more vulnerable than it is to Pakistan, China and assorted domestic and foreign insurgents. These are the elements of the regular narrative within which current discussions on Kashmir are staged and its many realistic and far-fetched solutions are posited by nation-states and well-heeled NGOs. Most of the contemporary elements in the Kashmir saga are completely new though and unrelated to the original colonial perfidy that drove its politics before the Cold War harnessed the dispute to American strategies in the region.

Rakesh Ankit, who studied history at Delhi and Oxford, has culled out enough recently declassified British government papers to reassemble a useful picture of Kashmir’s emergence as a key plank in the geographical architecture conceived and planned by colonialism and handed over to the Cold War. 1948: The crucial year in the history of Jammu and Kashmir, published in the current issue of Economic and Political Weekly, could prove to be a seminal work as it seeks to guide us to the roots of the problem and its many lingering shadows from the past that may yet decide its future.

Initially, according to Ankit, the British didn’t want the Kashmir conflict at all for two reasons. First, their military minds held that they needed both India and Pakistan to secure “the peace, welfare and security…from the Mediterranean to the China Sea” and to confront the “intrigue from Sinkiang and intervention from north” with “implications far beyond Kashmir”. They now had to choose one of the two.

Second, they had been worried about the weakening strategic hold in Palestine and Greece, unhappy with the increasingly autonomous and assertive American involvement there “without due regard to British interests”, anxious about Egypt and Iraq and arguing for “…a pan-Islamic federation/Arab league…to thwart Russia”. Against this backdrop, the Kashmir conflict made them concerned about losing control of Pakistan as well.

Losing Pakistan was not an option for London, says Ankit. The British chief of staff (COS) had underlined this five times between May 1945 – when Pakistan was but an idea of a few – and July 1947, when it was about to be a reality for all. They had first reported to Winston Churchill that Britain must retain its military connection with India in view of the “Soviet menace” for India was a valuable base for force deployment, a transit point for air and sea communications, a large reserve of manpower. Moreover, it had air bases in the north-west (now in Pakistan) from which Britain could threaten Soviet military installations. They repeated to Clement Attlee the importance of these north-west airfields.

In July 1946, they identified the crucial arc from Turkey to Pakistan, in view of essential oil supplies, defence and communications requirements, with the Russian threat. In November 1946, they summed up that “Western India” (post-1947 Pakistan) – with Karachi and Peshawar – was strategically and ideologically crucial for British Commonwealth interests. Five weeks before Partition, the COS concluded:

“The area of Pakistan is strategically the most important in the continent of India and the majority of our strategic requirements could be met by an agreement with Pakistan alone. We do not therefore consider that failure to obtain the [defence] agreement with India would cause us to modify any of our requirements.” Can we see shades of the current expediencies in that comment?

The Foreign Office (FO) viewed the Kashmir conflict as a religious war which “might be used by Russia as a pretext for intervening”. It felt that the “Russians tend to favour India as against Pakistan”. Moreover, any initiatives had to keep in mind “the present difficult position over Palestine” which made any “talks about HMG being unfair to Pakistan (over Kashmir) undesirable”. It reminded the Muslim countries via its embassies: “HMG might easily have handed over the whole of India to the Hindu majority. But they loyally protected the Muslim minority, even to the point of facilitating the creation of a separate independent Muslim state by going out of their way. This is what the Muslims themselves demanded. We have recognised Pakistan as a Dominion and have supported its admission to UNO. We would always come to Pakistan’s help.”

As India and Pakistan battled for their claim on Kashmir, the British had their own axe to grind. When India got the Instrument of Accession, disputed by Pakistan as a confirmed fact, and Indian troops landed in Srinagar, Lawrence Graffety-Smith, the UK High Commissioner in Pakistan (1947-51), spoke for many when he sent this report to London two days after Kashmir’s accession to India: “Indian government’s acceptance of accession of Kashmir [was] the heaviest blow yet sustained by Pakistan in her struggle for existence. Strategically, Pakistan’s frontiers have been greatly extended as a hostile India gains access to NWFP. This will lead to a redefinition of the Afghan policy for worse. Second, Russian interests will be aroused in Gilgit and NWFP which creates a new international situation which HMG and the US government cannot overlook. Third, there is a serious threat to Pakistan’s irrigation systems; hydroelectric projects from the accession [all five rivers draining the Pakistani Punjab flow from India, three through Kashmir] and finally, two-three million Kashmiri Muslims will worsen the already massive refugee problem with five-and-a-half million Muslims having been driven out of East Punjab.”

But the British were even-handed in their dealings with the new Dominions were they not? Here’s how they did that. Philip Noel-Baker headed the Commonwealth relations Office (1947-50). He worried that “incursions now taking place in Kashmir constitute an ‘armed attack’ upon Indian territory in view of their scale and of the fact that Kashmir has acceded to the Indian Union. This is so irrespective of whether forces in question are organised or disorganised or whether they are controlled by, or enjoy the convenience of, Government of Pakistan. India is therefore entitled to take measures which she may deem necessary for self-defence pending definitive action by Security Council to restore peace – prima facie – repelling invaders but possibly pursuit of invaders into Pakistan territory. Security Council could not decide out of hand that India was not justified in so doing in the case envisaged.”

The newly released British papers certainly make the current diplomatic and military manoeuvres on Kashmir and other colonial era disputes stalking the region look tame by comparison. There is much to laud in Ankit’s effort in putting together an argument. And there is much to ponder in the new and dangerous direction all the unresolved issues are taking us. It’s a shame that India and Pakistan, in the tradition of good old client states, continue to engage in a mindset that helps their foreign minders sow more discord between them. The Kashmiri people are the worst sufferers in this disastrous charade in which national servility on both sides passes for national interests.

 

[Ray]

Why are we discussing China in this thread, this thread is about Kashmir, lets stick to it.
IMO there are good amount people in Kashmir valley that either want's to separate or merge with Pakistan, the rest does not care as much, that is why we get 60% voting because majority does not care. We have done a good job so far of managing Kashmir, people are now tired of violence and will not support terrorist. There is no need for any action from India on Kashmir, as it will give Pakistan the reason they are looking for, so just continue to do what we are doing.

Kashmiris are not people green behind the ears.

They are well aware of the 'freedom' enjoyed by the Kashmiris in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Here is some examples of Azadi in what they call as Azad kashmir.

In June 1997, the supreme court of Pakistan referred the petitions to Pakistan's attorney-general for consultation (ibid.). According to Dawn, one supreme court justice, Bashir Ahmed Jehangiri, from North-West Frontier Province, "said that he had personal knowledge that [the] whole of the Northern Areas were being governed by the section officers of [the] Kashmir Affairs Ministry" . Dawn also quoted the justice as saying, "There is no law in the Northern Areas whatsoever". In 1994, the Pakistan supreme court overturned an earlier ruling by the Azad Kashmir high court that the Northern Areas were part of Azad Kashmir's jurisdiction.

Before a politician becomes a candidate for the Assembly in this territory declared as Azad, meaning independent, he has to declare he will be loyal to Pakistan.

The powers that be ensure that most 'suitable' candidate wins his/her seat. When these 'suitable' people become members of the Assembly, out of them the one which is more 'capable' of protecting interests of Pakistan is selected as the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir.

Ability, integrity, or experience in politics is not important, as he is generally there as a show piece in the shop of 'democracy' because all major decisions are mad by Islamabad or four Pakistanis appointed by them to run this territory. These Pakistani are known as 'lent officers' and hold powerful positions of IG Police, Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary and Accountant General.

In case of the other important post – President, he could be anyone, even a serving Pakistani army officer, as was the case with the former Presidents - Major General Anwar Khan or Brigadier Ayat Khan. Both of these men were serving army officers when it was decided by the Pakistani authorities to retire them and 'reward' them with the highest post in their colony- Azad Kashmir.

Compare that with India.

The Kashmiris are well aware of the rampant corruption, which is almost a cottage industry so to say. Such is the state of affair historically as could be understood from Lawrence's "Vale of Kashmir". They are aware that the Indian government would keep this hobby to the minimum. Even so it is a tall order.

Therefore, to feel that Kashmiris want to merge with Pakistan would not be a fair comment. If they did harbour such sentiments, then they would have not defied the Hurriyat and terrorists call and threat to boycott the general elections, at the risk to their lives.

They are also well aware that a landlocked Nation would be at the mercy of their neighbours. Hence, independence in their thoughts is a non starter.

It maybe of interest that the terrorists are paid Rs 2 lakhs for their tenure and murderers released from jails in Pakistan for this so called jihad are also condoned the remainder of their sentence!

As per the stone throwing rabble, they are paid to show 'dissent'.

If one reads the RAND report on Counter Insurgency in Pakistan, it clearly enunciates that the terrorists operating in Kashmir are non Kashmiris and it is rare that there are indigenous Kashmiris in the outfits.