Dear Yasin,
The Dialogue on the Future of Jammu & Kashmir organized by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies gained enormously by your presence on November 7, 2009. We recognize that the overlap in timing meant you had to rush to Delhi after registering your attendance at a TADA court hearing in Jammu. I also appreciate the fact that despite provocative slogans against you by a group of Kashmiri Pandits opposed to your presence in the Dialogue, you sat through the meeting to the end and not only explained your politics but also made a public commitment to consider some of the solutions proposed at the meeting as a starting point for a wide spectrum dialogue for the resolution of the Kashmir problem.
However, your outbursts of anger, disappointment and your cynical comments directed at the civil society organizations of India seem to me so misplaced and misleading that they demand a public response; a lot of them were directed at Manushi and at me. Since they have been widely reported in the Kashmiri and Pakistani newspapers, hence my response is also through the media.
For those who do not know the background, let me summarize your grievances as stated in your presentation at the Dialogue. You said that you had given up the gun at the urging of civil society organizations in India, that you took to "Gandhian methods of struggle" due to our persuasion. However, despite your move to non-violent means of struggle, you feel "betrayed" by the human rights community in India for ostensibly failing to help you achieve your political ends. You also claimed that subsequent events and your failure in achieving "azadi" have convinced you that Gandhian methods do not work in today’s India. In your view, they worked only while the British ruled India because the British provided a supportive environment for non- violent struggles.
What proof do you offer for that conclusion? That Gandhi was not subjected to third degree torture by the British, nor was Gandhi killed in an encounter with the police! No responsible leader would provide this form of naive praise of the British. You cannot dismiss the brutalities of the British colonial regime so easily. You don’t have to go too far—just read the life story of Badshah Khan—Gandhi’s most valued colleague and the most inspiring satyagrahi of that period. The brutalities inflicted on the army of satyagrahis mobilized by Badshah Khan—popularly known as the Frontier Gandhi— would put to shame even the apartheid regime of South Africa. Lakhs and lakhs of non violent satyagrahis were tortured in British jails. Many innocents were murdered in cold blood. The manner in which unarmed women and children were massacred in Jallianwala Bagh by General Dyer was not an isolated example of British brutality. Hundreds of thousands of satyagrahis took deadly beatings without raising their hand even in self-defence during the Salt Satyagraha. The cruel treatment routinely meted out to the Indian peasantry in extracting unprecedented high revenue and confiscating their lands arbitrarily for failure to pay ruinous usurious revenue, not sparing them even during crop failures, led to millions dying in unprecedented man made famines and left many more millions destitute, malnourished and terrorized.
You claim to have taken to Gandhian methods and claim that the movement for "azadi" in Kashmir is non violent —all on the grounds that some years ago you gave up the gun. Dear friend Yasin, you gave up the gun after you were arrested and jailed, not while you were on the outside, fighting. You never gave up supporting and defending those who continued using the gun. In the November 7 meeting, you declared openly that you are proud of having been the first one to take up the gun for the cause of Kashmir. When a young Kashmiri Pandit commented: "You may have given up the gun but that does not mean Kashmiri Muslims gave up the gun. The Hizbul Mujahiddin is also comprised of Kashmiri youth." Your response was: Since the Indian government did not hand over "azadi" to the "non-violent" JKLF, and since human rights organizations in India failed to persuade the Indian government to do so, Hizbul Mujahaddin are justified in taking up the gun. Yasin bhai, a true commitment to non-violence should not be so conditional and fragile. Gandhi did not say: "Give India independence or else I will unleash terrorist brigades on you." That was Jinnah’s method, not Gandhi’s.
As one of many people committed to strengthening democracy and human rights in India, one of my mandates is to ensure that even those who take to terrorist means, are given fair treatment, due process, and a fair trial, and that innocents are not targeted by security forces while combating terrorism. Our primary task, however, is to try to prevail upon the Indian government that draconian laws should not be used to crush democratic dissent. I don’t think I have failed in being consistent about those issues. I have often done my best to intervene with the government of India to defend the Constitutional rights of you and your colleagues, even when I have strong differences with your political goals and means you make use of to achieve them.
For example, when you asked me to intervene on behalf of some of your colleagues held in detention centres who you claimed and seemed to me to be innocent, I did so without hesitation. I even succeeded on some occasions in helping get them released—your verbal assurance that they were not involved in any terrorist crimes was an important consideration in my efforts. Do you think you could get such relief for your colleagues if they had been arrested on account of suspected terrorist links in England—a nation you so ardently admire— or in the US—the country you had put most faith in to help you gain "Azadi"?
In the November 7 meeting, you expressed your annoyance over the fact that representatives from Ladakh, Jammu, Poonch, and Rajouri had been invited. You dismissed their presence with open contempt saying: " Is this a mohalla meeting that we have gathered all these people to discuss local affairs?" This attitude of assuming that it is only Kashmiri Muslims of the Valley— and that too of a certain political persuasion— who ought to have the right to determine the future of the entire state of J&K has created huge fault lines and murderously hostile camps in the State.
No one organization has the right to be the sole spokesperson of the Kashmiri people. The strong voices opposing your politics in Jammu, Ladakh and even within Kashmir have to be given their due importance.
While you expected human rights organizations in India to help you secure "Azadi"—you have allowed the concept to remain so fuzzy that I have not yet understood what concretely you mean by it. I have spent hours trying to persuade you to work out the concrete modalities of your plank of "Azadi" and explain to us how your Azadi will be any different from the bloody 1947 Partition of India. What will be the fate of minorities in your 'Azad' Kashmir? What happens to the rights of those in Kashmir, Jammu, Rajouri, Poonch, Leh and Kargil and those in the Valley who do not wish to secede from India and do not want to live in your mythical Azad Kashmir? I never got anything resembling an answer. It also makes me very uneasy that the JKLF does not even have a constitution, leave alone any democratic machinery for managing its affairs.
Why on earth would human rights organizations help you partition Jammu & Kashmir in as senseless a manner as Jinnah did the entire subcontinent? Even for the November 7 Dialogue, I repeatedly requested you to give a concrete statement in writing on the form and content of Azadi. You said you don’t believe in putting things down in writing. Instead you preferred to talk about your personal trials and tribulations, how 600 of your JKLF cadres have been killed in encounters by security forces. Much as I mourn the loss of those lives, much as I deplore how our security forces sometimes lawlessly eliminate or brutalize those suspected of terrorism, Yasin bhai, you have to recognize that, unfair as it seems to you, those who live by the gun have to be prepared to be hunted down by the gun.
You say you are still proud of the fact that you took up the gun because without that the Kashmir issue would not have gained due attention. This is not how morally committed non-violent satyagrahis reason. That is not how those who draw inspiration from Gandhi should earn world attention. One does not become a satyagrahi by merely laying down arms, that too without ever expressing remorse for having unleashed a reign of terror and violence. A satyagrahi does not romanticize the power of the gun, especially when it has already caused havoc for millions.
To qualify being a satyagrahi also means:
Being an unconditional soldier of peace by actively opposing all forces of violence. Unfortunately, your love affair with the gun is not yet over, or else you would not claim to be proud of having been the first one to take up the gun as a means of furthering your politics; Even today, you do not condemn terrorist killings without reservations. Being committed to the path of Truth ( Satya) as a permanent seeker rather than as a self declared authority on Truth. A satyagrahi cannot be selective in choosing facts to suit his political arguments, which you often do. Being able to face unpalatable facts about one's own movement and an ability to take diverse view points and perspectives into account is vital for adhering to the path of Truth. A truth seeker does not indulge in mere partisan politics nor does he/she overstate his /her case, as you often do
Being able to keep one's anger under check and control so that it does not distort one's vision. A Satyagrahi does not demonize his/her opponents, nor does he/she hold malice and ill will towards others whose politics and vision are at variance from that of the satyagrahi. You seem to be in a permanent state of upset with people who do not agree with your politics.
It was a very revealing moment, Yasin, when you told me after one of your visits to Pakistan which I quote from memory:
"I have now realized the great difference between the human rights activists in India and Pakistan. The Indian activists mostly come from ordinary middle class families so they are small minded. The Pakistani human rights activists are mostly from aristocratic families—daughters of generals and wealthy land owning aristocrats. Therefore, they are large hearted and have a broader vision."
You have been understandably impressed by their pampering and hospitality extended to you. But you would do well to remember, many of them pamper you because you are a thorn in the flesh of the Indian establishment. They do not pamper their home grown secessionists--the Baluchis, the Pakhtoons and Sindhis, who wish to break away from Pakistan, as they do you.
You would also do well to remember that the aristocratic elite of Pakistan has done a poor job of defending their own democracy. They have also done a poor job of resisting the growing influence of the Taliban over their polity and civil society. Pakistan Administered Kashmir has a much poorer track record of democracy than the Kashmir you inhabit. The diverse ethnic groups and regions in Pakistan have far fewer rights than minority communities and regions have in India. No matter how well they treat you personally, the aristocratic elite of Pakistan are unlikely to deliver the "azadi" you are seeking.
Kashmiri society is being torn asunder by the conflicting ambitions of its leaders. As you well know, the mutual hostilities and suspicions of various Kashmiri leaders have even taken murderous forms. That is why it is vital to bridge these divides and important that diverse leaders come together to thrash out differences and explore common ground. Many of those who attended the November 7 meeting considered it an auspicious start of a new process whereby secessionist leaders who had never sat together on a common platform with mainstream political parties not only came together to seek out a consensually acceptable peaceful solution but also agreed to carry forward the debate around the concrete and innovative new Self Rule formula presented by the PDP.
Instead of expecting the human rights community in India to become your followers, instead of expecting them to fight your battles for you, it would be far better if you worked out a political platform that was more in consonance with their perspective. For all their limitations and humbler origins, the Indian middle classes which dominate democratic rights organizations in India have succeeded far better in keeping the authoritarian tendencies of their rulers under a measure of check and control. J& K has too many gun toting self appointed spokespersons of Kashmiri people. What it lacks is a vibrant community of people committed to strengthening human rights and democratic freedoms. Such voices have been marginalized or crushed by the gun in J&K. Reviving that tradition needs much greater courage and conviction than required for taking up the gun. I hope to see you occupy that space in the coming years.
With good wishes,
Madhu Kishwar,
Founder Editor, Manushi
Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
November 14, 2009
http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262922
"Roots In Kashmir" is an initiative launched by us, the Kashmiri Pandit Youth, to reclaim our Roots that identify us. Even though we have been hounded out of our homes and hearths in the Kashmir valley, our "Roots" are very much anchored in the Vitasta Valley. This is an initiative to protest and raise the general awareness of public to a level where our "fight for our roots" is felt, heard and acted upon. rootsinkashmir@outlook.com
Showing posts with label PDP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PDP. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Challenge of Fundamentalist Intifada-Dr.Ajay Chrungoo
Courtesy-Vijayvani
Separatists go for the Overkill
The headlines of local newspapers in the Kashmir Valley have been blaring with relentless intensity… July 09 - Woman’s rape, murder rocks Kupwara; July 08 - Asrar’s killing sparks massive protests in Srinagar. July 07 - Bomb hurled at Baramulla police station, 3 grenade explosions in 2 days; July 06 - explosions rock Srinagar, Sopore; July 05 - Army had abducted Basharat: Family; July 04 - Larkipora teenager released, Protests in Islamabad; July 02 - Protests in curfewed Varmul; youth succumbs, Varmul toll 4; July 01 - Police fire smoke shells at mourners, thousand attend funeral of 19 year old Amir.
Public mobilization campaigns and demonstrations reflecting seditious and secessionist intensity more than anti-government sentiment have been going on in Kashmir Valley since the police recovered the bodies of two ladies, Niloufer and Aisya, at Shopian in Pulwama district, on 30 May. The separatist mobilizations have reflected strange eagerness which needs to be understood and placed in a proper perspective.
The spate of hartals and orchestrated violence on the streets left a large section of people bewildered, contrary to propaganda by the local media. This bewilderment of the general public with the methodology adopted by the separatist leadership and the response of the government is not a fiction as many Kashmir experts sitting in Delhi would like us to believe. It involves a significant section of population in the Valley, and occasionally their voices find expression in the columns of an otherwise partisan local media.
Syed Rafiuddin Bukhari, columnist, Rising Kashmir, provides a glimpse: “Is Kashmir really fragile or has it been made to behave like that? Does this question boggle the mind of those who cover, analyze and interpret the political perceptions! This week’s incidents in Baramulla have shown that no one controls Kashmir, but only those who want to keep the pot boiling… in Baramulla where the police was handling a simple case of kidnapping of a 15 year old girl from Binner. The accused in the case was identified and one of the accomplices was rounded up. His wife went to the police station to seek his release but was not obliged. She came out and alleged that the police passed indecent remarks at her. This worked like jungle fire and the whole town was up in flames… it needs an explanation as to why the young Kashmiris should fall prey to such a situation in which four young boys give their blood for something which is not part of the struggle.” The culprit and this lady had known links with a local political party.
The over-eagerness of separatist formations to go for overkill was manifest from the day of the recovery of the dead bodies of Niloufer and Asiya in Shopian and the initial bungling of government response. In Shopian, local discourse reflected that people never believed the role of CRPF or Army in the killings. People asked why the bodies of the ladies were left just outside the CRPF camp if CRPF personnel had committed the crime. People suspected the moral integrity of the husband of Niloufer. Her own relatives were less enthusiastic about the public exposure of the affair. Justice Jan Commission brought this facet into the open. The report has undermined separatist mobilization more than anything else in Shopian, because it has found resonance with the common perception of the people.
The Justice Jan Commission recorded the rift between the two families from Tukru and Bongam in Shopian district. In April-May 2007, Niloufer eloped with Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar against the wishes of her family. The Commission noted, “It will be in place to mention here that Niloufer Jan belongs to a “Peer” family which is treated in the society with the degree of respect and honour for their upper class status, where as Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar belongs to “Khaar” family which is included in the other backward classes of the society. This marriage had given birth to a serious hatred of Peer family towards Ahangar family. It is reliably learnt that Zeerak Shah (brother of Niloufer), along with his friends, had even threatened the Ahangar family of dire consequences if Niloufer is not handed over to her family.”
The Commission recorded that after the burial of Niloufer and Asiya, Zeerak Shah pitched a tent at Tukroo and gathered his friends, relatives, and other villagers, blocked the road at Tukroo, smashed window panes of civil and government vehicles, and raised anti-India and pro-freedom slogans. The commission took note of the fact that Shakeel was known for his immoral activities and had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
“Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar was working with his brothers at welding workshop at Shopian. He eloped with Niloufer Jan in 2007 and went outside Shopian. After this return he started his own business by opening a shop of readymade furniture items near police station Shopian… in October 2008, Shakeel purchased an orchard (1 kanal 16 marla) in Nagbal-Dehgam for about 5.30 lakhs. He also owns a Maruti car and maintains a good living standard. Further it is learnt that he does not carry a good reputation among the society and is being known for his immoral activities.”
It can be safely presumed that these facts would have been known to separatists’ think tanks. They latched upon the twin murders to unleash frenzy, caring nothing for loss of face and credibility in case the facts about the gruesome incidents proved wrong. The cracking of Asrar’s murder case, which was nothing more than the outcome of jealousy in a love triangle, exposed separatist indulgence in matters which shamed one and all.
A strange hope seems to pervade the thinking of separatist echelons that if they build public pressure, something dramatic may happen. The Hurriyat leader and main force behind the public upsurge betrayed his feelings when he said, “People should make a difference between right and wrong and follow the right path. New dawn is awaiting us and it is the crucial juncture that demands patience and consistency.”
Another Hurriyat leader, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, described confusion among people as ‘anarchy’, ‘we should not look like a divided house, separatist organizations should not be in a rat race to issue strike calls… we need to think of creating alternative ways of protest. We have to carry on the movement and lives of the people as well.”
The roots of this hope lay in certain recent developments involving the region as well as the experience of last year’s agitation against land transfer to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board.
India Ragdo-II and the Catalysts
The agitation on Amarnath land exposed cleavages in Indian polity. A section of the high profile liberal elite in India came out brazenly supporting separation of Kashmir from India one way or other. The likes of Arundhati Roy, Shabana Azmi, Vir Sanghvi, Prem Shankar Jha, and AG Noorani, through spoken or written words created an impression amongst the separatist rank and file that ‘Azadi’ was round the corner. ‘Ek Dakka Aur Do’, (just one push more) was the common refrain of separatist campaigners then.
The public mobilization had less to do with the actual land row and more with wrecking Indian sovereignty over Kashmir. The campaign was not called India Ragda/Ragdo-I for only sloganeering. It reflected the underlying motivation. Carrying the experience forward this year’s campaigners unleashed, after the recovery of the dead bodies of two ladies in Shopian, India Ragda/Ragdo-II.
Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain, Department of Law, Kashmir University, called the recent unrest in the Valley the ‘resistance beyond the armed struggle;’ and the spirit underlying India Ragdo-II as, “Indian state needs to realize that it is confronting a highly informed and educated young generation of Kashmiris, they know the direction in which right of self determination is evolving and has evolved. It has definitely evolved in a direction which is advantageous to Kashmir, not against it. East Timor and Eritrea availed it despite being non- colonial possessions. Montenegro enjoyed the right of self-determination in spite of having forty five percent opponents to independence.”
The separatist mind articulates its position vehemently. It describes expressions of separatism as the expression of a ‘Resistant Kashmir’, and demeans political engagement and democratic process in the state as ‘collaborating Kashmir’. The manifest disenchantment of the common man with the separatist leadership and his confusion is trivialized as ‘vacillating Kashmir’.
The India Ragdo-II intifada in Kashmir is being guided by such a mindset. This mindset would have taken note of the admission in early May, towards the fag end of parliamentary elections, by none other than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, “…I have always believed a strong peaceful moderate Pakistan in India’s interests. We worked very hard on that and in fact I and General Musharraf had reached nearly an agreement, a non territorial solution to all problems, but then General Musharraf got into many difficulties with the Chief Justice and other fronts and therefore the whole process came to a halt.”
Separatist think tanks in Kashmir have been relentlessly searching a way to circumvent the predicament in which Pakistan is caught up and chart out a course to bring a halt to the ‘halt’.
Columnist Syed Rafiuddin Bukhari, in Rising Kashmir, commented, “…Pakistan Government is grappling with the worst ever crisis, the Kashmiri leadership should stop looking towards Islamabad and think independently to charter their own course.”
India Ragdo-II is the course separatists have embarked upon. Their hope lies more on the support which they generate amongst a section of entrenched liberal elite, be it Arundhati Roy or Prem Shankar Jha, people who advocate a concession on sovereignty not to bail out India from international pressure but out of an ideological outlook which recognizes Muslim communalism as a progressive secular imperative for India to reconcile with.
Separatist rank and file see some space in the new American foreign policy. The new US ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer, statement that Kashmir “has been an extremely sensitive hotspot for the world and for the region where we have almost experienced thermonuclear war on several occasions,” has been music to the separatist rank and file. So have previous statements by Assistant Secretary of State William Burns or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Separatists have not missed the success of the Pakistani government in toning down India’s assertions on the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The release of Hafeez Syed is seen as a gradually stiffening stance of Pakistan on Kashmir. Keeping the pot boiling in Kashmir through a non-violent intifada serves Pakistan preserve its Kashmir Policy with reinforced moral legitimacy.
Last but not the least, the Indian Ragdo-II intifada as per separatist thinking delegitimises the democratic process in the state. Mr. Arjimand Hussain Talib brings out this aspect brazenly: “It should now be clear to India’s political and media establishment that high voter turnout in Assembly elections does not mean an end of Kashmiri Movement for self determination. Kashmir needs a real political settlement which goes beyond the pre-1989 military status quo”.
The Paradox
The Central government if it has any inclination to diffuse the situation on the ground has to resolve a paradox. The National Conference which leads the ruling alliance in J&K shares and identifies with the common minimum agenda of campaigners in the Valley streets. In a full page advertisement, the state government declared its three main and primary achievements since assuming power: i). Bold decision taken after 20 years to replace CRPF by locals police; ii) First CM to plead eloquently for withdrawal of AFSPA, Union Government flags the issue; iii) Presence of Magistrates with police/security forces made mandatory while dealing with law and order problems and iv) Bomai (Army) camp re-located within a month.
The main opposition PDP, both factions of Hurriyat and the local Bar Council all have revocation of AFPSA and demilitarization as their main demands. We have a piquant situation where the opposition, mainstream as well as separatist, and the state government are politically on the same side.
The situation becomes bizarre when a section of the Government of India identifies with this consensus. The incidental or accidental remarks of Vice President Mohammad Hamid Ansari, while referring to the PM’s Working Group on Confidence Building Measures of which he was then Chairman, justified the key demand of separatists during the current unrest. The Vice President observed that implementation of its recommendations was considered by the Prime Minister as the key to retaining people’s confidence. In his own report then as chairman of the Working Group, ignoring the dissent within, Ansari recommended revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The entire report did not address anti- terrorism measures as a vital component of confidence building in the state.
Even though in all incidents which lead to protests in recent times, the suspected culprits were locals working in local police or territorial army or government officials, the foremost demand of everybody of consequence was removal of paramilitary forces and army from the state.
India Ragdo-Intifada has nothing to do with the incidents which caused public resentment. It essentially uses the incidents to lacerate symbols of Indian sovereignty. It seeks to project an extremely permissive, conniving and inactive state as a demonic police state. The Government, unwilling to defend its security establishment, takes a totally defensive position and allows public mobilizations by the most regressive and fundamentalist regimes operating on the ground. It declares lack of intention to act publicly by either withdrawing its security forces or ordering them not to intervene, whatever the provocation.
The ruling National Conference has an ideological resonance with the common minimum programme of agitationists to force demilitarization, but an existential need to preserve the military presence. The central government knows that any laxity in security operations in the state may lead to catastrophic results, given the situation in Pakistan. Yet it seeks to maintain the stance of a neutral player while its security forces are described and lampooned as an occupation force in the valley. Civilians in the valley know well that the very survival of civil society depends upon the security forces, yet they demonize them. The paradox is deep and powerful.
Inside The Present Turmoil
Most events which lead to public resentment invariably have a sexual angle. Separatists are instigating the public that organs of the Indian state are not only indulging in extra-constitutional violence, but are perpetuating moral debasement of Kashmir society. The mobilization by Dukhtaran-e-Millat had the same purpose, when sexual scandals involving government officials and politicians came to the fore. We are witnessing in the Valley glaring signs of social disorganization caused by militarization of the social milieu. Local papers have time and again highlighted the proliferation of sexual cartels and the flesh trade. Ahmad Ali Fayaz, special correspondent, Daily Excelsior, brought out the magnitude of increase in the number of brothels in Srinagar city a few years ago. A well known ideologue and lobbyist of separatists also referred to ‘prostitution cartels’ in the valley in his columns in the local media.
Most alarming is the penetration of flesh trade in the government and security establishment, rather than government promoting moral debasement in society. The concerns of a significant section of common Kashmiris are still unheard.
Jihadi militarization brought along with it the evil of temporary marriage – Mutah – which soon became a social sanction for debauchery. The dreaded terrorist Akbar Bhai is reported to have married 83 local girls. One Shakeela Bano was abducted from her houseboat by terrorists and subjected to mass rape before being burnt to death. Al Umar terrorists did this to Shakeela because she refused to marry a terrorist for two years of her captivity, during which she was raped regularly. After running away from her captors, she escaped to Jammu where an NGO looked after her. But when she ventured back home, she was again abducted and burnt to death.
Security forces then destroyed the prostitution cartels of the terrorists of Al Umar and rescued 150 women in captivity. Around the same time, security forces succeeded in freeing 10 women held captive by terrorists in Dacchan Marwa region of Kishtwar in Jammu.
Numerous such incidents can be quoted. The introduction of promiscuity by terrorists has taken a toll on society. Militarization of the social milieu in the Valley has played havoc with age old traditions and values. Government establishment and security forces are face to face with this menace, but are yet to devise a counter response to prevent penetration of the flesh trade in their rank and file.
The situation becomes alarming when we factor in reports that Kashmir tops the world in the list of opium abusers, as per research of ‘Community Drug Abuse Study Survey Kashmir,’ by well known psychiatrist Dr. Mushtaq Margoob. His evaluation has produced astounding statistics. 47.77 percent of population in Kashmir consumes some type of drug, including tobacco and its allied products.
There are 24.32 lakh substance abuses (including tobacco abuse) in Kashmir, which includes 2.11 lakh opioid, 1.37 lakhs cannabis and around 38,000 alcohol abuses. The number of female drug addicts is alarming. The NGO, Hindustan National Social Security (HNSS), conducted a de-addiction programme in 2008-2009 amongst females. The female drug addicts were literates in the age group of 18-33, from urban as well as village backgrounds.
Around the time the Shopian agitation was going, a national electronic channel showed how the army was involved in destroying poppy fields around Shopian. Police also reported recovering quintals of Bhukki - the locally produced poppy husk sold in north India.
Conclusion
Through the current Intifada, separatists seek moral legitimacy. They seek to accord respectability to a regressive anti-freedom movement. They are calibrating its interventions to remain relevant even if Pakistan continues to vacillate, or even collapses. The intifada is targeting the weakness of Indian policy to fight militarized pan-Islamic fundamentalism.
The moral of the story is to de-legitimise this Intifada by educating the public about the impact of militarization of society. Another imperative is to stop fiddling with dangerous ideas of self-rule or the Musharraf Plan. These plans undermine the ideological foundations of India. Government legitimacy to these plans keeps the pot boiling in Kashmir. We have to realize that ideological compromise eventually leads to crippling territorial consequences.
Dr. Ajay Chrungoo is chairman, Panun Kashmir
Separatists go for the Overkill
The headlines of local newspapers in the Kashmir Valley have been blaring with relentless intensity… July 09 - Woman’s rape, murder rocks Kupwara; July 08 - Asrar’s killing sparks massive protests in Srinagar. July 07 - Bomb hurled at Baramulla police station, 3 grenade explosions in 2 days; July 06 - explosions rock Srinagar, Sopore; July 05 - Army had abducted Basharat: Family; July 04 - Larkipora teenager released, Protests in Islamabad; July 02 - Protests in curfewed Varmul; youth succumbs, Varmul toll 4; July 01 - Police fire smoke shells at mourners, thousand attend funeral of 19 year old Amir.
Public mobilization campaigns and demonstrations reflecting seditious and secessionist intensity more than anti-government sentiment have been going on in Kashmir Valley since the police recovered the bodies of two ladies, Niloufer and Aisya, at Shopian in Pulwama district, on 30 May. The separatist mobilizations have reflected strange eagerness which needs to be understood and placed in a proper perspective.
The spate of hartals and orchestrated violence on the streets left a large section of people bewildered, contrary to propaganda by the local media. This bewilderment of the general public with the methodology adopted by the separatist leadership and the response of the government is not a fiction as many Kashmir experts sitting in Delhi would like us to believe. It involves a significant section of population in the Valley, and occasionally their voices find expression in the columns of an otherwise partisan local media.
Syed Rafiuddin Bukhari, columnist, Rising Kashmir, provides a glimpse: “Is Kashmir really fragile or has it been made to behave like that? Does this question boggle the mind of those who cover, analyze and interpret the political perceptions! This week’s incidents in Baramulla have shown that no one controls Kashmir, but only those who want to keep the pot boiling… in Baramulla where the police was handling a simple case of kidnapping of a 15 year old girl from Binner. The accused in the case was identified and one of the accomplices was rounded up. His wife went to the police station to seek his release but was not obliged. She came out and alleged that the police passed indecent remarks at her. This worked like jungle fire and the whole town was up in flames… it needs an explanation as to why the young Kashmiris should fall prey to such a situation in which four young boys give their blood for something which is not part of the struggle.” The culprit and this lady had known links with a local political party.
The over-eagerness of separatist formations to go for overkill was manifest from the day of the recovery of the dead bodies of Niloufer and Asiya in Shopian and the initial bungling of government response. In Shopian, local discourse reflected that people never believed the role of CRPF or Army in the killings. People asked why the bodies of the ladies were left just outside the CRPF camp if CRPF personnel had committed the crime. People suspected the moral integrity of the husband of Niloufer. Her own relatives were less enthusiastic about the public exposure of the affair. Justice Jan Commission brought this facet into the open. The report has undermined separatist mobilization more than anything else in Shopian, because it has found resonance with the common perception of the people.
The Justice Jan Commission recorded the rift between the two families from Tukru and Bongam in Shopian district. In April-May 2007, Niloufer eloped with Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar against the wishes of her family. The Commission noted, “It will be in place to mention here that Niloufer Jan belongs to a “Peer” family which is treated in the society with the degree of respect and honour for their upper class status, where as Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar belongs to “Khaar” family which is included in the other backward classes of the society. This marriage had given birth to a serious hatred of Peer family towards Ahangar family. It is reliably learnt that Zeerak Shah (brother of Niloufer), along with his friends, had even threatened the Ahangar family of dire consequences if Niloufer is not handed over to her family.”
The Commission recorded that after the burial of Niloufer and Asiya, Zeerak Shah pitched a tent at Tukroo and gathered his friends, relatives, and other villagers, blocked the road at Tukroo, smashed window panes of civil and government vehicles, and raised anti-India and pro-freedom slogans. The commission took note of the fact that Shakeel was known for his immoral activities and had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
“Shakeel Ahmad Ahangar was working with his brothers at welding workshop at Shopian. He eloped with Niloufer Jan in 2007 and went outside Shopian. After this return he started his own business by opening a shop of readymade furniture items near police station Shopian… in October 2008, Shakeel purchased an orchard (1 kanal 16 marla) in Nagbal-Dehgam for about 5.30 lakhs. He also owns a Maruti car and maintains a good living standard. Further it is learnt that he does not carry a good reputation among the society and is being known for his immoral activities.”
It can be safely presumed that these facts would have been known to separatists’ think tanks. They latched upon the twin murders to unleash frenzy, caring nothing for loss of face and credibility in case the facts about the gruesome incidents proved wrong. The cracking of Asrar’s murder case, which was nothing more than the outcome of jealousy in a love triangle, exposed separatist indulgence in matters which shamed one and all.
A strange hope seems to pervade the thinking of separatist echelons that if they build public pressure, something dramatic may happen. The Hurriyat leader and main force behind the public upsurge betrayed his feelings when he said, “People should make a difference between right and wrong and follow the right path. New dawn is awaiting us and it is the crucial juncture that demands patience and consistency.”
Another Hurriyat leader, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, described confusion among people as ‘anarchy’, ‘we should not look like a divided house, separatist organizations should not be in a rat race to issue strike calls… we need to think of creating alternative ways of protest. We have to carry on the movement and lives of the people as well.”
The roots of this hope lay in certain recent developments involving the region as well as the experience of last year’s agitation against land transfer to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board.
India Ragdo-II and the Catalysts
The agitation on Amarnath land exposed cleavages in Indian polity. A section of the high profile liberal elite in India came out brazenly supporting separation of Kashmir from India one way or other. The likes of Arundhati Roy, Shabana Azmi, Vir Sanghvi, Prem Shankar Jha, and AG Noorani, through spoken or written words created an impression amongst the separatist rank and file that ‘Azadi’ was round the corner. ‘Ek Dakka Aur Do’, (just one push more) was the common refrain of separatist campaigners then.
The public mobilization had less to do with the actual land row and more with wrecking Indian sovereignty over Kashmir. The campaign was not called India Ragda/Ragdo-I for only sloganeering. It reflected the underlying motivation. Carrying the experience forward this year’s campaigners unleashed, after the recovery of the dead bodies of two ladies in Shopian, India Ragda/Ragdo-II.
Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain, Department of Law, Kashmir University, called the recent unrest in the Valley the ‘resistance beyond the armed struggle;’ and the spirit underlying India Ragdo-II as, “Indian state needs to realize that it is confronting a highly informed and educated young generation of Kashmiris, they know the direction in which right of self determination is evolving and has evolved. It has definitely evolved in a direction which is advantageous to Kashmir, not against it. East Timor and Eritrea availed it despite being non- colonial possessions. Montenegro enjoyed the right of self-determination in spite of having forty five percent opponents to independence.”
The separatist mind articulates its position vehemently. It describes expressions of separatism as the expression of a ‘Resistant Kashmir’, and demeans political engagement and democratic process in the state as ‘collaborating Kashmir’. The manifest disenchantment of the common man with the separatist leadership and his confusion is trivialized as ‘vacillating Kashmir’.
The India Ragdo-II intifada in Kashmir is being guided by such a mindset. This mindset would have taken note of the admission in early May, towards the fag end of parliamentary elections, by none other than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, “…I have always believed a strong peaceful moderate Pakistan in India’s interests. We worked very hard on that and in fact I and General Musharraf had reached nearly an agreement, a non territorial solution to all problems, but then General Musharraf got into many difficulties with the Chief Justice and other fronts and therefore the whole process came to a halt.”
Separatist think tanks in Kashmir have been relentlessly searching a way to circumvent the predicament in which Pakistan is caught up and chart out a course to bring a halt to the ‘halt’.
Columnist Syed Rafiuddin Bukhari, in Rising Kashmir, commented, “…Pakistan Government is grappling with the worst ever crisis, the Kashmiri leadership should stop looking towards Islamabad and think independently to charter their own course.”
India Ragdo-II is the course separatists have embarked upon. Their hope lies more on the support which they generate amongst a section of entrenched liberal elite, be it Arundhati Roy or Prem Shankar Jha, people who advocate a concession on sovereignty not to bail out India from international pressure but out of an ideological outlook which recognizes Muslim communalism as a progressive secular imperative for India to reconcile with.
Separatist rank and file see some space in the new American foreign policy. The new US ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer, statement that Kashmir “has been an extremely sensitive hotspot for the world and for the region where we have almost experienced thermonuclear war on several occasions,” has been music to the separatist rank and file. So have previous statements by Assistant Secretary of State William Burns or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Separatists have not missed the success of the Pakistani government in toning down India’s assertions on the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The release of Hafeez Syed is seen as a gradually stiffening stance of Pakistan on Kashmir. Keeping the pot boiling in Kashmir through a non-violent intifada serves Pakistan preserve its Kashmir Policy with reinforced moral legitimacy.
Last but not the least, the Indian Ragdo-II intifada as per separatist thinking delegitimises the democratic process in the state. Mr. Arjimand Hussain Talib brings out this aspect brazenly: “It should now be clear to India’s political and media establishment that high voter turnout in Assembly elections does not mean an end of Kashmiri Movement for self determination. Kashmir needs a real political settlement which goes beyond the pre-1989 military status quo”.
The Paradox
The Central government if it has any inclination to diffuse the situation on the ground has to resolve a paradox. The National Conference which leads the ruling alliance in J&K shares and identifies with the common minimum agenda of campaigners in the Valley streets. In a full page advertisement, the state government declared its three main and primary achievements since assuming power: i). Bold decision taken after 20 years to replace CRPF by locals police; ii) First CM to plead eloquently for withdrawal of AFSPA, Union Government flags the issue; iii) Presence of Magistrates with police/security forces made mandatory while dealing with law and order problems and iv) Bomai (Army) camp re-located within a month.
The main opposition PDP, both factions of Hurriyat and the local Bar Council all have revocation of AFPSA and demilitarization as their main demands. We have a piquant situation where the opposition, mainstream as well as separatist, and the state government are politically on the same side.
The situation becomes bizarre when a section of the Government of India identifies with this consensus. The incidental or accidental remarks of Vice President Mohammad Hamid Ansari, while referring to the PM’s Working Group on Confidence Building Measures of which he was then Chairman, justified the key demand of separatists during the current unrest. The Vice President observed that implementation of its recommendations was considered by the Prime Minister as the key to retaining people’s confidence. In his own report then as chairman of the Working Group, ignoring the dissent within, Ansari recommended revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The entire report did not address anti- terrorism measures as a vital component of confidence building in the state.
Even though in all incidents which lead to protests in recent times, the suspected culprits were locals working in local police or territorial army or government officials, the foremost demand of everybody of consequence was removal of paramilitary forces and army from the state.
India Ragdo-Intifada has nothing to do with the incidents which caused public resentment. It essentially uses the incidents to lacerate symbols of Indian sovereignty. It seeks to project an extremely permissive, conniving and inactive state as a demonic police state. The Government, unwilling to defend its security establishment, takes a totally defensive position and allows public mobilizations by the most regressive and fundamentalist regimes operating on the ground. It declares lack of intention to act publicly by either withdrawing its security forces or ordering them not to intervene, whatever the provocation.
The ruling National Conference has an ideological resonance with the common minimum programme of agitationists to force demilitarization, but an existential need to preserve the military presence. The central government knows that any laxity in security operations in the state may lead to catastrophic results, given the situation in Pakistan. Yet it seeks to maintain the stance of a neutral player while its security forces are described and lampooned as an occupation force in the valley. Civilians in the valley know well that the very survival of civil society depends upon the security forces, yet they demonize them. The paradox is deep and powerful.
Inside The Present Turmoil
Most events which lead to public resentment invariably have a sexual angle. Separatists are instigating the public that organs of the Indian state are not only indulging in extra-constitutional violence, but are perpetuating moral debasement of Kashmir society. The mobilization by Dukhtaran-e-Millat had the same purpose, when sexual scandals involving government officials and politicians came to the fore. We are witnessing in the Valley glaring signs of social disorganization caused by militarization of the social milieu. Local papers have time and again highlighted the proliferation of sexual cartels and the flesh trade. Ahmad Ali Fayaz, special correspondent, Daily Excelsior, brought out the magnitude of increase in the number of brothels in Srinagar city a few years ago. A well known ideologue and lobbyist of separatists also referred to ‘prostitution cartels’ in the valley in his columns in the local media.
Most alarming is the penetration of flesh trade in the government and security establishment, rather than government promoting moral debasement in society. The concerns of a significant section of common Kashmiris are still unheard.
Jihadi militarization brought along with it the evil of temporary marriage – Mutah – which soon became a social sanction for debauchery. The dreaded terrorist Akbar Bhai is reported to have married 83 local girls. One Shakeela Bano was abducted from her houseboat by terrorists and subjected to mass rape before being burnt to death. Al Umar terrorists did this to Shakeela because she refused to marry a terrorist for two years of her captivity, during which she was raped regularly. After running away from her captors, she escaped to Jammu where an NGO looked after her. But when she ventured back home, she was again abducted and burnt to death.
Security forces then destroyed the prostitution cartels of the terrorists of Al Umar and rescued 150 women in captivity. Around the same time, security forces succeeded in freeing 10 women held captive by terrorists in Dacchan Marwa region of Kishtwar in Jammu.
Numerous such incidents can be quoted. The introduction of promiscuity by terrorists has taken a toll on society. Militarization of the social milieu in the Valley has played havoc with age old traditions and values. Government establishment and security forces are face to face with this menace, but are yet to devise a counter response to prevent penetration of the flesh trade in their rank and file.
The situation becomes alarming when we factor in reports that Kashmir tops the world in the list of opium abusers, as per research of ‘Community Drug Abuse Study Survey Kashmir,’ by well known psychiatrist Dr. Mushtaq Margoob. His evaluation has produced astounding statistics. 47.77 percent of population in Kashmir consumes some type of drug, including tobacco and its allied products.
There are 24.32 lakh substance abuses (including tobacco abuse) in Kashmir, which includes 2.11 lakh opioid, 1.37 lakhs cannabis and around 38,000 alcohol abuses. The number of female drug addicts is alarming. The NGO, Hindustan National Social Security (HNSS), conducted a de-addiction programme in 2008-2009 amongst females. The female drug addicts were literates in the age group of 18-33, from urban as well as village backgrounds.
Around the time the Shopian agitation was going, a national electronic channel showed how the army was involved in destroying poppy fields around Shopian. Police also reported recovering quintals of Bhukki - the locally produced poppy husk sold in north India.
Conclusion
Through the current Intifada, separatists seek moral legitimacy. They seek to accord respectability to a regressive anti-freedom movement. They are calibrating its interventions to remain relevant even if Pakistan continues to vacillate, or even collapses. The intifada is targeting the weakness of Indian policy to fight militarized pan-Islamic fundamentalism.
The moral of the story is to de-legitimise this Intifada by educating the public about the impact of militarization of society. Another imperative is to stop fiddling with dangerous ideas of self-rule or the Musharraf Plan. These plans undermine the ideological foundations of India. Government legitimacy to these plans keeps the pot boiling in Kashmir. We have to realize that ideological compromise eventually leads to crippling territorial consequences.
Dr. Ajay Chrungoo is chairman, Panun Kashmir
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
PDP man gets thrashing in his own backyard-by his own people
Dilawar Mir beaten up in Sopore
Excelsior Correspondent
SOPORE, Aug 11: Senior PDP leader and former Minister incharge Horticulture, Mohammad Dilawar Mir had a narrow escape when a gathering of angry fruit growers and traders attacked him near Fruit Mandi last evening. Mir’s car was damaged in the attack.
Eyewitnesses said that Dilawar Mir, who has been yielding considerable influence in the fruit-rich belt of Sopore-Rafiabad-Baramulla and has served two terms as a Minister, appeared to show PDP’s solidarity with the fruit growers. He also wanted to convey PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti’s support to today’s call for march to Muzaffarabad.
Suddenly, a group of fruit growers and residents of Sopore took objection to Mir’s action and dismissed him "one of the killers of Kashmiris". They also expressed their anger against Mir’s party and shouted that it was responsible for creating the current crisis first by allotting land to SASB and later by demanding its cancellation. They lamented that "economic blockade" in Jammu was the result of the same "mischief" by PDP.
Sources said that Mir was quick to beat his retreat and succeeded in escaping though the crowd damaged glass screens of his vehicle.
While declaring PDP’s support to the march, Mehbooba had on Sunday said that two of her party leaders and former Horticulture Ministers, namely Abdul Aziz Zargar and Dilawar Mir, would join the fruit growers’ rally to Muzaffarabad.
Excelsior Correspondent
SOPORE, Aug 11: Senior PDP leader and former Minister incharge Horticulture, Mohammad Dilawar Mir had a narrow escape when a gathering of angry fruit growers and traders attacked him near Fruit Mandi last evening. Mir’s car was damaged in the attack.
Eyewitnesses said that Dilawar Mir, who has been yielding considerable influence in the fruit-rich belt of Sopore-Rafiabad-Baramulla and has served two terms as a Minister, appeared to show PDP’s solidarity with the fruit growers. He also wanted to convey PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti’s support to today’s call for march to Muzaffarabad.
Suddenly, a group of fruit growers and residents of Sopore took objection to Mir’s action and dismissed him "one of the killers of Kashmiris". They also expressed their anger against Mir’s party and shouted that it was responsible for creating the current crisis first by allotting land to SASB and later by demanding its cancellation. They lamented that "economic blockade" in Jammu was the result of the same "mischief" by PDP.
Sources said that Mir was quick to beat his retreat and succeeded in escaping though the crowd damaged glass screens of his vehicle.
While declaring PDP’s support to the march, Mehbooba had on Sunday said that two of her party leaders and former Horticulture Ministers, namely Abdul Aziz Zargar and Dilawar Mir, would join the fruit growers’ rally to Muzaffarabad.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
PDP now opposes the transfer, but records show how it said the opposite(Indian Express)
ON THE RECORD-Indian Express
February 26, 2008: ‘The proprietary status of forest land shall remain unchanged’
PDP now opposes the transfer, but records show how it said the opposite
February 26, 2008: ‘The proprietary status of forest land shall remain unchanged’
PDP now opposes the transfer, but records show how it said the opposite
As the PM holds an all-party meeting in Jammu and Kashmir, we reproduce the key documents around the Amarnath land-transfer
Memorandum for Submission to the Cabinet
Memorandum for Submission to the Cabinet
Government of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Sectt: Forest Department
Subject:- Use of Forest Land for non-forestry purpose
1. The Forest Department has received requisitions from various Agencies/Departments for diversion of forest land for non forestry purposes. The Memorandum deals with the cases which were cleared by the Advisory Committee constituted under J&K Forest Conservation Act, 1997 in its 39th Meeting held on July 12, 2007 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary.
These cases were placed before the Cabinet in its meeting on February 26, 2008. The item was “deferred” since some clarifications were necessary about the wildlife perspective in respect of the proposal of Amarnathji Shrine Board (discussed as case 4 of this Memorandum). Pursuant to the above, a Committee of officers was constituted vide Government Order No. 108-Fst of 2008 dated March 17, 2008 to look into that proposal. The report of the Committee has since been received and is attached as Annexure to this Memorandum.
Case No.4
12. Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) has made a requisition for diversion of forest land measuring 39.88 hectares falling under Compartment No. 63a/Sindh in Block Kullan, Range Sindh, Sindh Forest Division for construction/provision of buildings/hutments and other infrastructure for visiting Yatries of Amarnath Ji Yatra at Baltal and Domail.
13. Regarding the Wildlife aspect of proposal, Pr. CCF has submitted in the agenda as under:-
(a) Forms part of National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Natural Reservoir, Biosphere Reservoir etc.
Proposed area is adjacent to Thajwas sanctuary. The uncontrolled flow of yatris will cause pollution...
14. The recorded decision of the Advisory Committee is reproduced as under:-
“The Advisory Committee discussed this case in depth. The Chief Wildlife Warden apprised the Committee that he has already submitted his report under No. WLP/Tech/1971/07 dated 11.06.2007 after spot inspection on 27.5.2007, which is reproduced as under:-
It was noticed that the proposed site for construction of Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board Complex, falling in the compartment 63(s)/Sindh/Kullan, is located on the right side of Sindh rivulet. The proposed complex does not seem to have any significant impact on the ecology of Thajwas Wildlife Sanctuary. The apprehensions of DFO Sindh and Wildlife Warden,Central that the said complex may have adverse impact on the Wildlife Sanctuary appear to be “over cautious” and an environmentally conservative approach. It is also given to understand that Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board is using pre-fabricated structures, as such likely pollution due to discharge of muck and garbage etc should not be significant . It is presumed that Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board will take necessary environmental safeguards as applicable for such development projects.
In view of the above report, the Advisory Committee cleared the diversion of the above Forest land to Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB), on the following terms and conditions:-
i) The proprietary status of forest land shall remain unchanged.
ii) The forest land so diverted shall be utilised only for the purpose for which it has been diverted. It shall not be transferred to any other agency without approval of the Forest Department.
iii) The forest land so diverted shall not be mortgaged, re-assigned or sub-leased by user agency in any manner what so ever to any other agency.
(For the rest, see adjacent document)
15. As mentioned above, following the deferment of these cases in the Cabinet meeting on February 26,2008 a Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Wildlife Warden was constituted vide Govt.order No. 108-FST of 2008 dated March 17,2008 to examine the feasibility of diversion of forest land vis-a-vis Wildlife Perspective for various developmental activities including construction of roads in Baltal-Ranga-Domail area of Ganderbal District as requested by Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board. The Committee has submitted its report vide letter dated May 7, 2008 (Annexure-A). The relevant extracts of the Committee’s report are reproduced as under:-
“That the proposed camping sites of Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) complex comprising 39.88 hectares of forest land (30.88 Ha. At Baltal and 9.00 Ha at Domail) fall in the Forest Compartment No.63/Sindh of Sindh Forest Division, Forest Department. Theses proposed camping sites do not involve any area of Thajwas Wildlife Sanctuary, which is located on the left side of river Sindh...
17. The case for diversion of Forest Land for non-forestry purpose are required to be submitted to the Cabinet as per the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act after clearance by the Advisory Committee. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed directions in W.P. (c) No. 202/1995 in the case titled T.N. Godavarman V/S Union of India & others on 27.04.2007 as under:
“...In the circumstances,we hereby give the following directions, pending our decision on the larger question indicated herein above:
a) The FAC as it stands today will give priority to Projects which need immediate clearances. In this regard, it may be stated that fresh cases may be cleared project-wise by the FAC and thereafter such clearances shall be placed before this court for approval. We make it clear that pending the decision of the larger question, all clearances by the FAC of fresh cases shall be subject to approval by this Court. Before giving approval, we would like to have responses from the CEC in respect of each clearance. In order to avoid delay, we direct the concerned Ministry to give a copy of the clearance to the CEC so that the CEC would give its response expeditiously. We will examine each clearance and decide whether to grant or not to grant the approval thereto. Once the approval is granted by this Court, the matter may be placed before the central government for disposal in accordance with law...”
18. The above said order was sent to the Law Department for giving its opinion as to whether the same is applicable to J&K State. The Law Department has opined as under:
“The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2007 is with regard to the Forest Conservation (Central)Act, and rules framed thereunder. The said Act is not applicable to the State as forests continue to be in the state list. Earlier a similar case was examined and vide UO No. LD(Opn) 2006/77-Fst dated 06.03.2007 the department was advised to move an application before the Hon’ble Court to the effect that the Forest Conservation Act, 1990 (Central Act) is not applicable to the State. The State has its own Forest Act as well as Forest Conservation Act, 1997 and seeks clarification from the Hon’ble Court. The Department is advised to pursue the said matter vigorously with the Hon’ble Supreme Cour and awaits clarification in the matter.”
19. In the meanwhile the PCCF vide communication NO. PCCF/FC/Gen./5/106 dated 21.07.2007 approached the Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court... The CEC opined under:
“ The non-forest use of the forest land falling within the State of Jammu and Kashmir is governed by the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act, 1990 and not by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In view of the above, the CEC is of the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 27.04.2007 regarding the functioning of the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, is not applicable in respect of the proposals examined by the State Level Advisory Committee constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act, 1990 as amended from time time.”
20. Advice of the Law Department was sought on the opinion of the CEC and the Law Department said as under:
“The views of the CEC regarding the applicability of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is their opinion. The said opinion confirms the views of this Department. However, it would be safe, as advised earlier, to bring the legal position in the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and seek their clarification as the State has its own Forest Conservation Act of 1990.”
21. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Ld. Advocate General for advice who said as under:
“The Forests continue to be a subject with respect to which the state government has the power to make laws and not the Union. The Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act of 1997 is applicable to the state of J&K and the Rules have also been framed under the said Act. The J&K State Forest (Conservation) Rules provide for the constitution of a Forest Advisory Committee and it is within the jurisdiction of the said Forest Advisory Committee under the J&K State Forest (Conservation) Act to give clearance of projects for the purpose of non forestry purpose. So far as the rest of the States are concerned, the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is applicable to them. Under the aforesaid Forest (Conservation) Act Forest (Conservation) Rules 1981 had been framed. Under rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules of 1981 it is provided that the Forest Advisory Committee has to be constituted and the said Forest Advisory Committee shall have the jurisdiction to clear the projects where forest land is required for non forestry purposes. It appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP (C) 202/1995 titled T.N. Godavarman versus Union of India had stayed the working of the Forest Advisory Committee in terms of the Forest (Conservation) Rules of 1981. Subsequently vide order dated 27.04.2007 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had modified the order and had directed that the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under the Forest Conservation Rules of 2003 as it stands will give clearance of the projects where forest land is required for non forestry purposes and the project would be sent to a Central Empowered Committee, which would give its response expeditiously.
I have gone through the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since neither the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 nor Forest (Conservation) Rules made there under are applicable to the State of J&K. The state is governed by the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act 1997 and Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2000. The Forest Advisory Committee has been constituted under the aforesaid Forest (Conservation) Rules, therefore, the order dated 27.04.2007 does not have any applicability with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in as much as since the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 and the rules made thereunder are not applicable to the State of J&K. Moreso, a communication issued by the CEC on 27.07.2007 which is on file had clarified that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2007 regarding the functioning of the Forest Advisory Committee under section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act is not applicable in respect to the proposals examined by the State Level Advisory Committee constituted under the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act 1997. It is as such advised that the order dated 27.04.2007 does not pertain to the J&K State and proposals in J&K have to be examined by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act of 1997 and rules made thereunder.”
22. Thereafter, GAD advised the Department to place the matter before the Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister (Minister I/C Law) in view of two different opinions given by the Law Department and Ld. Advocated General. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister (Minister I/C Law) who opined as under:
“ There is no material difference between the opinion of Ld. Advocate General and that of the Law Department. The Law Department, by way of abundant caution, seeks to obtain the clarification of the Supreme Court. I concur with the view of the Central Empowered Committee and the Ld. Advocate General.”
23. In view of the clarification given by the CEC constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ld. Advocate General, Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister (Minister I/C Law), the Principal Secretary to the Government Forest Department with the approval of the Hon’ble Minister for Forests, submits the above mentioned cases to the cabinet for taking a view and according approval for the use of forest land for non-forestry purposes, in favour of the above said organisations, on the terms and conditions recommended by the Advisory Committee in its 39th meeting, which have been reproduced in this memorandum, together with the recommendation made at para 16 of the memorandum in respect of case no. 4.
Madhav Lal Principal Secretary to the Government of J&KDepartment of Forests
Subject:- Use of Forest Land for non-forestry purpose
1. The Forest Department has received requisitions from various Agencies/Departments for diversion of forest land for non forestry purposes. The Memorandum deals with the cases which were cleared by the Advisory Committee constituted under J&K Forest Conservation Act, 1997 in its 39th Meeting held on July 12, 2007 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary.
These cases were placed before the Cabinet in its meeting on February 26, 2008. The item was “deferred” since some clarifications were necessary about the wildlife perspective in respect of the proposal of Amarnathji Shrine Board (discussed as case 4 of this Memorandum). Pursuant to the above, a Committee of officers was constituted vide Government Order No. 108-Fst of 2008 dated March 17, 2008 to look into that proposal. The report of the Committee has since been received and is attached as Annexure to this Memorandum.
Case No.4
12. Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) has made a requisition for diversion of forest land measuring 39.88 hectares falling under Compartment No. 63a/Sindh in Block Kullan, Range Sindh, Sindh Forest Division for construction/provision of buildings/hutments and other infrastructure for visiting Yatries of Amarnath Ji Yatra at Baltal and Domail.
13. Regarding the Wildlife aspect of proposal, Pr. CCF has submitted in the agenda as under:-
(a) Forms part of National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Natural Reservoir, Biosphere Reservoir etc.
Proposed area is adjacent to Thajwas sanctuary. The uncontrolled flow of yatris will cause pollution...
14. The recorded decision of the Advisory Committee is reproduced as under:-
“The Advisory Committee discussed this case in depth. The Chief Wildlife Warden apprised the Committee that he has already submitted his report under No. WLP/Tech/1971/07 dated 11.06.2007 after spot inspection on 27.5.2007, which is reproduced as under:-
It was noticed that the proposed site for construction of Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board Complex, falling in the compartment 63(s)/Sindh/Kullan, is located on the right side of Sindh rivulet. The proposed complex does not seem to have any significant impact on the ecology of Thajwas Wildlife Sanctuary. The apprehensions of DFO Sindh and Wildlife Warden,Central that the said complex may have adverse impact on the Wildlife Sanctuary appear to be “over cautious” and an environmentally conservative approach. It is also given to understand that Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board is using pre-fabricated structures, as such likely pollution due to discharge of muck and garbage etc should not be significant . It is presumed that Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board will take necessary environmental safeguards as applicable for such development projects.
In view of the above report, the Advisory Committee cleared the diversion of the above Forest land to Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB), on the following terms and conditions:-
i) The proprietary status of forest land shall remain unchanged.
ii) The forest land so diverted shall be utilised only for the purpose for which it has been diverted. It shall not be transferred to any other agency without approval of the Forest Department.
iii) The forest land so diverted shall not be mortgaged, re-assigned or sub-leased by user agency in any manner what so ever to any other agency.
(For the rest, see adjacent document)
15. As mentioned above, following the deferment of these cases in the Cabinet meeting on February 26,2008 a Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Wildlife Warden was constituted vide Govt.order No. 108-FST of 2008 dated March 17,2008 to examine the feasibility of diversion of forest land vis-a-vis Wildlife Perspective for various developmental activities including construction of roads in Baltal-Ranga-Domail area of Ganderbal District as requested by Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board. The Committee has submitted its report vide letter dated May 7, 2008 (Annexure-A). The relevant extracts of the Committee’s report are reproduced as under:-
“That the proposed camping sites of Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) complex comprising 39.88 hectares of forest land (30.88 Ha. At Baltal and 9.00 Ha at Domail) fall in the Forest Compartment No.63/Sindh of Sindh Forest Division, Forest Department. Theses proposed camping sites do not involve any area of Thajwas Wildlife Sanctuary, which is located on the left side of river Sindh...
17. The case for diversion of Forest Land for non-forestry purpose are required to be submitted to the Cabinet as per the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act after clearance by the Advisory Committee. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed directions in W.P. (c) No. 202/1995 in the case titled T.N. Godavarman V/S Union of India & others on 27.04.2007 as under:
“...In the circumstances,we hereby give the following directions, pending our decision on the larger question indicated herein above:
a) The FAC as it stands today will give priority to Projects which need immediate clearances. In this regard, it may be stated that fresh cases may be cleared project-wise by the FAC and thereafter such clearances shall be placed before this court for approval. We make it clear that pending the decision of the larger question, all clearances by the FAC of fresh cases shall be subject to approval by this Court. Before giving approval, we would like to have responses from the CEC in respect of each clearance. In order to avoid delay, we direct the concerned Ministry to give a copy of the clearance to the CEC so that the CEC would give its response expeditiously. We will examine each clearance and decide whether to grant or not to grant the approval thereto. Once the approval is granted by this Court, the matter may be placed before the central government for disposal in accordance with law...”
18. The above said order was sent to the Law Department for giving its opinion as to whether the same is applicable to J&K State. The Law Department has opined as under:
“The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2007 is with regard to the Forest Conservation (Central)Act, and rules framed thereunder. The said Act is not applicable to the State as forests continue to be in the state list. Earlier a similar case was examined and vide UO No. LD(Opn) 2006/77-Fst dated 06.03.2007 the department was advised to move an application before the Hon’ble Court to the effect that the Forest Conservation Act, 1990 (Central Act) is not applicable to the State. The State has its own Forest Act as well as Forest Conservation Act, 1997 and seeks clarification from the Hon’ble Court. The Department is advised to pursue the said matter vigorously with the Hon’ble Supreme Cour and awaits clarification in the matter.”
19. In the meanwhile the PCCF vide communication NO. PCCF/FC/Gen./5/106 dated 21.07.2007 approached the Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court... The CEC opined under:
“ The non-forest use of the forest land falling within the State of Jammu and Kashmir is governed by the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act, 1990 and not by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In view of the above, the CEC is of the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 27.04.2007 regarding the functioning of the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, is not applicable in respect of the proposals examined by the State Level Advisory Committee constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act, 1990 as amended from time time.”
20. Advice of the Law Department was sought on the opinion of the CEC and the Law Department said as under:
“The views of the CEC regarding the applicability of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is their opinion. The said opinion confirms the views of this Department. However, it would be safe, as advised earlier, to bring the legal position in the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and seek their clarification as the State has its own Forest Conservation Act of 1990.”
21. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Ld. Advocate General for advice who said as under:
“The Forests continue to be a subject with respect to which the state government has the power to make laws and not the Union. The Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Conservation) Act of 1997 is applicable to the state of J&K and the Rules have also been framed under the said Act. The J&K State Forest (Conservation) Rules provide for the constitution of a Forest Advisory Committee and it is within the jurisdiction of the said Forest Advisory Committee under the J&K State Forest (Conservation) Act to give clearance of projects for the purpose of non forestry purpose. So far as the rest of the States are concerned, the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is applicable to them. Under the aforesaid Forest (Conservation) Act Forest (Conservation) Rules 1981 had been framed. Under rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules of 1981 it is provided that the Forest Advisory Committee has to be constituted and the said Forest Advisory Committee shall have the jurisdiction to clear the projects where forest land is required for non forestry purposes. It appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP (C) 202/1995 titled T.N. Godavarman versus Union of India had stayed the working of the Forest Advisory Committee in terms of the Forest (Conservation) Rules of 1981. Subsequently vide order dated 27.04.2007 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had modified the order and had directed that the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under the Forest Conservation Rules of 2003 as it stands will give clearance of the projects where forest land is required for non forestry purposes and the project would be sent to a Central Empowered Committee, which would give its response expeditiously.
I have gone through the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since neither the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 nor Forest (Conservation) Rules made there under are applicable to the State of J&K. The state is governed by the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act 1997 and Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2000. The Forest Advisory Committee has been constituted under the aforesaid Forest (Conservation) Rules, therefore, the order dated 27.04.2007 does not have any applicability with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in as much as since the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 and the rules made thereunder are not applicable to the State of J&K. Moreso, a communication issued by the CEC on 27.07.2007 which is on file had clarified that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2007 regarding the functioning of the Forest Advisory Committee under section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act is not applicable in respect to the proposals examined by the State Level Advisory Committee constituted under the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act 1997. It is as such advised that the order dated 27.04.2007 does not pertain to the J&K State and proposals in J&K have to be examined by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under the J&K Forest (Conservation) Act of 1997 and rules made thereunder.”
22. Thereafter, GAD advised the Department to place the matter before the Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister (Minister I/C Law) in view of two different opinions given by the Law Department and Ld. Advocated General. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister (Minister I/C Law) who opined as under:
“ There is no material difference between the opinion of Ld. Advocate General and that of the Law Department. The Law Department, by way of abundant caution, seeks to obtain the clarification of the Supreme Court. I concur with the view of the Central Empowered Committee and the Ld. Advocate General.”
23. In view of the clarification given by the CEC constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ld. Advocate General, Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister (Minister I/C Law), the Principal Secretary to the Government Forest Department with the approval of the Hon’ble Minister for Forests, submits the above mentioned cases to the cabinet for taking a view and according approval for the use of forest land for non-forestry purposes, in favour of the above said organisations, on the terms and conditions recommended by the Advisory Committee in its 39th meeting, which have been reproduced in this memorandum, together with the recommendation made at para 16 of the memorandum in respect of case no. 4.
Madhav Lal Principal Secretary to the Government of J&KDepartment of Forests
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)