Views of Haider Farooq Maududi, son of Abul Ala Maududi

During the last fifty years, India and Pakistan have witnessed three wars between themselves and therefore, we must find a solution to the Kashmir dispute. Kashmiri Muslims should get their rights at par with rest of the Indian Muslims. I told the Kashmiri leaders that the youth of Kashmir is getting wiped out in this battle. Muslims are suffering in every respect - educationally, economically and otherwise also. You should talk to the Indian government and impress upon them about your rights and demands, lawfully and constitutionally.

What kind of a Jehad is being fought in Kashmir? You (must) differentiate between Jehad and mischief ... Leave alone Jehad you cannot even call it revolt or rebellion. One must have the knowledge and understanding of Fiqah (Islamic jurisprudence). A revolt too is permissible only when you are ninety percent sure of its success and here there has been no success for the past half a century.

My father (Maulana Maududi) had categorically refused to accept any fight on Kashmir as a Jehad. Right from the beginning of this battle, he refused to accept it as Jehad. How can it be (called) Jehad now?

Maulana Maududi, even when Qaid-e-Azam was alive, had made it clear (that) so long as Pakistan government has a treaty with India, it is not appropriate for Pakistan, in the light of Quran and Sharia, to fight against the Indian army in Kashmir.

.. Maulana Maududi said in a discourse published in Jamaat Islami's bi-weekly, Kouser (Lahore) on August 17 1948 at that time Mohd. Ali Jinnah was the Governor General of Pakistan: " ... The situation now was like this: while on the one hand Indian armed forces were bent on resolving Kashmir issue on gun point, on the other hand, they threatened to usurp the state of Hyderabad. Pak .. tan, just besides taking up the Kashmir issue in UN did nothing else. All this was the result of the weaknesses of our leaders. To overcome these weaknesses and the consequences thercof, the remedy is not to do un-Islamic acts and negate what our leaders had accepted and indulge in such belligerent activities, which, as far as my knowledge goes, is not permissible according to Sharia ... "

"I am of the opinion that the birth of India and Pakistan was the result of a treaty which both Muslims and Hindus had agreed upon. The treaty itself envisaged that both the countries are not each other's enemy and are not at war with each other but are in peaceful agreement on the discussion for the future of both the countries. Subsequently, diplomatic relations were established between the two countries. Such diplomatic relationship itself indicates that the state of war does not exist (between the two countries) ... No country would enter into any kind of an agreement on trade and economic matters with another country if it thinks it is at war with that country."

After this, in April 1948, there was the Calcutta agreement. I .. among other mutual understandings on various issues, it was agreed upon that both the countries would instruct their respective media not to publish any material, which might give an impression, that war was inevitable between the two countries: This clearly shows that both the countries had made mutual peace and wished to continue the same.

Maulana had said: "My understanding is that such a treaty does exist between the two countries in the presence of which, according to Sharia, we cannot wage any action against India ... I wish to make one more thing clear that making or breaking of treaties is neither the job of media nor of individual leaders, or of preachers and orators but solely that of the government. If the treaty has ceased to exist or was never there then it is the job of the government of Pakistan to say so in categorical terms. Today if the government of Pakistan announces its  difficulty then I will admit that the Sharia position is not the same as stated earlier and we are at liberty wage war".

"It is absolutely wrong to. say that there is no agreement on Kashmir. In the partition agreement the princely states were given to right to accede to any of the two unions or remain independent. In the light of this we assert that Junagarh was part of Pakistan and India carried out aggression. Again on this very argument we support the right of independence of Hyderabad. Now how can we say that there was no treaty, whatsoever, on Kashmir? We certainly can claim that the state was forced to accede to the Indian union against the wishes of Kashmiri masses and therefore we do not accept such inclusion ... We have only two ways - either we get the rights of the Kashmiris recognised amicably or openly send our armed forces to Kashmir, the way Indian forces landed in Junagarh. And third way is not an honest and truthful way but an immoral way ... If you wish to opt for this way - do that, but don't drag Islam into this".

Jamaat Islami ... for every martyr gets Rs.60,000. Some of this sum is given to the survivor of the martyrs and the rest is pocketed (by the party). This is like a factory, producing martyrs. They martyr someone else's children and pocket the money. Look at the irony. None of the children of Qazi Hussain had died in Jehad-e-fghanistan or Jehad-e-Kashmir; instead, one of them is leading a luxurious life in America ...

(Source: The Jabroot, Srinagar, 9 October, 1998)

(Courtesy: The Journal of Peace Studies, September-October, 1998)

J&K SHRC Report - On Sailian Carnage by Security Forces

The J&K State Human Righ's Commission(SHRC) headed by Justice (Retd.) G.A. Kuchay has enquired into the killing of 19 innocent civilians at Sailian village in Surankcte on the intervening night of August 3/4, 1998 and submitted its report to the Chief Minister.

On 3m August last, 19 persons were brutally killed. including 3 adult males, 3 adult women and 13 children ... The incident was supposed to be in retaliation to the killing of Zakir Hussain, a surrendered militant, who had joined the State Police as SPO. As the militant group led by Imtiaz was suspected to be responsible for his killing, it was avenged by killing of members of the family and close relations of Imtiaz. Officially the incident was described as a consequence of inter militant clash.

The Commission rejected this theory and in a 17 page report has blamed pro-government militants and army for the wanton killings. It argued that killing of 19 persons could not be an independent act without the support of the armed forces. The report says "the army people in association with three pro-government militants ran amok in the intervening night of Argust 3/4 and killed the civilian in a barbaric manner". The report expressed surprise over the role of 9 Para Army camping only 200 meters from the site of occurrence for not visiting the site after listening to the gun roars. The report says that "the silence of the army leads to the conclusion that associates of Zakir Hussain ... took revenge with the active support of the forces". The Chairman of the Commission has further criticised the army for not coming forward to participate in the enquiry, even thought he Commission had sent notices through the S.P. (Operations) for personal delivery to the army unit to participate in the investigations ...

The Commission's report confirm the general impression among the people of the area and also the common sense view ... The army would have been well advised to have cooperated with the Commission and presented its version of the incident ...

Apart from restoring the confidence of the people, the Report has helped in preventing the possible communalisation of the situation that such incidents are intended to cause ... As the incident was officially described a result of inter-militant rivalry, it did not arouse as much sympathy and indignation among Hindus and Muslims tended to feel aggrieved by their attitude.

Killing of innocent people cannot be categorised along religious lines. They have to be condemned irrespective of the religion of the victim.

A point that has often been debated is whether the criticism of security forces is compatible with the national interest ... Bonafide criticism prevents further alienation of the people and improves discipline and morale of the security forces. To the extent it restores faith in a national institution. It also promotes national interest. We are therefore convinced that Justice Kuchay and his colleagues have not only enhanced the cause of human rights but also patriotism.

(Source: The PUCL Bulletin, December, 1998)

The Statesman On Waning Militancy in J&K

Militancy in the border state of Jammu and Kashmir is waning with Pak-sponsored militants failing to generate any support for their cause.

.. Militancy was on the decline as the people had turned against the movement which was the biggest failure of Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence.

With people rejecting militancy ... the militants will soon realise that they are fighting a losing battle.

"What has been achieved in Kashmir could not have been done without the help of people of Kashmir, state policy, army and other para-military forces and they should be given the credit tor it" ...

There was "fairly heavy shelling" along the Line of Control which resulted in some civilian casualties. But we gave as much as we got ...

Pakistan wanted to keep the pot boiling by continued firing in the areas like Poonch, Rajouri, Kupwara, Tangdhar and Uri.

... In Jammu ... the army had adopted a multi-pronged strategy to counter militancy under which the intensity of troops were increased along the Line of Control. With this, we succeeded in preventing supply of arms, ammunition and additional reinforcement.

(We) were yet to come across any (Taliban). The army, however, had some information regarding the presence of militants in the upper reaches of Peer Panjal but "we were not allowed them to come down" ... (Source: The Statesman, 1 January, 1999)

Hurriyat Report On Kashmir, 1997 and 1998

Government Statement On Hurriyat Visit to UN

Government are aware that Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Sabir Ahmad Dar, Abdul Majid Banday, Saeed Yusuf Nasir and Altaf Dadri visited New York in September, 1998. Government are also aware that they made false and baseless statements about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Government continue to keep a watch on the activities of these persons while abroad and will take such action as is necessary to safeguard national interest.

(Source: LSUQ No. 1632 dated 9.12.1998 by C.D. Gamit and K.S. Rao)

Riyaz Punjabi On J&K: Plea for a Concerted Dialogue

... With the restoration of a civilian Government in the State, it was expected that a political process would be initiated and that it would gradually lead to a resolution of the conflict. However, no such process has been initiated and there continues to be a political vacuum which is being used by the militants to their advantage.

... The Governments in the State as well as at the Centre have squandered the gains achieved in Jammu and Kashmir in the post-election phase. Economic issues, corruption and nepotism continue to occupy the centre- stage of the public discourse in the State. The moderate separatist elements and even those who signalled a willingness to participate in a dialogue were ignored and ultimately their role was marginalised ...

.. All political groupings in the State in general, and in Kashmir in particular had remained in limbo until the militants gained the upper hand. It, therefore, becomes imperative that the repression against the Jamaat, as claimed by its chief, should come to an end ... The party should be allowed to follow its political activities democratically. It needs to be recognised that vengeance and suppression prolong the processes of conflict resolution and scuttle political initiatives.

There is an equal urgency to initiate a dialogue with different sections, including the separatists. It is ironical that successive Governments at the Centre have paid little attention to initiating a dialogue with the estranged people ...

There is the realisation as well as awareness in the State now that the only way to end the impasse in Kashmir is through a genuine dialogue. In case the political leadership is unable to define the parameters of a dialogue, let the concerned citizens at the national level to so ... Any delay, in initiating this process, is bound to push the State into a renewed phase of turmoil with disastrous consequences.    (Source: The Hindu, 1 December, 1998)