It is a fact of history that Hindus, Muslims ,Sikhs and Buddhists have lived in peace and amity in the State for centuries. When the rest of the subcontinent was up in flames, lit by the communal torch ,it was Kashmir which stood out of the circle of holocaust, a ``shining example'', in Mahatma Gandhi's words of" secularism" . Not a drop of blood was shed in Kashmir while thousands perished in communal fury all around.

The State had been ruled by the Mughals, followed by Afghans, Sikhs and finally the Hindu Dogras. The Sikh ruler Maharaja Ranjit Singh entrusted the principality of Jammu and adjacent areas to Gulab Singh, his Dogra General. Gulab Singh brought large areas including Ladakh, Zanskar, Gilgit and Baltistan under his control. The latter was succeeded as Maharaja by Ranbir Singh. And Ranbir Singh was succeeded by Maharaja Pratap Singh whose reign opened a new chapter in the history of modern Kashmir. The British wanted a strong government to tackle the socioeconomic problems of the frontier State. In 1889, Maharaja Pratap Singh was deprived of his administrative authority which was to be handled by a Council of Regency under the control of a British Resident. The Maharaja undertook a tour of the frontier post up to Gurez and beyond and issued orders for immediate redress of the grievances of the people inhabiting these areas. With improvement on all the fronts, the British again restored full powers to the Maharaja in 1921.

The consolidation of Dogra rule in Jammu and Kashmir coincided with the strengthening of the Indian freedom movement under Mahatma Gandhi's leadership. The freedom struggle was soon to find an echo in several princely States and nowhere with more ardour than in Kashmir. By 1931, antiDogra sentiment in the State had struck solid roots with Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and some others, including the Mirwaiz Maulvi Yusuf Shah, the Muslim high priest of the Valley, in the lead. The Maulvi, it soon transpired, was accepting a monthly stipend from the Maharaja and this, among many other factors, forced Sheikh Abdullah to steer away from Muslim communal politics as symbolised by the then Muslim Conference. By the mid1930s Sheikh Abdullah had moved to a secular base and formed the National Conference, comprising Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. The National Conference inevitably found itself drawn towards the Indian National Congress and was thus the foundation laid of an abiding friendship between Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, tried hard to woo the Sheikh and indeed visited Srinagar on a couple of occasions only to be rebuffed by the National Conference. Jinnah's known arrogance did not help him either. He dismissed his best bet in the Valley, Maulvi Mirwaiz Yusuf Shah, as a ``rotten egg'', as Sheikh Abdullah recalls in his autobiography ``AatisheChinar''. The Sheikh again recalls the supreme contempt which Jinnah had for the Kashmiri people. According to Sheikh Abdullah, when a National Conference activist, Ali Mohammad Tariq, asked Jinnah soon after the partition of the subcontinent whether the future of Kashmir would be decided by the people of Kashmir, he was stunned by Jinnah's riposte: "Let the people go to hell." The people of the socalled Azad Kashmir have known ever since how much their Pakistani benefactors have cared for them.

At the dawn of independence when the great seesaw about the future of the princely states was on, Sheikh Abdullah was still in jail and was released only when the Dogra Maharaja saw himself slipping into a mire. With Pakistani tribals, aided and abetted by the Pakistani army, commanded by Major General Akbar Khan, invaded the Valley, Sheikh Abdullah had just been out of the Maharaja's jail. The Pakistan Army's active involvement in and following the tribal raids of 1947 and infiltration of raiders supported by the Pakistan army into Kashmir before the outbreak of the 1965 conflict is acknowledged by one of the highly regarded Pakistani Generals, Lt. Gen. Gul Hasan Khan, in his memoirs and by Altaf Gohar in his biography of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. With the Maharaja still undecided about his future course of action, Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference organised a volunteer corps, unarmed for the most part, to defend the Valley. The volunteers, drawn from all communities, were asked to protect the life, property, honour and dignity of the Kashmiri people. Luckily for Kashmir, the tribal invaders did not move as fast as they could have. They accorded a higher priority to rape, arson and loot. Of this later.

Contrary to what Pakistan has been saying about its role then, it had sent a special emissary to Kashmir to try and persuade the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. The emissary failed in his mission. Consequently, Pakistan, in total disregard of the Standstill Agreement it had signed with the Maharaja, cut off its supplies of essential commodities such as salt and petrol; it also stopped its supply of currency notes and small coins to the Imperial Bank in Kashmir. Since the roads joining Kashmir to the rest of India ran through Pakistan, things became more critical despite the protest lodged by the Maharaja. That was only the beginning.

Pakistan now sent tribal hordes from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to browbeat the Kashmiris. Muzaffarabad, now capital of the socalled Azad Kashmir, was overrun in a day or so. But the tribals were more interested in rape and loot and that is perhaps what saved Kashmir in the end. The situation in Srinagar became tense. The Maharaja rallied his small army in an attempt to defend the State. In her book, "Halfway to Freedom" , Margaret BourkeWhite describes the plunder by the raiders:

``Their buses and trucks, loaded with booty, arrived every other day and took more Pathans to Kashmir. Ostensibly they want to liberate their Kashmiri Muslim brothers, but their primary objective was riot and loot. In this they made no distinction between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims.''

``The raiders advanced into Baramulla, the biggest commercial centre of the region with a population then of 11,000, until they were only an hour away from Srinagar. For the next three days they were engaged in massive plunder, rioting and rape. No one was spared. Even members of the St Joseph's Mission Hospital were brutally massacred.'' This tribal invasion was no accident, according to Sheikh Abdullah. It was a diversionary tactic created by the newly formed State of Pakistan. ``The withdrawal of British forces from the tribal belt had left these people without any livelihood. The ruler of Pakistan feared that these lawless people may proceed to plunder Peshawar and other big cities of Pakistan. They were, therefore, asked to proceed to Kashmir, having been assured of their bounty through plunder of the countryside. Pakistani leaders were hoping to reap a double benefit: getting rid of the tribals and bringing Kashmiris to their knees. When the tribals refused to budge from Baramulla, Abdul Qayyum Khan, an NWFP Pathan leader, sent their religious leader, Pir Manti, to persuade them to advance towards Srinagar, the Sheikh wrote.

According to confirmed reports as described by Sheikh Abdullah in his autobiography, Pakistan agents in Srinagar city decided to destroy all the bridges so that if the Indian Army was despatched, its movement could be sabotaged. National Conference volunteers were posted at the bridges and Hindus and Muslims alike were prepared to guard their national honour, having heard about the atrocities inflicted on innocents by the rival people. The ruler's appeals to Pakistan were of no avail. The raiders caused havoc in different parts of Kashmir. The Kashmir state troops were incapable of offering effective resistance to the raiders and the threat to the Valley became grave. Unable to prevent the raiders from committing largescale killings, loot and arson, the Maharaja requested the Government of India on October 26, 1947 that the State of Jammu and Kashmir be allowed to accede to India.

An appeal for help was also simultaneously received by the Government of India from the National Conference which was the largest popular organisation in Kashmir and which had fought for the people's rights and agitated for the freedom of Kashmir from the Maharaja's rule. The National Conference also supported the request for the State's accession to India.

To those who question Sheikh Abdullah's credentials one need only quote President Ayub Khan of Pakistan who had just then received the Kashmiri leader as Nehru's emissary in May 1964. He had this to say: ``Sheikh Abdullah is a lion hearted leader.'' And Allama Iqbal, whom Pakistan hails as its philosopher poet, said: ``Sheikh Abdullah wiped the fear of the tyrant from the hearts of the people of Kashmir.''

The Instrument of Accession was accepted the next day by the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten. The first contingent of the Indian Army flew into Srinagar on October 27, to repulse

PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR ,TASHKENT & THE SHIMLA AGREEMENT

Pakistan's espousal of the right to selfdetermination has been conditional and circumscribed. It is demanded of the part of Kashmir which escaped its occupation but not its depredations. The right of self- determination is not recognised for Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK).

The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, obliges all officebearers from the President down and all legislators to swear loyalty ``to the cause of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan''. Islam is the State religion (Article 3). The President and Prime Minister must be Muslim. The right of freedom of association is restricted. Article 7(2) says: ``No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan.''

The Constitution was imposed on POK by the former Prime Minister, Z.A. Bhutto. Pakistan conveniently ignored the fact that it is only in temporary charge of those areas under its occupation. In its view it is the rest of the State which is disputed territory, not that part which it had grabbed.

Pakistan resents the expression Pakoccupied Kashmir but freely talks of Indianheld Kashmir. Taking the UN resolutions by which Pakistan swears, it would be clear that while the legality of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India was consistently and explicitly accepted in those resolutions, the expression Pak occupied Kashmir is derived from these very documents.

On January 20, 1948, the Security Council set up a threemember Commission. On April 21, 1948, the Council not only expanded its membership to five but laid down the details of a plebiscitary solution. A Plebiscite Administrator was to be nominated by the UN Secretary General. Para 10(b) said: ``The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate his assistants.....and to draft regulations governing the plebiscite. Such nominees should be formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.''

This is clear recognition of the legality of Kashmir's accession to India, India's external sovereignty over the State and the legal authority of the government of the State. Hence the formal induction of the Plebiscite Administrator was to be made by the State government although he was to be nominated by the UN Secretary General. On August 13, 1948, the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) adopted a resolution embodying its proposals for a settlement. India accepted it; Pakistan did not. On December 11, 1948, the UNCIP offered proposals in amplification of the

first to provide for a plebiscite. Both sides accepted it. They were formally embodied in its resolution of January 5, 1949.

While the tribesmen from Pakistan and Pakistan's troops were to be withdrawn completely, India was to withdraw only ``the bulk of its forces'', retaining some ``to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order''. That was not the only asymmetry. The existence of the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was explicitly recognised and so indeed was the State's accession to India and assumption of ``external sovereignty''. Accordingly, the resolution provided that ``the government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir'' will safeguard law and order and that ``human and political rights will be respected''.

Sharp Contrast

For the other part of the State the resolution said: ``Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.'' This is in sharp contrast to the clear recognition of the State Government, acting under the Government of India, in respect of external relations. No surveillance was provided for this part of the State.

In utter disregard of the UN resolutions by which it swears, Pakistan imposed a new regime on POK on June 21, 1952. Rules of Business were presented on October 28. Rule 5 said: ``The President of Azad Kashmir Government shall hold office during the pleasure of the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, duly recognised as such by the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs.'' The Ministry's Joint Secretary could attend meetings of the Council of Ministers and ``tender advice on any matter under discussion''.

The legality of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India was incontestable. Even so , India had agreed to a plebiscite in 1948. But among the prime causes which have rendered a plebiscite impossible is Pakistan's annexation of POK, its refusal to withdraw its forces from the occupied territory, and its policies towards the rest of the State. The war of 1965 showed amply that Pakistan tried to grab the rest of the State at its chosen forum, the battlefield, and failed. There was a ceasefire followed by the Tashkent Declaration. It is pertinent to recall that Clause (iii) of the Declaration recorded thus: ``The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that relations between India and Pakistan shall be based on the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of each other.'' And Clause (iv) said: ``The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that both sides will discourage any propaganda directed against the other country and will encourage propaganda which promotes the development of friendly relations between the two countries.''

Shimla Agreement

Six years later it launched another war and it once again failed in its objectiveto grab Kashmir by force. There was a meeting between the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan at Shimla and the talks resulted in the Shimla Agreement. A look at the first six clauses of the Agreement, reproduced below, juxtaposed with the ground realities, would show how Pakistan has violated all these provisions.

Clauses (i) to (vi) of the Shimla Agreement are as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

(iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful coexistence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and noninterference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means.

(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality.

(vi) That in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

Covert Operation

Pakistan ignored the Tashkent Declaration and has violated almost all the six clauses listed above of the Shimla Agreement to which it was a signatory. It has mounted a low cost, covert operation in Jammu and Kashmir. The POK has served as a launching pad for this aggression. POK is firmly riveted to Pakistan's control through the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. It is presided over by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and comprises his five nominees, the President and Prime Minister of POK, and six representatives of the POK Assembly, elected by proportional representation. Politically POK is a replica of Pakistan: Basic Democracy of Ayub Khan and Gen Zia's Martial Law. In December 1993, the blasphemy laws of Pakistan were extended to the POK. The northern parts of the State have been dismembered from the POK and their status as part of the state questioned. They are ruled directly through a chief executive, Lt Gen Mohammed Shafiq, appointed by Islamabad, with a 26member Northern Areas Council. The people have never seen elections or enjoyed human rights.

In contrast to the government in Srinagar, the regime in Muzaffarabad (POK capital) is one set up by Pakistan in territory it has occupied, not acquired by law.