India's Rape of own Commitments
Reporting Nehru's statement on holding plebiscite in Kashmir, The Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, in its January 2, 1952 issue quoted him saying: As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.

The drama of so-called accession of Kashmir to India by Maharaja Hari Singh was staged by the Congress leaders in connivance with British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, who was made the first Governor- General of India by Hindus to over see completion of partition plan to damage Pakistan. The mere fact that no document of accession is available with India or on UN record is proof of a combined plot that was hatched by Hindu leadership with their British well-wisher.

India is continuously harping on the blatant lie that Kashmir is an integral part of India. How has a disputed territory suddenly become part of India when the commitments made by her to allow people of Kashmir to express their choice have not been honoured. No plebiscite has been held. The Kashmiris have not opted to accede to India in any plebiscite. The UN had already ruled in 1951 and again in 1957 that any elected assembly in Indian occupied Kashmir shall have no right to decide the future of the state as to the question of accession to India or Pakistan.

The honourable Prime Minister and other prominent leaders of that 'great nation' had made solid solemn pledges and commitments that people of Kashmir shall be given the right to decide their future. These commitments made by India to the world, Pakistan and the Kashmiris are reproduced from the book, 1 " The Undying Spirit".

Part-I
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s Telegram to British and Pakistan Prime Ministers, October 27, 1947.

"I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people, and we adhere to this view".

Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, replies to Maharaja's (alleged) request for accession to India, October 27, 1947.

"In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
October 28,1947.

"In regard to accession also, it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's broadcast to nation from All India Radio, November 2, 1947.

"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given (and the Maharajah has supported it) not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have referendum held under international auspices like the UN We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer".

" We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their way. It is for them ultimately to decide".

" And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of the State. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added to proviso to the instrument of accession of Kashmir".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
November 4, 1947.

"I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to the people of Kashmir.

I further stated that we have agreed on impartial International agency like UN supervising any referendum".

"This principle we are prepared to apply to any state where there is a dispute about accession. If these principles are accepted by your Government there should be no difficulty in giving effect to them".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 8, 1947.

".... where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as State’s, the question whether State has finally acceded to one or other Dominion should be ascertained by reference to the will of people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 21, 1947.

"Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Constituent Assembly, November 25, 1947.

"In order to establish our bonafides, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
December 12, 1947.

"We have given further thought, in the light of our discussion in Lahore, to the question of inviting UN to advise us in this matter. While we are prepared to invite UNO observers to come here and advise us as to proposed plebiscite, it is not clear in what other capacity the UN help can be sought...

"... I confess, however, that I find myself unable to suggest anything beyond what I have offered already, namely, to ask UNO to send impartial observers to advise us regarding the plebiscite."

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India, March 5, 1948.

"Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a plebiscite, with every protection for fair voting, and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India,
March 5, 1948.

"... Ultimately there is no doubt in my mind that, in Kashmir as elsewhere, the people of Kashmir will decide finally, and all that we wish is that they should have freedom of decision without any external compulsion".

White Paper on Kashmir issued by Government of India, 1948.

"The question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebiscite, on this there is no dispute. There will be no victimisation of any native of the State, whatever his political view may be, and no Kashmiri will be deprived of the right to vote".

Gopalaswami Ayyangar's address in Constituent Assembly May 27, 1949.

"No doubt we have offered to have a plebiscite taken when the conditions are created for the holding of a proper, fair and impartial plebiscite. But if the plebiscite produces a verdict which is against the continuance of accession to India of the Kashmir State, then what we are committed to is simply that we shall not stand in the way of Kashmir separating itself from India".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement at press conference in London, January 16, 1951 (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi January 18, 1951)

"... We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that, even without our agreement, no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's statement in Indian Parliament, February 12, 1951.

"We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s address at public meeting in Srinagar, June 4, 1951 (reported in The Hindu, Madras, June 5, 1951).

"First of all, I would like to remind you of the fateful days of 1947 when I came to Srinagar and gave the solemn assurance that the people of India would stand by Kashmir in her struggle. On that assurance, I shook Sheikh Abdullah’s hand before the vast multitude that had gathered there. I want to repeat that the Government of India will stand by that pledge, whatever happens. That pledge itself stated that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their fate without external interference. That assurance also remains and will continue".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s report to All- India Congress Committee (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi, July 9, 1951)

"Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future. It is here today that a struggle is being fought, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men".

Krishna Menon's Press statement in London
(The Statesman, New Delhi, August 2, 1951)

"It is not the intention of the Government of India to go back on any commitment it has made. We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir - a pledge made to the people of Kashmir because they believe in democratic Government... We do not regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement, as reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, January 2, 1952.

"Kashmir is not the property of either India or Pakistan, it belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmir people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir..."

We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution... As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision."

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, June 26, 1952.

"If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘we do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept it though it might pain us. We will not send an army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.

"India is a great country and Kashmir is almost in the heart of Asia. There is an enormous difference not only geographically but in all kinds of facts there. Do you think (in dealing a with Kashmir) you are dealing with a part of UP or Bihar or Gujrat ?"

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech at public meeting in New Delhi, as reported in The Times of India, Bombay, July 7 1952.

"In any event, from the start India was committed to the principle of letting the final word regarding accession rest with the people of the princely states and there could be no getting away from that commitment. In fact, that was why India had accepted Kashmir’s accession only provisionally in 1947, pending the expression of the will of the people".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, August 7, 1952.

"... With all deference to this Parliament, I would like to say that the ultimate decision will be made in the minds and hearts of the men of Kashmir and not in this Parliament or at the UN.... First of all, let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of our people. The good will and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principle that this Parliament holds.... If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means; we will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions...

"I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense, and in spite of all we have done we would willingly leave Kashmir if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving, we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them at the point of the bayonet.

"I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign."

Joint Communiqué by Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, August 20, 1953.

"The Kashmir dispute was specially discussed at some length. It was their firm opinion that this should be settled in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State with a view to promoting their well-being and causing the least disturbances to the life of the State. The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite. Such a plebiscite had been proposed and agreed to some years ago. Progress, however, could not be made because of lack of agreement in regard to certain preliminary issues. The Prime Ministers agreed that these preliminary issues should be considered by them directly in order to arrive at agreements in regard to this. These agreements would have to be given effect to and the next step would be appointment of a Plebiscite Administrator".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister's letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
September 3, 1953.

"... We suggested the salutary rule that the Plebiscite Administrator should be chosen from some small and more or less neutral country of Asia or Europe. There are many such countries and there should be no difficulty in finding an eminent and impartial person from among them.

"As a result of the plebiscite over the entire state, we would be in a position to consider the matter, so that the final decision should cause the least disturbance and should take into consideration geographical, economic and other important factors.

"I should like to make it clear that there is no intention on my part to exclude the UN from this question of Kashmir. The Plebiscite Administrator would function under UN supervision but it seems to me quite obvious that while the UN can be helpful, any settlement must depend upon the consent and co-operation of India and Pakistan. Therefore, it is for us to agree and not to look to the UN to produce some settlement, without our agreement.

"... If we aim, as we must, at closer and co-operative relationship between India and Pakistan, we must find a solution of the Kashmir problem which is not only satisfactory to the people as a whole there but is also achieved without bitterness and sense of continuing wrong to India or Pakistan.

"... Obviously, the Kashmir problem is of high importance; in some way the most important problem before us, and we must tackle it".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Pakistan’s Prime Minister,
November 10, 1953.

"You refer to the question of regional plebiscite. I can only repeat what I endeavoured to put before you when we met. Our object is to give freedom to the people of Kashmir to decide their future in a peaceful way so as to create no upset, as we said in our joint statement...

"Therefore, I had suggested that the plebiscite should be for the State as a whole and the detailed result of the plebiscite would then be the major factor for the decision to be taken. The detailed result will give us a fairly clear indication of the wishes of the people not only in the state as whole but in different areas."

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, February 22, 1954.

"[The Constituent Assembly of Kashmir] did not come - it cannot come - in the way of our observing our international commitments in regard to a plebiscite, in regard to anything".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech, as reported in The Times of India, May 16, 1954.

"India will stand by her international commitments on the Kashmir issue and implement them at the appropriate time.

" The repudiation of international commitments would lower India’s prestige abroad".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in India Council of States, May 18, 1954.

"Every assurance we have given, every international commitment we have made in regard to Kashmir holds good and stands. Difficulties have come in the way and may come in its fulfilment, but the difficulties are not of our seeking but of others. But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands".

Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, March 31, 1955.

"... Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir".

Part-II
Letter from Government of India to UN, December 31, 1947.

"... The people of Kashmir would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of plebiscite or referendum, which in order to ensure complete impartiality may be held under international auspices.

" This was also in accordance with Mahatma Gandhi's view, since he had stated that the India Government sent troops by air to Kashmir telling the Maharaja that the accession was provisional upon an impartial plebiscite being taken of Kashmir irrespective of religion".

Gopalaswami Ayyangar at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"In accepting the accession they [the Government of India] refused to take advantage of the immediate peril in which the State found itself and informed the Ruler that the accession should finally be settled by plebiscite as soon as peace had been restored. They have subsequently made it quite clear that they are agreeable to the plebiscite being conducted if necessary under international auspices".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"On the question of accession, the Government of India has always enunciated the policy that in all cases of dispute the people of the State concerned should make the decision."

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"... We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.

"... Whether she [Kashmir] should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to India or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a member of the UN - all this we have recognised to be matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored there.

"We desire only to see peace restored in Kashmir and to ensure that the people of Kashmir are left free to decide in an orderly and peaceful manner the future of their State. We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January, 1948.

"The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbour and the world at large and a further question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent with a right to claim admission as a member of the United Nations - all this we have recognised to be a matter of unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored to them".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 3, 1948.

"... As the Security Council is aware, the Government of India is fully committed to the view that , after peace is restored and all people belonging to the State have returned there, a free plebiscite should be taken and the people should decide whether they wish to remain with India, to go over to Pakistan, or to remain independent, if they choose to do so".

Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 6, 1948.

"... When the emergency has passed and normal conditions are restored, she will be free, by means of a plebiscite, either to ratify her accession to India, or to change her mind and accede to Pakistan, or remain independent. We shall not stand in the way if she elects to change her mind. That, I think, is the proper description of India’s attitude."

Sir Benegal Rau, at Security Council, February 7, 1950.

" It is therefore clear that the admission of representatives from any particular State into the Indian Constituent Assembly did not necessarily imply accession. As I have said, Kashmir had this right to representation ever since April 1947; it acceded tentatively, in October 1947 so that the accession came after the grant of the right and not the other way round".

Telegram from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, August 16, 1950.

"We have not opposed at any time an overall plebiscite for the State as a whole but you made some alternative suggestions because you came to the conclusion that there were no prospects of an agreement as to conditions preliminary to such a plebiscite....

"We have always recognised that any plan for a plebiscite should be such that the people concerned would be enabled to express their feelings freely and without fear....

"It has always been our view that, in the event of a plebiscite, the people of Kashmir should decide their future for themselves. Kashmiris who have gone out of the State should, of course, be entitled to return for this purpose. But I do not think that others have any claim to participate in a plebiscite campaign."

B. N. Rao in Security Council, March 29, 1951.

"The Constituent Assembly* cannot be physically prevented from expressing an opinion on this question if it so chooses. But this opinion will not bind my Government or prejudice the position of this Council."

* Which was to be convened by the Kashmir National Conference for deciding the accession issue - ED.

Krishna Menon, Indian Representative at UN General Assembly, referring to Congo Problem, April 5, 1951.

"Irrespective of the voting of this resolution, an abstention or two, the fact is that is the law of the United Nations at the present time.... My government has always taken the view that resolutions, if they are passed, must be implemented."

Letter of September 11, 1951 addressed to the UN Representative for
India and Pakistan.

"As regards paragraph 4, the Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible."

Letter from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, September 11, 1951.

"... The Government of India agree that the Plebiscite Administrator should be appointed as soon as conditions in the State, on both sides of the cease-fire line, permit of a start being made with the arrangements for carrying out the plebiscite. To appoint the Plebiscite Administrator before would be premature.

"The Government of India would, therefore, prefer such a proposal to be omitted from the present document; it would be more appropriately included in proposals that deal specifically and in detail with the holding of the plebiscite and connected matters."

Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, at Security Council, December 8, 1952.

"We do not seek to go behind the UNCIP resolutions, or to ignore the vital elements of principle contained in them... We have always adhered to the UNCIP resolutions.... We cannot be a party to the reversal of previous decisions taken by the United Nations Commission with the agreement of the parties."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, January 24, 1957.

"... I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 8, 1957.

"It is possible, for any sovereign state to cede territory. If, as a result of a plebiscite, the people decided that they did not want to stay with India, then our duty at that time would be to adopt those constitutional procedures which would enable us to separate that territory."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 20, 1957.

"The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNCIP, the assurance given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight - that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not."

Krishna Menon, at Security Council, October 9, 1957.

"...These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it."

Krishna Menon, referring to Goa, The Statesman, Delhi, January 19, 1962.

" India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them."

Part-III
UN Commission for India and Pakistan, January, 1949.

"As a result of these conversations the Commission on December 11, 1948, communicated its proposals to the two Governments. The main points of those proposals were: that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by way of a free and impartial plebiscite, that the Secretary General of the UN would nominate in agreement with the commission a plebiscite Administrator who would be a person of high international standing and who would derive from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir the powers which he considers necessary to organise and conduct a free and impartial plebiscite....

"Both Governments... accepted the proposals and declared the cessation of hostilities in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as from January 1, 1949."

UN Mediator Dr. E. Graham’s proposals to UN September 7, 1951.

"The Governments of India and Pakistan:

"4. Reaffirm their acceptance of the principle that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the UN"

Proceedings of Security Council, January - February, 1957.

"On February 21, the Security Council requested its President (Gunnar Jarring of Sweden) to examine with the two Governments any proposal likely to promote settlement of the Kashmir issue having regard to the earlier resolutions of the Council and the UNCIP. By an earlier resolution of January 24, 1957, the Council had affirmed its old stand to determine Kashmir’s future by plebiscite and declared that any action by the Kashmir assembly and its support by the parties would not constitute disposition of the State in keeping with that principle."

Resolution adopted by Security Council on January 24, 1957.

"The Security Council:

"Having heard statements from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

"Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its Resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948, 14 March 1950 and 30 March 1950, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan Resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations;

"Reaffirms the affirmation in its Resolution of March 30, 1951 and declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle;

"Decides to continue its consideration of the dispute."

CONCLUSION
Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, pursued a policy of deception, a rape of his own pious commitments and remained a perfect disciple of Hindu Political Statecraft i.e. Chanakiya. Dr. Ayyub Thukar makes an interesting comment:

" Sir Owen Dixon was once forced to affirm that, the fellow (Nehru) is lying. Others have said of him that in and out of office, he was fond of riding a high moral horse. He thereby not only threw dust in the eyes of the world, he also succeeded in deceiving himself. He finally arrived like a Humpty Dumpty, at the stage where words did not mean what they connoted, but what he said they meant".

The deception by the prominent successive Indian Leadership has been blasted off for good by the Nuclear Blasts in the sub-continent. The scenario in South Asia has changed. The entire world community now accepts that Kashmir is the root cause of bad blood between India and Pakistan. The carefully worked out strategy by India to put the Issue in the cold forever has failed. Kashmir has come into the limelight, despite all efforts by India to the contrary. It is time that India realises the gravity of the situation and tries honestly to end the sufferings of Kashmiris forever; who are fighting to gain liberty from Indian occupation

Indian Army officer behind mosque bombingLieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit was a serving army officer when arrested for his alleged connection with the Malegaon blast. He is accused of supplying RDX for the blast.

A powerful bomb, fitted on a motor bike, went off in Bhikku chowk area on September 29,2008. The bomb killed six persons and injured 101 persons. This was the second blast in two years. The anti-terrorism squad (ATS) arrested 11 persons belonging to Abhinav Bharat outfit. The trial is on in a Nashik court.

Purohit organised a terror training camp near Pachmarhi in MP for semi-literate Hindus. The recruits were taught how to make firearms, assemble and operate them for ‘self-defence’ in the 15-day session. However, the intention was not self-defence but to disrupt communal harmony.

Moreover, the confessional statements and witnesses’ testimonies in the Malegaon blast case have revealed that rightwing group Abhinav Bharat’s meetings discussed the possibility of an attack on Urs celebrations in Panipat.

CASE HISTORY
Malegaon blast: Sept 29, 2008
Bomb’s make: RDX, ammonium nitrate, oil fuel, shrapnel
Spot: Bhikku Chowk, Malegaon
Time: 9.35 pm
Occasion: Two days before Ramzan Eid
Killed: Six, including an 11-yr-old
Injured: 101 persons
Investigating agency: The antiterrorism squad
Total arrested: 11
Still absconding: Ramji Kalangsara, Sandeep Dange and Pravin Mutalik
Who are they? Members of Hindu hardliners’ outfits, Abhinav Bharat, Jai Vande Matram Jan Kalyan Samiti, Hindu Rashtra Sena, among others
Confessional statements: 2
MCOCA slapped on the case: Nov 20, 2008
Pages in the chargesheet: 4,528 (filed on Jan 20, 2009)
MCOCA dropped by a special court: July 31, 2009

Behind Bars:
* Pragya Singh Thakur (38): A former member of Durga Vahini, BJP's women's wing. A masters degree holder in History, Thakur took Sanyas and became a Sadhvi in January 2007. Thakur's bike was used to plant bomb in Malegaon. She is accused of engineering the blast.
She was arrested on October 23.

* Shamlal Sahu (42): He is suspected to be one of the bomb planter. A commerce graduate from Christian College in Indore, Sahu has a mobile phone shop and also acted as a realty broker. According to Madhya Pradesh PWD minister, Kailash Vijayvargia, Sahu is a BJP member. Sahu is also accused of conspiring the bomb blast.
He was arrested on October 23.

* Shivnarayan Kalangasara Singh (36): A B Sc graduate from New Sciene college in Indore, Singh works as an electrician and is also an LIC agent. He has been termed as ``mechanical and electrical'' expert by the ATS. He is suspected to have assembled the timer device while making the bomb.
He was arrested on October 23.

* Sameer Kulkarni (32): A former member of Akhil Bharatya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) who moved from Maharashtra to Bhopal a few years ago. He was emploeyed in a printing press and would distribute pamphletes and literature ``to educate Hindu youths'' about religion. He is supected to have brough the chemicals used in the bomb.
He was arrested on October 28.

* Retired major Ramesh Upadhyay (64): A resident of Akurdi in Pune, he worked in Military's intelliegence unit. Upadhyay is suspected to have provided training to the planters for assembling bombs and procuring the bomb material. He also headed BJP's ex servicemen's cell in Mumbai but was removed by the higher authorities.
He was arrested on October 28.

* Ajay Rahirkar (39): He was the treasurer of Abhinav Bharat and part of the fund raisers' group. He is a Pune resident and had paid Rs 2.5 lakh to Swami Dayanand Pandey prior to the blast.
He was arrested on November 2.

* Rakesh Dhawde (35): Dhawde has been booked in four bomb blasts cases too. They were Qadriya mosque blast in Jalna, Mohammediya mosque blast in Parbhani, another mosque blast at Porna and a bomb blast at a Bajrang Dal member, Laxman Rajkondwar's house on April 6, 2006. A Pune resident, Dhawde also arranged terror training for the Bajrang Dal members and collected weapons for training. He was a weapon consultant for Aamir Khan starrer movie, Mangal Pandey- The Rising.
He was arrested on November 2.

* Jagdish Mhatre (40): A habitual criminal and accused in murder and extortion cases in Kalyan and Thane, Mhatre resided at Dombivili at the time of his arrest. He had paid money to Dhawde to buy weapons.
He was arrested on November 2.

* Lt. Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit (37): He is accused of procuring the RDX used in the blast. Arranged and attended meetings, collectd funds and is a prime conspirator. He was posted at the Army Education Corpse Training Centre and College in Panchmadi, Madhya Pradesh where he was doing a course in Arabic at the time of his arrest.
He was arrested on November 5.

* Swami Dayanand Pandey alias Shankar Acharya alias Sukhakar Dwuvedi (40): He had asked Purohit to arrange for explosves for the Malegaon blast. He conducted meetings with the other accused. He ran two ashrams, one Kanpur and another in Jammu and Kashmir, prior to his arrest.
He was arrested on November 14.

* Sudhakar Chaturvedi (37): Originally a resident of Mirzapur in UP, Chaturvedi was picked up from Deolali where he stayed in a rented room. He is accused of conspiracy.
He was arrested on November 18.


Case was first registered at the Azad Nagar police station in Malegaon on September 29, 2008. Later, it was transferred to the ATS police station (CR No. 18/08) in Mumbai.

CHARGES
The accused have been booked under the Indian Penal Code for crimes such as murder under Section 302, attempt to murder under Section 307 and conspiracy under Section 120-B. They have been slapped with provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for trying to ‘overawe the government’ and ‘threatening the unity and integrity of the nation’, under the Explosives Act for use of RDX to engineer the blast, and the MCOCA for being members of an organised crime syndicate.

* Sections of the Indian Penal Code: 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 327 (voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal to an act) and 153 (d).

* Sections 15, 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
* Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act
* Sections 3, 7and 25 of the Arms Act
* Sections 3 (1) (i) and 3 (2) (3) (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA)


THE FILES EVIDENCE
* The bike used in the blast is said to have been once owned by Sadhvi Pragya
* Recorded conversation between Lt Col Prasad Purohit and retired Major Ramesh Upadhyaya * Traces of RDX found in Sudhakar Chaturvedi’s house SMS messages sent from Purohit’s phone to Upadhyaya Two important confession statements made in the presence of a magistrate
* 431 witnesses, of which five are army officers
* 12 written witness statements
* A laptop seized from Dayanand Pandey containing valuable proof

Why Kashmiris observe October 27 as Black Day!

Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control and across the globe observe October 27 as Black Day and consider it as the blackest day in the history of Kashmir. This is the Day when India landed its army in Jammu and Kashmir, in total disregard to the Indian Independence Act and Partition Plan in 1947.

In order to change the demographic composition of the territory, Indian troops, the forces of Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh, and Hindu extremists massacred over three hundred thousand Kashmiri Muslims within a period of two months.
The Indian Independence Act and Partition Plan of 1947 had stated that the Indian British Colony would be divided into two sovereign states, India, with Hindu-majority areas, and Pakistan, with the Muslim-majority areas of Western provinces and east Bengal.
India by landing its Army in Jammu and Kashmir violated the guidelines set for deciding the future of Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir, three of the independent Princely States at that time, which were given the choice to either accede to Pakistan or India, considering the geographical situation and communal demography. It forcibly occupied the Hyderabad and Junagarh, which had Hindus in majority but their rulers were Muslims. Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state and had a natural tendency to accede to Pakistan, but its Hindu ruler destroyed the future of Kashmiri people by announcing its accession to India under a controversial accession document (Instrument of Accession). Many neutral observers deny the existence of such document with the argument that had it been there Indian government had made it public either officially or at any international forum.
It is a historical fact that if the partition was done on the principles of Justice then India had no land route to enter into Jammu and Kashmir but the so-called Boundary Commission, headed by British Barrister, Cyril Radcliff, that demarcated partition line, under a conspiracy split Gurdaspur, a Muslim majority area, and handed it over to India, providing it terrestrial access to the territory.
Right from the day one, the people of Kashmir did not accept India's illegal occupation and started an armed struggle with the total support of public in 1948, which forced India to approach the UN Security Council to seek help of the World Body to settle the dispute. The UN Security Council through its successive resolutions nullified Indian invasion and occupation of Kashmir. It also approved a ceasefire, demarcation of the ceasefire line, demilitarization of the state and a free and impartial plebiscite to be conducted under the supervision of the World Body. Although the ceasefire and demarcation of the ceasefire line was implemented while demilitarization of the occupied territory and a free and impartial plebiscite under UN supervision remain unimplemented till date. As a result of the demarcation, about 139,000 square kilometers area of Jammu and Kashmir remained with India while 83,807 square kilometers constituted the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
Indian rulers promised before the UN to resolve the dispute and provide the people of Kashmir with their basic right of self-determination, but later backed away from their commitments. India has been putting peace, security and stability of the entire South Asia at stake by demonstrating continued rigidity and stubbornness and not responding positively to the efforts made by the international community to settle the Kashmir dispute during the last more than six decades.
Disappointed at the failure of all the efforts aimed at resolving the Kashmir dispute through peaceful means, the people of occupied Kashmir launched a massive uprising in 1989 to secure their right to self-determination. This movement gathered momentum with the passage of time and pushed the Indian authorities to wall, forcing them to sit around the negotiation table with Pakistan in January 2004. The talks process continued till it was hampered after Mumbai attacks on November 26, 2008, when India without any substantive evidence laid the responsibility of these attacks on Pakistan and its intelligence agencies. However, Prime Ministers of the two countries, Yousuf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singh after a meeting at Sharm El-Sheikh, on July 16, 2009, in a joint statement declared to resume the composite dialogue process to resolve all outstanding issues.
It is worth mentioning that Pakistan demonstrated considerable flexibility in the dialogue process by floating various proposals including demilitarization, self-governance and joint-management to settle the conflict over Kashmir, but India's intransigent approach continued to remain the biggest hurdle in making successful any effort made in this regard. The ground situation in the occupied territory remains unchanged, as the confidence building measures and the dialogue process could not provide Kashmiri people respite from the Indian state terrorism.
India has exhausted all its resources and means but has not been able to deter Kashmiris from continuing their liberation struggle. It has given a free hand to its troops and police to subject peaceful protesters to brute force. Over 70 people were killed only within a period of two months in 2008 when Indian police personnel resorted to indiscriminate firing to break up demonstrators in Kashmir. The Chairman of All Parties Hurriyet Conference, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq was placed under house arrest for two months to prevent him from addressing public gatherings. Liberation leaders including Syed Ali Gilani, Shabbir Ahmed Shah, Aasiya Andrabi, Nayeem Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Ashraf Sehrai, Masarat Alam Butt and Muhammad Saleem Nunnaji have been booked under the infamous draconian law, Public Safety Act to keep them away from the people. The troops have been setting new records of human rights violations by killing innocent people, arresting youth, disgracing and harassing women and setting residential houses afire with impunity.
The troops have killed over ninety-two thousand Kashmiris, widowed more than twenty five thousand women, orphaned more than one hundred thousand children and molested or gang-raped around ten thousand Kashmiri women during the past 20 years. The whereabouts of thousands of innocent Kashmiris, disappeared in the custody of troops, are yet to be made known while hundreds of unnamed graves have been discovered in the occupied territory, which are believed to be of disappeared Kashmiris. This whole mayhem is being carried out with the protection of draconian laws, by virtue of which any person can be killed or put behind the bars without any accountability.
The All Parties Hurriyet Conference sources made a shocking revelation recently that in line with a new scheme, Indian troops were killing innocent Kashmiri youth in fake encounters in the areas near the Line of Control after arresting them from different parts of the occupied territory. According to the APHC sources through these killings India wanted to mislead the international community by propagating that Kashmiri youth were trying to enter Indian occupied Kashmir after crossing over the Line of Control.
The Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Asia Watch and other international humanitarian organizations in their regular reports over the unabated rights abuses in the occupied territory have been raising their concern. Even the European Union Parliament during its session in Strasbourg on July 10, 2008 unanimously passed a resolution calling upon the Indian Government to urgently conduct an independent and impartial probe into the issue of discovery of mass graves in the territory. It also strongly condemned unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture, rape and other human rights abuses, which have been taking place at the hands of the occupation troops in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989.
It was yet another exposition of India's callousness that the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh on India's Independence Day, this year, tried to hoodwink the international community by stating that the elections in Kashmir had rendered the freedom element irrelevant. To protest this unrealistic statement Kashmiri people observed crippling strike on August 22. Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi while addressing a meeting of Kashmiri leaders on September 4, 2009 in Islamabad categorically emphasized that the elections in Indian occupied Kashmir could not be a substitute of Kashmiris' right to self-determination. He reaffirmed his country's moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmir liberation movement. The mammoth anti-India protest demonstrations, participated by millions of people in Indian occupied Kashmir, last year, should be taken as Kashmiris' referendum against the Indian illegal occupation of their soil.
These are the reasons that why Kashmiris observe October 27 as Black Day. The observance is intended to send a loud and clear message to the international community to take cognizance of the miseries of Kashmiri people, help stop human rights violations in the occupied territory and play its role in bringing about a solution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with Kashmiris' aspirations. It is also aimed at calling upon India to read writing on the wall, accept the ground realities and come forward with a realistic approach to settle the dispute for the larger interest of the people of the region.

Autonomy won’t work: Pak
Islamabad Restates Support For Right To Self Determination
REZAUL H LASKAR/PTI

Islamabad, Aug 12: Days after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed willingness to consider devolution of powers to Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan Thursday said such measures would not help resolve the vexed issue and reiterated its support for “right to self-determination” for the Kashmiris.
“It is important to first acknowledge and summon the courage (to say) that the Jammu and Kashmir issue is there and it can’t be addressed unless it is properly diagnosed and a proper prescription is given,” Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit said at his weekly news briefing.
His comments came in response to a question on Singh’s reported remarks that he was willing to consider autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir within the ambit of the Constitution.
This was the first reaction from Pakistan to Singh’s statement made during an all-party meeting in New Delhi on Tuesday.
“We all know that the problem in Jammu and Kashmir relates to their right to self-determination and unless and until India recognises that and moves ahead in that direction, we doubt very much that the people of Jammu and Kashmir will settle for anything less,” Basit said.
To another question on Congress MP and former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor’s reported remarks about Pakistan exporting terror to Jammu and Kashmir and creating the perception of rights abuses in the state, he said the Kashmiris were engaged in a “legitimate indigenous struggle” to get their right to “self-determination.”
Describing Tharoor’s reported comments as “simplistic”, Basit said India should understand that the Kashmir problem is an issue that must be settled according to the wishes of the Kashmiris.
“This is a legitimate indigenous struggle which the people of Jammu and Kashmir are continuing with and we are confident that, sooner or later, they will be able to get their right to self-determination,” Basit said.
“I think the crux of the matter is that India needs to realise that Jammu and Kashmir is an issue, (it) is a problem which needs to be resolved and handled in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Kashmir.”


Lastupdate on : Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time

10th class student killed as CRPF opens fire in Kupwara
45-year-old woman injured
Shahid Rafiq
Lastupdate at : Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:56:37 IST
Kupwara: A 10th class student was killed and a 45-year old woman was injured when paramilitary CRPF opened fire on a group of people who, locals say, were coming out of a mosque after dawn prayers at Trehgam town this morning.

According to eyewtinesses, as people were coming out of a mosque after offering dawn prayers at Mirpora mohalla in Trehgam town, they were confronted by CRPF personnel on the grounds that undeclared curfew was in force in the area. This led to an argument between the worshippers and CRPF, upon which the latter opened fire and killed a boy, identified as Mudasir hmed Zargar, S/O Gulam Hasan Zargar, a resident of Trehgam.

A 45-year-old woman, identified as Jana Begum W/O Muhammad Sidiq Malik was injured.

Trehgam, 10 kms from Kupwara district headquaters and some 120 kms north of Srinagar, is the birth place of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) founder, Muhammad Maqbool Bhat, who was haged in New Delhi's Tihar Jail in 1984.

After the boy's killing, tension has gripped the entire area and people are trying to defy curfew.

Meanwhile, curfew is in place in Kupwara and Handwara towns as well.

BJP gives Lal Chowk Chalo call
SUMIT HAKHOO

Jammu, Aug 12: After more than 20 years, Bharatiya Janata Party has again given a call for Lal Chowk Chalo on August 15 to hoist the tricolor at the historic Chowk.
The party has claimed that about 100 activists of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha will take part in the march and would carry water of river Tawi, which they intend to sprinkle at the site before unfurling the flag.
Addressing a press conference here today, Morcha state president, Munish Sharma said Lal Chowk Chalo programme had been announced with a motive to ‘boost the morale’ of the armed forces and the ‘nationalist’ people in the valley.


Lastupdate on : Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time

Separatists fighting for common cause: Geelani
Says Ongoing Agitation A Turning Point
GK NEWS NETWORK


Srinagar, Aug 9: Stating that there was no difference among the pro-freedom leaders on taking the movement to its logical conclusion, the Chairman of Hurriyat Conference (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani Monday said the ongoing agitation was a turning point for the Kashmir cause.
“The ongoing agitation is a turning point for our freedom movement as the people are rendering tremendous support to the conglomerate’s program,” Geelani said in an interview with local news gathering agency KNS.
On a question about unification of separatists, Geelani explained that diverse political parties of India unite when there is a question of protecting their country. “Likewise, the pro-freedom parties of Kashmir are jointly fighting for the cause of Kashmir despite working under different banners,” he said.
Geelani exuded hope that the ongoing agitation will achieve its objective. “We will achieve success but for that Kashmiris have to show steadfastness and patience. It is imperative that the youth keep the protests non-violent, maintain discipline and don’t pay heed to rumours,” he said.
Geelani said that he would never change his stand on Kashmir. “If I change my stand, the people will instantly seize to support me as I represent their aspirations and sacrifices. I assure people that I will never change my stand and fight for right to self-determination till last drop of my blood,” he said.
Geelani said the UJC supremo, Syed Salah-u-Din, has played an important role in carrying forward the movement. “Whenever he gives any statement, it will be definitely for the benefit of Kashmir cause,” he said. Geelani maintained he has no contact with the Salah-u-Din for a long time.
He said by arbitrary arrests and harassment, New Delhi can’t suppress the sentiments of Kashmiris. “The movement has reached a crucial stage and Kashmiris have to remain aware of vested interests who are trying to defame our cause,” he said.
Geelani strongly condemned the continuous house arrest of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq.
“The authorities have also sealed the historic Jamia Masjid and not allowed congregational Friday prayers for six consecutive weeks. New Delhi deprives the Kashmiris from fulfilling our religious duties to suppress our cause,” he said.
“I have learnt that despite being ill, Yasin Malik is under arrest. This is a condemnable act by the police and authorities,” he said.
He demanded immediate release of Malik and other leaders including Muhammad Ashraf Sehrai, General Moosa, the High Court Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom, and its general secretary GN Shaheen.
On dialogue, Geelani said talks shouldn’t be for the sake of it. “The Hurriyat led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq also held several rounds of talks. But they did not achieve anything. So it is futile for us to even think of indulging in talks,” he said.
However, he maintained that if New Delhi was serious, it should accept the disputed nature of Kashmir and release all political prisoners. “Unless the last Indian trooper leaves the state, our movement will continue. Kashmir issue has to be resolved according to the UN resolutions and aspirations of Kashmiris,” he maintained.


Lastupdate on : Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time