Emergence of Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed

As Sword of Allah

By Mohammad Ramzan Adil

Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed was awarded the title of sword of Allah by the prophet Mohammad(Peace Be Upon Him) at the end of Battle/ Ghazwah, of Motah. Motah town was lacated at the southern end of the Red Sea near Jordon. The battle was fought on 8^th of Hijra in the month of Jamadiul Awwal. It was Ghazwah because the Prophet(PBUH) was alive and was in Madina. It was called battle since the Prophet(PBUH)was not present with the army. The prophet(Peace Be Upon Him)came to know that a large army of Romans (Shamis) had started moving towards Madina Munawwara. A force of three thousand could be managed to block the way hundred thousand well equipped with armed, therefore the prophet(PBUH) nominated thee commanders for the combat. The first was Hazrat Jaafar Tayyar, Prophet,s cousin and younger brother of Hazrat Ali (RA). If Jaffer Tayyar was martyred then, Hazrtat Zaid Bin Haris would take the flag and in case of his martyrdom Hazrat Abdullah Bin Rawaha would be the cammander of the force. In the event of his martyrdom, the force would decide for the flag bearer through consensus. The Muslims swiftly advanced and overtook Romans close to the locality of Motah and the fighting started.

Hazrat Jaffer Bin Tayyar took the flag and launched the assault against the enemy and killed a number of them… His right hand was cutoff and he took the flag in the left hand. Little after his left hand was chopped of by the sword of an enemy and he held the flag in his teeth and did not budge an inch but the sword of an enemy cut off his body into two and he was martyred. At this moment the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) informed the Suhabah (Companions) in Mdina that Jaffer Bin Tayyar was flying to the paradise with his cut off hands making them wings. In the pitched battle Zaid Bin Haris and Abdullah Bin Rawaha too fell martyred while fighting bravely the huge army of the enemy. Then through one opinion the Muslims gave the flag to Hazrat Kalid Bin Waleed who had the experience of war strategy. Hazrat Khalid had embranced Islam right after Ghazwa of Uhud and it was for the first time the commander to lead the Muslim army. Khalid Bin Waleed was the off spring of Banu Makhdoom tribe which had the illustrious tradition of expertise over warfare and valiant deeds. Hazrat Umar, the second Caliph of Islam was also form the same tribe.

Hazrat Khalid started fighting the enemy for some time when the night approached and according to the tradition of war those days, the armies separated from each other and proceeded to their camps to continue the battle the next morning. At night Hazrati Khalid Bin Waleed studied the war plan and came to the conclusion that it would be the foremost objective to fight a defensive war and save the small force to the maximum extent. He directed the 1500 soldiers on the rear to come to the fore front and the fighters on the front to move back in a far and wide area and move towards the battle field while raising full throated slogans of Allah -0-Akber. By evolving the strategy Khalid Bin Waleed started fighting the enemy next morning twisting on a side back back inch by inch for a defensive war. The enemy thought that there were fresh forces on the fore front and innumerable forces of Muslims were backing them and moving towards the battle field. The enemy further was unnerved that the commander was twisting on one side to encircle their army. This was the height of the psychological warefare that such a huge number of force came under pressure by the methodology adopted by Khalid Bin Waleed. The day long fighting continued and nine swords were broken at the hand of Hazrat Khalid. Then he was empty handed and an enemy was just throwing a spear towards Khalid when a Muslim solidier threw his sword swiftly towards him. The tenth sword proved decisive and the Romans started fleeing away. By that time half of the horse of Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed was drowned in the blood. Hazrat Khalid forbade his force to chase the enemy least they should turn back and assess their real strength. Then they would eliminate the succeeded to save the remaining army of Muslims God given wisdom for warfare. The historians are of the opinion that the battle remained undecided, but it was a miracle that adopting a right strategy Hazrat Khalid managed to force the enemy flee away save his small army from elimination.

When the Muslim army returned to Madina, the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) awarded the title of sword of Allah (Saifullah) to Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed for fighting the first and most difficult battle of his life with such a small force.

By all standards of the war Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed stands as the best Commander of history for all times. During his very first battle, he worked a miracle by the grace of Allah to drive away the huge army by leading a very small force of Muslims where very strong Commanders of the caliber of Jaffer Bin Tayyar, Zaid Bin Haris and Abdullah Bin Rawaha had fallen martyred valiantly facing the heavy odds in the battle. In the later history Khalid Bin Waleed trampled the mighty Bazantinian (Roman) Empire. He is the sole commander who did not face a single defeat in his life time. Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed, at a number of times, launched solo attack on the enemy armies that he should be martyred. But since he was sword of Allah, therefore this sword could not be broken. Many times he was injured but appeared victorious. He was such a legend that the enemy forces dreaded him so much that wherever his presence was known to them in any Muslim army they flew away. A number of traps were laid for Khalid Bin Waleed under the guise of negotiations to take his life, but he had such an acumen and vision that he fore saw that this is a trap and he in advance devised the strategy to frustrate the enemy designs. Even with a small number of force accompanying him during the negotiation, he returned safe and sound, killing a large number of enemy forces.

How Khalid Bin Waleed totally destroyed the heavy might of Roman Empire is a history making event of his life. The event would be narrated in the coming month.

It is misconception that the present day war is more crucial, complex and difficult due to the invention of lethal Arms and mass destruction devices. But the today’s General has to command the armed forces while sitting in the observation rooms. The commanders at that stage of history had to lead the forces while lifting heavy weapons. There had been events in the ancient history of war that two kings or commanders decided to fight each other by saving the forces and such and such solo fights had been decision makers.

Saying ‘no’ to rape

Arjimand Hussain Talib

Kashmir’s soul was bruised yet again last week. As soul is bruised, it usually sparks a fire of protest and dissent. That is the reason Valley’s cool air saw reverberation of slogans of protest from Handwara village to the sprawling campuses of Kashmir University, National Institute of Technology and the Government Medical College in Srinagar. For those who pretend to make us believe life in Kashmir has returned to normalcy, it must have been a rude shock. For those who fancy end of dissent and protest it must have been an awakening of life.  The reality, as all of us see, is that for an ordinary man, life in Kashmir is still a hell. But to the ruling elite until boats move on the Dal Lake everything is fine. To them Dal Lake is Kashmir. And Kashmir? We all know they love to see the shopping people on Eid as a symbol of peace.

 Picnicking in Mughal Gardens as anti-thesis of Azadi. Pyramids of laddus raised on makeshift shops around Lal Chowk a symbol of normalcy. A conference in the fortified Centaur Hotel, close to the helipad of Royal Golf Course, an icon of achievement to be painted on government sign boards. Tourist couples walking hand in hand on the Boulevard as a sign of Kashmiris’ happiness. And prosperity. Imagine how funny our indicators of peace and normalcy are.  So disconnected are they from the realities of Kashmir that they don’t want to confess that a rape has actually happened. Or it is happening.

They would instead want us to see the list of government’s “development achievements” circulated by its public relations departments. And it is about the kind of development that takes place with our money, some money they get from begging and from loans. It reminds me of the statement of an economist friend of mine, Sauvik Chakrovarty who says that it is about the grinning kings who try to make us smile with their worst kind of spending; a spending they do with someone else’s money on someone else! Anyone in touch with Kashmir’s rural and mountain life realities would tell that such cases happen commonly but are hardly reported. In the past when such cases have been reported and highlighted in the press we have come to know that such rapes happen in Kashmir. But whenever such cases have been highlighted and civilian and military authorities pushed to hold inquiries and take action against the guilty, the guilty have usually gone scot-free. And whenever some action has been taken it has generally remained confined to suspension and transfer from the State. Taking the guilty off his duties and possibly transferring him out of Jammu & Kashmir can by no stretch of rational imagination be a punishment. It does not need a genius to say that such a transfer is a reward.

 Basic law has taught us that any punishment ought to act as a deterrent and not as an incentive to commit the crime again. In case of punishment of transfer what we actually end up doing is tempt other soldiers and officers to commit such crimes. Nothing else could earn them salvation from the battlefield. What a comedy!  If we come to the law of combat, it is indisputable that such punishments and cosmetic service actions do not fulfill the requirements of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). India is a signatory to the IHL and as such is committed to take actions that fulfill its requirements. In situations of combat, where the civilian governments are reduced to municipal corporations, like in Kashmir, IHL must be given primacy.

 It is the neglect of this law that is seeing wide scale forced and sometimes voluntary use of civilians in combat and logistical operations. Hardly anywhere in a conflict situation in the world would the use of civilian vehicles in tactical operations and supplies of men and material be as rampant as in Jammu & Kashmir. There are scores of cases where common civilians engaged in such activities have got killed either in direct combat, ambushes or tactical operations. Since neither the army nor the civilian administrations have any institutional mechanism to provide any compensation to such victims, local administrative offices are full of applications of the survivors of such people. The irony is that such people do not fall in any government-enlisted category of victims who are entitled to any sort of compensation.

All these instances are very serious violation of the IHL. The armed and political authorities have at some occasions contended that since non-State armed actors are not bound by the IHL, it does not make sense for the State armed actors to adhere to it. It is like a diabetic grand father saying he won’t stop having sugar unless his little grandson does the same. Since the ruling political authority in Jammu & Kashmir has no locus standi in the implementation of this law, it is the armed forces that must ensure that IHL is respected.  It is true the on-going level of hostilities in Jammu & Kashmir do not fall within the category of full scale war but then the provisions of the IHL dealing with such extra ordinary situations, where normal laws are not in force, cannot be overlooked. International humanitarian and human rights considerations demand that in a situation like that prevailing in J&K IHL must be respected. 

 To ensure that incidents like what happened in Handwara do not repeat what is required is a strong punitive action that would serve as a serious deterrent. And it is surely not about the affect of such actions on the morale of the armed forces. A rape and a punishment for it have nothing to do with the morale. And, as already said, transfer would really not be a punishment; it would rather be an incentive. All eyes are now on the findings of the inquiry that both the civilian and military authorities have ordered. What remains to be seen is would justice prevail. Or it would be a repetition of the past: a hush up exercise till people forget the issue.

Division no solution

    Different quarters have suggested different solutions to the vexed Kashmir problem. Some elements believe division of Jammu Kashmir was the only viable and practicable solution. So-called roadmaps have also been prepared and discussed in detail. However, the people who live here have vehemently opposed division of the state and have expressed determination to oppose such moves tooth and nail. One of the visiting Pakistan journalists while interacting with the deputy chief minister suggested division of Jammu Kashmir as a solution to the problem. The statement of the Pakistan scribe has evoked severe criticism from one and all. The mainstream lobby and the pro-freedom elements have reacted sharply to the statement. The criticism is not totally unfounded. Even at this stage when Kashmir problem has assumed much wider dimensions, if some people nurture such tendencies it speaks of their mental bankruptcy. Time and again it has been made clear that Kashmir is not a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. The dispute involves three parties but India and Pakistan have been ignoring the main party (the people of Jammu Kashmir) for unknown reasons. This attitude has dragged the two neighbouring countries three times to war. A fourth confrontation (which could have proved deadly and disastrous) was prevented recently when the international community intervened and urged the two countries to solve their problems amicably. Some people in India and Pakistan say the Kashmir dispute has held more than one billion people of the sub-continent hostage for the past fifty-five years. Yes, Kashmir is discussed at every forum. This issue monopolizes the conferences, debates, seminars held by the two countries to usher in an era of understanding and friendship. During such exercises many a face falls when Kashmir comes up for discussion. This hard reality should have changed the attitude and thinking of such people but unfortunately things have been moving in the opposite direction. Instead of taking the people of Jammu Kashmir into confidence and involving them in the peace process, the two countries seem all set to impose their solution on a reluctant people. Can such solutions work? The two countries have been talking to each other for the past fifty years. What is the outcome? They reached an agreement at Tashkent but the wound continues to bleed. The decided to solve their problem bilaterally but all the problems are still there and mocking at New Delhi and Islamabad. They talked peace at Lahore only to confront each other At Kargil. They tried their best to understand each other at Agra only to find the hawks were too strong for them. They have been discussing their problems almost every year at the secretary level but all in vain. Bilateralism has failed and the sooner this reality dawns on New Delhi and Islamabad the better. Why did people of Kashmir start this movement in the first instance? There was peace, Kashmir would also earn a lot, their per capita income was much better than most of the Indian states. They had no problems usually encountered by a majority of people in the sub-continent. Why did the volcano make way in 1988 suddenly? In 1947 the whole of sub-continent was given a chance to decide their destiny. Only Kashmiris were denied this right. They turned violent only when all peaceful means failed. The feeling that they have been herded like animals for four decades forced them to open their mouths. There are other reasons but the feeling of being ignored has been projected as one of the big reasons by the Kashmir experts. And, today when much water, rather blood has flown down the Jhelum can the valiant people of Jammu Kashmir be taken for a ride any more? Can New Delhi and Islamabad thrust a solution on them? As mentioned above one and all have rejected the division of Jammu Kashmir. The Hurriyat Conference has rejected it, the division scheme goes against the very ideology of JKLF which stands for united Kashmir. Other elements including Shabir Shah, Jama’t-e-Islami have also rejected it. The Action Committee, the National Conference, the Congress, The BJP and even the ruling PDP have rejected it. And, above all the general public has also rejected it. The writing on the wall is loud and clear. There is no denying the fact that both India and Pakistan have their men here who will try their best to dupe the seemingly gullible people. But little do such elements know that the people have matured a lot during the past fifteen years and will not, therefore, accept any solution, which is imposed on them. It is not Kashmir, which has held the people of sub-continent hostage for fifty-five years. In fact, New Delhi and Islamabad have held the people of Jammu Kashmir hostage for the past five decades.

Is Kashmir marching towards Peace-I

Realizing the futility in being hostile to each other, the two countries at long last have come to realise the cost of animosity,
Nayeema Ahmed writes from London (Courtesy Greater Kashmir)

   Amid severe hostility, the latest peace initiative between India and Pakistan has allowed millions in the Subcontinent to heave a sigh of relief. In Kashmir, it has opened up the possibility of a solution to the more than 50 year old dispute. After a long spell of death, destruction and wastage of huge resources, the leaders of India and Pakistan seem to have realised the huge price their poor countrymen are paying for the antagonistic approach their countries have adopted against each other. Everybody in the Subcontinent is eagerly awaiting the outcome of the dialogue process that was started early this year with a view to solving the outstanding disputes between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. No sooner had the former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced that he was ready to start a dialogue with Pakistan to settle all issues including Kashmir, than the Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf reciprocated by offering to meet the Indian premier half way down the road leading to peace. The newly formed Congress-led government reiterated the promise of continuing the dialogue and find solution to all bilateral problems. So far, the developments have been favourable to the establishment of peace. Transport links have been re-established, cross-border infiltration has fallen, and confidence has been restored between the two countries. More importantly, the two countries have started playing cricket with each other. A good indicator of the bonhomie between the two countries is the way in which the Indian and Pakistan spectators conducted themselves, with many spectators flying the flags of both countries, taking victory with modesty and accepting defeat with a good grace. The cricket matches showed that the ordinary people of the Subcontinent desire peace and good relations between the two enemies.

What is very significant about the peace process is the fact that it was initiated at a time when both countries were embroiled in sabre-rattling and were on the brink of going to war. The military build-up that resulted after the December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament by suspected Pakistani militants, once again made the Subcontinent a flashpoint in the world’s media. This was all the more so since both countries possessed nuclear weapons and were uttering barely concealed threats to use them. Already, the two sides had nearly gone to war in 1999 over the alleged incursion by Pakistani forces into Kargil in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Had it not been for the diplomatic role played by the American President Bill Clinton, the Subcontinent may well have been engulfed by the tide of war. Apart from involving the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and contacts, the latest peace process has also obliged the two countries to take military measures. Pakistan has put tremendous pressure on militant groups to reduce the tempo of their activity.

Recently, a top military commander in India confirmed that infiltration across the Line of Control (LoC) had reduced after the normalisation of relations with Pakistan. There has been a great deal of scepticism about the latest initiative because of the previous record of peace processes. The last peace summit in Agra had raised hopes to such an extent that it was widely believed that a solution to the Kashmir issue was in the offing. As Indian political analyst Kuldip Nayar observed, "something positive was to come out of the Summit but some trivial matter shattered the hopes and ended the peace process." The leaders who set the process in motion - Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf - are both considered to have the backing of the majority of their countrymen. This has confirmed the seriousness and eagerness with which the two countries now want to deal with each other. It has certainly lent the process much credibility in the eyes of the public. The Indian Government has decided to join the process because of a realisation that the current military policy in Kashmir had failed to cut much ice. India’s policy of repression has ended up alienating the Kashmiri people, thus creating conditions ideal for the militancy. Many Indian analysts have long lamented the excessively militaristic policy of their government towards the Kashmir insurgency. Kashmir has become a huge burden on the Indian state’s exchequer. It has acted as an obstacle to India’s becoming an Asian tiger economy, and has always threatened to destabilise many other volatile states in India. On the other side of the border, Pakistan has been facing a serious challenge from Islamic militants pouring in from Afghanistan. Their attacks on important institutions have become more rampant, leading to uncertainty in the country. The two recent attempts by these militants on President Musharraf’s life have proved that the militants are out of control. A solution to the Kashmir problem would remove the raison d’etre of these militants, and give the Pakistani Government the justification for clamping down on them. However, there is a general feeling in the Subcontinent that the peace initiative is the result of American pressure being applied to both governments. One of the senior Kashmiri leaders put the recent flurry of diplomatic activity down to America’s increasing role in South Asian Affairs. Washington believes that an end to the Kashmir militancy would also spell an end to the Jehadi organisations in Pakistan, thereby denying support to Taliban remnants seeking refuge in Pakistan.

This also fits in with the American government’s policy of eliminating, one by one, any potential havens for terrorism. Kashmir is supposed to be one of these havens. It is also considered to be a cause of Muslim resentment against the West’s indifference to the Kashmir problem compared to its keen interest in the secession of East Timor from Indonesia. In pursuing the peace process, both sides have observed a remarkable degree of flexibility and patience. Compared to the extremely antagonistic positions that India and Pakistan have adopted in the past, their recent behaviour has been very accommodating of each other’s views and standpoints. The first sign of this ‘softening’ of attitude was President Musharraf’s emphatic statement that his country was prepared to review its insistence on the UN Security Council Resolutions if alternative means of solving the dispute were found. The realisation that their two countries cannot afford to go to war, and therefore cannot afford to leave disputes outstanding for ever, has finally dawned on the leaders of India and Pakistan. In a post-9/11 security environment, the fact that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of fundamentalists, has always acted as a spur to the United States to do its best to ensure India and Pakistan solve their disputes and reduce their nuclear arsenals. I believe that after exhaustion of all the strategic and military options to curb militancy, the current political volatile scenario of post 9/11 world and the threat of transfer of nuclear know-how to some Islamists in the region, this process is being taken seriously to find a solution to Kashmir problem in order to grab a last chance to establish a peace in the sub-continent.

In order to ascertain the virtual perception of the Kashmir problem and the options put forward for its solution, it will be useful briefly to go through a history of the dispute. For this paper, I have included some interviews with some real players and political analysts done for documentary broadcast from BBC South Asia. The High politics of partition Kashmiris have always blamed Raj for its insensitive attitude towards the region. Two events in the Raj’s history had severe repercussions on Kashmir’s political and social life. The first was the sale of Kashmir to a Maharaja. The second was the indifferent attitude adopted in relation to Jammu and Kashmir State by the British Government after it transferred sovereignty over the Subcontinent to the two dominions of India and Pakistan. After acquiring the Kashmir valley from the defeated Sikhs in the middle of the 19th century, the British, then operating through the East India Company, sold the valley to the Raja of Jammu, Gulab Singh Dogra, as a reward to him for his neutrality in the Anglo-Sikh War. Kashmir was thought by the Company too ungovernable. The British wanted to secure their strategic interests in the region and build defences against any possible attempt by Tsarist Russia to invade India. From 1846 to 1947 Kashmir was ruled by the Dogra dynasty of Gulab Singh. The Dogras were infamous in the valley for their heavy-handedness, ruthlessness and discriminatory attitude towards the valley’s Muslims. In British India, Jammu and Kashmir State had full internal autonomy. As the independence of the Subcontinent drew nearer, the British Cabinet Mission announced that the princely states were free to join either India or Pakistan and there was no obligation on the rulers of these states to consult their subjects before acceding. By the time independence was granted, all princely states barring three had made their choice. In Junagarh state, the Muslim ruler of a majority Hindu state opted for Pakistan, but his wish was overridden when Indian troops invaded and overthrew his regime. The ruler of the state of Hyderabad wanted to remain independent, but his state too was invaded by Indian troops.

The remaining state, Jammu and Kashmir, had yet to make any decision. The ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, decided to wait before making a decision, but it was widely believed that he was inclined towards independence. Some theories suggest that the Maharaja was persuaded to forget the idea of independence by the then Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. It is said that the latter prevailed upon the Maharaja to forgo independence and instead join India. Just days before independence, the Maharaja had sent telegrams to India and Pakistan proposing a standstill agreement allowing him more time to decide. During this time, Jammu and Kashmir was, de facto, an independent state. All eyes were set on the Radcliffe Boundaries Commission which was then partitioning Punjab province between India and Pakistan. Contrary to the logic of partition whereby Muslim majority areas were to be awarded to Pakistan, the Radcliffe Commission awarded the Muslim majority district of Gurdaspur in Punjab province to India. This meant that India had a land link to Jammu and Kashmir state, thus bolstering its claim to the state. The Indian Government immediately began constructing road and railway links since there were no rail or road connections between Punjab and Kashmir, all the supplies were coming via the Rawalpindi-Muzaffarabad and Gujranwala-Sialkot roads.9 The Gurdaspur affair came as a direct blow to Pakistan’s hopes of securing Kashmir as its fifth province. The border district of Poonch in Jammu was already in turmoil with the outbreak of a rebellion against the Maharaja. When Pakistan was granted independence on 14th August 1947, there were celebrations in Kashmir accompanied by the hoisting of Pakistani flags in prominent public places. Demonstrations calling for accession with Pakistan resounded across the length and breadth of the valley. After independence, the standstill wore on for nearly two more months. In October, a motley collection of tribal fighters from the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan entered the Jammu and Kashmir state through the western entry-point of Muzaffarabad. They immediately routed the Maharaja’s garrisons forcing them into a retreat. The Maharaja fled the valley, fearing for his life, and left it at the disposal of his troops. The advance of the tribal juggernaut was swift. In a few days they had captured the town of Baramula, 30 kilometres from the capital Srinagar. At Baramula the tribal force disintegrated and descended into an orgy of looting, rape and arson.

The main leader of Kashmir at the time, Sheikh Abdullah opposed the tribal invasion and became inclined towards India. Abdullah was a secularist friend of Nehru, opposed to the two-nation theory of Jinnah, and committed to a secular socialist future for Kashmir. The Maharaja sought help against the tribals from India. The Indian Government, at the insistence of Mountbatten, offered to help on condition that the Maharaja signed an Instrument of Accession with India. This the Maharaja promptly did. The Instrument also provided for the future of Kashmir to be decided by reference to the wishes of its people. Many Kashmiris now believe that this was a Nehruvian ploy to allow Sheikh Abdullah to assume the reigns of power and bring the state within the Indian fold. However, Nehru made an open statement that "Kashmir is not the property of India or Pakistan. It belongs to Kashmiris and their verdict will be final". The people of Kashmir at this time were blindly following Sheikh Abdullah. They did not think he would betray the enormous trust they had placed in him. An old follower of Abdullah says: "People thought that he would never deceive them by choosing India instead of Pakistan. Most people wanted Kashmir to join Pakistan."

The insincerity of Nehru’s commitment to allow Kashmiris the right to decide their future is clearly evidenced by his correspondence with Stafford Cripps. At one point, Nehru said: "I am convinced that it would be a complete ruin of Kashmir if it went to Pakistan. A barbarous lot of people would overwhelm some of the most cultured and intellectual people of India". Once the Instrument of Accession was signed, Indian troops were airlifted to Kashmir. The advance of the tribals was stopped by Indian troops at the Battle of Shalteng, the airport was secured and eventually the tribals were ejected from the valley. A full-scale war ensued in which Indian troops fought Pakistani troops. By this time, the northern third of Kashmir consisting of the provinces of Gilgit and Baltistan had already acceded by themselves and at the "instigation of British army officer" to Pakistan. Ultimately, the two adversaries faced each other across the frontline that was to become the ceasefire line. The matter was referred by India to the United Nations. A ceasefire was then brokered and fighting stopped. India possessed two-thirds of Jammu and Kashmir state and Pakistan the remaining third. It is still a mystery why India went to the UN, given the potential internationalisation that would result. However, some authors suggest that it was done on the advice of the British generals commanding the Indian army who persuaded Nehru to go to the UN so that Pakistan would be considered an invader. The Kashmir issue was finally transformed into an international one when the UN passed a Resolution granting Kashmiris the right of self-determination and setting up a UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to administer the ceasefire between the two countries.

The story after 1948 is one of Indian attempts to keep hold of Kashmir "by hook or crook". No attempt was made to stick by the democratic ideals and rules which India considered to be sacrosanct for its own political life. Instead, the Indian government alienated the masses by sponsoring its own "puppet governments" and allowing them a free hand in ruling Kashmir. Mockery of Democracy As many political scientists suggest, In most Indian states, the political transformation began smoothly and the transition to democracy was achieved without much trouble. Although the Central Government wielded most of the power, far beyond the norm in true federations, state governments were shown a considerable degree of tolerance. In some states like West Bengal even Communist governments have been allowed to remain in power. However, in Kashmir the Indian government made little effort to usher in democracy. It was happy to deal with the one-party system erected by Sheikh Abdullah on the smouldering ruins of the Maharaja’s autocratic regime. There was no move towards establishing stable and responsible political parties. The only opposition in the whole state was to be found in Jammu, and that too was organised along communal lines. If democracy means "participation and contestation" then the opposite was to be found in Kashmir.

Is Kashmir marching towards Peace-II

Many historians believe that Abdullah’s removal was a blunder on the part of Nehru because this event sowed the seeds of separatism and the people lost their faith in the Indian leadership. "Kashmiris realised that Indians could not even trust the sole Kashmiri spokesman of integration with India." Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad was a committed pro-Indian who dealt ruthlessly with protesters and dissidents. Even those "listening to Radio Pakistan or other international radio stations were beaten up and thrown into jail". Bakshi combined this stick of repression with the carrot of dishing out jobs to Kashmiris. He was provided heaps of money by the Indian government, and he used it to generate employment and subsidising the staple foods of Kashmiris. Bakshi was a shrewd politician who used all the resources at his disposal to consolidate his position, eradicate support for Abdullah and secure the integration of Kashmir with India. Once Bakshi was asked by a journalist how many supporters he had in Kashmir. He replied, "forty lakhs" (4 million).

Whereupon the journalist asked how many Abdullah had. Bakshi, in a characteristic flash of wit, replied "forty lakhs". This was meant to point out the character of the Kashmiri at the time who was prepared to give his support to any leader who promised jobs and cheap food. Bakshi assumed a Mafia style of government setting up an intricate network of patronage and loyalty. "As state funds swelled and the Central Government increased its financial support to Jammu and Kashmir state, the state debt paradoxically increased and development projects became less efficient".

After his release from jail, Abdullah found a Kashmir that had changed quite a lot. He was deeply hurt to discover how quickly his many loyal supporters had turned their backs on him and were making money by feeding off the deluge of Indian money now running Kashmir’s corruption factories. "Bakshi had robbed Kashmiris of their innocence, made them physically and mentally bankrupt and imbibed in them the belief that money alone could solve all the problems of life." Bakshi also reduced the internal autonomy that Abdullah had secured from Nehru. He gave away many legislative and administrative powers to the Indian government, thus paving the way for Kashmir’s full accession and integration with India. He had absolutely no respect for democracy and actually stage-managed a farce election in order to show that he had public backing behind his position. This resulted in much embarrassment to Nehru who advised him to contrive losing some seats so that the election could have some semblance of propriety. After a long time, the Indian government finally got tired of Bakshi. He was ousted from government and arrested, being "put into the same prison where Abdullah had languished for 11 years". Bakshi’s replacement was Sadiq, who was a staunch supporter of Congress. His application of emergency powers in the state roused much anger and resentment against his rule and India, leading to widespread protests across the valley.

This defeat had dealt a very traumatic blow to pro-Pakistan elements in Kashmir. Pakistan’s two-nation theory had lost some of its most important foundations and its claim on Kashmir appeared somewhat weakened. "The impact of Pakistan’s defeat was far-reaching. Those who wanted to join Pakistan realised that she did not have the strength to force the issue." Although Abdullah behaved like the "meek lamb" that the Indian government wanted him to be, he did not completely refrain from airing demands for autonomy. Even after the accord with Indira Gandhi he would still raise his demands for internal autonomy at public gatherings. Lone, while commenting on Abdullah’s demands during this time, says: "His aim was to exploit the Kashmiris who still thought that he had not surrendered everything to India." Sheikh Abdullah’s successor to the throne was his son, Farooq Abdullah, a playboy personality who preferred chasing Bollywood actresses to the cut and thrust of Kashmir politics. However, he did manage to lead the National Conference party through the eighties and remained Chief Minister until the outbreak of the militancy. It was at this time that there was intense political activity in Kashmir and a renewed longing for independence and separation from India. During the 1988 state assembly elections, the Congress party of the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi entered into a pre-poll alliance with the National Conference in Kashmir. At the same time there was a flurry of separatist political activity and a Muslim United Front was formed, composed of all parties favouring Kashmir’s secession from India. This Front was a political entity and was to contest the elections against the National Conference-Congress alliance.

The MUF entered the election in order to see whether their demands would be met through democratic methods. The MUF comprised the educated youth, middle class workers and farmers, people who had suffered humiliation and repression under the previous, Indian-sponsored, governments. People began to grow enthusiastic about the MUF’s political programme and large numbers came out in support of it. It soon became evident to the National Conference that the MUF would win a sweeping victory. Yasin Malik, says: "The MUF planned to declare independence on the floor of the legislative assembly once they obtained a majority. However, this information was leaked to the Indian intelligence agencies. They made sure the MUF did not win." The 1988 election was perhaps the most rigged in the history of Kashmir. The MUF returned only four candidates as Members of the Legislative Assembly. Many prominent MUF activists and leaders were arrested. These included individuals who were later to become leaders of militant groups. People like Syed Salahuddin, now Commander of the Hizbul Mujahidin group, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front Chief Yasin Malik and the Al-Umar chief Mushtaq Zargar. Since Kashmiris had once again and most humiliatingly been denied democracy these people had decided to wage an armed struggle against Indian authority and its lieutenants in Kashmir. "Denial of democracy took two forms in Kashmir. First, the reduction of representative government to a travesty through repression, fraud and manipulation of ostensibly multiparty electoral processes. Secondly, the systematic subversion and destruction of the federal autonomy which was a condition of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession in 1947 to the Indian union". The MUF saga led to the eruption of militancy.

Is Kashmir marching towards Peace-III

He was allowed to mediate between India and Pakistan and initiate a peace process. There was a real chance that Abdullah’s efforts would lead to the opening of summit talks between Ayub Khan and Jawahar Lal Nehru.44 A close associate of Ayub Khan told me in an interview that Abdullah and Ayub had a meaningful dialogue and some sort of understanding on the dispute’s resolution was reached. Abdullah wanted to discuss the possible solution with Nehru and seemed confident that it would be acceptable to all parties. When Abdullah returned to Delhi to relate the proposed solution to Nehru the latter passed away and with him an opportunity for peace in Kashmir. In 1965 India and Pakistan once again went to war over Kashmir. Confrontation between the two armies initially erupted in the Rann of Kutch, another disputed area. The United Nations once again had to intervene and broker a ceasefire. Under the auspices of the Soviet Union, the two countries entered into peace talks at Tashkent.

The talks were held between General Ayub Khan and Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. Both leaders agreed to return to the pre-war position and resume the peace process on Kashmir. Altaf Gauhar, told me that the latter was thinking about a loose confederation in the Subcontinent. The idea was put forward by Abdullah when he was sent to Pakistan as a peace emissary by Nehru. However, just as things were beginning to look up, tragedy struck. Abdullah was on his way back to Delhi when he received news of Nehru’s death. After Ayub Khan had had talks with Shastri, the latter died burying for ever the content of his parleys with Khan. The joint statement which was made at Tashkent did not make any breakthrough. It merely noted the existence of the Kashmir problem. This amounted to a big concession by Pakistan because "when Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire in 1949 it had not only secured control of one-third of Kashmir but had also won an Indian pledge to hold a plebsicite under UN supervision".

This period was very critical for both countries as both were facing internal problems. In Pakistan the Bengali movement had reached a crescendo. An armed uprising was in full swing there and Pakistani repression was fuelling demands for separate nationhood amongst the Bengalis. In India the Sikhs were being mobilised to start their own separatist campaign. Other smaller insurgencies were being fomented. The 1971 war between India and Pakistan gave birth to the country of Bangladesh. It shattered the two-nation theory "propounded by Jinnah" according to which there were two nations in the Indian subcontinent - Hindus and Muslims. It demonstrated that, in reality, India was made up of a large number of diverse communities organised at the level of language rather than religion.

There was little to tie the Bengalis with the Pakistani Pathans other than religion. After the war, the talks between the two Prime Ministers focused on the return of prisoners of war and Pakistani land captured by India. The talks were held in Simla and led to the Simla agreement. These talks had a great impact on the Kashmir issue. The Simla Agreement was signed by Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Prime Ministers respectively of India and Pakistan. Bhutto agreed to change the ceasefire line in Kashmir into a ‘Line of Control’. Many analysts at the time thought that the LOC would soon turn into an international border. The significance of the Simla Agreement lies in the fact that Pakistan agreed to solve the Kashmir dispute bilaterally with India. India was jubilant that the Kashmir dispute had now lost its international dimension and would now be a bilateral problem of concern only to India and Pakistan. It was thought the Simla Agreement, being a bilateral treaty between the two disputants, would supersede the UN Resolutions. India tightened its control over Kashmir. The question of plebiscite was buried for ever. The 1971 war was a devastating blow to Kashmiri hopes of independence or accession with Pakistan. One of its consequences was that Indira Gandhi was able to tame the onetime ‘Lion of Kashmir’ Sheikh Abdullah who entered into the Indira-Abdullah accord giving up any claim to autonomy and taking up his position as a petty chief minister.

"My limits end here. If I go beyond this point I shall burn my wings. You will have to go all alone" This is what Gabriel (AS) told the most revered Prophet (SAW) at Sidratul Mintaha during the night of Mairaj. An angel made up of light does not dare to go beyond this point. But he knows Muhammad (SAW), a human being, shall not be harmed. Why? The question merits a serious consideration from all Muslims. Before understanding the Mairaj, it is necessary to understand the greatness of the Holy Prophet (SAW). Once this is done many a doubt about Mairaj shall be cleared.

There are some people who believe that the Holy Prophet (SAW) was not taken physically to Al Aqsa and then through the skies to Sidratul Mintaha and onwards. According to them it was a dream notwithstanding the Quranic verse, which says the Prophet (SAW), was taken from Makkah to Al Aqsa on the night of Mairaj. They believe Mairaj did not take place at all.

Mairaj means elevation. If one goes by the literal meaning of this Arabic word, then this viewpoint stands justified though not wholly. It was a journey from Makkah to Al Aqsa and not Mairaj, at least not for the Holy prophet (SAW). Yes, on that night Allah the almighty elevated Gabriel (AS) as he had the honour of traveling in the company of the most revered Prophet (SAW). It was Mairaj for the Buraq, a horse like animal, which took the Holy Prophet (SAW) to Al Aqsa. It was Mairaj for the Al Aqsa mosque because the Holy Prophet (SAW) put down his feet on its floor. It was Mairaj for all the Prophets (AS) as the perfect and the best creation of all times, Imam-ul-Ambia (SAW) led their prayer. It was a dream come true for all of them.

On that night all those who live in the skies had the honour of seeing the Last Messenger of Allah (SAW) physically. Therefore, it was Mairaj for them. The real Mairaj commenced from Sidratul Mintaha. The Holy Prophet (SAW) had the honour of seeing Allah the most exalted and talking to Him. What transpired between Allah the most gracious and His beloved Prophet (SAW) they alone know. Only a portion of the rendezvous was leaked to the people.

It was here that five time prayers were made obligatory on the Muslims. This again reflects the greatness of the most revered Prophet (SAW). The Holy Prophet (SAW) was told to direct Muslims to pray fifty times. The Prophet (SAW) fully aware of the plight of His hapless followers agrees without uttering a word. But, Prophet Moses (AS) sends Him back to seek concessions. The concession is granted. Forty times. The Prophet (SAW) leaves again but is sent back yet again. The process continues till the number is reduced to five. Allah the most exalted does not get angry. An Ashiq-e-Rasool (SAW) narrates the incident beautifully. He says it was a deliberate act on part of Allah the almighty. He made Prophet Musa (AS) tell the Beloved Prophet (SAW) to go back again and again because He (Allah) wanted to spend more time in the company of the Prophet (SAW). This is how some people express their love for the beloved Prophet (SAW).

The Ashiq-e-Rasool (SAW) again says the real Mairaj shall take place on the day of judgement when the most revered Prophet (SAW) will see the prayer marks, shining like stars, on the foreheads of Muslims. It will give the Holy Prophet immense pleasure and He will raise His head happily and have a look at the Ummah. When the beloved Prophet (SAW) expresses happiness over the performance of the Ummah, their salvation is guaranteed.

The Mairaj has an important lesson for the Muslims. Do not miss prayers. The Holy Prophet (SAW) has said, "Prayer is a Muslim’s Mairaj." He has further said Allah the most Gracious shall ask about prayers first on the day of judgement. How does salaat lead to ultimate salvation of a Muslim ? Quran says it saves the Muslims from vices. A Muslim who offers prayers regularly will abstain from alcohol, gambling, eve teasing, corruption, backbiting, character assassination and vices like that.

 A man of conviction

A free man who tried to explore the reality with a free mind, Ghulam Nabi Hagroo pays tribute to Moulana Ahrar who passed away recently

Moulana Ahrar was a scholar par excellence. Originally named Ghulam Ahmed Pir, he was born in 1922 at Arigam, Shopian. Humble in his attitude and inquisitive to learn, he received his education from his parents and thereafter proceeded to Amritsar and Lahore for higher education in Islamics. It is at Lahore that he decided to shun tradition and become Ahrar, a free man to explore the world of his own. Those were the times when communism was attracting western educated Muslims and who would like to be addressed as comrades and would wish each other with word Hello and not As'salam Alaikum.

The religious scholars who were liking to become non-traditionalists liked the word `Ahrar' and in some cases word `Nadvi' was used and some were adding word `Nomani' to their names for the same. And thereby telling the world that they are not the traditionalists who uphold the regime directly and indirectly. It is not true to say that a true and sincere Muslim should necessarily be anti regime/revolutionary/ or even a terrorist. One has to bear it in his mind that a regime good for bad controls or effectively effects the major aspects of social life directly or indirectly. On the other hand Islam also demands that its each and every follower should abide by Qur-an-o-Sunnah in all aspects of life. So it becomes imperative for a true and a sincere Muslim to think seriously and know the things around him in their essence as they deserve to be known.

An unjust, unfair and corrupt regime cannot give peace and prosperity to its people. Such a regime can fatten a class of people and the majority of the people will not be having adequate bread, shelter, education and medication. Unemployment or under employment is destined to be the fate of majority living under such a regime.

People who run such an unjust regime choose men similar to their own nature and temperament. The artists and religious persons are being hired for working in their respective fields for subduing the otherwise angry have. Moulana Ahrar tried to bring about a change in society according to the teachings of Qur'an-o-Sunnah. During his educational career at Amritsar and Lahore he met a good number of religious scholars including Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Alama Iqbal, Syed Moududi and others. Ahrar specially requested Moulvi Anwar Shah Kashmiri to pray for him and the Shah prayed and sought Allah's benevolence by making Ahrar to be a good religious preacher.

On his return to his home he got a teachers' post in a private school at Shopian. When Moulana Maududi launched his party Jama'at-e-Islami at Lahore on 1941, Ahrar along with Saad-ud-Din, Qari Saif-ud-Din and Syed Muhammad Shafi, on his return from Lahore M. Ahrar along with Muhammad Ab. Shaydia, another teacher of the same school formed a party in the name of Jama'at-e-Islami. After some time Ahrar came to know that Saad-ud-Din and others have formed a party named Jama'at-e-Islam at Srinagar. So Moulana Ahrar joined Jama'at-e-Islami formed at Srinagar along with his colleagues and thus became a part and parcel of Jama'at-e-Islami of Jammu and Kashmir. The humbleness thus shown and non-egoistic attitude is a thing of the past. It is because of the fact that party formation, in those times, was not a semi commercial enterprise as it is now. It was only missionary zeal and zest, which was attracting the people to join a party especially of religious type. Such persons who were joining a party were knowing it that they would become poorer and have to live a simple life. While as today's being enjoyed by bureaucrats, corrupt ministers, contractors and smugglers. Ahrar throughout his life lived a simple life without any pomp and show. His austere lifestyle was partly because of his nature and partly because of the fact that he was living within the limits of maintenance allowance which was being paid to him by the Jama'at-e-Islami.

The Jama'at-e-Islami in early fifteens started a school at Arwani district Islamabad and Moulana Ahrar was appointed as a teacher in Arwani school. Moulana Ahrar got a field for propagating his teachings and so he became known as a good preacher and as such he was appointed as District President of (Amir-e-zila) of Jama'at-e-Islami). Later-on h became President (Amir of Jama'at-e-Islami) and thereafter he became Qaim (General Secretary) and thereafter he was again appointed as Amir-e-Zilla (District President). Ahrar's working on different posts without grouse and grim show it ambiguously task for him and the post, high or low, was not troubling him. It is this humbleness and non-egoistic character of Ahrar's life coupled with his simple living was making him unique and unparalleled character even amongst the ranks of Jama'at-e-Islami. It may be mentioned over here that those were the times when the common people and the high placed unbiased bureaucrats and judged were considering the members of Jama'at-e-Islami as truly religious and sincere people.

Moulana Ahrar was bed ridden for four years. He was physically weak but was mentally alert as before getting bed ridden. He was suffering from prostrates but was not having acute pain on this count. This writer enjoyed a day with Moulana Ahrar at his residence Bonagam, Shopian on 13 July last. Ahrar was relating the measure incidents not only of his life but also of the times he has undergone.

Moulana Ahrar was a scholar who had read each and every book of the other scholars of Islam. He had imbibed Moulana Maududi's style of argumentation, lucidity and clarity. So he was master in making the people understand the concept of the universe and concept of (Rissalat) Prophethood in Islam and concept of accountability in life after death as preached in Qur'an and elucidated by the last prophet of Allah (SAW). Moulana Ahrar had mastered the art of making the people understand the message (Dawat) of Jama'at-e-Islami is essentially confined to these three concepts propounded by Islam. Insan Dosti, Khuda Parasti, Aakhrat Pasandi. He was talking logically and was basing his arguments on Qur'an and Sunnah and not on verses of this great poet or that Kashmir and preaching the massage of Islam. The hamlets and small villages otherwise considered to be non-reachable. But Moulana Ahrar reached each/village/such village. Which is living monuments of his service.

Moulana Ahrar got comforts during last protected illness only because of his well-established sons who were devoted to him. Moulana Ahrar expired on 24th of August 2004, Tuesday 7 Rajab 1425. May his soul rest in peace.

A Profile of Ayub Sb.

Dr. Ayub Thakur was the president of London-based World Kashmir Freedom Movement (WKFM), an organization dedicated to finding a peaceful political solution to the Kashmir Problem. Dr. Thakur obtained his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Kashmir. He had taught at the University of Kashmir and at King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. As a student leader and later as university teacher, Dr. Thakur was jailed by the Indian authorities for his political beliefs. He was forced to leave Kashmir in 1981 and had been working at international level for the Kashmir cause ever since. He was based in London since 1986. To curtail his activities and influence, the Indian Government impounded his passport in 1993. After that he used a travel document issued to him by the British Government in 1997. Dr. Thakur was one of India's most wanted man. Indian government accused him of sending funds to Kashmiri militants for 'terrorism' and supporting activities prejudicial to the integrity of India. Over the years, Indian government has registered many cases against him in India and in Kashmir and has tried to get him extradited from the United Kingdom. Dr. Thakur had lectured extensively on Kashmir issue. He attended hundreds of seminars and conferences around the world in universities, think tanks and other institutions, including the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and UN bodies. He was also heading a charity, Mercy Universal, which provides humanitarian assistance mainly to the war-torn Kashmiri people.

Dr. Ayub Thakur was born in 1948 in Pudsoo village near Shopian, district Pulwama in Kashmir. He was the eldest of four children in the family of modest peasant background. He grew up in the times when Kashmir was witnessing great upheaval and political subjugation.Despite various odds, Dr. Ayub pursued his education and showed keen interest in the social and political issues of his homeland. He started his political career in early 70s as a student leader in the University of Kashmir where he later became lecturer in the Department of Physics. He began rallying Kashmiri youth and students and founded Jammu and Kashmir Students Islamic Organisation in 1974 and continued to be its patron till 1977. This later merged with another organisation and changed into Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba, which he headed from 1977-1981. He was also the president of Kashmir University Students Union and Kashmir University Research Scholars Association.

Dr. Thakur organised meetings of the youth and students to challenge Kashmir's accession to India. He strongly opposed the accord between Sheikh Abdullah and Indira Gandhi in 1974.As a student leader, Dr. Thakur attended international youth and student conferences at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1979, Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1980 and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in the same year. In these conferences, Dr. Thakur put forward the Kashmiri viewpoint and drew the world attention towards the Kashmir problem. In Kuala Lumpur conference in 1980, he was instrumental in passing a resolution condemning the 'Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.' In 1978 he became university teacher and continued his peaceful political activities. He started organising more and more students and colleagues to form an intellectual response to the 'Indian occupation.' In 1980, Dr. Thakur along with like-minded people at the University and students' organisation, Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba, organised an international conference on the issue of right of self-determination of Kashmiris as outlined in the UN resolutions. The Indian government banned the conference and dismissed Dr. Ayub from his job as a university teacher, and later imprisoned him along with his colleagues. When he came out of the jail in early 1981, he continued his activities and traveled far and wide in Kashmir to mobilize the Kashmir youth. However, soon he was forced to leave Kashmir.

The same year, Dr. Thakur joined the Nuclear Engineering Department of King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia as Assistant Professor. During his stay, he tried to mobilise support for the Kashmir cause and organised camps for the Kashmiri pilgrims during Hajj. After six years of his service, he came to London in 1986 for post-doctoral research programme and simultaneously started organising support for the Kashmir issue. Later in 1990, he took over as the founder president of the World Kashmir Freedom Movement (WKFM).