Kashmiris have passed through the longest suffering and ordeal in the history and faced repression, death and destruction, which had started even before the partition. The British had played an ignominious role in bringing Kashmiris to the present pass for having sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh, former governor of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, for 7.5 million rupees.

Once again at the time of partition when people of Kashmir had dreamt of freedom from oppression, India accepted Lord Mountbaten as the first Governor General of India with a view to implementing its insidious plan of annexing Kashmir, which was contrived and implemented by Lord Mountbaten and Nehru. Raja Hari Singh was coerced into signing the controversial document on 26th July 1947 and it was on the basis of this document that Indian forces entered the Valley on 27th October 1947, and endless dark night for Kashmiris started.

It is too well known the cardinal principal for the partition of India was that majority Muslim regions would become part of Pakistan and majority Hindu regions become part of India. But a different formula was contrived for the princely states to benefit India. The Kashmiris had rejected the formula for the states insisting that there should be one standard for entire India and the princely states. In fact, the representative body of Muslims of Kashmir – Muslim Conference – had held a convention on 19th July 1947 and passed a resolution to merge Kashmir with Pakistan, which stated: “This convention of Muslim Conference has reached the conclusion that geographical conditions, 80 per cent Muslim population, important rivers of Punjab passing through the state, language, cultural, ethnic and economic relations and contiguity of the state with Pakistan make it imperative to merge with Pakistan”.

Anyhow, since 27th October 1947, the day is observed by Kashmiris as black day and Muslims all over the world to express solidarity with the people of Kashmir. The suffering and misery of the Kashmiri people continue, every day a peaceful resolution is deferred, and international community is not at all moved by the plight of the Kashmiris. Nevertheless, the resolution of Kashmir dispute lies in tripartite negotiations between India, Pakistan and the accredited leadership of the people of Jammu & Kashmir from both sides of the Cease-fire Line. Disappointed and disillusioned by protracted bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan that did not prove fructuous, Kashmiri youth had taken up arms in 1989. About one hundred thousand Kashmiris have been martyred during the last ten years.

Before 9/11, almost all Muslim countries supported the struggle and the right of self-determination of Kashmiris in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions. But after 9/11, those waging struggle for independence have been dubbed by the US and the West as terrorists. And now even Muslim countries suggest that India and Pakistan should resolve their disputes through negotiations, not realizing that many rounds of talks have been held during the last six decades but no progress could be made on the core issue of Kashmir. Had Muslim countries gone beyond condemnation and criticism of India and made trade relations conditional to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, India would have been obliged to resolve the Kashmir dispute. India’s illegal occupation of Kashmir is indeed a dark chapter in the history of human rights. However, continued to deny the right of self-determination to the Kashmiri people is morally unacceptable, economically unsustainable and politically inadmissible with regard to any scheme aimed at ensuring global and regional peace, stability and security. The repression, oppression and atrocities by Indian forces have turned Kashmir into a hell that would stretch Dante’s imagination reflected in his famous poem Divine Comedy. However, these acts could not break the will of Kashmiris. The heroic struggle waged by the people of Kashmir is unparalleled in the history who are committed to continue their struggle till their objective is achieved. It has to be said that no solution can be found without the participation and consensus of the people of Kashmir.

In June 2008, Kashmiri Muslims had protested against allotment of land to Delhi-based Amarnath Shrine Trust, which was violation of the law. Later, there was strike in Muslims’ areas of Indian Held Kashmir against anti-Muslim riots, vandalism, looting of Muslim properties, economic blockade of the Valley and inter-regional ex-communication by the Hindu fanatics and extremists of occupied Jammu region. In fact, Congress-led government had earlier allotted a piece of land near the shrine apparently to facilitate Hindu pilgrims that throng the shrine in hundreds of thousands, but Kashmiris were suspicious of the government’s intentions, as efforts were being made to encourage migration of Hindus to the state with a view to diluting Kashmiri Muslims’ 98 per cent majority in IHK.

Anyhow, all assessments of India have been proven wrong by last year’s struggle of the people of Kashmir. This is the first time that there are voices in India as well in Europe demanding that Kashmir issue should be resolved. In case, India continues to balk at resolving the Kashmir dispute, and does not reciprocate with Pakistan to reach a solution acceptable to India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir, the only way out for Pakistan would be to invoke the UN Security Council resolutions. The international community has to understand that Tashkant and Simla agreements were signed by Pakistan under duress. Article 103 of Chapter XVI of the UN Charter clearly states: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present Charter and any other international agreement, their obligation under the present charter shall prevail”.

The composite dialogue that started in 2004 has not so far resolved any of the festering issues like Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek. However, confidence building measures with regard to people to people contact across the Line of Control had given a faint hope that this could prove to be a stepping stone towards resolution of the core issue of Kashmir. In 2007, addressing a public gathering in the holy Sikh city of Amritsar, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had reminded voters in the Indian state of Punjab that their welfare and development was linked to improved relations with Pakistan. This showed that economic considerations could outweigh the considerations of false ego and other factors. But India used terrorists’ attack in Mumbai on 3rd November 2008 to stall the dialogue.

Nevertheless, the threat of war between two nuclear states also works as an incentive for peace between the belligerent countries. In May 1999, after about a year when India and Pakistan had come out of the nuclear closet, “The Economist” in its survey/analysis of India and Pakistan had rightly stated: “Neither country has a big enough conventional edge over the other to win a reasonably short war.

There is, therefore, little temptation for Pakistan to make a grab for Kashmir, or India to invade Pakistan. The fear of nuclear attack makes adventurism less appealing.” In this backdrop, war does not seem to be an option any more for both the countries. And of course maintaining the status quo will not make this region a safe place to live in.