|

Letter To The editor

January 16, 2013   Letters to the Editor The Washington Post 1150 – 15th Street, N.W,. Washington, DC 20071.   Dear Editor:   The article, “India says Pakistan troops killed 2 of its…

January 16, 2013
 
Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 – 15th Street, N.W,.
Washington, DC 20071.
 
Dear Editor:
 
The article, “India says Pakistan troops killed 2 of its soldiers in Kashmir,” the Washington Post, dated January 9, 2013, states the obvious when it says, “The peace process, however, has produced almost no dramatic advances towards resolving the main disputes between the two Countries.”
 
However, the article needs to be supplemented by Kashmiri American perspective. It is a fact that India and Pakistan by themselves have not been able to resolve their disputes, including the issue of Kashmir. They have tried over the decades but failed. It needs the deeper engagement of the United States with both these neighboring countries.
 
Secondly, it is symptomatic of the United States approach that greater emphasis is placed on the ‘reduction of tensions’ than on the settlement of the core issue, i.e. Kashmir. This gives importance to superficial moves and temporary solutions even though it is known that such moves and solutions do not soften the animosities of the parties as proven by the latest incident, not ally the life and death concern and anxieties of the people most directly affected.
 
I believe that the United States can and should, lead the effort to achieve a fair and lasting settlement of the dispute, fair to the people most immediately involved and fair to its own commitments to democracy and human rights. By doing so, the United States can strengthen the principles of a just world order. It will also earn the gratitude of generations in Kashmir, in Pakistan and in India.
 
The United States should, however, realize that no settlement of Kashmir will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principle of self-determination and erases the so-called ‘Line of Control’ which is in fact the ‘Line of Conflict’. 
 
It is important to note that the most driving passion of the people of Kashmir today is the passion of Azaadi (Freedom), a passion which has become the very bread and butter of their lives. The word Azaadi is more common on the lips of Kashmiri youth than the word droid is on American college campuses today.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Dr. Syed Ghulamnabi Fai
78764-083
FCI – Cumberland
Federal Prison Camp
P. O. Box 1000
Cumberland, Maryland – 21051, USA

Similar Posts

  • |

    The UN and Kashmir: Where Do We Go From Here?

    If we were to judge the UN based upon its history of involvement in efforts to resolve international conflicts, the simplest answer is that it has been an enormous failure. The UN of course is a far more complex organization whose work covers such a wide range of activities that conflict resolution is really only a small aspect of its work. Nevertheless, if we consider the fact that its fundamental mission in being created was to be a means of preventing global catastrophes like the Second World War, then conflict resolution would have to be considered Job One. In addition, the word “conflict” in the phrase “conflict resolution” was defined as conflict among or between sovereign nations. As Chapter I, Article 2, stipulates, ” Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;”

  • |

    Fai outlined eight areas for establishing communal harmony in Kashmir

    Monterey, California. March 31, 2014. Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General of the ‘World Kashmir Awareness’ highlighted eight areas to create an atmosphere for communal harmony that will ultimately lead the people of Jammu & Kashmir to a meaningful and purposeful dialogue. He was speaking at a Kashmir event near Naval Lodge Monterey, organized by the American Muslim Alliance which is headed by Dr. Agha Saeed, an eminent political scientist

  • |

    Sardar Qayyum Khan was a Synonym for courage and Prudence: Dr. Fai

    Washington, D.C. July 12, 2015. Dr. Fai expressed condolences on the demise of Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan Sahib, former Prime Minister and former President of Azad Kashmir who breathed his last at the age of 91 on Friday July 10, 2015 at his residence in Islamabad. Inna Lillah-e-Wa- Inna Ilahi Rajioon. May Allah (s.w.t.) elevate his status as the guided person, comfort him in his grave, make his grave part of Jannatul Firdous and give Sabr to the family! Ameen.
  • |

    Kashmir’s Jalil Andrabi and China’s Chen Guangcheng: A Similar Path, but a Fork in the Road

    One of the darkest chapters of Indian judicial partiality was left hanging half closed and banging in the wind when Major Avtar Singh, the killer of internationally known human rights activist and Chairman of Kashmir Commission of Jurists, Advocate Jalil Andrabi, was found dead after he killed his wife and two children, and finally himself this past Saturday morning, June 9, 2012, in Selma, California. Avtar Singh, a fugitive from justice, who lived in the hot dry central California community, a suburb of Fresno, was clearly haunted by his past, a past that had seen the blood spilled of more than one man by his own hands. He had killed four others to hide the murder of Andrabi, and now he had killed his own family.  

    In killing Jalil Andrabi, Avtar Singh certainly did not act on his own volition. He was only a major.   His act was no doubt a response to orders from above and occurred in a longstanding climate of impunity that the Indian army enjoys in Kashmir.   The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives any Indian soldier the right in Kashmir to take a Kashmiri’s life under any circumstance, has enabled such a climate for decades.  And Jalil Andrabi had become a hated, despised man by the Army, a man dangerous to the status quo of continued murder and torture that had been taking place in Kashmir’s jails, interrogation centers and detention facilities for many years.  

  • |

    Kashmir: Urgency in dialogue process

    “All of us remain concerned that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiations and should be willing to lend all the strength we have to the resolution of this matter.” President Nelson Mandela at the NAM Summit – September 2, 1998

    In matters of international conflict resolution, that can only imply the involvement of a third party mediator or facilitator. If Ashok and Ahmad can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together because they can’t agree on where the pieces go, then Sam, a specialist in eggshell reconstruction, should be called upon in order for differences to be resolved. Most importantly, without a third party’s impartial diligence in pursuing a settlement, breakdowns in lines of communication or other disputes that may arise will inevitably create barriers to resolution, and the process will fail. The side in the dispute which offers initiatives will always be seen as weak when both are out rattling their sabres; hence no progress can be made.

  • |

    Is dislocation of UN Office a path to ‘Insaniat” (Humanity) or a broken promise?

    Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
    Secretary General
    World Kashmir Awareness

    Washington, D.C.
    July 10, 2014

    On July 8, 2014, the Spokesman of Indian Ministry of External Affairs made a formal statement saying, “As far as we (India) are concerned the UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer Group in India & Pakistan) has outlived its relevance. This is a consistent stance that we have articulated on several occasions since the Shimla accord.”

    What is the legal ground of the spokesman’s pronouncement? Christopher Hitchens has made it easy to understand when he said; “”Perhaps you notice how the denial is so often the preface to the justification.” And George R.R. Martin confirms it by saying “Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.”

    The spokesman has conveniently forgotten that India and Pakistan are signatories to various United Nations Security Council resolutions. These resolutions constitute an agreement because, unlike most resolutions of the Security Council, their provisions were first negotiated with the parties and, it was only after their written consent was obtained that they were adopted by the Security Council.