A freedom fighter or a terrorist

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Who is a freedom fighter? Who is a terrorist? The answer really depends upon whose point of view you are looking at. Almost all Indian analysts, academicians, journalists, bureaucrats and politicians dub the freedom fighters in Kashmir as terrorists. It is indeed very difficult to find any convincing and logically argued article in India describing the freedom fighters in Kashmir as the freedom fighters and not as the terrorists. Even those Indians who seemed to have opted for a balanced approach might refer to them in an indirect manner.

Amazing though it may seem that despite having a vast population of articulate writers, the writings on developments in Kashmir reflect their biases in both overt and cleverly hidden forms. In the ultimate analysis the blame is always placed either on Pakistan or Pakistan based Kashmiris. Such an attitude completely ignores the legitimate freedom struggle of the Kashmiris. The legitimate freedom movement of the Kashmiris is not only downplayed by the powerful India media but is, invariably, projected as an insurgency.

The intensification of the Kashmiris struggle for freedom acquired new momentum in 1989 primarily because of the continuous economic mismanagements by the state as well as the federal governments followed by massive repressive policies that were initiated by Governor Jagmohan and religiously pursued by successors like Girish Saxena and K.V.Krishna Rao. Initially the freedom movement was being waged both along political and military line. In fact it was predominantly political in nature but with the passage of time, a gradual transformation began to take place. The intensification in repression accelerated the process of transformation.

The origin of the freedom movement can be traced back to pre-partition days when the Kashmiris rose against the oppressive Dogra rule. On July 13, 1931 Maharaja Hari Singh's police open fired on a procession protesting against the arrest of an activist called Abdul Qadeer. In consequence a political party All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference was born. The party was soon split into two factions; National Conference and Muslim Conference. The post partition period witnessed the gradual decrease in popularity of National Conference in the Indian occupied Kashmir where as the Muslim Conference managed to maintain its popularity in Azad Kashmir.

Over the years many new political parties came into existence like Jammat-e-Islami (1953), Plebiscite Front (1955), Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (1965), Peoples League (1974), Jammu and Kashmir Mahaz-e-Azadi (1975), Muslim United Front (1986), Muslim Conference (1988) etc. Currently an umbrella organization known as All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) reflecting the political approach. APHC consists of many parties, some of which are Muslim Conference, People's Conference, Jamat-e-Islami, Ittihad-ul-Muslimeen, Awami Action Committee, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, People's League, All Jammu and Kashmir Employees Confederation, Employee and Workers Confederation, Anjaman-e-Tabligh-ul-Islam, Liberation Council, Jamait-e-Ahle Hadith, Kashmir Bazme Towheed, Jamait-e-Hamdania, Kashmir Bar Association, Political Conference, Tehreek-e-Hurriyat Kashmiri, Jamait-e-Ulama-e-Islam, Muslim Khawteen Markz, Students Islamic League etc. An active women group Dukhtaraan-e-Millat came into existence in 1987.

While there are many more political groups and parties' part of the APHC, the military struggle is primarily carried on by a group called Hizb-ul-Mujahideen that consists of only the Kashmiris. All other groups are minor in terms of numbers. Some of them earned reputation because of the there daring encounters with the Indian forces.

How can one differentiate a freedom fighter from a terrorist? A freedom fighter is engaged in a struggle to secure his right of self-determination. Being oppressed and brutalized, his patience is exhausted and he begin to seriously consider taking up arms. Persistent and violent suppression enormously help his mind to take up arms. Such a transformation from political to military activities by some is not a very uncommon phenomenon.

For any successful insurgency, three elements are absolutely essential; the cause, the supplies of men and material, and the availability of sympathetic population and territorial sanctuaries with or without the consent of the established authorities. As far as the cause is concerned, almost everybody acknowledges Kashmiris right of self-determination enshrined in the UN resolutions that were accepted by both India and Pakistan. The broken pledges and promises by the Indian authorities to hold plebiscite coupled with systematic erosion of Kashmir's special status that was give to Kashmir by the Indian Constitution and continuous exploitations of Kashmir both politically and economically provided the Kashmiris the requisite cause which, in turn, led to insurgency in Kashmir.

For years the Indian authorities have been using the term insurgency but few years back they switched to the employment of the term terrorism. One has to give credit to the Indians that they have maintained their consistency in shifting from one set of arguments to another in congruence with the dictates of global changes. Interestingly the concept of 'Atot Aung' (integral part) is currently employed while discussing Kashmir. The concept is based on alleged signing of Maharaja on the instrument of accession in favour of India.
Compared to Junagadh's accession which was signed in favour of Pakistan but India forcibly occupied the state, the validity of Kashmir's instrument of accession is frequently questioned by South Asians as well as the outsiders.

The second aspect for a successful guerrilla movement is the regular supply of men and material. Just as the members of Mukhti Baheni were all Bengali, the members of Hizb ul Mujahideen are Kashmiris. While it has been recently revealed that Mukti Baheni was trained and equipped with weapons by India, the Kashmiri Mujhaids are alleged to be trained on both sides of the LOC. Third, just as the Mukhti Baheni was enjoying sanctuaries on Indian soil, it is not too far fetched to assume that some sanctuaries for the Kashmiris could exist on the neighboring Azad Kashmir's territories. While India deliberately provided sanctuaries to the Mukti Baheni, there is no known evidence to support the contention that similar was the case with regard to the Kashmiri freedom fighters. But one can safely assume that they could use Azad Kashmir's territory. After all they are Kashmiris. Finally as far as the recruitment of men is concerned, it is indeed not too difficult to find willing men from a vast majority of totally alienated population of the Indian occupied Kashmir. In fact the more brutalities, rape, arbitrary arrests, torture, custodial killings, burning of property take place, more Kashmiri express their desire to take up arms.

Generally the acts of terrorism are divided in three categories; individual's act, group's indulgence and state policy. A terrorist act is often defined as an act in which innocent civilians are killed. The Kashmiri sources claim that the Indian security forces has killed more than 70,000 innocent Kashmiris whereas the figures given in international media range from 40,000 to 50,000. The latest Time magazine has story about the killing of an innocent 11-year-old girl clearly reflect the bahaviour of occupying force. While the Indian authorities are claiming that civilians were killed in crossfire whereas the villagers are adamant that there was no crossfire. Would this be classified as an act of State terrorism?

There are many who consider that the Indian authorities are indulging in state terrorism. While most of the advocates of this line of thinking are either the Kashmiris themselves or their sympathizers, there are many who feel strongly that the international community is deliberately turning a blind eye to security forces indulgence in state terrorism and deliberately overlooking massive human rights violations in Kashmir. Most countries formulate their policies with regard to developments in other countries in correspondence with the dictates of their own national interests. Claiming to be the ardent champion of human rights they conveniently overlook gross violations that are taking place in Indian occupied Kashmir. What was classified, as freedom fighter in East Timore insurgency was initially dubbed as an insurgent and latter as a terrorist in Kashmir? Double standards are not very uncommon in international politics. However acceptance of distortion rather than making real efforts to dig the truth is indeed painful and disappointing.

If one scans the developments of Kashmir dispute during last 54 years it is difficult to overlook how different arguments at different times been employed even though sometimes the currently employed argument contradicted the earlier stance. But then it is justified on the bases of changed ground realities. After all yesterdays great Islamic warriors (Afghan war against the Soviets) are frequently referred as terrorists by some powerful countries of the world. The dilemma continue to haunts us who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist.