Kashmir: Towards Bridging a Divide Between India and Pakistan

By Rafique Khan

Kashmir Diary, Summer 1994, Volume 3 Number 1

Demonstrators in both Islamabad and New Delhi wave different banners and say different words but the message is the same. From the Pakistani side the slogan is “Kashmir Banega Pakistan”, (Translation: “Kashmir will become Pakistan”). The Indians declare “Kashmir Bharat Ka Atoot Ang” (“Kashmir is an unbreakable part of India”). The demonstrators do not speak Kashmiri, and most have perhaps never been to Kashmir, yet they all stake a claim on Kashmir. 

Since 1947, when British India was partitioned into the two nations of Pakistan and India, both countries have maintained their instigative attitudes on Kashmir. Pakistan was carved out of British India as a separate Muslim nation. Therefore, Pakistan claims Kashmir because the majority population in Kashmir is Muslim. Indian rulers have never accepted the two-nation theory which was the basis on which India was partitioned. Because Kashmir is a predominantly Muslim area, India wants to hold it as a symbol of its secularism.

 Kashmiris are caught in the middle. They strive to exercise their right of self-determination which is embodied in many resolutions of the United Nations. This desire for emancipation is a reaffirmation of their half a century old quest to free Kashmir from bondage and suppression from outsiders. 

India, and also Pakistan, inherited imperial systems of government from the British. Following the transfer of power in 1947, these systems of government have been reinforced with lethal military machines. Two governments are controlled and used by a very small minority to profit and to preserve their inherited power. They consume an increasingly larger share of scarce economic resources and perpetuate oppression on the majority (see footnote 1). In the name of keeping India united, the lethal military machine is used to terrorize people in Kashmir. This has resulted in the total alienation of the Kashmiri people. 

Unity of the people is achieved only by union of the people through respect of each other’s rights. Leaders in India, and in Pakistan, must be counseled to give up their instigative attitude towards Kashmir and to work with the people of Kashmir in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. Militancy in Kashmir if unchecked, will extend to and engulf the whole sub-continent. It may ultimately result in a nuclear holocaust. Resolution of the Kashmir conflict, which for the last four decades is the central cause of conflict between India and Pakistan, is the first essential step towards cementing relationships and bringing lasting peace to the people of the two countries.

Kashmir Conflict – Historic Context 

            The Kashmir conflict centers around the Vale of Kashmir. The vale, equal in size to the British Islands, is made up to a series of river valleys tucked into the Himalayan Mountains, about a mile above sea level. Some six million Kashmiris, the majority of whom are Muslims, call it home. Throughout history Kashmir has enchanted many. The Moghuls of India conquered Kashmir in the 16^th Century; the British extended the suzerainty of their empire over it in the 18^th century.

The political entity known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is a forced creation of the builders of the British empire who in 1846 appended fringe areas of the four distinct regions surrounding the Vale of Kashmir and made it hold together as a buffer state between their own Empire on the south and the Russian Empire on the north.

On all sides, the adjacent areas of the Vale of Kashmir are distinct and different from the Kashmiris and from each other. The Himalayan Mountain wall rises on the south east from the Indian hilly region. It is the home of the Dogras, who are akin to Indian Hindus. On the south west side to where all the rivers of Kashmir flow, live the Pahari and Punjabi people. Their religion is Islam. Towards Kashmir’s north east are the mountain deserts of southern China. This land is sparsely populated by the Mongol people of Ladakh and its surrounding areas. Most of them are Buddhists. Wakan Strip, a 10-mile-wide strip of Afghanistan land borders Kashmir on the north west side, and separates Kashmir from the regions of the Russian Empire and Turkistan.

Kashmiris consider Kashmir as the heart of Asia. It is enclosed by the Himalayan mountain ranges. Heavy snowfall on the mountains isolates Kashmir from the rest of the world for six months every year. The people of the valley have over time developed their distinct identity which they call “Kashmiriyat”. For most of its recorded history Kashmir was ruled by its own kings. The Poet historian Kalhana, chronicled Kashmir history in Rajatarangini (Tale of Kings) in 1148 A.D. For centuries Kashmir was linked by the historic silk route to Central Asia. Chauvinistic Kashmiri historians have written laurels on the “golden” period of Kashmir history when Kashmiri kings conquered surrounding lands. Kashmir in turn was coveted by its neighbors. The Iast of the Kashmiri rulers were from the Chak dynasty. In 1587, a group of Kashmiri religious leaders, tired of the misrule of one of their own (Yusuf Shah Chak) sought help from the Moghul Emperor of India. The Moghuls had tried a number of times to subjugate Kashmir without success. With the help of the Kashmiri clergy Emperor Akbar, a contemporary to Queen Elizabeth of England, annexed Kashmir to his empire (see footnote 2).

 For the next four hundred years, Kashmiris endured oppression and successive changes in colonial rulers. Kashmiris continued to seek help for their liberation from across the mountains. One after another, liberators became the worst oppressors. Moghul rule (1587-1752) was followed by Afghan rule (1752-1819). Kashmir was conquered from the Afghans by Ranjit Singh thunder of the Sikh Kingdom in neighboring Punjab. The Sikh rule lasted for 27 years (1819-1846). Kashmir became a part of the British Empire in India after the British defeated the Sikhs. The British, by a land sale deed, known as the treaty of Amritsar. sold the entire nation of Kashmir to the Dogra chieftain Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu (see footnote 3). Dogra dynasty’s rule lasted a century (1846-1947) and came to an end in 1947 when the British quit India.

Dogra rule was despotic. A small Hindu minority became the privileged class while the Kashmiri peasants, all Muslims, became vassals. The Kashmir freedom movement as a protest against the autocratic Dogra rule began in early thirties, ran parallel to and was patterned after the Indian freedom movement against the British colonial rule. Although a majority of the Kashmiris are Muslims, the freedom movement was not religious based. Religion was a motivational force and the struggle was against the autocratic dynastic rule of a Hindu dynasty. Religious tolerance is a distinct characteristic of the Kashmiri. Leadership of the Indian National Congress, particularly Pandit Jawahir Lal Nehru, provided support to Kashmiri leaders and their freedom struggle. The Indian Hindu press establishment however did not favor Kashmiris challenge to the Dogra Raj in Kashmir. And although Muslim masses throughout the subcontinent supported the Kashmiris aspirations, the Muslim Zamindar (landlord) class which made up the major Muslim leader-ship in India disdained the “peasants” mass struggle in Kashmir. 

Kashmir Politics After India’s Independence 

Kashmiris have not developed their own polity and have historically continued to look across the mountains for saviors and solutions. From the beginning of the freedom movement in Kashmir, the masses in Kashmir have put a blind trust in their leaders. This was and is even now a fatal flaw. As a result, empowerment of the people of Kashmir, in particular the poor majority, is talked about but is not yet a fully accepted norm of governance. Not having developed a polity of their own, the Kashmiri masses continue to follow and put faith in leaders and not in ideals. Kashmiris as yet have not developed a grass roots organization through which they could define their polity and exercise their own political power. Since political power cannot be attained without exercising it actively and collectively, in Kashmir it continues to be held by a few power brokers (see footnote 4). 

Kashmiri leaders in the 1940’s, out of ignorance and egoism, fell victim to the political agendas of the Indian politicians. When the British withdrew from India in 1947, the Indian subcontinent was partitioned into the two countries of India and Pakistan. The partition let loose a blood bath In India Hindus and Sikhs killed Muslims and in the new Muslim nation of Pakistan Hindus and Sikhs were annihilated. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, did not join either India or Pakistan. He apparently had an ambition of maintaining his Raj. To maintain his hold on his domain Hari Singh enforced martial law on the Poonch area of Kashmir state adjacent to Pakistan. Soldiers from the Poonch area, returning home after serving in the British army during the world war, rebelled against this new oppression of the Dogra Raj and seized control of Dogra army garrisons in the Poonch area. The Dogra army disintegrated. Maharaja Hari Singh fled from Kashmir to Jammu. India, at his request, sent in troops to stop the rebel advances. The rebels were aided by Pakistan. India accused Pakistan of aggression and took the dispute to the United Nations. A UN sponsored cease-fire resulted, thus one third the area of Kashmir, later called “Azad” (free) Kashmir, came under Pakistan control while India occupies the rest (see footnote 5).

 In the UN, India and Pakistan had agreed to resolve the dispute by a UN supervised referendum or plebiscite. This plebiscite remains un-implemented so far. India and Pakistan blame each other for not fulfilling their commitments. Kashmir became a casualty of cold war politics after Pakistan established military alliances with the United States in the 1950’s. India, with the help of a series of Soviet Union vetoes, in the UN Security Council managed to prevent any resolution of the Kashmir dispute in the UN. 

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since their independence from the British, two of them over Kashmir. After the third war, Pakistan as a vanquished party signed the Simla Agreement pledging to resolve all disputes, including Kashmir, by bilateral negotiations. After a few meetings at the ministerial level, the Simla Agreement was iced (see footnote 6).

India’s Treatment of Kashmir Since 1947

India has governed Kashmir undemocratically. Free elections are not a norm in Kashmir. Leaders and governments are created and removed by India without regard for popular will. The economic base of the area has not expanded. Corruption and nepotism are rampant. Whenever a voice has been raised against such governance, it was dubbed anti-national. This seething discontent has emerged as a militant revolt after the blatant rigging of elections in 1988. The peaceful struggle of four decades has become militant. Many of the polling agents of the 1988 elections became the gun yielding militant freedom fighters of 1990. Freedom fighters called “Mujahids” now seek direct confrontation with the Indian forces occupying Kashmir. Neutral observers of Kashmir have documented gross violations of human rights in Kashmir by the Indian armed forces for the last three years. As the intensity of oppression increases. the ranks of militants and the gulf between Kashmir and India widens. In the rhetoric that flies back and forth from New Delhi and Islamabad the central issue or right of self-determination of the Kashmiris is reduced to a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. Both governments exclude Kashmiris from negotiations and blame each other for unprincipled behavior.

Islamabad and New Delhi accuse each other of fomenting terrorism, abusing human rights and flaunting world law. As the dispute sputters on, Kashmiris endure mass arrests, diminished citizenship and economic collapse. Srinagar and the Vale of Kashmir, once magnets for tourism, have become forlorn zones of strife. India insists that a solution lies in direct talks with Pakistan, without U.N. involvement. It no longer holds to its old promise to let Kashmiris decide their own future through a plebiscite. That is no longer necessary, New Delhi argues, because Kashmiris can vote in local elections and because a defeated Pakistan signed a 1972 accord in Simla committing the two countries to a bilateral settlement. For its part, Pakistan wants a settlement based on U.N. declarations calling for a plebiscite. But it would not be a true plebiscite. Pakistan would limit Kashmiris to choosing between it and India.” (New York Times. Editorial of May 19, 1992 titled End Kashmiris Misery) 

Kashmir continues to be seen as a prize possession to be obtained like Gulab Singh did from the British, by “an instrument of accession” from a fleeing Maharaja, and, to be bartered at “bilateral negotiations”. The fate of Kashmir continues to be decided, with no participation from Kashmiris, as was done during the colonial times, in places far away from Kashmir and at forums where no Kashmiris are present.

From a Kashmiri point of view, when the British left the Indian subcontinent, imperialism did not leave with them. The Indian subcontinent continues to be governed by “Sahibs.”, upper-caste Hindu Brahmins in India and Zamindars, and military men in Pakistan. Leaders in both countries incite and exploit the emotions of the poor masses. Religion continues to be exploited by the establishment to stay in power. At the highest political levels, successive governments exploit poorly trained and highly pressured police and military forces for their own political ends. Judicial and administrative systems are employed to cover up crimes. Kashmir has become a source for some Indian leaders to poison peoples mind in India. In the name of maintaining the unity of India, they turn a blind eye towards justice and propagate the use of naked force – ruthless village to village hunt for insurgents. That has indeed become the best way of alienating all people. 

The conditions in Kashmir now are such that if there were any Kashmiris who felt their future was intertwined with India, the ruling elites in India through their armed forces, have made certain that there are none left today. Law and order without accountability have as good as legitimized barbarism in the Valley. This persistent abuse of the administration of justice is sanctioned by the highest level of Indian government. Kashmir these days is a virtual war zone, yet unscrupulous men in uniform pay bribes for a Kashmir posting. Death and destruction have become a trade in Kashmir.

The Widening Divide

Since 1954, when India installed Bakshi as the Wazir-e-Azam of Kashmir who declared that Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India, the Indian Government has maintained that Kashmir has become an integral part of the Indian Union. Indian rulers proclaim that the current freedom struggle in Kashmir is a Pakistan engineered proxy war. Terrorism by a few misguided youth and Islamic fundamentalism are used to describe the Kashmir freedom movement. India also asserts that Kashmir is a symbol of India’s secularism and that Kashmir must remain with India to prevent the breakup of the Union. These arguments are framed to appeal to the Western world and to find scapegoats. 

Jai Prakash Narayan, taking the side against the argument that Kashmiris had acceded India, stated in 1964 “It has always seemed to me to be a lie that the people of Kashmir had already decided to integrate themselves with India…. If we are so sure of the verdict of the people, why are we opposed to giving them another opportunity to reiterate? The assumption behind the argument is that the states of India are held together by force… (it) makes a tyrant of the Indian state.” (Hindustan Times April 20. 1964). 

India first brought the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations in 1948 and agreed to U.N. Resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. Kashmir cannot be described as part of India simply because U.N. resolutions remain un-implemented. Neutral observers and the world press have confirmed that the uprising in Kashmir is a mass movement. Fact is, religion is not the basis for freedom struggle in Kashmir. There never has been any communal violence in Kashmir. Also, Kashmiris reject the notion that they must remain in bondage, so that India can maintain its secular label. Linking the claim of millions of Indian Muslims to citizenship of their countries real estate in Kashmir is indeed unique.

Instead of looking for scape-goats. India needs to confront an ugly truth: Its position has become untenable. For 45 years India has failed to win over Kashmiris. Today it is failing to force them into submission.

“…But the threat to our (Indian) unity does not come from the Kashmiris. The threat comes from the Indian state itself. Faced with any unrest, the preferred policy of the Indian state has not been one of working out a peaceful solution, but of an increased dependence on its armed forces. Between 1947 and the present, the number of times the Indian state has called upon its army to quell internal disturbances has been much more than during the British Raj. A little sober thought will tell us that it is the tyrannical policy of the Indian state that is leading to the break-up of the country. Every violation of human rights committed in the name of preserving the unity or the country only serves to push the country closer to actual break-up….” (Behind the Events in Kashmir, A study by the Indian Progressive Study Group, New York Earl Hall, Columbia University, New York. NY 10027) 

Towards Bridging the Divide

For true modernity and secularism, commitment must be to freedom for all, and the first article of our political faith should be self-determination. A meaningful unity of the people of the subcontinent can only be possible if it is a voluntary and friendly union of people through respect for each other’s rights. 

Kashmir refuses to be a buffer state, to be divided and caged in fences. Kashmiris want their ancestral land undivided and with access to and from all its neighbors. They want to live in peace with all their neighbors based upon their own values of Kashmiriyat and not upon imposed terms. 

The half-century old political struggle of the Kashmiri people is a demonstration of will that democratic people must commend and defend. It is time Indian leadership heed Professor Thakurs advise: 

“Withdraw troops, from Kashmir, stop treating the problem as a law-and-order issue and tackle the political roots of conflict. Let the people of Kashmir decide their own fate in an honorable plebiscite. If they wish to be independent or to join Pakistan, then so be it. A resolution on the basis of self-determination would reinforce India’s democratic institutions and principles, strengthen its federal structure and practices and close a financial drain…. In short, an honorable democratic solution to Kashmir would strengthen the Indian State, underline its political values and cement cohesiveness of Indian society” Prof. Ramesh Thakur, Director of Asian Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand: (India After Non-Alignment) Foreign Affairs Spring 1992, New York. 

If a solution to the Kashmir dispute is not facilitated, forces which oppose democracy in the region will gain momentum. Militancy will extend to and engulf the entire sub-continent. Therefore, all friends of the people of India should provide support in bringing about a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. This could be done by proposing tension reducing steps such as:

 I) Demilitarize Kashmir 

2) Open borders between Indian-held and Pakistan-held Kashmir 

3) After a limited cooling off period, hold United Nations supervised elections for different linguistic and cultural districts within geographic areas of Kashmir to determine people’s choice regarding accession to India or Pakistan or being Independent. 

A demilitarized Kashmir, constituted of areas now under the occupation of Pakistan and India, and with open borders to both, would be in the best interest of all parties. Over time it would help India and its neighbors forge new ties. Thus Kashmir, which has become a divide between India and Pakistan, would be a bridge for cooperation between the two countries.

Over time, when the wounds heal, a free Kashmir can forge new ties, a new federalism based on shared values and economic interests. The opportunity to bring lasting peace is there, in question is the will to avail it.

Footnote 1:

The vast majority of population in India and Pakistan live in grinding poverty. The ruling class in both countries maintain the lifestyle of the imperial rulers.

In Pakistan palatial estates of army generals are conspicuously located right outside the Lahore airport. The president of the Indian Republic, heads one of the poorest countries in the world, yet he lives in an estate bigger than any Maharaja had during the British Raj. In New Delhi, a politician once appointed to an office rarely gives up possession of government allotted housing after leaving office.

Despite the grinding poverty India and Pakistan are South Asia’s largest military spenders. Pakistan spent billions in arms imports. Indian spending accounted for 74 percent of total south Asian military expenditure. The Indian defense budget of eleven billion dollars maintains the third largest army in the world. Indian military expenditure each year exceeds $8 billion dollars. It acquired arms valued over $16 billion dollars in 1985-1989 as per published reports. (India Abroad 2-2-1992)

Footnote 2:

            “The Chak rule, bedeviled by continuous fighting against the Moghul expeditions and internal anarchy and instability, continued from 1536 to 1587. …In these circumstances the religious leaders, led by Sheikh Hamzah Makhdoom, decided to invite the Moghul emperor, Akber to annex Kashmir on certain terms and conditions. The delegation which waited upon Akber to represent the case of Kashmir was led by luminaries like Sheikh Yaqoob Sarfi and Baba Daud Khaki. Akber, who had failed on several occasions to annex Kashmir by force, at once seized the opportunity and sent a huge army which defeated the Chak army after some resistance. Thus in 1587 Kashmir became a part of the Moghul empire and lost its independence for the first time in its known history. Published by Information Center Jamaat-E- Islami, Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir, September 1988.

Footnote 3:

Gulab Singh had joined the services of Sikh Kingdom. During the British-Sikh war of 1845, Gulab Singh sided with the British. On March 16, 1846 Gulab Singh and the British signed the infamous treaty Amritsar which in part reads:

(Article 1) The British government transfers and makes over forever, in independent possession, to Maharaja Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or mountainous country, with its dependencies, situated eastward of the river Indus, and westward of the river Ravi, including Chamba and excluding Lahul, becoming part of the territories ceded to the British government by the Lahore state, according to the provisions of article 4 of the Treaty of Lahore, dated 9^th of March 1846.

(Article 3) In consideration of the transfer made to him and his heirs by the provisions of the foregoing articles, Maharaja Gulab Singh will pay to the British government the sum of 75 lacs (7.5 million) of Rupees (Nanak Shahi) 50 lacs (5 million) to be paid on the ratification of this treaty and Rs 25 lacs (2.5 million) on or before the first of the current year A.D. 1846.

The infamous treaty of Amritsar, gave 76,6000 square miles to the Dogras. Queen Victoria would also get an annual tribute consisting of a horse, 25 pounds of wool and three pairs of shawls. In return, the British offered the Rajah protection of his domain. 

Footnote 4:

The modern political freedom struggle in Kashmir began in the early thirties. A group of Kashmiris began to meet in a “reading room” to discuss and exchange ideas. Thus began an assertation and later an agitation for economic betterment of the newly educated middle class. In 1932, the Kashmir freedom movement took a concrete form when a political party, the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference was founded. People of British India under the guidance of poet Iqbal and others began a publicity campaign to project the plight of Kashmiris. The first all India conference on Kashmir was held in 1932. Religion of the majority of Kashmiris served as a rallying and galvanizing force for the movement. It was used by the leaders of the movement as a motivational force to involve the masses in their agitation.

            Islam, which is the religion of most Kashmiris, forbids a believer to accept bondage. Yet, Kashmiris lived in subjugation for centuries. And since 1586, under foreign rule. Forced labor without wages, “beggar” was an accepted way of life for Kashmiris even at the advent of the 20^th century. “Zulam Parast” (worshippers of tyrants) is how Sir Lawrence described the Kashmiris in 1891. It is said that when Kashmiris were taken for forced labor Molvis (priests) used to give fatiha (religious last rights) to the men. Kashmiris accepted the “beggar” and other atrocities meekly. The central concept of their religion, submission to no one but God (Allah), was replaced by submission to tyrant rulers. This happened because the religious establishment in Kashmir was co-opted by the ruling class.

In Kashmir, as in most of the Indian subcontinent, there is no tradition of nation-state building. Historically, the rulers do not appear as managers of a public enterprise but as brokers of power amongst interest groups.

Footnote 5:

Leadership of Indian National Congress had carefully crafted plans to annex Kashmir and executed them well. Sheikh Abdulla’s vanity, Maharaja Hari Singh’s desperations and Lord Mountbatten ego were fully exploited. V.P. Menon’s, reported boast to Alexander Symon, Britain’s Deputy High Commissioner, after his return from Jammu were Maharaja Hari Singh singed the Instrument of Accession, handing control of Kashmir to India gives a glimpse of the Indian mind-set. “…, he (Menon) pulled a piece of paper from his jacket pocket and waved gaily towards the Englishman. “Here it is, he said. “We have Kashmir. The bastard signed the Act of Accession. And now that we’ve got it, we’ll never let it go.” (Page 367, Freedom at Midnight, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Simon and Schuster, New York 1975). Among the many elements of the Indian plan was personal involvement of Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of British India. He was made the first governor general of free India. He influenced the outcome of Radcliffe’s boundary commission set up to divide Punjab between India and Pakistan. Lord Mountbatten, personally intervened to ensure that India was provided a road link joining India to Kashmir by awarding the town of Gurdaspur, a predominantly Muslim area, to India. Mountbatten and Ghandi made personal visits to Kashmir to influence the Maharaja. Mahajan, a member of the Radcliff commission had met with Maharani of Kashmir before his appointment and was later made prime minister of Kashmir. Sardar Patel had arranged for the armies of Patiala to be in Kashmir weeks before the Indian army was airlifted to Kashmir. The Indian army was flown into Kashmir within hours of Maharajas accession consent.

Later the Kashmir dispute was brought to the United Nations by India to ensure that India’s military conquest of Muslim-ruled Hindu majority princely states whose rulers had not opted for union with India (Hydrabad, Junagargh) would not become controversial. After the two States were annexed by India, Kashmir case was stonewalled at the U.N. Security Council with the help of Soviet vetoes. 

Footnote 6:

Both governments use Kashmir to incite chauvinism in their own respective countries and even justify wars. After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, Indra Ghandi and Zulfikar A. Butto, heads of the two countries met in Simla to come to an agreement regarding, among other things, Kashmir. In the Simla Agreement, both sides maintained Kashmir as a disputed territory, but pledged to respect the line of control in Kashmir without prejudice to the recognized position of either party. Differences regarding the future shape of Kashmir were to be resolved through bilateral channels. What the Simla Accord amounts to is that the Kashmiris cannot have any say in determining the status of their land, it is the Indian and Pakistani governments who will dictate them.

Recommended Reading: 

1. KASHMIRIS FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. Volume 1 & 2. Mohammad Yusuf Saraf (Chief Justice, A,K, High Court) 1979, Publisher Ferozsons Ltd. Lahore, Pakistan.
2. KASHMIR: A DISPUTED LEGACY. 1846-1990, Alastair Lamb, Roxford Books, Hertfordshire, U.K. 1991.
3. KASHMIR IN CHAINS 1819-1992. Mohammad Sultan Pampori, Pampore Publishing House Srinagar, Kashmir, 1992.
4. KASHMIR AND THE UNITED NATIONS. Sibtain Tahira, National Institute of Pakistani Studies, Quaide Azam University, ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, 1993.
5. PERSPECTIVES ON KASHMIR. Editor, Raju G.C. Thomas, Westview Press, Oxford 1992.
6. THE WOUNDED PARADISE. Altaf Hussain, (Publisher name not provided), 1991.