War hype being created to divert attention from real issues: Zaffar-ul-Haq

Nisar Ahmed Thakur
Islamabad, Dec 27 2008: The chairman of Muslim League-N and secretary General of Mohtamar Alam-e-Islam Raja Zaffar-ul-Haq has said that in order to divert attention from real issues war hype is being created to push the region towards a disastrous confrontation.
"So for as the Mumbai incident is concerned we have strongly condemned the attack as we believe that such incidents have negative impacts on the overall situation of the region and that is why, the urge for peace in the region, has always been our priority", the PML-N central leader said this during an informal chat with Greater Kashmir on Friday.
Talking about the different dimensions of the Mumbai incident he maintained that there was an attempt to sabotage the peace talks so as to put off Americas' growing interests in the region vis-à-vis the settlement of the longstanding dispute of Kashmir. "India was not happy with the latest developments especially with reference to the US president Barak Obama's statements and his decision of appointing former president Mr. Bill Clinton as special envoy on Kashmir", he said adding that Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership hailed this initiative whereas India did not appreciate it at all.

Zaffar-ul-Haq stated that this time India was very much upset as it realized that such a development would bring the issue of Kashmir into lime light at international level again and they would have no excuses but to talk about the this issue. He said that there is a thinking that some people might have created this whole scenario to push the two nations back into hostility and antagonism whereby new issues will come to the fore and nothing tangible could be done to address the serious issues like Kashmir. "This is actually the third dimension of Mumbai episode that is being discussed in the news papers now and then", he added.

About India's hostile intent he said that it was very unfortunate that war hype is being created to shift focus from serious issues saying that India for its political motives and mere political requirements at domestic level, has been pushing the whole region towards confrontation.

Referring to airspace violations and Indian threat of hot pursuit into Pakistani territory he said those who are talking of a limited war are living in the utopian world. "It is easy to set off war but no one can lay down its limits, if there are surgical strikes on Pakistani soil it is beyond the imagination that one can remain silent", he said.

Referring to off the cuff statements by the Pakistani leadership he said that at this crucial stage there was a dire need to have well thought-out, proper consultation and collective decisions to meet the challenges.

Regarding Kashmiris' liberation struggle he said, "This is a matter of life and death of millions of people and could not be just ignored or placed in cold-store". So for as the settlement of the issue is concerned he said that there is a national consensus on the issue and as per the UN resolutions people of Kashmir have every right to choose their future destiny and no country has even the right to challenge the highest body's decisions unilaterally".

He state that the PML-N has very clear stance in this regard and it was the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief who started this peace process with then Indian Premier Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1999. "The initiative was highly appreciated and there was optimism that this process would help to bring durable peace in South Asia by resolving all outstanding issue including Kashmir".

"Even today, if any effort is being made to normalize relations between the two countries, it does not mean that we are appeasing any one rather there is a desire for peace that is desperately needed to thrash out all issues particularly the issue of Kashmir", he added.

Resolution of conflicts must to ensure peace in SA: Fazl

Nisar Ahmed Thakur
Islamabad, 03 Dec: The seasoned parliamentarian and the Chairman of Pakistan's All Parties Parliamentary Committee on Kashmir, Moulana Fazl-ur-Rehman has said that that the dream of eternal peace in South Asia would remain illusive unless the long-standing dispute of Kashmir was resolved to the satisfaction all the concerned parties including India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.

"Enhanced trade between the two neighbouring states, people to people contacts, peace, security and other related issues confronted by the two nations are somehow, one way or the other interlinked to Kashmir issue, therefore it is essential that India and Pakistan should make it as a basis to settle all other outstanding issues", Rehman, the well-known political cum religious leader and the chief Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (F) Pakistan said this during an exclusive interview with Greater Kashmir on Monday.

"No doubt there are some elements who don't want good-relations between India and Pakistan but for the larger interests of the people of the subcontinent the leadership on both sides should rise to the occasion and let the peace overtures continue so that an enabling atmosphere is created to remove all the hurdles in the way of peace and harmony", he maintained.

You have been appointed as the chairman of Kashmir Committee. What are the primary objectives the Committee?

The All Parties Parliamentary Kashmir committee was established in 1994 and its formation by it-self reflects the commitment of the people and the government of Pakistan with Kashmiris' just cause.

Besides devising strategy and to develop broader consensus on the issue, the primary objective of the committee is to project Kashmir issue both at national as well as international level. In order to take Kashmiri people into confidence, the committee, periodically, holds deliberations and discussions with Kashmiri leadership on both sides of line of control to seek their point of view with regard to the developments taking place in the region. The opinions and the comprehensions of the Kashmiri leaders are given a special priority and their suggestions are accordingly incorporated in the recommendations being presented to the government of Pakistan. In this regard we had a meeting with Kashmiri leaders in which the former chairman and the senior Hurriyat leader Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat was invited.

Do all the parliamentary parties have identical approach so for as the final settlement of Kashmir dispute is concerned?

There is no second opinion as all the Parliamentary parties in Pakistan have one and the same approach on Kashmir and they speak in one voice so for as the question of final settlement of Kashmir dispute is concerned.

Under the international covenants, do you think that that Kashmiri leadership has any role in the ongoing peace talks?

As per the international and the bilateral agreements there are two parties to the dispute that is India and Pakistan, but finally it is the people of Kashmir who will decide their own destiny. However, owing to the unparalleled sacrifices of the people of Jammu and Kashmir it was need of the hour that they should be kept aware of the developments and the progress being made on the issue.

Pakistan does have a principled and historic stance over Kashmir that is the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be given a chance to exercise their right, the right to self-determination guaranteed to them by the world community

After rendering huge sacrifices for their just cause I think they could not be just ignored or kept at bay. We have a very clear stance in this regard that is Kashmiris should be associated with the dialogue process; however, if this is not possible they should be at least kept close to the talk's process whereby they could be able to observe the day to day developments in this regard.

India has offered no proposals nor has it reciprocated to the proposals put forth by Pakistan. What would you like to say about it?

Pakistan has adopted a realistic approach but it was very unfortunate that India is back tracking from its own commitments that it had been made with the people of Kashmir and the world community vis-à-vis the resolution of the dispute. We are stick to our principle stance and want that the issue should be settled in line with the pledges made at the international level.

For last several decades, no-doubt there have been many ups and downs in the bilateral relations but Kashmir is an internationally recognised dispute and India's intransigence and unrealistic attitude has always been a stumbling block in the way of peace. Though, this is encouraging that after a long struggle India has finally accepted it (Kashmir) as an important issue to be resolved through talks.

What about out of the box solutions?

With changing political scenario at international level, new approaches are being discussed but being a rational I believe that unless and until we have on hand a concrete and tangible alternative solution, acceptable to all the concerned parties India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, we can not just think of any other solution or mechanism other than what it has been agreed under the UN resolutions.
What is your opinion regarding president Mushrraf's four point formula? Do you think it was a right move?
So for as President Mushrraf's proposal were concerned, there has not been any strong reaction from Kashmiri quarters and they had not rejected the idea out rightly but there had been some flaws on the technical side, which we have discussed threadbare. Although Mushraff Sahib put forth an idea, but it was not entertained and reciprocated by Indian rulers. As a matter of the fact this approach did not benefit Pakistan diplomatically and no substantial progress was made on the Kashmir front, it was totally a one sided affair giving an impression as if it was the sole responsibility of Pakistan to restore the confidence of Indian establishment (New Delhi).

What about the outcome of composite dialogue process, are you satisfied?

After years' of diplomatic hard work, the ongoing composite dialogue process was initiated in January 2004. It was a good beginning that benefited ordinary people but it is an established fact that there was no substantial progress on Kashmir front what it was pledged by the leadership of both the countries that the two nations would explore the ways and means to bring about an amicable solution of Kashmir tangle.

I visited New Delhi in July 2003, during my discussions with Indian leadership and I told them that there was a dire need to restore trade and communication links between the two countries. It was the time when Air links, train, bus and trade everything was just standstill. I said that the poor people of the region are inter-linked to each other, there are blood relations all across and the families are divided on both sides, there are historical, educational and spiritual links which could not be just ignored. For that matter I suggested that the dialogue was only way by which we can narrow down the differences and put an end to the decades' long hostility. I said for the betterment of the teeming millions of the subcontinent; cordial relations between the two neighbouring countries were essential. I said the poor-people of the region need peace and harmony to flourish; therefore, I urged that for a lasting peace in the region resolution of conflicts was imperative. In this context I proposed that whatever steps are being taken to strengthen bilateral ties the ultimate target should be the resolution of Kashmir dispute.

What is the reason that nothing concrete has been done to resolve conflicts like Kashmir and other bilateral disputes?

Talks are going on between the two countries but it is very unfortunate that whenever there is a forward movement some untoward incidents took-place that change the entire scenario besides pushing the whole process backwards. Kargil incident, Samjota Express carnage, and attack on Indian Parliament these are the very unpleasant incidents that have by and large affected the peace process as a result no tangible steps were taken to resolve outstanding disputes. Now that the two countries were moving ahead and the Mumbai incident yet again overwhelmed and shook the whole process and this happened when Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was in India on official tour.

Indo-Pak peace process have suffered many setbacks, what is the way forward?
In my opinion India and Pakistan will have to decide that if Indo-Pak friendship is beneficial for the people of both the nations then whatever the situation dialogue must go on. No doubt there could be some elements who do not want friendly relationship between the two countries. This is a natural phenomena when two rival groups try to reconcile there is always a lobby that somehow disagrees with their plan same is the case with India and Pakistan but at the very crucial times, it is none other than the leadership that has to act positively and take wise decisions to lead the masses towards right direction. If we adopt a hawkish approach it is going to serve none other than the elements who were hell bent on disrupting peace in the region. By adopting a realistic approach we will be certainly able to defeat them. We are living in a region where there are alarming issue like poverty, hunger, illiteracy and unemployment.

The only way forward is that for the larger interests of the people in the subcontinent, both the nations have to come out of the hostile situation and move together positively and resolve all the disputes so that durable peace, stability and prosperity could prevail in the region.

What about Mumbai attacks and its implications?

As I earlier told you that these incidents have certainly vitiated the atmosphere but it is the sole responsibility of the leadership to act wisely and do not to let the peace process to derail. Despite Pakistan's positive approach, it was very unfortunate that Indian media acted irresponsibly and the way Indian leadership reacted was against the diplomatic norms. In sheer hastiness and jingoism, the hawkish elements in Indian media resorted to the traditional blame game and started raising fingers towards Pakistan, which is very unfortunate.

What about US president-elect Barak Obama's statement on Kashmir?

So for as the idea of mediation or arbitration is concerned, Pakistan has always welcomed it. But it is India that has been rejecting the third-party intervention. We also appreciate the US president Barak Obama's recent statement on Kashmir but I want to make it clear that if American wants to lend any support vis-à-vis the resolution of Kashmir dispute they will have to keep in mind the interests of the people of in the region.

How do you see Assembly Elections in Kashmir?

Kashmiris have time and again boycotted the elections and made it clear that these elections were in no way a substitute to right of self-determination. However, this is very much clear that the assembly elections are being held to elect an administrative setup in the disputed territory. If some one for the sake of argument says that people have participated in the elections they must not forget that just a couple of months back there were millions of people on the streets demanding the right to self-determination. These are two different issues, so for as the question of self-determination is concerned people of Kashmir are committed to their cause for which they have paid huge price in terms of human lives.

Terrorism is the biggest challenge, what is your assessment with regard to war against terror?
This is American terminology, I don't believe in such hypothesis; it is nothing but war of interests. All the South Asian countries must join hands together to safeguard and conserve the interests of the region.

K-resolution based on peoples’ aspirations must for South Asian peace: Khan

NISAR AHMED THAKUR

Islamabad, Aug 4: Sardar Ali Shahnawaz Khan, the executive Director of Oslo-based Kashmiri Scandinavian Council (KSC) is one of the effective lobbyists playing an important role to highlight Kashmir issue on international level.
Hailing from the scenic Rawlakot (Pak) valley, Khan migrated to Norway in 1986. After his formal schooling, he got Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Norway, at the same time he got diploma in Information Technology. As a Norwegian citizen, he joined politics in 1992 and is a member of the Christian Peoples’ Party, one of the mainstream political parties of the country.
Living comfortably in Norwegian progressive society, his devotion and patriotism forced him to launch a platform to seek world community’s help to resolve the longstanding Kashmir dispute in accordance with the aspirations of Kashmiri people.
With this objective, Khan and his aides launched Kashmir Scandinavian Council to create a better understanding of the Kashmir imbroglio before the Norwegian government, people, and other social organs of the country.
Owing to his efforts, the KSC was able to establish All Parties Group on Kashmir in the Norwegian parliament that has been painstakingly engaged in seeking public support in favour of Kashmiris’ right to self-determination.
Besides his services on diplomatic front, Khan is a strong promoter of peace and inter-faith harmony. During the recent cartoon controversy, Khan played a key role in bridging the ever-widening gap between Muslims and Christians of Nordic nations for which he received world-wide appreciation.
In an interview with Greater Kashmir, Ali Shahnawaz Khan spoke on various aspects of Kashmir issue as well as on his engagements in Norway and other western countries.

Mr. Khan you have been engaged on the diplomatic front for long. To what extent have you been able to promote the Kashmir cause in Norway and other countries?
Several people abroad have been pleading for a peaceful settlement of Kashmir dispute. Norway has a long history of supporting peace deals around the world. It has a great respect for human values and the very fundamental rights of the peoples living in various parts of the world. Likewise, the country has a unique and, indeed, a clear stance on Kashmir; it supports the UN Security Council resolutions on the issue and believes that Kashmiri people are the masters of their own destiny.
I along with my friends formed the Kashmiri-Scandinavian Council in January 1999. Since then, the KSC has been working effectively to draw the attention of the Government and the people of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland towards the plight of Kashmiris.
Over the years, the KSC has been able to bring the Kashmir issue on the centre stage with the result peace loving people in Norway by and large support the efforts going on for the peaceful settlement of the dispute by bringing all its parties on the negotiating table.

What was the spirit that persuaded you to take this initiative on diplomatic front?
The liberation struggle started in Kashmir in 1988. Because of my emotional attachment with the people of Kashmir, I was curious to know about them, their struggle and the way they were fighting for their cause. I had a great passion to do something for them. Until 1992, I had never talked to anyone from the Indian-administered Kashmir. The first person I spoke to was Dr. Ayoub Thakur. When I talked to him on telephone, I could not just control my emotions, I burst into tears. I cried, you know, I could not even speak at that moment. It was not just because of Dr. Thakur. Rather it was my innate emotional affiliation with Kashmiri people. So this over-enthusiastic attitude of mine left a huge impact on him as well, which is why he invited me to London.
I went to UK in 1993; Dr Thakur met me like a father and really encouraged me. A nuclear scientist, he was the only person working for the cause in Europe at that time. I was inspired by the way he was living in UK. His simple but sober life style and his personal contribution and sacrifices for Kashmir struggle inspired me a lot.
Any ways I got a lot of information from him, later I established links with Kashmiri leadership including Mirwaiz Umar Farooq the chairman of Hurriyat Conference. Although I met him a few years back but I had regular contacts with him on phone.
Secondly, my wife, Saiqa Khan, who unfortunately died three and half years ago, played a great role in this; she was a devoted lady who used to arrange meetings with various people as well as those working for humanitarian cause in Norway. It was actually my passion that persuaded me to get involved in the movement.
Being a Kashmiri, I thought if we cannot provide financial assistance to about seven million people in Kashmir, we must at least work for their legitimate cause. Therefore, we decided to launch a campaign in Norway to mobilize public opinion in favour of Kashmiris’ rights movement.
So we met with different people, parliamentarians and lawmakers and apprised them of the political situation in Kashmir and, finally, in collaboration with my Norwegian and Kashmiri friends, we formally agreed to form Kashmiri Scandinavian Council, a purely non-profitable organization.

Would you like to mention briefly the aims and objectives of the organization and its achievements?
The prime objectives of the KSC are:
to promote a better understanding of the Kashmir imbroglio among the Scandinavian people, media, humanitarian and social organizations;
to strive at all levels within the Norwegian and Scandinavian frame work for building a favourable public opinion for implementation of the United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which gave the people of Jammu and Kashmir the right to self-determination;
to draw the attention of the Government of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finnland and the parliamentarians to the plight of Kashmiris, and garner support for a peaceful settlement of Kashmir issue by bringing all concerned parties to the dispute to the negotiating table;
to urge the Scandinavian leaders, the Heads of Government and the Secretary General of the United Nations to act more quickly and effectively in halting massive violations of human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir and to assist parties to find a peaceful and lasting solution of the world’s oldest dispute; and,
to highlight the atrocities being inflicted on the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and to uphold and defend the human rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Though KSC is an independent organization, but it has affiliation with Kashmir centres working in Washington, Brussels and UK. One of its major achievements is that due to its efforts Kashmir dispute was discussed in the Norwegian parliament. Secondly, a debate was initiated in parliament against India’s bid to become a member of the Security Council. As a result the government of Norway discussed Kashmir issue with Indian government several times.
The formation of the Norwegian Parliamentary Group on Kashmir in 1999 was a major success of the KSC on the diplomatic front. A member of Norway’s influential Foreign Relations Committee and high profile aide to the then Norwegian prime minister, Lars Rise, was the first founding head of the parliamentary group.
The Council successfully managed to arrange a number of visits by leading members of the Parliamentary Group to Pakistan, AJK and Indian-administered Kashmir in 2000.

What is your opinion about the UN Resolutions on Kashmir?
The UN Security Council Resolutions on Kashmir are vital, well-founded, relevant and applicable. In fact, these distinguish Kashmir dispute from other issues of contemporary history. Otherwise, if you talk of basic human rights issues, thousands of people are victims of violence around the world. Like in Rwanda, Africa, Iraq and other parts of the world, people are terribly suffering. But, what makes Kashmir issue a different case are the Security Council resolutions that acknowledge Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and provide a strong basis to Kashmiri people to fight for their legitimate cause. I think this is the only weapon by which you can build pressure on India thereby seeking world body’s support.

Do you think Norway can play a mediator’s role to settle Kashmir dispute peacefully?
Of course, Norway has been very active in peace diplomacy. Being an independent and self-reliant nation, it has effectively played a role of facilitator or mediator in more than 200 conflicts around the world. People usually like Norway because of having no hegemonic or colonial designs.
It has a track human rights record. So, being a harbinger of peace and human rights, Kashmiris have no objection in case it plays a mediator’s role to bring about a peaceful solution of the imbroglio. But the problem is with India that has been opposed to third party intervention.

What about President Pervez Musharraf’s 4-point formula as critics have been saying that these were contrary to the UN Security Council resolutions?
As a matter of the fact 4-point formula of President Musharraf does in no way negate the UN resolutions. Pakistan government has time and again made it clear that there has been no change in the official stance and reiterated their demand to resolve Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of Kashmiri people. No doubt he talked about the out of the box solution but practically he did not say that UN resolutions are no more valid. However, the flexibility shown by president Musharraf amply demonstrated the fact that Pakistan is committed to resolve dispute amicably. At that time when president Musharraf came up with this formula, I think it was a positive move, the initiative gained world wide acknowledgement and acceptance and resultantly there was a lot of pressure on government of India. Diplomatically, Pakistan got a strong political and diplomatic support. I think it was a calculated move, Pakistan was well aware of the fact that India will not give positive response. But Pakistan has successfully been able to convey this message to whole world that Pakistan is a peaceful nation and wants an amicable settlement of Kashmir dispute.

What about peace process?
With the changing global scenario, we must support the peace process. The Kashmiri leadership and the people even support peace talks. What, however, they insist on is that the process should be meaningful and result-oriented. There is logic in it as they feel India is adopting delaying tactics to suppress the ongoing struggle. Nevertheless, I believe the peace process is very important and it must be pursued by seeking support of the peace loving nations.

Do you think there is a change in Indian policy so far as the solution to Kashmir dispute is concerned?
I can’t just say that India is non-serious but what I personally feel is that New Delhi has not been able to reciprocate the flexibility demonstrated by Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership. One thing is clear that there is a lot of pressure on India as it cannot ignore the world opinion.

Do you think Kashmir dispute can be resolved bilaterally?
History is witness to the fact that both the nations have failed to settle the decades old dispute bilaterally, but the way the peace process is going on it is obvious that there is a third party involvement. And, we hope that in view of the larger interests of the people of the subcontinent both the countries would resolve the dispute amicably.

What about reunification of Hurriyat factions?
Reunification move is imperative as Kashmiris have to have one leadership, primarily a solid and vibrant political platform, to strengthen the movement on all fronts. Therefore, the pro-movement leadership must get united and those who are really sincere with the cause must do it immediately without further delay. If you are not a part of the solution then you are a part the problem. Bearing in mind the sacrifices of the people, they must bury their differences and get united in the larger interest of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

What about the cross LoC trade, do you see any drawback in getting engaged in a sort of business-related activities in the conflict zone?
I don’t think trade along ceasefire line can have any negative impacts on the movement, I think there is nothing wrong. Instead, the trade between the two parts of state can help to develop better understanding amongst the people. However, I don’t believe in the terminologies like line of peace, or line of commerce. I just believe that it is a ceasefire line; it will remain ceasefire line, unless the issue is resolved in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of Kahsmiri people.
No doubt, it is a conflict zone, but your theory will not work under the given circumstances as there is a role for the international community as well. You just cannot ignore the international aspect involved in the whole process.

Kashmir's freedom my only dream: Amanullah Khan

“Misrepresentation of facts, misinterpretation of agreements and the imperialistic approach had made Kashmir issue as one of the complex issues of the contemporary history”: Amanullah Khan

Nisar Ahmed Thakur

Amanullah Khan, the renowned Kashmiri leader and the supreme head of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front is one amongst the pioneers of independence movement that was established in 1963.

Since then he has been courageously steering the movement of independent Kashmir with firm resolve, perseverance and unflinching faith that a day will finally come when bloody line, the line of control (LOC) will fall like Berlin Wall and suppressed people of Jammu and Kashmir will be able to retrieve the nationhood and the status what they had been enjoying during the times when Kashmir was a free, independent and sovereign state.

Born on August 24, August 1931 in Astore Gilgit, Mr. Khan was the only son of his father. He was just 3 years old when his father, Jummah Khan passed away leaving behind the bereaved family including his mother, step-mother and seven sisters. However, due to domestic circumstances he was compelled to be sent to Kashmir valley wherein he stayed at his sister’s home who was married to a school teacher Hashim Ali Khan of Highhama Kupwara.

After receiving early education there, he went to Srinagar wherein in 1950 he matriculated with highest first division. He was the only Muslim amongst first 20 students who passed the examination, held under the supervision of Kashmir University. Shameem Ahmed Shameem, the veteran writer and member of the Indian parliament was his class fellow. To carry forward his studies he took admission in S P College. Being self-supported and indeed a brilliant student he received special attention, and care from his teachers at the college.

Revolutionary by nature Mr. Khan was basically a staunch Pakistani who covertly started his activities as a volunteer freedom fighter in 1947 while he was studying in middle school. As a result of his pro-movement activities he was arrested and placed under lockup in a local police station at Handwara (Kupwara). In a highly embroiled political atmosphere in the state, Khan during his college life in the capital city Srinagar got involved in anti-Indian pro-Pakistan demonstrations. However, a clear ideology of independent Kashmir developed in his mind after migrating to Pakistan in 1952.

After an in-depth study of Kashmir history and the contemporary freedom movements of Palestine, Al-jazzier and Vietnam Mr. Khan by 1960 became a staunch campaigner of reunification and complete independence of Jammu and Kashmir. And since then he has been vociferously projecting Kashmir case both at national as well as international level.

Throughout his 40-years long political journey rather indulging in power politics Mr. Khan remained stick to his political philosophy and worked rigorously for strengthening and expanding the ideology of complete independence of Jammu and Kashmir. He has written three books, more than 57 comprehensive articles, 56 pamphlets and scores of leaflets on Kashmir.
To materialize his dream of free Kashmir Khan known as father of resistance movement, lunched armed struggle in 1988, with this objective to infuse new life to dying Kashmir issue.

Under his patronage the JKLF also made four historic attempts to cross the Line of control to express solidarity with the people of Indian administered Kashmir besides seeking world attention towards Kashmir issue.

In an exclusive interview with Great Kashmir, the aged leader and the JKLF supreme head Mr. Amanullah Khan talked about different aspects of his political struggle as well as the various dimensions of Kashmir imbroglio.

Mr. Khan what was the basic reason that you had to migrate to Pakistan?

Since my school life I have been involved in the movement by one way or the other way. You will be surprised to know that I was a staunch Pakistani. When I was studying in S P College Srinagar I along with my college fellows used to hold anti-India and pro-Pakistan demonstrations. Being a highly enthusiastic and devoted Pakistani I don’t even miss a chance to come out in the streets to launch anti-India protests. During my college life in Srinagar, there were three separate messes for the students in the Amar Singh College, Muslim mess, Hindu Mess and the Buddhist Mess. I was appointed as in charge of the Muslim mess and luckily the mess-managers had the privilege to have a separate room to live in. Therefore, I too was also given a separate room. When I migrated to Amar Singh College I was joined by some new friends there who used to come and stay with me for hours late night, wherein we used to discuss the contemporary issues.

It was 1951 when Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated during a public rally at Liaqat Bagh Rawalpindi. It was big and indeed shocking news for every Kashmiri. But at the same time it was quite astonishing that the incumbent state government turned a deaf ear towards the incident and schools and colleges were open as usual. We too went to college; a Hindu teacher who was a close relative of P N Dhar as he entered into class room he just started teasing and passed some bigoted remarks regarding the assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan. One of our class fellows, interestingly his name was also Amanullah stood up and said we will not take class today we are going out to hold demonstration. Professor Dhar said, “No, not at all I will not allow you to go out”. In the meanwhile there was a heated argument between the teacher and the students. Any ways we finally succeeded in holding a protest and also offered funeral prayers in absence at Partab Park. So this was the sentiment at that time. At the same time, an FIR was lodged against the student, Mr. Amanullah my class fellow who argued with Mr. Dhar at the college.

Hailing from a highly influenced family Amanullah some how managed to change the father’s name mentioned in the FIR with the result I was supposed to be the ring leader of the riots that triggered in Srinagar after the assassination of Pakistani leader. One day, I was just sitting inside my room and some body knocked at my door. As I opened the door, I saw a Sikh head constable whom I had helped earlier. He came in and said Mr. Amanullah you have been badly involved in the case and you have no alternative but to leave the area immediately to save yourself as the charges levelled against you are very severe. Sikh constable said, “You have no one at your back to defend, once you are apprehended it will take you years to come out from jail, so you must leave the area unless the police hunt you down”. So this was actually the clumsy situation under which I had to leave my homeland heavy heartedly”.

Under the given circumstance I finally left for Jammu wherein I joined the family of late K H Khursheed and two other families who were on their way to Pakistan. In January, 1952 we crossed the border, entered into Pakistani territory via Sucheet Garh Sialkot.

What were your feelings at the time when you entered into Pakistani territory and how you managed to continue your studies and other day to day affairs?

It was a heart-rending scene you know as I entered into no man’s land I kissed the soil; it was the sentiment and indeed an indication as to what extent I was inclined to Pakistan. Anyways I don’t repent for what I did. But what was in fact shocking for me that after spending a few days with Muhammad Hussain, the father of K H Khursheed I went to Rawalpindi where I incidentally met with my cousin, Muhammad Ismaeel Khan who was a government employee and later retired as district commissioner. In order to continue my studies I wanted to take admission in Garden College Rawalpindi, but as we met the principal of the college he refused to grant me admission and said, “No this is not possible you can not seek admission in the college because we don’t acknowledge Kashmir University, you will have to appear in middle class exams again”. “Believe me it was like a “Jetka” a bolt from the blue. Any how it is a long history, to cut it short I finally went Peshawar wherein with the help of some sympathizers I succeeded in getting admission in Edwards College. In November 52 I went to Karachi where I took admission in Sindh Muslim College. After completing intermediate 1955 I did Bachelor’s degree 1956 and later graduated in law from University of Karachi in 1962.

Early years in Karachi were very tough for me, having no sufficient means to manage day to day affairs of life I had to even sleep on footpaths for a pretty long time. But thanks to almighty within a short span of time I was finally in a position to establish my own business there. First I started teaching in a Night School. Being a popular teacher I succeeded in establishing two private schools in Karachi.

So by 1961, I became financially self-sufficient and started monthly magazine “The Voice of Kashmir”.

What actually forced you to change the ideology and what was the reason behind this ideological shift?

You know Karachi is a big city where people of different tribes, different races and of course the people of different ideologies live together. So while living there I came across with the people hailing from different ideologies, even I had an opportunity to have interactions with the renowned freedom fighters of Algeria. Secondly, I was inspired by the contemporary freedom movements that were going on in Palestine, and Vietnam.

Particularly after Indo-Pak talks (Bhutto and Surran Singh) in 1963 we came to know that both the countries were planning to declare river Jehlum as international border and the state is being divided yet again (The story in this regard was published in the News Week). You know by this plan every district of Kashmir including Islamabad, Srinagar, Sopore and Baramulla were getting divided. In view the said situation, I thought to myself that we must provide an alternative idea to both the countries to resolve Kashmir issue that will help to keep in tact the geographical integrity of the state.

In this connection I called on my friend Ghulam Muhammad Lone who had an established business in the city and discussed the issue with him; he was also concerned over the recent developments. So we unanimously agreed that let us take an initiative and not allow the two countries to do so.

As for as the question of ideological shift is concerned, basically there are three main reasons on the basis of what one formulates his future line of action or joins any party having particular political ideology. (1) Either you get influenced by the character of any person, leader or any revolutionary personality (2). Or you have any vested interest on the basis of what you join any party. (3) There are some people who on behalf of their wisdom, knowledge, experience and their observations adopt a particular guide line and pursue their ideology to give practical shape to their designs.

Same is the case with me, as I earlier told you that during my stay in the metropolitan city (Karachi) I came across with the people of all the four provinces of Pakistan, I met with the poor, deprived and downtrodden people of the state and even the elites of the country. So whatever I learnt, bearing in mind the experience, knowledge and observations, particularly the attitude of the governments of India and Pakistan towards Kashmir and Kashmiris I finally came to the conclusion that independent Kashmir was the only solution that was in the best interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Later I started writing in magazines and newspapers just to promote independent ideology and in favour of independent Kashmir my first article was published in Pakistan’s leading newspaper “the Dawn” wherein I pleaded that independent Kashmir was an alternative solution to Kashmir imbroglio.


So what steps did you take in expanding the ideology of independence?

By 1963 in Karachi we were able to establish a group of committed patriots including Ghulam Muhammad Lone Sahib, Abdul Khaliq Ansari and several others, majority of them were journalists and lawyers. In the mean time, we established contacts with other nationalists including, Justice Majeed Malik, Nazki sahib of Lahore, Majeed Amjad Bhat and Muhammad Maqbool Bhat who had recently migrated from Kashmir and was working as an editor in local news paper “Anjam” in Peshawar. It was May 12 1963 we constituted Kashmir Independence Committee comprising of 15 members and Ghulam Muhammad Lone was appointed as convener of the committee. As usual I was publishing the “Voice of Kashmir” that was in fact a mouth piece of the KIC, most of the contents published in the magazine were reflecting the independent ideology that is why the people at the helm of affairs were not happy with me, many allegations were levelled against me. Any ways I tried a lot to continue it but due to bureaucratic hurdles I had to close the magazine.

1965 when Plebiscite Front was established in Kashmir, on the same pattern we formed Plebiscite Front in AJK and Pakistan. During its first ever session that was attended by Abdul Khaliq Ansari, Muhammad Maqbool Bhat, Majid Amjad Bhat, Mir brothers of Jammu and several others we reiterated our resolve to fight for the noble cause until the last drop of our blood. You will be amazed to know that one of our colleagues during the meeting said that taking oath as usual makes no sense at all, in order to show loyalty and commitment with the cause we must go and bring soil from other side of the border and then take oath on it. It was some thing really attractive and at the same time inspiring as a result all of us rushed to Jammu-Sialkot border and one of our friends Majid Majeed Bhat could not control his emotions and he just jumped into no man’s land brought some soil from there. It was really heart-rending scene we all burst into tears while taking oath by holding the soil in our hands.

But it was very unfortunate that this front in Kashmir did not last for a long. Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah was arrested by police as a result the Front suffered a great setback. And it was first time that we defied article 144 in Karachi by lodging a protest demo against his arrest. Any how during the first annual session of the Plebiscite Front held at Sialkot, I proposed to include the option of armed struggle in its manifesto, which was not accepted but the young members of the front including Shaheed Mabool Bhat admitted the fact that armed struggle was very important. Any ways as we left the venue I was a bit upset about what happened during the meeting.

While on the way back to Mirpore, we were just talking about the outcome of the meeting and many thoughts came to mind and all of a sudden an idea struck to mind that a few months ago I visited Peshawar wherein I had a meeting with Amanullah Khan who was a Major in British Army, during the casual talks he told me that being a trained army officer he was ready to render his services in the movement. At that time I did not say any thing to him but now I realized that time has come that we should seek help from him to move ahead.

From Mirpore, I left for Karachi but advised Mr. Bhat who was doing job in Peshawar to contact Major Amanullah. As I reached Karachi after a few days I received a telegram of Maqbool Bhat in which he had mentioned that “Business settled come soon”. I just contacted Mir Abdul Qayyum and showed him the telegram. So without any further delay we left for Peshawar where Bhat Sahib was anxiously waiting for us. There we held threadbare discussions on various issues and finally on 13th August 1965 we succeeded in establishing a new organization National Liberation Front. We were only five pioneers of the NLF and interestingly no portfolios were given to any of the founding members, although we divided the departments, Ghulam Muhammad Lone and Mir Qayyum were assigned to deal finance related issues, Major Amanullah, in charge armed wing, Muhammad Maqbool Bhat co-ordinator and I was given the task to deal political and publicity related affairs of the organization? This idea I had actually taken from Algerian FLN.

What were the prime objectives of the organization?

The basic reason to launch NLF was to fight through all possible means including armed struggle for a position for Kashmiris in which they are the sole masters of their motherland. So to give it a practical shape in June 1966, Mr. Bhat along with three other associates went to Kashmir just to educate the masses and to garner public support for the movement. But unfortunately M A Bhat was arrested as a result he had to remain in jail for two and a half years and finally he managed to escape from jail and returned to Pakistan in 1968. During this period the entire setup of the NLF in Pakistan was packed down and none of the pioneers was able to run it effectively. Any how we assembled again to discuss the the prevailing political situation and we agreed that we must do something unique to draw world attention towards the unresolved Kashmir issue. In the meantime the incident of Ganga Hijacking took place as a result the entire leadership of the NLF was yet again hunted down and send behind the bars. At that very time when Hashim Qureshi and his colleagues hijacked the Indian plane I was already in prison at Gilgit. However, I was later brought to Shahi Qilla, the most infamous prison. All of us were subjected to severe physical as well as mental torture. Qureshi and others were also arrested and later tried in the court. This was in fact a great set back to NLF and its leaders.

What was the court’s verdict against and have you actually been involved in this case?

Yes of course, but luckily the court’s verdict was in favour of we people and termed all of us including Mr. Ashraf one of the accomplices of Mr. Qureshi as big patriots however; the court maintained that Qureshi did it on the behest of India to spoil bilateral relations between the two countries.

Later in 1976, I went to England, and the same year Bhat Sahib went to Kashmir again, I heard news of his arrest while I was just leaving for London.

Since you have been close to each other, what is your personnel opinion about Maqbool Bhat?

Maqbool Bhat was a committed, ever confident and indeed a great patriot. As a close friend of mine, I am quite satisfied that I have fulfilled my responsibilities, I pleaded his case at diplomatic front. If I would not have pleaded his case he would have died like a common soldier.

You have been abroad and how long you have been in London and what sort of activities you carried out there to project Kashmiris’ cause?

“I have sweetest and even bitterest memories for the period while I was in UK”. I stayed there for almost 10 years, wherein I started to publish “The Voice of Kashmir” again. Later, we established Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front in 1977. Since I have been highly engaged in diplomatic activities, I travelled to many European countries and organised rallies and symposiums in all important capitals of the EU member countries. Even in New York we succeeded in holding a protest demo inside the UN General Assembly Hall (visitors Gallery) while Indian foreign minister Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was addressing. The JKLF activists who were sitting in the visitor’s gallery threw hundreds of leaflets into the Assembly Hall as Indian FM started his speech. This was a historic and indeed a unique event that within a few minutes the whole world became aware of the Kashmiris’ demands.

Even I held three press conferences in New York. Indian authorities were very much worried about my political activities and that is why Indian government demanded the UK government to push back me back.

So to deport me British police arrested me in 1985 on the pretext of fictitious case. However, the court’s decision came in my favour but the Home Minister gave a written statement saying that my stay in England was against their national interest and ultimately I was pushed back.

In which year you were deported by the British authorities and what were your feelings at that time?

In Dec 1986 I returned back to Pakistan, It was no doubt a bitter experience for me but I finally realized that political struggle can not only bear the fruits. Although politics and militancy was not my business, but I felt that I would have played an effective role on diplomatic front had there been a strong resistance movement in Kashmir.

You are known to be father of the ongoing armed struggle in Kashmir. So when and how you planned to launch the resistance movement?

As I told you when the political and diplomatic efforts of Kashmiris bore no fruits, we had no option but to wage an armed struggle to infuse new life to dying Kashmir issue and almost dead freedom movement. To bring the issue in light, the JKLF finally launched an armed struggle in 1988 just to achieve our inalienable right the right to self-determination. Even from this side of line of control the JKLF activists made four historic attempts to cross the bloody line, the LOC peacefully to draw the world attention towards the gravity of the unresolved issue.

As a result of this movement thousands of Kashmiri youths from both sides of the divided state participated in the armed struggle, laid down their precious lives to get the goal of freedom. Secondly it wiped off the black stain of cowardice for which the people of Kashmir were badly attributed to. Now no one can even dare to call Kashmiris as a week and cowardice nation. The third important change that I realized was that this struggle infused new spirit of nationhood amongst the masses, raised their self-confidence and the people of Jammu and Kashmir started to think like one nation.

Your have a pretty long political struggle, so what do you feel is the main reason that Kashmir issue has not been resolved till date?

Looking from a realistic and Kashmiri patriot’s point of view, unfortunately Kashmir issue has emerged as agonizing tale of shameful retractions by India and Pakistan from their solemn pledges, which they made with the people of Kashmir and the world community.

As a result of misrepresentation of facts, misinterpretation of agreements and the imperialistic approach this simple issue has emerged now as one of the complex issues of the contemporary history.

At the same time, it is also a painful saga of a halpless Kashmiri, who is being fired by one at the front while stabbed at the back by the other.

In short the selfish attitude of the governments of Indian and Pakistan, unpatriotic attitude on the part of Kashmiri leadership and a pathetic attitude of the international community have been the main reasons that Kashmir issue remains still unresolved.

You have also given a road map to resolve Kashmir issue peacefully so in your opinion what is the best possible solution of Kashmir issue?

Under the supervision of International Kashmir Committee (IKC) to be appointed by the UN secretary General with the consent and co-operation of India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership, the divided state of J&K should be reunited and declared as an independent state temporarily with a democratic, federal and secular system of government in place. Having friendly relations with all its neighbouring countries particularly with India and Pakistan who should under take this responsibility not to violate the border or interfere with internal affairs of the state.

The Kashmir as a temporary independent dominion should pledge not to allow its territory and its air-space to be used against any of her neighbours. Under the UN auspicious, after 15 years Kashmiri people should be given the right to choose political destiny whether they want to join India, Pakistan or they want to remain independent.

After holding free, fair and impartial plebiscite, the peoples’ democratic verdict should be accepted by all concerned parties i.e India, Pakistan, Kashmiris as well as the international community as a final settlement of the issue.

The IKC should compromise one nominee each from P-5 countries, European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the organization of Islamic Countries, Germany and Japan.

I am sure this is the only way forward to address the longstanding issue that is not only peaceful, equitable, democratic and honourable solution but can also prove to be feasible and practicable under the given circumstances.

I believe that without addressing the aspirations of Kashmiri people, real peace in the region will remain illusive. At the same time I am confident that JKLF formula will solve Kashmir issue without shedding even one drop of blood.

What about peace talks going on between India and Pakistan, do you think they will be able to settle Kashmir issue?

Unless and until there is a change in the mindset on both sides, there will be no progress, however we support peace efforts we are not enemy of the people or sovereignty of Pakistan or India but we are fighting for Kashmiris’ inherent and internationally recognized right. And we believe that without recognizing Kashmiris’ right to self-determination the peace process can not yield positive results.

In view of the recent statements of the PPP leadership particularly Mr. Zardari one can easily presume how sincere they are with Kashmir and Kashmiris. So peace process can be viewed in many ways, there is no-doubt an opportunity but at the same time there are apprehensions and concerns that needs to be addressed with sincerity.

Critics say that Kashmir as an independent state can not survive economically what do you say?

Kashmir as a state has great economic potentials I am confident enough that after the reunification of divided state within a short span of time Kashmir will be the most peaceful, progressive and prosperous state in South Asia. We have breathtaking tourist resorts, immense water resources, natural resources including dense forests, minerals, fruit, timber and valuable herbs found in abundance in various parts of the state.

So under the prevailing circumstances where people and nations are inter-dependent, there is no second opinion that keeping in view the economic potentials Kashmir can emerge as a successful independent sovereign state.

Any message for the leadership or the people of Kashmir?

I was a staunch Pakistani even today as a well-wisher and sincere to Pakistan and its people, I wish Pakistan to be prosperous and a strong nation. But so for as my political ideology is concerned: I have neither compromised nor retracted from my principled stance. As I believe that the right to self-determination is the essence of freedom. By giving away this right out-rightly, I wonder that what sort of freedom you are talking of.

So Kashmiri leadership has to be very clear regarding the peoples’ inalienable right that is right to self-determination. Secondly apart from see sawing policy they will have to adopt an unambiguous line of action just to achieve the cherished goal.

There is a dire need to have clarity of vision, clarity of destination, self-confidence and self-respect within the leadership otherwise confusion and chaos will continue to hunt the hapless people of Kashmir.

Are you satisfied with your struggle and do you see any solution of Kashmir issue in near future?

Thanks to almighty, I am satisfied with my struggle; I did what I could. However, I am not satisfied with the result. So for as the solution of Kashmir issue is concerned, I can’t just predict but it is my unflinching faith that a time will certainly come when Kashmiri people will get their right for which they have offered matchless sacrifices.

Kashmiris can not affortd to wait even for a single day:

“India and Pakistan can afford to wait for a year; they can afford to wait for 5 to 10 years but so for as the resolution of Kashmir issue is concerned, Kashmiris can not even afford to wait for a day”: Dr. Fai
Nisar Ahmed Thakur
Islamabad Aug 27, 2008: Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, the Executive Director of the Washington based Kashmiri American Council is one of the proud sons of the soil who has been projecting Kashmir cause at international level for last several years.

Hailing from scenic Kashmir valley, Dr. Fai holds a Ph.D. in Mass Communications from Temple University, Pennsylvania, and an M.A. from the Aligarh University in India. As a student leader, he represented the International Federation of Student Organizations at many international conferences. In 1986, he addressed the United Nations Conference in New York on Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries. Dr. Fai was elected as the President of the Muslim Students Association of the United States & Canada in 1984-988.

He is one of the "Distinguished Member" of the Republican Senatorial Inner Circle. He was awarded "Republican Senatorial Medal of Freedom" in 2005. This is the highest honour the Republican Member of the United States Senate can bestow. Dr. Fai was also awarded the Prestigious Distinction of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Commission in June 2007 as a dedicated Republican and inspiring leader. On October 12, 2007, he was presented with the "American Spirit Medal", the highest and most prestigious honour to be given to an individual.

Dr. Fai is the founding chairman of the California-based World Peace Forum. He is the Chairman of the International Institute of Kashmir Studies. He is also the Chairman of the Kashmiri American Foundation & the London-based Justice Foundation.

The eminent Kashmiri Scholars and the human rights campaigner, Dr. G N Fai is a live colloquium on Kashmir, having great intellectual sense he has a tremendous communication potential. His articles appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Chicago tribune, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Plain Dealer, Baltimore Sun and many other foreign policy journals in the United States and around the world.

Serving the Kashmir cause at diplomatic front, Dr. Fai has successfully organized six International Kashmir Peace Conferences at the Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. two International Kashmir Peace Conferences in New York City and First Latin American Kashmir Conference in July 2007 at Montevideo, Uruguay. He also organized an International Conference on the issue of Self-determination on September 28, 2006 at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

For his political beliefs, he has been living in exile since August 1980. In an exclusive interview with Greater Kashmir, the KAC chief while talking on different dimensions and the international legitimacy of Kashmir issue said, “I believe in amicable settlement of the Kashmir conflict through tripartite negotiations between the Governments of India and Pakistan and the accredited leadership of the people of he State of Jammu & Kashmir”.

Q: Kashmir is one of the oldest issues on the UN agenda. Despite having international legitimacy what is the reason that the issue still hangs on? Secondly how do you differentiate Kashmir issue from other issues of the contemporary history?

Yes it is true that Kashmir is one of the oldest issues on the agenda of Security Council and there are just a few pending issues and Kashmir is one amongst them. It was in April 21st 1948, exactly 60 years ago when the SC adopted a resolution that has given the right to self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

What is important to this resolution is not only that it was unanimously adopted by the Council but what is more important that it was under the direction of President Harry Truman, the then president of the United States that the US ambassador to the UN, ambassador Huston wrote this resolution. So on one hand America was a co-author of this resolution, the US became the co-sponsor of the historic resolution that gave legitimacy to Kashmir issue.

Since then there have been more than 23 UN resolutions on Kashmir some of them adopted by Security Council, some of them were passed by commission, which is known as United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan established by the Security council and some were adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations. So that is why when we talk about Kashmir issue, we are really talking about an issue that have had international legitimacy from day one, there have been so many movements not only in Indian even in Pakistan but in India there are more than a dozen movements they call them as freedom struggles but none of them have the international legitimacy.

So the reason Kashmiri is unique because Kashmir is the issue that has been acknowledged and accepted by the world body. And second important dimension of the issue is that Kashmir issue became the international issue even before it was brought to the UN. It became international the day the Indian soldier set foot on the soil of Kashmir. By the way it was on 27 October 1947, in fact at the time of partition Kashmir was the only principality or only nation that was directly governed by the Britishers.

So even that time Kashmir has not been the part of India. I think that Kashmiri people should not loose the sight no matter how much India is going to tell the world community that Kashmir is a bilateral issue or it is an integral part of India.

The world community has not accepted India’s claim whatsoever, so international dimension has been there, that it still remains there. Although the international community really did not do the way we want them to do but at the same time it is correct to say that whenever there have been crises in Kashmir, the international community has shown its engagement.

You know recently the Secretary General Mr. Ban Kee Moon issued a statement about Kashmir showing his grave concern vis-à-vis the current crisis in Kashmir.

Q: What is the importance of bilateral agreements signed by the leaders of India and Pakistan? What is your opinion have these pacts really superseded the UN resolutions regarding Kashmir?

It is not only Tashkent, Simla, Lahore and Agra; officially there have been 68 rounds of talks between the two countries at the very highest level. Although none of these agreements got implemented however, after having signed Simla agreement India has tried to give an impression to the world community that this agreement supersedes the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, which is absolutely false understanding of the international covenants or the United Nations’ charter.

Let me tell you that both India and Pakistan are the member countries of the highest body and they have both agreed to the UN charter so there are three articles of the UN charter Article 31, Article 34 and Article 103, which clearly say that if there is a conflict between the members of the UN, if there is a conflict under any bilateral agreement then the obligations under this charter shall prevail, it means that India and Pakistan have had agreements on Kashmir in the united Nations and the security council that is known as international agreement, secondly India and Pakistan had agreement at Tashkent, Simla and Lahore even today they can have in Islamabad, tomorrow they can have in New Delhi, there is no problem. But if there is conflict between the agreement in Islamabad and the agreement that has been adopted in the United Nations according to the UN charter, the agreement at the United Nations shall prevail.

So the people of Kashmir should be quite clear that no matter what India and Pakistan are going to do in Islamabad or New Delhi, any agreement that is contrary to the agreement of the UN has no importance whatsoever.

Without going into the details of the agreement let me tell you the main cracks of the agreement that is the final solution of Kashmir has to be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and will of the people of Kashmir.

“If India and Pakistan agree upon any agreement that is in conflict with ascertaining the wishes and will of the Kashmiri people then the international agreement adopted by the United Nations shall prevail, this is actually the principle so Kashmiris must not worry about what is happening in New Delhi and Islamabad”

As I told you earlier, after signing the Simla agreement, India gave an impression that Pakistan has no right to go the United Nations but as per the UN charter, Pakistan still reserves the right to go to the UN even after signing this pact. Pakistan still has the obligation to seek the world body’s role to sort out the issue. Let we try to analyze the Simla Agreement, it was not such a big deal, it is just less than 1800 words document, the very first article says that the relationship between India and Pakistan shall be governed under the purposes and principles of the UN charter, and the last article of the document says that Kashmir remains to be one of the most outstanding issues to be resolved between India and Pakistan (this is the language of the agreement).

So even if Simla Agreement would have really mentioned that we will not go to the United Nations, still United Nations shall prevail, but even the language of the agreement is not like that, the language is that we still have to abide by the principles of the UN.

Simla Agreement says that Kashmir is not an integral part of the any of the dominions (India-Pakistan), it remains to be one of the outstanding issues to be resolved by the countries.

So that is why we say that let us not go into this linguistic game whether the bilateral issue can resolve the dispute whether the people of Kashmir should accept bilateral agreement or not that by itself is a debate but let us take some time in order to analyze what was the outcome of these agreements and what happened afterwards.

History is witness to the fact that the towering leaders of India and Pakistan signed agreements on various occasions, in Lahore the agreement was signed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and the most popular prime minister of Pakistan Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Sharief at that time. These agreements failed, they failed because there was no participation of Kashmiris. Likewise, it is nothing new that Kashmiri leadership is talking to India. One of the tallest leaders of Kashmir in 1952, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah has had an agreement with the first Indian Premier Mr. Pundit Nehru and later he signed another pact with Ms Indra Gandhi in 1976. There was also Rajeev-Farooq accord in mid 80’s. So the reason those Kashmiri talks with India failed because there was no Pakistan in the scene.

So it is not a big deal in the international diplomacy or in the history of 62 years to make a mistake but what is a big deal and really a matter of great concern if you are not going to learn a lesson from the past.

India and Pakistan can afford to wait for a year; they can afford to wait for 5 to 10 years but so for as the hapless Kashmiri people are concerned, they can not even afford to wait for a day. So, what is really important is that if you want to make talks process a success, there is a dire need to have tripartite talks, making it inclusive thereby associating Kashmiris’ legitimate and accredited leadership with the talk’s process.

Q: You are talking of a legitimate leadership; there are more than a dozen leaders in Kashmir who has the legitimacy to represent Kashmir and Kashmiri people?

When I am talking of legitimate leadership of Kashmir let me tell you what does that mean, the Kashmiri leaders need to undertake an initiative mutually and that initiative has to be intra-Kashmir dialogue. In that intra-Kashmir dialogue there must be the representation from all the regions and from all the religions of Kashmir. So it should not be a big seminar or a conference rather it should be a very small selected gathering of 15 to 20 people but make sure that we can not afford to ignore any segment of Kashmiri society. No matter what the number of the community whether they are Sikhs, Buddhists, Pundits, they belong to Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir Gilgit and Baltistan, we have to include a person two or three whatever the number but we have to give the full representation to all the regions and religions of Kashmir. I am quite sure that the sort of intra-Kashmir will certainly help us to project collective leadership that will sit in the talks.

However, this intra-Kashmir conference can not take place in India and Pakistan and it can not and should not take place in these countries. So it should take place somewhere outside India and Pakistan and that kind of dialogue should not be for a day or two rather it should be for a period of time may be for a week or two. I am quite sure that every Kashmiri irrespective of their political affiliation really want settlement of Kashmir once and for all.

It is true that the way you want the settlement Kashmir issue may be little different the way I want the resolution of the dispute but every body wants to see the dispute resolved peacefully.

So I really believe that when this Kashmiri leadership is going to have a debate, deliberations, and discussions for a certain period of time then they will come up with something concrete, they will agree on something and I am sure that they will as I have practical experience we just have an international conference on Kashmir in Washington, We had three pundit leaders and just one Muslim leader from Srinagar and it was heartening to see that there was a complete unanimity in our approach. Even the delegates from India and Pakistan representing the various shades of opinion unanimously agreed upon the resolution adopted at the end of the discourse.

So that really gave me a hope that if the Kashmiri leadership is given a chance to have deliberations they will go beyond their ego, agenda and self interest keeping the interest of the nation supreme, briefly saying that there are definitely lot of common grounds which we can agree upon, one of the common point of the common grounds has to be that whatever that group is going to agree upon, if they agree that Mr. A is going to talk to India and Pakistan then Mr. A should be able to talk to both the countries.

In terms of the Kashmiri resistance movement, as I told you that there are different segments of Kashmiri society, and one of the most important one is Kashmiri resistance. Kashmiri resistance are the people who are not happy with India, because there are people in Kashmir who want to be part of India but there are people who are really alienated from India.

The Kashmiri resistance is represented by four or five people. So any agreement without the representatives of the resistance movement is not going to last for a long. Sheikh Abdullah has had agreement with India but that too proved futile as we are still in turmoil. India and Pakistan must realize that any one of these five leaders, if ignored is going to be crisis in future.

Q: Who are these five people you are referring to?

These are five prominent leaders of the resistance movement including Syed Ali Shah Gilani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Shabir Ahmed Shah, Muhammad Yasin Malik and Syed Salahudin who is heading Kashmiri militant organization, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. So these five people have to be included by one way or the other in the talk’s process. Therefore, India and Pakistan can devise a mechanism, they can explore the possibilities, and they are the governments, what is that procedure, what is that methodology, what is that modality we will let it be decided by India and Pakistan.

But the only thing we will tell them that if you ignore any one of these five people, there is a lot of apprehensions that majority of the people of Kashmir will have tremendous doubts and will not accept the outcome whatsoever. So if you see all these five people have their signatures on that particular document/agreement so I have a reason to believe that the majority of the people of Kashmir on both sides of the ceasefire line will accept that agreement.

Q: What about bilateral talks. India and Pakistan are engaged in the talks for last four and a half years but there is no substantial progress on the issue of Kashmir. What is your evaluation do you see the two arch rivals can resolve Kashmir issue bilaterally?

Bilateral talks between India and Pakistan have to take place, any ways they are the neighbours, they have millions of issues, so why shouldn’t they have bilateral talks but only thing we say is that when they are talking about Kashmir issue, they can not and should not resolve that bilaterally because there is a commitment of international community. Secondly there has to be participation of Kashmiri people, they are not only the party to the dispute but the principle party to the issue. That is why when we talk of the bilateral issue, we are not talking because of our emotions and sentiments rather we are talking of the international legality of the issue.

And the international legality is that there are four parties to the dispute, it is India despite the fact what it is doing in Kashmir but Indians are a party, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.

In short Kashmir is not a bilateral issue; it is not because we are saying so, but it is because it has never been accepted by international community. Kashmir is an international issue; and that is why India has always been trying to bring the focus back to India and Pakistan because they really do not want the involvement or the engagement or the mediation or the facilitation of any country in the issue of Kashmir as they know that whenever there is involvement of any country of the United Nations, then they are going to lose the ground.

This is the reason India tries to bring the focus on bilateral issues and as a Kashmiri it is our responsibility to bring focus back to the international dimension of Kashmir issue.

Q: What is the role of international community particularly the US in the ongoing dialogue process between India and Pakistan?

The peace talks that started some four years back, everybody knows if someone does not know, I don’t know whether they really understand the very dynamics of the whole peace process. The latest phase of the peace process between Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Mr. Nawaz Sharief, it was only possible because of the deeper engagement of the United States with both India and Pakistan. It was a sort of mediation but we call it deeper engagement. We know that the US has a very important role to play in resolving all the international disputes and Kashmir obviously one of the oldest one, the US have had the engagement with the Kashmir issue as well right from the day one but I don’t know how many people know that it was John F Canady, who as the president of United States send a note to the prime minister of Ireland in 1962, asking him to initiate a resolution in the Security Council to reaffirm the United States’ commitment with the issue of Kashmir.

Secondly, when President George W Bush was on his visit to India and Pakistan made an important statement on Kashmir on 22nd February, 2006 saying that the US will accept any solution of Kashmir dispute acceptable not only to India and Pakistan but also to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. So issue is that international legitimacy has always been there. It is due to these engagements that India and Pakistan initiated the peace process.

When there was a bomb blast in the Indian parliament after that there was no dialogue at any level. The talks became just standstill and there was no contact even at the secretary level.

After 9 months gap, the leaders of the two countries, President Pervez Musharraf and Prime minister Dr, Man Mohan Singh met at Havana in Cuba. The US Secretary of the state Dr. Condoleezza Rice and the president Bush directly talked to Indian Prime Minister, it was published in papers there that America gave no choice to the South Asian leaders but to meet at Havana. Why they met in Havana? That really speaks volumes about the deeper engagement of the US, which is very good and also very important.

Q: Are you satisfied with the outcome of what it was called as peace process?

Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that when India and Pakistan talk to each other, as I told you earlier, they have lot of issues, it is really going to diffuse tension between the two countries and it is very good for the region as well. Secondly, this is not first time that India and Pakistan are talking, they have been engaged in the talks since long but now the question is that what is the outcome of the talks process in terms of Kashmir, it is not satisfactory.

The outcome of these talks is nothing but the miseries to the people of Kashmir. The Confidence Building Measures, initiation of Bus Service, people to people contacts, the idea is very good but when you see the cumbersome procedure of Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Bus service it is again not satisfactory because there are tens of thousands of divided families and this whole process of Bus Service so complicated that people would like to take a visa and go to Islamabad rather waiting for months to travel by Bus.

It is not humanly possible for every one to go through bus any ways it was a good gesture but at the same time it was very unfortunate that India gave an impression as if Kashmiris had given hundred thousand lives merely for this Bus Service. It was simply a confidence building measure, the means to create an atmosphere where people can meet and talk and settle Kashmir issue.

Unfortunately, India really sold this at the international scene as if this was the sole objective of the people of Kashmir. Much more important aspect of this whole process is that there has been absolutely no tangible impact of peace process on ground in Kashmir.

There was a pledge given by the prime minister of India again to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, on four counts. One of the important pledges was to ensure zero tolerance against human rights; second one was to release the political prisoners languishing in various detention centres in and out side the state and revoking all the draconian laws prevalent in the state that gave a sense of impunity to the Indian troops to shoot to kill at will. Most important issue was regarding the disappeared persons, we have almost 8 to 10 thousand disappeared persons who are missing for last 19 years, and the APHC chairman was told that an investigation would be set off to see what happened to these missing people.

The commitment was given only two years back, we have seen that there is absolutely no improvement on HR, no draconian laws was repealed; none of the political prisoners were released. Only very recently two veteran human rights activists of India, Goutham Noulakha and Professor Angana Chatterji after having visited Indian held Kashmir, established international HR tribunal on Kashmir and they presented a report which said that they discovered more than four thousand five hundred mass graves, according to Chatterji these are not the total mass graves that have been discovered by a number of people but there is a possibility of more mass graves in Kashmir.

So that is why coming back to your question, has there been any impact of peace talks on ground, not only there has been any impact on ground, unfortunately, there has been negative impact of peace process, and the people of Kashmir have lost their faith in the peace talks to the extent this latest phase of last four or five weeks in Kashmir the demonstrations according BBC, they have been unprecedented in the history of Kashmir for the last 17 years, according to reports the Kashmir valley has never witnessed such a titanic processions within past two decades. Why?

There are multiple reasons. One of the reasons that people of Kashmir really lost their faith in the peace talks, if you see video of those processions more than 60% of those processions they are youth. So these youth lost their faith in peace talks, what does that mean, this is actually a very dangerous trend you know Kashmiri youth took up the gun, they pick up the gun when India closed all the avenues of freedom of expression in Kashmir in 1987. That was the time when Shaheed Ishfaq Majeed Wani, Muhammad Yasin Malik and Syed Salludin were working as a team, Muhammad Yousuf Shah alias Syed Salludin was contesting elections wining by 14 thousand votes and India announced that he is losing by 14 thousand votes thus pushing them to the wall to the extent that they had no choice but to pick up the gun as a lost resort.

Even, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, the veteran Hurriyat leader who was killed while he was leading a huge peaceful procession of more than three hundred thousand people and there was not a single soul holding the Kalashnikov. And the only thing the Hurriyat leader had in his hand was the portrait of Quad-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. So, yet again India tried to indiscriminately kill Kashmiris in that procession, just to push the people to the wall so that they will go back to square one to pick up the gun again. The reason for that is quite evident and simple that because when you see the gun in Kashmiris’ hands, India can sell it in Washington, Tokyo and London or elsewhere in the world.

Q: What about the recent uprising in Kashmir and how do you see the situation?

It is such an effective weapon in the hands of Kashmiri people to have peaceful protests, because India has absolutely no choice to sell the peaceful demonstrations of Kashmiris with the participation of hundreds of thousands of people at international level. India is really so nervous knowing that it has lost Kashmir.

Particularly after assassinating Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz India government has got the message that they have made every single Kashmiri alienated from India.

Q: India has been portraying different picture at international level regarding Kashmir, linking it to international terrorism, saying that it is not indigenous movement, how do you justify Kashmiris’ struggle?

Kashmiris are a small nation, when we have to really lead the international community about the truth; it will take time, because in the international scene it is the government that matters. But ultimately the truth trickles down; every body knows nothing but the truth. Take the case of Bill Clinton’s visit to India, the moment he visited New Delhi there was a massacre of 37 Sikhs in Indian held Kashmir and all of them were innocent people. This drama was basically staged to convey a message to the US president that don’t talk about Kashmiri people, they are not peace loving rather they are the terrorists.

Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton really bought that argument. But now after several years it was revealed that no Kashmiri freedom fighter was involved in the massacre secondly none of them was a militant and thirdly it was Indian army and its secret agencies who staged this drama to malign Kashmiris’ struggle.

Panka Mishra, he is an Indian journalist who wrote an opinion editorial in the New York Times, in which he really explained why and how Indian Army was responsible for killing these innocent Sikhs.

Some time back, I met Ashok Jetlay, one of the senior most officials and the former chief secretary of Kashmir, you know what he told me, this is his wording, he said, “One time in Kashmir there was a procession and the dispatch which I send to government of India, I mentioned that there were more than one million people in that procession”. Jay Narayinan, a Kashmiri Pundit is a political correspondent of Hindustan Times told me the same story in Washington that one time there were 1.5 million people in a procession in Kashmir.

So you can not just call one million people as terrorists. The terrorist do not compose of the population of villages, towns and the cities, and if two million people are there on the streets of Kashmir that give the reflection of that peaceful and indigenous nature of the Kashmiri struggle.

India has been really trying not only that Kashmiris’ struggle is a terrorist struggle but it is a fundamentalist struggle. As I told you that we are small people in this whole scenario but people have by and large acknowledged the very fact that Kashmiris’ freedom struggle has nothing to do with extremism, fundamentalism or terrorism but obviously we have to again educate the people so that truth prevails.

Q: The political-divide, disintegration and lack of collective leadership in Kashmir have been exploited by India at the international scene. Don’t you think it is a big challenge for Kashmiris at the moment?

Yes that has been really our concern at the international scene because we have a just cause. I will tell you I have had interactions with thousands of ambassadors and diplomats throughout the world. Honest to god, I have yet to see an ambassador who has ever told me that you are wasting your time or will tell me that you don’t have a cause. No doubt they told me that you have to talk to US, European Union and China, that is understood but they never told me that you haven’t any cause.

So if we have such a noble cause having international acceptance, it is really a great challenge for the Kashmiri leadership. The noble cause really demands that our leadership has to be united because this disunity amongst the leadership has given one more weapon to Indian establishment to exploit at the international level saying that there is not leadership in Kashmir.

But thanks to almighty God that with the efforts of martyred leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz and in particular Mr. Shabir Ahmed Shah played a role in reunifying the estranged groups as a result Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Syed Ali Gilani not only started deliberating and discussing the issues together but the way they came up with joint action plan is quite encouraging.

They announced the action plan in a joint gathering, which gave fresh impetus to the ongoing struggle for right to self-determination. This is for the first time within the last four or five years both the leaders went to Martyr’s grave yard and addressed the people there together. Even this call “Muazaffarabad Challo” was a joint call that is why the people really gave an overwhelming response on seeing that the leadership was getting one.

But now both the leaders have to make sure that there are other people very important like Muhammad Yasin Malik and others they are not in this pool. Talks are really going on as how to include other people in the fold, but I will be really happiest person when I will come to know that Yasin Sahib has also joined the forum.

Unification of leadership is the key, if we have the unity we can dictate the terms to any party in the world, even we can dictate the terms in the United Nations provided that we are united. We can have different approach no problem we have only one objective that is the Kashmiri people have the right to self-determination. It is none other than the people of Kashmir who have the right to decide the future of Kashmir; this is exactly what all these leaders have been saying.

So why they don’t come to a single platform that is really a matter of great concern but the way the recent past is going it is hopefully heading towards absolute unification. And I am optimistic that this reunification will certainly give a fresh momentum to Kashmir issue at international level.

Coming back to your question, I don’t know in Kashmir, I don’t know in India and Pakistan but at the international scene, this disarray amongst the leadership has really damaged the cause.

Q: Do you see China has any role regarding the resolution of Kashmir, what is the reason that no Kashmiri delegation has ever visited china till date?

If any body thinks that resolution of Kashmir is going to be there without the consent of China, he or she lives in utopian world. There is absolutely no possibility of the final settlement of Kashmir dispute unless there is participation of China, Not only because it shares the border, but China is one of the five permanent members of Security Council because you have to have legitimacy of the council. There is absolutely no chance to have the legitimacy unless all the five members of the Security Council agree to that and China is one of them.

Yes we have had not any participation in Beijing for that matter but I think time has come that we should really send a delegation in China. Although I have met with Chinese ambassadors in Geneva and in the United Nations but frankly speaking that without the engagement of china and international community and the Untied States we can not achieve the ultimate goal.

Q: What is the significance of UN resolutions on Kashmir?

UN resolutions is the corner stone of Kashmir freedom struggle, the minute any wise man is serious to ignore the United Nations resolutions that wise man should understand that he is no more better than any person living in Punjab, Aasam and Tamil Nadu. He is as worst or whatever you can say as worst internationally as the people of Aasam although they are working very hard for their freedom struggle but they don’t have international legitimacy.

The only reason that we have the international legitimacy is because of the United Nations resolutions. The only reason that our case is totally different from that of Punjab, Aasam and Tamil Nadu is because they don’t have international legitimacy.

It is because of these UN resolutions that give Pakistan a legitimate right to support Kashmiris’ struggle morally, politically and diplomatically, otherwise if you ignore the importance and the legitimacy of the UN resolutions, you are no more an international issue.

Now there are two parts of United Nations resolution, one is the caveat which you call as the principle caveat of the UN resolution and the other one is operational caveat.

The principle caveat of the resolutions is that the final settlement of Kashmir issue has to be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and the will of Kashmiri people. So there should not be and can not be any compromise on this basic principle as Kashmiri people have send a loud and clear message to the international community that the wishes of the people are very supreme.

The operational caveat of the UN resolution is that there has to be plebiscite in Kashmir. So when you talk of the plebiscite, it is not the principle of the resolutions rather it is the operational caveat of the resolutions as how to ascertain the wishes of the people. Let there be a plebiscite, let there be a referendum in Kashmir. So you are having plebiscite, you are having a referendum in order to ascertain the aspirations of Kashmiri people. We are saying in 2008 if there is a new mechanism, if there is a new procedure, new methodology through which you can ascertain the wishes of Kashmir people, there is no problem we can have that mechanism so one of the mechanism that has been suggested by the Hurriyat (when it was united), they suggested another mechanism not on the principle aspect but on the operational aspect.

They made it clear that we are for the plebiscite, but we are also suggesting a new mechanism that is let there be tripartite talks, let India and Pakistan include Kashmiris in the talks to find out ways and means as how to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people. So on the principle aspect no compromise but on the operational side there was a new methodology suggested by the Hurriyat.

But I am telling you that may be tomorrow we will find a third mechanism, so there should not be any worry about the operational aspect of the security council resolutions but what is important is that we should not let the international community to deviate from the principle aspect of the UN resolutions, which clearly say that it is the people who will decide the future of Kashmir.

Q: You have been engaged on the diplomatic front for last several years would you like to give a brief account of your diplomatic efforts?

When you are working in any particular capital of the world, first you have to educate that capital about your issue. But in America we never have had that problem. As people in the US administration know a lot about Kashmir issue, even a lot of people wrote on Kashmir. Dr. Madeline Albright she was secretary of the state her father wrote a book on Kashmir. One time during a press conference I asked her a question and Dr. Albright said, “My father had remained greatly involved with Kashmir, I have visited Kashmir a number of times, very beautiful place, I am old now but it really pains me that Kashmir is not resolved even until today”.

Any ways when we started our activities in Washington, we had such a tremendous response from the American policy making people. The American Congressmen, the people who really initiated the very first resolution on Kashmir in 1991. So that resolution was initiated by a Jewish Senator from Ohayo state. And the language of the resolution was that India Pakistan and people Kashmir should sit together and resolve the issue.

When we met with Stephen Rosen, the editor of Washington post, the minute we sat he asked us a question “Am I talking to terrorists?”, we were seven people in the delegation all of us hailing from Kashmir valley, so I told them in kashmiri, I said what he asked us is really a challenge for we people,. I said, “If we are going to convince this man we will be able to convince half of the population of the United States”.

And what he asked was a serious matter as he was told by Indians that Kashmiris are terrorists. Thank god our delegation spent almost an hour and a half with him so by the time we left he said, “Today I was talking to scholars” and he is the person who gave us some tips at that time saying that when you write, write with argument and logic”.

Then he wrote an editorial titled “end of miseries in Kashmir” in which he mentioned that there are 2/3rd million Indian troops in Kashmir. We met a multiple times with the editorial board of the Washington Post, Washington times, New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal.

When Collin Powel was coming to Islamabad and New Delhi I got a call from Boston Globe, the editorial board called me and asked me to write something and interestingly it published my opinion editorial in Boston Globe the day before Mr. Powel visited India and Pakistan.

So the question is that we have really made this impression on the policy making people in America that Kashmir issue can not be put on the back burner and can not be resolved without addressing the aspirations of Kashmiri people.

Briefly speaking there is an understanding that Kashmir is an issue to be sort-out. So as long as the principle of Kashmir issue is concerned in any avenue, it has hundred and one dimensions, but one thing is clear that the principle is on our side. Yes the international community is not supporting us the way they supported the people in East Timor and Kosovo. But the international community’s understanding is on our side we have a legitimate and noble cause that is our strength and hope.

When I am really talking that Kashmiri people have a hope, honest god I don’t cheat them, I don’t deceive them even I don’t exaggerate the things. I met more than one thousand diplomats and ambassadors I never claimed that they said Dr. Fai we are with you no I didn’t tell you that but they never told me that I don’t have any cause.

One this is very much clear that there is absolutely unanimity at the international scene that if India and Pakistan is going to have any agreement without the people of Kashmir that is not going to last for a long.

Q: Pro-movement leaders have been insisting on intra-Kashmir dialogue between Kashmiri leaders on both sides of line of control. Recently there has been a conference in Islamabad “leadership conference”, which was boycotted by the Hurriyat leaders what is your opinion in this regard?

Yes I suggested that there has to be an intra-Kashmir dialogue of the Kashmiri leadership and none of the opinions should be excluded in that but when you know it for sure there is no way that Shabir Shah can come to any conference that conference is doom to fail. If Indian government can send the people of her own choice, no problem we will accept them but we want every single person to be issued the travel documents. Gilani has no passport, if Gilani Sahib is not on board nothing is going to be acceptable for Kashmiris.

That is why we say that if you have an intra-Kashmir dialogue, there are some important people who can not participate in such conferences because of having no travelling document and you can’t just ignore them.

So I will tell you it is India, who is on the wrong side of the history. Although India accepts the reality that pro-movement leaders have a role even I will tell you NC leader, Omar Abdullah clearly said, “Peace process is not going to last unless we have Syed Salludin in it”. It is PDP leader, Mehbooba Mufti who said, “This peace process is not going to yield positive results unless Hurriyat leaders are associated with it”.

So I am just telling you that if one of the pro-movement leadership is excluded nothing is going to last. There can be so many leaders but when you talk of the resistance movement of Kashmir, it is represented not by Mehbooba Mufti, or Omar Abdullah, it is represented by Syed Ali Gilan, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Muhammad Yasin Malik and Shabir Ahmed Shah.

Q: Do you see any role of pro-India Kashmiri leadership?

Yes why not, they are after all Kashmiris.

Q: Do you suppose that they are standing on wrong side of the history?

They have themselves shown that they are on the wrong side of the history. When these people are at the helm of affairs they are pro-Indian, when they are out of power you see it is none other than Omar Abdullah who said in the House of Parliament of London in Nov. 2007, there is no progress on human rights situation in Kashmir. If you will give him chief minister-ship today, he will have a different stance on the issue.

They are saying exactly what we are saying but they say it at a wrong time, they should say it at the right time. You know Mufti Muhammad Syed was the shaper of the opinion of India in 1989-990 when he was the interior minister of India. Interior ministry is the most powerful port folios in any country of the world. He would have taken a stand at that time that I don’t want my innocent people be killed in Kashmir. So being interior minister he could have saved thousands of lives. Even Farooq Abdullah could have done the same thing but he didn’t.

Some times when I see the statement of Farooq Abdullah, if I don’t see the name I take it for granted that it has come from Gianni Sahib. So they are speaking the truth at the wrong time.


What about economic blockade, who is responsible for this is it really the extremist Hindu organization or there are some other forces behind the scene?

According to the United Nation’s covenant, economic blockade of a population is a crime against humanity. The principle aspect of the covenant is that any person responsible for blocking the economic supply to a particular population for a particular period of time can be brought to the International Court of Justice. But I don’t buy this argument that there is some one from Hindu Fanatic organizations is responsible for all this. Yes the hand that is being used is Rashtriya Sevek Sang, and the criminal element that is being used belongs to BJP in Jammu but such a blockade can never happen without the patronage of the government of India.

More importantly, India is again trying to malign Kashmiris’ struggle by giving it a communal colour, but thanks to God, millions of peaceful marchers have amply demonstrated that their struggle is purely peaceful and an indigenous freedom struggle.

Any message to the people and Kashmiri leadership?

Only message to the people of Kashmir is that it is really the valiant people of Kashmir who have given no choice to Kashmiri leadership but to get united. They really deserve a lot of appreciation for taking this historic initiative.

We have one goal that is right to self-determination. But what is really a challenge for the leadership is to have absolute unity, unification of thought, and unification of strategy.

The only thing we can sell at the international scene is that we have a leadership; we have a common cause, we have a strategy, we have blue print, we have a road map and this is agreed upon by all the leaders that we can sell in Islamabad, in New Delhi or elsewhere in the world. So that is the only challenge for the leadership how to have the unification of strategy.

The latest phase is such an effective weapon for the people of Kashmir but the poor people can not internationalize it. It is the responsibility of leadership and the people abroad to play their role and don’t let the peoples’ sacrifices go in vain.