Saturday, June 21, 2008

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.

"I was tried in the court but sentenced by politicians": Qayyum Raja

By Nisar Ahmed Thokar
Qayyum Raja, the Kashmiri youth who was tried in the Brittan's open court for the alleged charges of murdering Indian diplomat Ravinder Harishva Mhatre in London in 1984. Owing to a dispute between judiciary and the government of United Kingdom, his sentence was kept secret as a result the Youngman had to suffer awfully for almost 22 years in successive imprisonment until the European Union court for Human Rights got involved in 2005 and ordered the British authorities to release him instantaneously.

Under solitary confinement, high risk category A, Raja was locked up in Briton's Winson Green, Frank Land, Long-Hartin, Gartree and Highpoint detention centres for about 22 long years.

During the course of time, without losing heart and courage, this Kashmiri guy who faced challenges bravely and did not let himself to be a victim of the circumstances rather he continued his studies in prison and did Master's degree in psychology, diploma in International History and acquired certificate degree in Journalism.

Born into Rajput family of Khuiratta Azad Kashmir some 50 years ago, Qayyum Raja received early education from his home town. He left Kashmir in 1979 for Holland wherein his brother Nazir Raja was living for a pretty long time. He was lucky enough to be admitted in various education institutes. He acquired education from various institutions of Europe including the prestigious university of Paris known as Sorvolle University. He got IT diploma and other language courses from other reputed education institutes of Holland.

Being a teenaged boy, his life in Europe was going all well until he was arrested for allegedly kidnapping and killing Indian diplomat, Ravinder Harishva Mhatre.

In an exclusive interview with Greater Kashmir while recalling the tragic moments of his incarceration in UK's jails Raja said, "I was tried in open court but sentenced by politicians". He says he and his accomplices had no intention whatsoever to take a life to save other rather their design was just to pressurize Indian government politically to seek early release of Maqbool Butt, the first Kashmiri who was hanged to death on 11 Feb 1984 at Tihar Jail in India.

Mr. Raja what was actually the turning point of your life?

Raja: it was actually the heart-rending plea of the daughter of Maqbool Butt that changed my life altogether. Frankly speaking I was not interested in politics when I flee to Europe. However, hailing from an area that is just a few kilometres away from ceasefire line, I was well aware of the tragedy of Kashmir dispute.

So for as the turning point of my life is concerned, there was a sudden change when one day I board on a train, I was just going through an Asian news paper from page to page, I saw there a very innocent face of a small girl namely Lubna Maqbool Butt, the daughter of Maqbool Butt, crying and pleading for what on earth the Kashmiri are doing to save the life of my father awaiting death sentence in Tihar jail.

The interview of Lubna Butt was done by famous Kashmiri journalist Ali Kiani from Chinari Azad Kashmir currently living in London. So when I read the interview I was deeply moved. I thought to my self that at one hand here is the Kashmiri youth Maqbool Butt who took risk of his life and stood up for the national cause while on the other I being a kashmiri is not even having an inkling of what is going to happen with his life. I was really ashamed as I had no sufficient information about my own people and my country.

Basically I was touched by what Lubna Butt had pleaded and cried for. So bearing in mind the said situation I decided to do some thing for Maqbool Butt and his family and therefore I along with my European colleagues went to Human rights organizations.

What you initially did there to muster the support of European community and HR organizations?

Raja: You know one thing that I admire very much about Europe is that you have individual freedom although good people respect their parents and elders but they are brought up with an attitude to make their own decisions in their lives, therefore primarily it was not so difficult for me to get their support secondly the Europeans are against the hanging of any individual that is why when I met and discussed the issue with them, they extended full support to me.

So it became a good campaigning group of educated youngsters, we launched an effective campaign throughout Europe and travelled to almost every member country of the European Union wherein we met Human rights campaigners, lawmakers, and parliamentarians and sought heir help in Maqbool Butt's release. At one stage Indians complained British police that the group is harassing them, the police asked Indian ambassador what the group has actually done, they said every now and then these students are carrying out protests and writing against us, the police said ok they have done nothing unlawful so we can not take any action.

Any way we also met the Bishop who enjoys much regard, respect and power in the European community, we knocked the doors of human rights organizations no doubt they supported us right away and flayed the decision of hanging Butt but what actually happened that they could not do enough to pressurize Indian to change its mind vis-à-vis hanging M Maqbool Butt.

You have been one of the key leaders of the JKLF in Europe, how and when did you join the party?

It was 1981 when JKLF chief Aman-u-allah Khan who was at that time stationed in UK came to meet me in Germany and extended formal invitation to me to join the party. Khan said to me that he was very happy that we were actually trying to save the life Maqbool Butt but he said to me that it is far better if we joined the JKLF. I too had some sort of apprehensions as what will happen to Kashmir. Basically, bearing in mind the complexities of Kashmir dispute I was of the view that independent Kashmir is the best possible way and an appealing slogan to seek world community's support to get the nation out of the mess that is why I agreed to join the party and became the founding president of JKLF Germany zone. Then I travelled across the Europe and setup JKLF in France and thereafter most of my activities revolved to mobilize European community to save the life of Maqbool Butt and also to garner support for independence movement of Kashmir.

You launched an effective campaign in Europe, how did you manage all this?

The main reason as why it was easy for me to launch an effective campaign in Europe was that I used to speak native languages fluently, I knew the languages German, Dutch, English and French so wherever I would go I used to speak in their language so being highly involved in the movement I became well known in the political circles and perhaps it was one of the reasons that British police succeeded to locate me easily.

Did you ever try to see Maqbool Butt while he was in prison?

Yes of course I tried a lot but Indian Embassy in every European country denied me to issue visa.What was the purpose of your visit to England, what happened afterwards and how you really planed to kidnap the Indian diplomat?

Unfortunately one day we heard that India was going to hang the Kashmiri youth. So I decided to go to England, basically I did not go there to plan the kidnapping of Indian diplomat I went there to convey my friends that things have reached at a very critical stage but the British police later blamed me that I went there with this intention to conspire the kidnapping of Mr. Mhatre. However, at that very time I was not even knowing that there was any Indian diplomat namely Ravinder Harishva Mhatre.

Usually I used to travel across the European countries frequently but following the Indian government's pronouncement of hanging Maqbool Butt, I thought that I must discuss the changing scenario with my friends living in England. There were charismas holidays in Europe and all the education institutions were closed that is why I left for England on 26th of Dec. 1983 and stayed there for some time as my university was going to start in March. So I along with my friends discussed the overall situation and debated threadbare as what steps should be taken to pressurize Indian government.

After an in-depth debate finally at one stage we came to the conclusion that any Indian diplomat should be arrested. So Mhatre was unlucky to be cut in a way.

You were part of that group who actually kidnapped Mr. Mhatre?

No. I was not practically there when some of my colleagues whom I would not name here grabbed Mhatre from his residence. However, I was present in the house, in which Mr. Mhatre was brought in later.

What actually happened when you grabbed Mhatre and how did you treat him?

I am going to give you the factual story not what people have heard all about, so on 3rd Febuary 1984 when Mhatre was taken out from his home and brought into a house where I was present. the first thing that I did was to make sure that whether he was not injured or beaten up because as a Muslim I thought it was now my responsibility to make sure he is not hurt. Being a powerless person and now a prisoner I thought it is our moral obligation to treat him in a civilized manner so we arranged food and every thing for him and we even asked him whether he was a vegetarian or non-vegetarian.

Later I talk to him and asked him whether he had any idea why he was taken from his home and brought here. He replied no, I asked him if he knew any thing about Maqbool Butt. He looked up at me and said yes and enquired me who I am? I said you can guess if we have got something to do with Kashmir and Butt you are clever enough to actually perceive who we are and he said OK.

I assured him that he should not worry at all; nothing is going to happen with him however I told him as how Indians are treating Kashmiris, what happen to Kashmir, how his country invaded Kashmir. Now India is going to be hanged our national hero we have to do every thing to save him, I told the diplomat that we took all civilized steps, politically and diplomatically to save Maqbool Butt but you and your government think that we are weak, we are a small state you call us coward people, we are peaceful people but unfortunately your government translate our peaceful attitude as our weakness, as our cowardice, therefore we are very angry and as a lost resort we took this serious step to actually arrest you and we demand the release of Maqbool Butt.

Mhatre chattered you did not arrest me rather you have kidnapped me. I replied if you don't think you have occupied our motherland unlawfully, if you don't think you have invaded Kashmir we don't think we have kidnapped you, we have just arrested you.

Interestingly the same argument was made by the British judge during the hearing asking me not to tell in my court that you have arrested the man, you have actually broken the law of my country, I said well Mr. justice if you know the history you should know that you broke the law of my country a long time ago that is why I am standing before you today.

Any ways I told Mhatre, let us forget what happened in the past, let us concentrate what we do next, nothing will happen to him, he is absolutely safe here. I told him that I am going to dictate a letter to him and he should write accordingly. So I gave him a pen and paper and I said write to Indian Prime Minister Indra Ghandi to release Maqbool Butt and as soon as they release him we will release you straight away.

He simply wrote the letter and then we posted the letter and the copies of these letters were later published by British media and we too send our appeal to the press agencies. Within no time the news spread all over the world, the issue got highlighted throughout the world, meanwhile, lots of conversations were going on between politicians, diplomats and the government officials of India and UK.

Instead of taking us seriously, the governments of both the countries started to threaten us saying that they will teach us lesson, they will kill us etc. but ironically, nobody tried to save the life of Mr. Mhatre every one was just playing the tricks. As none of the governments actually made serious efforts; the governments at the helm of affairs were just playing games.

We were continuously monitoring the activities of all the governments India, UK and Pakistan as well as the Kashmiri community. It were only the Kashmiri people all over the world who were just admiring us. The governments were playing delaying tactics, on the other hand with each passing day, we were getting insecure as the every corner of the British soil was being watched intensely and the British cops were searching us badly but we were lucky that they could not trace us.

Who was this guy accompanying you?

To be honest I have got to save him, I protected him right from the beginning till the end so let us call him as Mr. X.

Have you been involved in some sort of negotiations directly or indirectly with any of the government official?

No. Basically at that very stage I think it was unwise to get involved directly. But through some channels I was passing on information; however this guy about I am talking was just travelling around. Because I was not living in England, he was living there and was well aware of the location. And he (Mr. X) was actually the person who had contacts with some people by whom he was passing on information.

Where things started going wrong?

We had actually decided that we will not release Mhatre for at least two weeks; we agreed that we will see the result and then decided the future course of action.

Telling the truth it was not our plan to kill an Indian, we were not in fact against any Indian citizen our purpose was to underscore the issue and to highlight the fact that India was going to hang Mr, Maqbool Butt against its own constitution. Because, the Indian constitution said that if the government is unable or has not hanged a person who got death sentence within two years then the verdict is no longer valid. But Maqbool Butt was given death sentence in 1966 an now it was 1984. So this act on the part of Indian government actually made us angry that a country claiming to be largest democracy and talking of free judiciary is hoodwinking the world community.

Any ways coming back the stage where things started going wrong, this guy who was with me he was out and I was with Mr Mhatre, there was another Kashmiri chap Riyaz Malik, he was just 5 years old when he left Kashmir he had no idea of Kashmir except that Kashmiris are being mistreated you can just guess how patriotic he was.

As I said the guy who shot Mhatre and me had decided that we will keep Mhatre in custody for two weeks because our main purpose was to go as for as possible to pressurize India to give some concessions to Maqbool Butt however, our first preference was to force India to release him. I again asked him what happened about negotiations, are the negotiations getting anywhere? He replied no. so it was quite astonishing for me that whatever it was going on was happening against my own wishes but the situation had reached to such a stage where I was not in a position to confront with my own colleagues.

Had the leadership of JKLF any idea as how to deal the issue and was the JKLF chairman aware of the issue?

Mr. X who in fact shot Mhatre, later said to me that he told Mr. Ammanullah Khan that we kidnapped an Indian diplomat. Honestly speaking when I joined JKLF, I sincerely worked with Khan but at some stage I realized that ok he is good at writing but he has not got any clear concept of armed struggle. No doubt he used to talk about revolutionary people like Yasir Arfat and other people but he had no experience whatsoever, he used to talk about political, diplomatic and armed struggle, but he has not any idea of the armed struggle.

At one stage we young people decided that Mr. A Khan is the eldest person in our party and we got to admit and respect him and agreed that let him continue on political front although we too were politically involved but whenever we have had to make any hard decision there is no need to involve him.

You know, when he heard that we had already an Indian diplomat in our custody, he was both shocked and at the same time surprised to know all this and he became very happy. But the first thing that he did not know as how to take advantage of the situation and had no idea as how to actually exploit it and this was in fact his weakest point as the leader of the party.

So we together decided that we will not tell Khan about this development but unfortunately this friend of mine made a mistake and he conveyed to the JKLF chief. He later admitted the mistake but it was too late.

The first thing the JKLF Chairman did was he picked up his telephone and rang Indian embassy and said to them ok we have got your diplomat I have access to those people who kidnapped Mhatre, if you want to save Mhatre then you should contact me. He also contacted British Police, they are well experienced and they just thought any sensible person who is involved would never contact police, they said him ok let us do our work.

So the British police went Khan's residence wherein they saw Hashim Qureshi and the police arrested both of them. During the investigations, the police found some papers regarding me at Khan's residence and gathered some sort of other information as well. And after their arrest it was first time that my picture appeared on the television screen with a caption, "Qayyum Raja Wanted".

But the complaint I made about Amanullah Khan was as why he got involved and why he put such a dreadful situation in front of my friend Mr. X that he got convinced to end life of Mhatre.

Mr. X, admitted the fact that Mr. Khan actually put a situation in front of him, which was so dangerous that he did not have any other choice but to kill the Indian diplomat and leave the country. And I said to him it was you and me to decide what to be done next, you actually conspired with khan.

So one day, this guy Mr. X who actually killed Mr. Mhatre came to me and said we are going to shift Mhatre to some other place, I told him that things are not now going the way as we had decided. I again asked him what happened about negotiations, are the negotiations getting anywhere? He replied no. As I said had decided to keep Mhatre in custody for two weeks because our main purpose was to go as for as possible to pressurize India to give some concessions to Maqbool Butt however, our first preference was to force India to release him.

I asked him look what is going to happen Mhatre, he replied well I can not just discuss the issue at the moment because there is police everywhere and we will have to change the place.

When we took Mr. Mhatre out of the House, obviously things were going now against my wishes, but it was not wise for me to fight against the rest of the guys who were actually going to shift Mr. Mhatre to some other unknown destination and to do what ever they have decided. Right at the same time Mr. Khan and Qureshi were under police custody. So when they took Mhatre out of the house and placed in a car and started to proceed towards country-side, after travelling down the country side approximately 40 miles away from the location where he was kept prisoner.

It was dark outside, when they just took him out of the car. We walked along the link road, the subway. Mr. X asked Mhatre to sit down, in the meantime I think Mhatre saw the gun Mr. X was carrying with him as Mr. X took the gun out, Mhatre instantly jumped up and grabbed the gun. Now it was a stage where he could have killed both of us and obviously I just could not standby, I jumped and snatched the gun from Mhatre. And Mr. X then took the gun from me and shot him twice.

It was actually 5th of February 1984, when Mhatre was killed; later we had some angry exchanges I told Mr. X that it should not have ended like this. As the incident took place Mr. X who shot Mhatre asked me what I should do with this gun now. Anyways after that we separated and left the scene.

When you were arrested and what happened after the unfortunate incident took place?

We were four guys, after some days the rest of two guys left the country but I was unfortunately arrested by British Police 3 weeks latter on 22, Feb 1984, at Fairy Port (sea port) called Holyhead between England and Ireland.

Basically there is no immigration at Holyhead but police was there waiting for me, they arrested me and interrogated there, they put me in a very cold cell for 24 hours without any food and water. Next day a special team of experts came from England to probe me; they asked me what I know about Mhatre. I said not too much, they said you are a literate Kashmiri, this is the biggest ever incident that took place in UK, you say you know a little about it. Any ways there was not much I could hide and there was no point for me to keep silence but to save my other friends. And throughout I said whatever I did and about my personal involvement but did not tell them about my other friends.

Later on, when I appeared in the court, when judge gave his verdict he said Mr. Raja you did not say anything about your friends it means that if you are protecting your colleagues you will be protecting yourself as well. This is what basically went against me, all the pressure was on me because police believed that I knew every thing and I must confess and give them information about other guys. But I thought I am in trouble but I must save my friends. I am still proud that I saved my friends.

Did JKLF leadership helped you guys or pursued your case?

No, not at all, they kept mum. However, I am thankful to British media, the Kashmiri community and the peace loving people of the European community who supported me all the way through.

What actually were the charges labelled to you?

They charged me for conspiring to kidnapping Indian diplomat, kidnapping him, holding him prisoner and killing him but they charged me after six months. The UK government asked the Pakistani government that Mr. X with his fellow flew to Pakistan but Pakistani government told them that they can not fined them. But my lawyer told me some sort of negotiations is going on between British and Pakistan government, according to my lawyer Pakistani government had demanded the Britain to handover the self-exiled Peoples Party leader and former governor of Punjab Mustafa Khar in exchange of Mr. X and his accomplice. The demand was not entertained saying that Khar was a declared refugee that is why they can not hand him over to Pakistan so the negotiations between the two governments just ended up with no result.

So that is what happened and when the British police thought they can not get the guy who killed Mhatre they just charged me and another guy Riaz Malik. Although I did not admit, they forced me to admit I said ok I kept Mhatre in custody bud did not kill him. That is the stand that I took right from the beginning till the last day and they forced me throughout at every single stage they forced me to admit even at the end when I was being freed they asked me now you are now free just admit you have killed him, I said no, I do I?

The way you have been trialled, what is your opinion regarding the judicial system of UK?

It was 16-January 1985, when court started trial and gave the verdict on 7-2-1985 but as a matter of the fact we were tried by British court but sentenced by the politicians. The British court was unable to declare our sentences, owing to political pressure the government of British was facing from the government of India. They tried us in the court but we were sentenced by politicians I wrote and made it public and luckily it was carried as a headline by the British papers "Trialled by court and sentenced by politicians". So when politically and publicly people started to think, they did not declare the sentence, they kept it secret, they refused to tell us and we were kept in total darkness and were not told as how long we will serve in the prison.

Fist thing that British did wrong is that they actually did not allow me to have a solicitor of my own choice, so at one stage I started to representing my self, I used to talk more about Kashmir than my own case, then they said give him a lawyer. While pleading my case the prosecutor told them one thing that these guys were not ordinary people, they are representing Kashmir now.

A legal team of Indian experts was also continuously watching the proceedings. The judge who was awarded knighthood told me that he will send me to the prison but the home secretary will inform him how long I will serve, so I thought they did not proved the allegations levelled against us and may be our case might be dealt politically. However, time and again I used to ask the British home secretary to declare my sentence, but my pleas went unheard for a pretty long-time.

Ironically the concerned authorities were in fact giving the notion that nothing could happen because we killed Mhatre and the only thing was to wait for the mercy of the British government, secondly I was not able to meet people as I was kept under high risk category 'A' prisoner for 13 years, even I was not even allowed to have a legal representative so when I actually started myself writing to the Interior Minister to declare our sentence as how long I should serve in the prison and finally the court asked me to send a summary of your case and they will submit it to the practising Barrister if he finds any legal weight what ever I write they will reconsider your case. And thanks to almighty the Barrister whom they submitted my summary said it has legal weight and the case was reopened after 10 years. Let me clear it that for almost 10 years judiciary was kept away from the case and it was the Home Ministry dealing the case directly.

I pleaded in the court to order the Home Secretary to declare as how long I will serve. As I said that I started writing and made it public that we were trialled by court but sentenced by politicians. This was lauded by the British media you know the media being a radical one highlighted the issue and fortunately things started getting in my favour. The common masse in Britain particularly the media played an important role in putting my case in limelight.

So when the high court ruled that our case will be reopened then I and my other colleague Riyaz Malik were given life sentence, which is not a fixed term, it is in fact the discretion of judge to announce the imprisonment period keeping in view the nature of the case. However, during the proceedings the Judge declared 15 years of imprisonment and 10 years to Malik, but British Home Secretary rejected the verdict of court and said Mr. Raja will serve 25 years and Malik 20 years in the prison and later the government will decide their fate accordingly.

Later we challenged in the court that all the decisions were made in secret, we were not given any right to defend ourselves and this was against the natural justice. So we won the case again and the British HC actually dismissed the decision of the Home Secretary. But at that stage the law only allowed the court to say whether the HS acted legally or illegally. The HS was morally bound to bound to follow the court's verdict and to release us without any delay but what actually happened, the HS kept our file in his custody and started making excuses and it took two years.

Anyways we realised that even after the British Court's verdict in favour of us authorities were not ready to release us that is why we decided to involve the European Union court for Human Rights and we said whatever the decision court gives we will accept and whatever the decision is taken by the UK government we will not accept. Finally in December 1994 the British High Court gave the verdict wherein the judge maintained that the interior ministry had acted unlawfully.

What happened in the end?

At the end when European Court for Human Rights got involved in August 2004, the EU court in its ruling told the British government to change its law. So the European court of HR played a great role and it actually forced the British government to change the whole law thereby relinquishing power from home secretary. In Brittan it was not easy to change law it is the only parliament that has the authority to make any amendment so the parliament was directed to make the necessary modification vis-à-vis our case. But it took one year to change the law and after one year we won the case and finally I was released in 2005 after spending over 21 years of imprisonment in various detention centres of Britain.

Then again the British Judge had to actually give a decision about my release; there was a panel of people in the court comprising the government officials, members from the ministry and members from other institutions, they wanted to ask me some questions. I must say that at that very stage British judiciary realised that I have been mistreated badly for a long time. That is why the judge said, "Hold on; I don't allow any body to ask questions to Mr. Raja, he has suffered long enough, throughout his imprisonment he has acted civilized and no body is going to ask any questions".

"I am sorry you suffered for a long time", the judge said. Then I pleaded him that I want to just to leave this country and go back to my country. He said ok you are now free and I wish you all the best.

On 17th of May 2005, I was released from the jail and later the security personnel put me in a car and drove to Airport directly when they put me in the plane; I saw British security dressed in civilian clothes were accompanying me who travelled with me to Islamabad.

The next day when we arrived Islamabad Airport, the first thing I wanted to do was just to stand-up and see up in the sky. So I briefly looked up, a person standing by me said, "people are waiting for you downstairs". I went down there was a man whom I did not know, embraced me and welcomed me to Pakistan".

He took me to the VIP lounge after some paper work a Pakistani official came to me and said that due to some security concerns they will not allow me to go on my own so they will escort me to my home town. So they put me in a car I was astonished to see that none of my relative was allowed to come to receive me, however, when I entered into Azad Kashmir, there were people in large numbers waiting for me near Hollar. They took me in a procession to Khoierata my home town.

It were really the unforgettable moments of life that I was back to my home land after going through torments and tribulations.

What unprecedented thing that happened in the UK?

In European media as well as in the EU parliament it was discussed as how some body coming from Kashmir going to prison challenged the British government to change the law. This was basically unprecedented and this became a very interesting story in the British media.



Why did you opt to return back to home country?

Although I was offered to stay there, some people and some university officials came to see me in prison and said you have got a good qualification and we will offer you a job here but I said no. Actually I wanted to do some work for the freedom of Kashmir.

You have suffered because of the unresolved Kashmir dispute; do you think that Kashmiri leadership on both sides of ceasefire line is effectively pleading their case?

I suffered all this and my colleagues suffered and as a nation suffered terribly and still suffering, because of the ongoing situation in Kashmir. I am not really happy the way leadership of Kashmir on both sides of line of control is handling Kashmir issue. I think we need rethinking the leaders need to be sincere to themselves and the people. People are not going to regard them as well and if they want to be remembered positively in the history of Kashmir they have to sit and devise and effective policy vis-à-vis the resolution of Kashmir dispute. So I want the leadership to behave sensibly so as to get the nation out of the chaos and confusion.

Any message for the governments of India, Pakistan or the people of Kashmir?

For the respective governments of India and Pakistan, I appeal them to adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach and let the people of state to honourably choose their political destiny.

My message for the people of Kashmir, is that at present they are going through misery, but in history they will be remembered like people who are brave, courageous and honourable, the honourable people are those who stand for their beliefs, stand up for their rights and dignity. And those who do not stand up for their right are not remembered in the history. I believe the Kashmiri people have offered unprecedented sacrifices and a day will come when they will be rewarded. My appeal to the valiant brothers and sisters is to strive for their dignity and Allah will reward them soon.

Do you have any regrets?

No, Kashmiri people in general have suffered more than what I have gone through; I stood for my belief and I have no regrets whatsoever. Basically like other fellow Kashmiris I am peaceful by nature, but this is altogether a different story that I got involved in the case, as a matter of the fact we were not against Indians, our intention was very much clear, we actually wanted to have some bargaining on political front.

The question is why we arrested an Indian diplomat, our sole purpose behind all this was to save a life but not at the cost of other's life. What happened in the end was unfortunate and against my own wishes.