No peace, without solving Kashmir : Raja Farooq Haider

In an exclusive interview with Nisar Ahmad Thokar Greater Kashmir Islamabad Bureau Chief, Raja Muhammad Farooq Khan speaks about the issues relating to region’s internal politics and about various dimensions of Kashmir problem.

Born in a Rajput dynasty in 1955, Raja Muhammad Farooq Khan, the Prime Minister of State Azad Jammu and Kashmir hails from Chikar valley. He received his early education from his hometown (Muzaffarabad) and later graduated from Government College Lahore. Khan’s father Raja Haider Khan was an active worker of Muslim Conference. Owing to his years’ long political struggle and affiliation with the party he was elected as president of Muslim Conference twice. Following his death in 1966, Sardar Abdul Qayyum was elected as the president of the Party. Saeda Khanum, the mother of Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider, hailed from Down Town Srinagar. In late 40s Khanum was married to Raja Haider Khan, who was then serving as an officer in Forest Department. Khanam had the privilege to be the first ever women legislator of AJK. In 1970 she was elected as member of AJK Legislative Assembly. And his sister Miss Naureen Haider also remained a member of Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 1991 to 1996 .

You have recently taken charge as the prime minister of AJK. As chief executive what priorities you have set to ensure good governance to the state?
So far as the issue of social-welfare is concerned, a strong and sustained economy is very essential, for that matter you need some revenue generating projects that enhance your capacity and competence to create job opportunities besides extending economic assistance to the people. As there is increase in the government’s returns, it would certainly have trickle down effects.
To strengthen the economy and to generate economic activity all across the state we have two sectors, Hydel Power Generation and Tourism Sector wherein we can invest to achieve the desired results. So my government’s priority is to concentrate and focus on these two sectors/fields. By developing tourism in the region, economic activity is automatically generated and a common man is benefited directly.
Secondly we have huge water resources; we can utilize these resources and generate surplus electricity by initiating mini projects in the state. After becoming self-sufficient we can sell the rest of our Hydro electricity to Pakistan. The same revenue/returns could be spent on various projects, like health sector, social welfare, education, and judiciary and to improve law and order situation in the state.
To ensure good governance, you need strong institutions and rule of law. However I believe that a government, which is financially sound, can ensure good governance and rule of law.

So you mean rule of law is a key to ensure good governance?
Of course, for any society, the rule of law is paramount for peace, prosperity and economic development. No society or no country can progress unless and until there is supremacy of law. You know there are several European countries where there are not enough natural resources but even then they progressed incredibly because of having a proper system of governance and rule of law. So this is the basic thing that is desperately needed for progress and secondly we want to strengthen the institutions in the region that would certainly help to maintain rule of law.

Do you have any plan to launch mini-projects in AJK?
Yes we are already working on it. Two Hydel projects in Neelum Valley are nearing to their final phase. Moreover, the Asian Development and other international institutions have shown their keenness to help us in this regard. And we are intended to do a lot more so as to give boost to the economy.

Would you give us some insight of the projects, funded by international monetary institutions?
There are various projects underway for which the international donor agencies and monetary institutions have contributed immensely. For instance in rural areas, ADB (Asian Development Bank) is playing an effective role to build back the infrastructure that was terribly ruined due to the deadly earth quake of 2005. Neelum Valley Road andHatian Boys College is being built by ADB under the aegis of Energy Efficiency investment program (EEIP). Likewise we have some educational and health projects and Hospitals for which the friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, UK and other countries have contributed hugely. HUBCO is also setting up a multibillion Hydel power project at New Bong Escape Mirpure.
Similarly the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, UNICEF and other international monetary institutions have greatly been involved in the socio-economic upliftment in the region.

What about accountability?
Well, accountability at all levels is a must as I believe that no system can work effectively unless there is proper accountability. For that purpose we have various accountability institutions like Anti-corruption department, Auditing and Accountability Bureau and even the judiciary is also monitoring the whole system. However, I am not satisfied with their performance and functioning but I think we need to have an effective system to eradicate the corruption. However, my first and foremost priority would be to keep my-self and my cabinet away from this menace.

What steps you have taken to do away with this menace?
As I told you earlier that the government is committed to eradicate corruption both at individual as well as institutional level no matter whosoever is involved in it. In my opinion every one is accountable and answerable to the nation for its actions, whether it is politician or anybody else----for example I would tell you that there is huge corruption in Mirpur development authority and I have decided to make it corruption free and Inshallah you will very soon hear good news in this regard and you will feel the difference----. However we don’t want to harass people but there has to be check and balance so that the people can at least feel that some one is monitoring and supervising their activities.

What were the basic reasons that led to the split of MC and the ouster of two premiers in a short span of time?
Basically MC is a party that follows a certain political ideology and there has been a constant policy, the party is following persistently since a long time. So whenever there was a notion that the party has deviated from its political philosophy, the difference erupted within the ranks and files of the party.
This is all but natural. But one has to bear in mind that whenever there are differences in the party like MC, there is a dire need to look into the reasons that cause discord and disagreement. Previously the main reason of the dissension within the MC was that there was a notion that the party was working against its own policies. Anyways the issue was later resolved amicably as a result the party got united again in October 2009. I believe that democracy and dialogue is must to maintain harmony within party. However, for the larger interests of the region, huge responsibility lies on the shoulders of the party’s top men to keep it intact.

There were speculations that Muslim League (N) would establish its wing in AJK, what is your take on this?
Some people were of the view that if PP extends its setup in AJK then Muslim League (N) should also establish its wing in the region. But when the issue was discussed with PML-N chief and its other leaders they suggested that it is in the interests of the people of the region that the MC being an indigenous party must be strengthened at all levels rather introducing a new organization.

You are strong proponent of amendments in the regions interim constitution. Would you like to share with us what the amendments are relating to?
Basically in 1970 we had presidential form of governance in AJK which was later transformed into parliamentary system through an act popularly known as 1974 Act. It is worth to mention here that in 1973 there has been political disorder when Qadiyanis, (the followers of G A Qadiyani) were officially declared as non-Muslim minority in AJK. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was then the prime minister of Pakistan was not in favour of this decision. Bhutto tried to influence/persuade Sardar Qayyum who was the president as well as the chief executive at that time but the decision could not be reverted. No-confidence motion was set in against the AJK president and even they were planning for the president’s impeachment but that did not happen. Finally Bhutto Sahib felt the need to cut Qayyum down to size besides confining the role of Muslim Conference in the region. As I said, Bhutto Sahib was a person who never tolerated opposition as it was indeed a great challenge for him and therefore under a well thought out policy he constituted Kashmir Council, whose Chairman was supposed to be the prime minister of Pakistan.
Apparently it was a good initiative and every body thought that instead of Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, the administrative issues would be effectively sorted out in the Council. To the contrary Bhutto Sahib smartly managed to inject some important articles in the legislative list of the council. And latter in 1975, elections in AJK were badly rigged, except one independent candidate the entire house was full of PP loyalists. And this PP dominated legislative assembly proved instrumental in seeking some amendments in the constitution. Through these unilaterally adopted amendments the newly introduced council was granted executive authority. For example the council was authorized to appoint superior judiciary and likewise the council’s jurisdiction was extended to other state institutions like Election Commission. You know a sort of impracticable and incredible thing was done as a result the constitution of the region got badly distorted.
Muslim Conference had always been infavour of reviving the constitution in its original shape and that is why the party joined the movement that was launched against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by Pakistan National Alliance headed by Mufti Mehmood. Since then it has been our earnest demand that the unilateral amendments made in the region’s constitution must be withdrawn so as to bring it back to its original shape. Moreover our demand was that other objectionable clauses in the constitution shall be removed. But the issue got delayed when martial Law was imposed in Pakistan. Now that the people inPakistan talk of reviving the 1973 constitution, I have also raised the issue during my recent meeting with Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, the prime minister of Pakistan. Fortunately a three-member committee has been constituted that will submit a report accordingly.
Moreover, I want the council’s jurisdiction be curtailed so that the AJK government could play its role effectively in managing the political as well as administrative affairs of the region.
Secondly our dealings are directly with the government of Pakistan, for that matter I think there is no need of the council as such it is a sort of extra-constitutional thing but not a part of the Pakistani constitution.

What has been the MC’s role during the ongoing struggle? Is it stuck to its historical slogan?
Historically speaking, the Muslim Conference is one of the political entities of the state that has been playing its pivotal role vis-à-vis the issue of Kashmir and its settlement. Though some people describe it as pro-establishment party but history is witness to the fact that it has always been engaged in defending its ideology. To protect and safeguard the party’s ideology the MC has even occasionally revolted against various governments of Pakistan. However, if any one feels that it should adopt the ideology of JKLF that is impossible.
You know Muslim Conference is the only political entity that in 1947 adopted a historic resolution known as “Accession to Pakistan resolution”. Secondly amongst the two oldest political entities (MC and NC), Muslim Conference is the only mainstream party that being a strong proponent of Kashmiris’ right to self-determination expresses its view point without any ambiguity in an open and independent manner. So for as the Kashmiris’ inborn right is concerned, let me clear that MC on this side of line of control did not allow any kind of polarization we are stick to our principled stance.
So regarding the Kashmiris’ right of self determination Muslim Conference has immensely contributed to highlight the issue both at national as well as the international level. But MC has a very clear and principled stance that is accession to Pakistan.

What about various proposals that have been put forth as a possible solution to the lingering Kashmir dispute?
Without falling into the intricacies of various options and proposals, let me clear that the MC wants an equitable, honourable and amicable solution of the dispute. As a matter of the fact, these options and formulas have further complicated the issue and created widespread chaos and ambiguity within the Kashmiri society. Even Kashmiris by themselves are confused to a great extent.
Virtually, Kashmiris are divided in various segments, politically and regionally there is difference of opinion. So what is needed at the moment, a genuine political leadership has to be explored through a credible democratic process.
In my opinion elections should be conducted across the ceasefire line (LOC) in order to choose a credible leadership that would have the mandate to decide the state’s political future. In 1946, the Muslim Conference through a historic resolution (Azad Kashmir Resolution) proposed a plan whereby the resolution of the dispute could have been sought amicably. The resolution demanded the right to elect their representatives who would decide the political future of Kashmir.
Now over the last 62 years many political groups came into existence in the region. They have their own vested interests and political agendas, but so for as the final settlement of Kashmir dispute is concerned, there is dire need to have a legitimate and genuine leadership that can represent Kashmiris in any decision making forum and the decision they take would certainly be relevant, applicable and acceptable for all.
So in that context, I think Hurriyat Conference should be given a chance to contest elections, but the elections must be held under the auspices of any credible international organization in a free and coercion free atmosphere. You will see those who have been looting and plundering the Kashmiri nation for several years would be swept away from the political scene.
But let me tell you one thing that Indian intransigence has always been the major hurdle in the entire process. They are not sincere; they have been violating the international law. Pakistan has always supported the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination even Pakistani constitution acknowledges and endorses their inalienable right.

There is a notion that in league with some world powers India is trying to convert the ceasefire line into international border. What is your take on this?
This has been India’s cherished desire and even after 9/11 it had to a certain extent managed to gain sympathies of the international community in this regard. By taking undue advantage of the situation India tried a lot to defame Kashmiris. But I think it was a temporary phase, the world community is now gradually realizing the fact that Kashmiris’ struggle is indigenous and legitimate one. So I think India can no more hood wink the international community. Indian duplicity is not going to work any more, sooner or latter it would have to quit Kashmir and there is no question of making LOC as an international border. The history bears witness to the fact that no one could break the will and Kashmiris’ passion for freedom. You know Russia had to vacate from Ukraine after 350 years long occupation. The Mughal emperor Akbar was the first person who invadedKashmir and today it is unfortunately under the India’s illegal dominance.

What about status quo as some political pundits propose it as an interim solution? Do you think it is acceptable to Kashmiris?
No, not at all, this is not going to work at all, Kashmiris living on both sides of the ceasefire line will never allow it to happen. This is totally unacceptable, even the people of Pakistan will not accept it.

What about cross LoC trade as some people believe that it is a step towards making LoC as international border?
Although I am not a strong proponent of cross-LoC trade but there are certain positive aspects of intra-Kashmir trade, it has at least broken India’s myth as well as status quo in the region and the people are traveling across the LOC without any passport. Kashmir is an indivisible entity and no one can even think of making ceasefire line as international border.

What about quit diplomacy?
I think this is Indians’ ploy to divide Kashmiris. You know there are three parties to the dispute and while talking of a negotiated settlement you can not just ignore any one of the established parties. How come is it possible to seek solution of the dispute without Pakistan’s consent and involvement in the process?
It is not only the issue of “occupied territory” that India can settle it simply by talking to Kashmiri leaders on the other side of ceasefire line ignoring Pakistan, the people of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan. This is the issue 13million inhabitants of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmirstretching over an area of 84471 square Kilo meters. So when you talk of a peaceful and permanent solution of the issue it is imperative that all the stake holders should be taken on board, you can not even afford to keep any one of the stakeholders out of talks process. So in my opinion Indians motive behind this secret dialogue is nothing but to divide Kashmiris.

Should Hurriyat accept talk offer?
Kashmiri leadership seems divided on the issue and in my opinion any party that strives for a peaceful and durable solution of Kashmir tangle should not get involved in bilateral talks.

What is your opinion with regard to composite dialogue process and do you think that Kashmir issue can be resolved through bilateral negotiations?
Bilateral negotiations is actually a failed exercise as you know composite dialogue process between India and Pakistan had been going on for last five years but India, after the Mumbai incident, stalled the process unilaterally. While studying the Indian psychology you will see that Indians always kept finding excuses just to back out of the talks and in future it will try to repeat the same story. So far as the solution of the long-running dispute through bilateral talks is concerned, it is no more a regional conflict now, in the emerging world scenario Kashmir issue came to the fore as a multifaceted and multi-dimensional international issue and its resolution is now considered as prerequisite for peace and sustained socio-economic growth of the region.

What about China’s Kashmir policy?
This is the new dimension of China’s foreign policy. It would certainly have positive impacts on the over all geo-political situation of the region. This is a positive development and we welcome it.

Do you have any plan to regularize the cross-Loc trade so as to convert it into a full-fledged trade?
Previous government had raised the issue of cross-loc trade and it was thoroughly debated in the AJK Assembly wherein it was agreed that the Travel and Trade Authority would be made an autonomous and self-reliant body. Although a committee was established in this regard but the trade across the LoC is still going on without having any proper system. I shall take up the issue with the government of Pakistan soon to channelize it properly.
There are certain issues, as there is no modus-operandi but gradually we will be able to manage the things and run the business in an orderly manner.

What about the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment package?
The people of Gilgit-Baltistan have suffered terribly, and as a citizen of AJK I hold myself responsible for not doing enough for the people of that region. So in that perspective we appreciate the empowerment package and even we are in favour of granting more rights to the people so as to bring the area up to the AJK level.
Secondly Gilgit-Baltistan is a part and parcel of Jammu and Kashmir. And I thank to Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gillani for his comments on Gilgit/ Baltistan. During his recent statements he made it abundantly clear that Gilgit-Baltistan is integral part of erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir. Even it has been mentioned in its interim-constitution that the devolution package will not affect Kashmiri’s international stature. However, we have objections regarding its administrative setup and the model of governance suggested under this new arrangement. And we suggested the government ofPakistan to modify it in a way so that no could exploit it.

None of the mainstream political parties of AJK took part in the GB general elections why?
If we had participated in general elections in Gilgit Baltistan we would have no moral justification to raise objections. As I said earlier, we have some objections vis-à-vis the system of governance in Gilgit Baltistan. Basically our view point is that AJK-type model of governance should be introduced in the area so as to avoid any vagueness.

Any message you want to convey to the people of Kashmir?
My message for the people of Jammu and Kashmir is that we are one nation, we have been together for years, and we share common history, culture and heritage. The people across the state including Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and Gilgit Baltistan and AJK share common values and traditions.
When we talk of right to self-determination, it does not mean for people of any particular regions or religion it is for the people of all the regions, without any discrimination. So my message for the people of all the regions is that without any sense of alienation let us join our hands together and make all out efforts just to achieve the cherished goal as it is the matter of our national identity.
Secondly, I salute the people of Kashmir for their unflinching faith, determination and commitment towards the noble cause. They have rendered unprecedented sacrifices so far and have gone through terrible times. I can feel the plight, pain and agony they have gone through. And I believe the day is not far when their sacrifices will bear the fruits. This is indeed a difficult but a temporary phase; while carrying forward the struggle Kashmiris must keep their nerve, as defeat is the ultimate fate of usurper. Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains taken to bring it to light.

Bilateral talks futile: Salah-ud-Din

'Militant Leadership To Support Dialogue If Resolution Is Agenda'

NISAR AHMED THOKAR
Islamabad, Nov 7: Terming the bilateral negotiations a futile exercise, the United Jehad Council (UJC) chief, Syed Sallah-ud-din has said the Indian leadership’s devious handling of Kashmir must serve as an eye-opener for the people and the separatist leadership.
“Hurriyat leadership not to take a hasty decision with regard to dialogue with Delhi, as bilateral talks had proved futile in the past,” Salah-ud-Din told Greater Kashmir here today. He said there there has been a bitter experience during the regime of Gen Pervez Musharraf when APHC under the leadership of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq jumped the bandwagon and started negotiations with New Delhi. “What was the outcome of those talks? Nothing,” he said and added that the militant leadership would support the dialogue process if the resolution of the core issue (Kashmir) was the subject of such parleys.
Salah-ud-Din said following the failure of the Musharraf-era Hurriyat-Delhi talks even Mirwaiz Umar Farooq on many occasions said openly that India was never serious and nor it has ever been sincere to address the Kashmir problem.
UJC chairman maintained that the same situation continued to be there today, as India on one hand talks of holding dialogue with Hurriyat while on the other it terms separatist leadership as irrelevant in the prevailing political scenario.
Referring to the latest statements of the Indian leaders, Syed said on their recent visits to the Valley, Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P Chidambaram had stated that the root-cause of the Kashmir problem was absence of good governance, peace and prosperity. This unrealistic approach, he said was in fact a major impediment in the peace and resolution effort. He said: “Every person in the Indian subcontinent knows what Kashmir problem is and they are fully aware that it is all about the final disposition of the political future of more than 13 million people of Kashmir living across the ceasefire line”.
He pointed out that this contradiction and ambiguity in Indian leaders’ statements makes it even more obvious that India was sticking to its “dilly dallying policy, traditional intransigence and unrealistic approach.”
He said whenever there is international pressure on Kashmir issue to avoid any eventuality of nuclear confrontation in South Asia, India makes talks offer to Kashmiris just to neutralize the situation. “It is in fact the international pressure that has got mounted on India and they just want to diffuse it by staging a drama in the name of talks to give an impression to the world community that it is engaged in a dialogue with Kashmiri leaders”, he said.
Under the given circumstance, he said holding dialogue is absolutely an aimless and fruitless exercise saying that India should accept Kashmir as a disputed territory. “It has been India’s strategy to damage the international stature of Kashmir case and by holding bilateral negotiations it wants to create an impression at international level that Kashmir is a border dispute between the two countries”.
“Even Mirwaiz Umar Farooq during his sermon at historic Jamia Mosque on Friday pointed out that there were contradictions in the statements of Indian leaders,” he maintained.
Kashmir dispute he said was not a border dispute that heads of the two states or two foreign secretaries can sit together and resolve it. “Neither is it an issue relating to internal security nor can it be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Hurriyat Conference and New Delhi”, he said.
“There are three basic parties to the dispute and while seeking a negotiated settlement of the issue you can’t just ignore any one of them”, he added.
So for as the final settlement of Kashmir is concerned, Salah-ud-Din was of the view that bilateralism has badly failed to produce any results and to the contrary it has damaged the ongoing struggle.
Highlighting the dangerous dimensions of bilateralism he said, “By getting involved in bilateral negotiations, the tripartite nature and the international sanctity of the issue also get diluted and under the garb of so-called dialogue the unprecedented violations continue unabated in Jammu and Kashmir”.
He said by taking one of the Hurriyat factions on board India wants to create more chaos and confusion within the pro-movement leadership as well as in the masses to damage the ongoing struggle. He said a solution of the long-simmering dispute was not possible unless all the stakeholders including India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir were taken into confidence.
Regarding Hurriyat unity he said, “We have time and again appealed the honourable leadership to get united and forge a broad-based consensus on the basic principles, established during last year’s agreement between the two factions wherein the respective leadership had agreed that they would strive for the right of self determination”.
“There was a written agreement that can provide a strong basis for absolute unity and concurrence”.
Replying to a query he said that taking into consideration the sentiments of the people Kashmiri leadership must develop a consensus and come forward with a unified stand, strategy and unified agenda and plan of action to lead the movement to its logical conclusion.
To promote the policy of reconciliation and understanding, he added that there should be no character assassination whatsoever or any sort of leg pulling and the leadership must avoid indulging in any activity that is detrimental for the sacred cause.
About UJC’s stand on dialogue, UJC supremo commander said: “Militant leadership is for dialogue and would be for dialogue but it has to be Kashmir centric and result-oriented and resolution of the core issue must be subject of the dialogue”.
He however maintained that a statewide, integrated political movement supported by cadre based target oriented militancy was must to achieve the cherished goal.

Dialogue the only option to resolve disputes: Riaz H Khokhar

The veteran Pakistani Diplomat and Former High Commissioner to India Riaz H Khokhar shares his views on Indo-Pak relations, Kashmir dispute, American intervention in Pak politics and other host of issues with Greater Kashmir Islamabad Bureau Chief Nisar Ahmad Thokar.

After 9/11, geo-political environment and security situation in this region has changed altogether. Particularly America’s indifference towards Muslims has made the situation even more complicated. As a foreign affairs expert how do you see this whole situation?
 
There is no doubt that 9/11 was a horrific incident, I think every sane human being will not only deplore it but would certainly condemn it. There is also no doubt that it changed the strategic environment of the whole world. 9/11 is one day in 21st century that could never be forgotten because it has not only transformed life in America but it had a huge impact all across the globe including South Asia.
 
And South Asia has probably suffered the most. The American anger was understandable, however it is debatable whether it was wise to attack Afghanistan or not. Perhaps, lot of people in the USA, think it was a lopsided approach. Now we have been in a situation for the last eight years and what has the US achieved? I am not going to refer to Iraq as it stands out as a disaster on its own. Afghanistan is a disaster in the pipe line. So the situation in Afghanistan is very complicated and Pakistan got sucked in this war on terror. This has not been our war but it has now become our war. The most unfortunate thing is that the then Pakistani leadership headed by president Musharraf did not really think through the implications of this difficult war.
 
Well Iraq is altogether a different story, in order to get rid of one person Saddam Hussain; the US destroyed a whole country and killed several hundred thousand innocent people. They had to invent information and the intelligence to deceive the world community about weapons of mass destruction. As a result, thousands and thousands of people were killed. It is still not over and Iraq is a huge mess.  It is not clear how stable Iraq would be. I am sure that all the neighbours of Iraq are wary and deeply concerned about the US intentions in the region.
 
Coming back to Afghanistan, Pakistan because of perhaps predominantly personal interest of president Musharraf, Pakistan got into this understanding with the US and got involved in this war on terror. You know we didn’t have a problem of terrorism in Pakistan, if you look at august 2001. Although we had violence here and there but there was no serious and sustained threat of terrorism in Pakistan. We have had extremist elements but we did not have terrorism of this nature you see today, indiscriminate killings, car bombs and suicide bombers. As a matter of the fact Musharraf’s personal agenda has landed Pakistan in a quagmire.
 
What was actually the problem that forced the former president Musharraf to join the US led campaign against war on terror? 
 
Musharraf’s main problem was legitimacy. As you know he came to power after a military coup in 1999, and was ostracized by the international community.  So he thought that 9/11 provided him a great diplomatic opportunity to legitimise himself. He was desperate.
 
Pakistan, itself a victim of terror, became a frontline state in war against terror. The decision has been largely flayed within the country. What is your evaluation? Do you think it was a step towards right direction?
 
Let me be fair to Musharraf, it was a difficult situation and the option given to Pakistan was either be with us or against us. But where Musharraf actually made a huge mistake was that he made an open ended commitment to the US.
 
Usually, in international diplomacy, you don’t make open ended commitments to a super power. Initially, the Bush administration had seven points in mind for negotiations with Pakistan. But without any serious scrutiny and proper analysis, Musharraf was too quick to accept all the seven points. The US leadership was utterly surprised.
 
What were those seven points?
Without going into the details, if you look at the book authored by Collin Powel, the former secretary of state and other subsequent material that has come out of the US, they were really surprised that Pakistan had accepted all seven points. They were just thinking that may be Pakistan would accept two or three points, but it accepted all seven. President Bush in fact complimented Powel for his excellent diplomacy. What was necessary that we should have drawn red lines that we will do this and will not do that keeping in view our vital national interests… Now we are in deep trouble because of the responsibilities that we should not have accepted.
 
After the US invasion in Afghanistan, Pakistan gradually transformed into a battlefield. There have been scores of suicide bombings all across the country. The people in Tribal Areas (FATA) continue to suffer attacks by American drones. What is your opinion in this regard?
 
Yes, Pakistan has faced massive violence. There has been a huge loss of life and property. More Pakistani soldiers have died in this war on terror than the US or NATO causalities in Afghanistan. Pakistan has suffered economically. The destruction that has taken place in Pakistan particularly in FATA region and NWFP (North Western Frontier Province) is worth billions of dollars. The figure is quite staggering. Government is talking of some 38 billion dollars’ losses. So the damage is huge and it is still not over. The situation in Afghanistan is worsening with each passing day. America is now reviewing its policy, but it is not clear which way the cat will jump. More fight seems to be in store.
 
What more is in store for Afghanistan, what more is in store for Pakistan?  But whatever one has read it seems that the US wants to shift its focus of war from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
 
Now that there is change in US administration, do you foresee any shift in America’s policy vis-à-vis this region?
 
No, it is the continuation of Bush policies. More forces have been brought in and now there is talk of deploying additional troops in Afghanistan.
 
Many people believe that it is the beginning of what the US think-tanks presume as clash of civilizations. Do you believe in such theories?
 
I think we must not look at it in that context. Rather we should see it as an effort by a super power to destroy Al-Qaeda and remnants of Taliban in Afghanistan to eradicate extremism and terrorism from the region.  But strategy based on military power is far from effective. Bombing is not the answer.
 
A powerful idea has to be fought with an even more powerful idea. It is a war where you need to win hearts and minds of the people.  Many people view foreign forces in Afghanistan as “occupation forces”. History proved that Afghanistan hate foreign forces. This is a historical truth.
 
How do you see the political situation in Afghanistan as it has a direct impact on the geo-political situation in this region? Do you think Mr. Karzai would be able to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan? 
 
You see in Afghanistan, the war of winning hearts and minds of the people is already lost, due to the useless, incompetent and ineffective puppet regime. It has miserably failed to stabilize the political situation in the country. Karzai no doubt lives in Kabul but he can’t venture out of his palace, he is unpopular and is basically seen as a puppet. He has patronised warlords, drug lords and corruption.
 
A peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan is indeed very essential for Pakistan. Certainly an Afghanistan at peace with itself and more concerned about the welfare of its people, is what Karzai should have focussed on. He has let down his own people and his masters as well. Look at the recently held elections in Afghanistan. It was a fraudulent election. I don’t see Karzai as an asset for the US or an asset for the people of Afghanistan. Frankly speaking he should have been dumped by the US. His election is a huge embarrassment for the USA and the west.
 
It is for the first time since 1947 that Pakistan had to mobilize its troops on its western border. The government had also launched a full-fledged military offensive in the Malakand division, which is largely perceived as a conspiracy to destabilize Pakistan. What is your opinion in this regard?
 
We have deployed over hundred thousand troops along the Durand line. Basically in two contexts, one of course, as a member of the United Nations, it is our responsibility under the Security Council resolutions that we should not allow any terrorists to be operating from our area. Our forces must ensure that there is no illegal cross border activity. Secondly, the military operation in Swat and Malakand division has to do more with the indigenous Pakistani Taliban and criminal elements who have joined the Tehreek-e-Taliban.
 
I am not suggesting that there are good or bad Taliban. That is for us to judge later on. But the main thing is that the Taliban operating in Swat thought that they could challenge the writ of the state and could get away with it. The government of Pakistan, particularly the Pakistan army realized that this was a very serious threat emanating from within the country and therefore it had to be crushed. So it is in that context army operation was carried out in Swat to flush out these extremist elements who had challenged the writ of the government. You know these misguided Moulanas, Sufi Muhammad and Fazllullah had no business to start this thing. They basically thought that they would get away and be able to dictate their own terms to Pakistan. I really give huge credit to Pakistan army for taking this threat seriously and have dealt with it effectively.
 
Coming to the second part of the question, you know when you are facing a threat; there is an internal situation wherein the regional players would try to take advantage of it. This is a natural phenomenon and usually it happens….but I would say that the initial activities and all the negative things were generated by these local Talibans who were trying to impose their own value system and agenda and latter they were aided and abetted by criminal elements…who had found refuge in FATA and adjacent areas of Swat. And they are the ones who started looting, plundering and murdering.
 
Basically three things happened, as you know Moulana Sufi Muhammad said that they don’t accept the constitution of Pakistan. Secondly there was an incident of a woman who was lashed publicly, I think that stirred the soul of every Pakistani…and they realised that this is not what they wanted….no question. Islam enjoins that we respect women and not mistreat them. The public beating of the poor girl was a horrifying experience and generated a wave of anger in Pakistan. People of Pakistan were stunned and shocked.
 
It was really a horrifying incident, whether it was a genuine or not is a separate issue.
 
Moreover there were gruesome incidents of slitting throats. Public executions were a horrible experience for the people of Pakistan. We have had violence in the country but not of this nature. So these are actually the various factors that turned the tables on them. And that is why the people of Pakistan stood right behind the army.
 
There is a perception that the US, in league with its allies, is playing a double game just to create anarchy in Pakistan to justify its intervention to take over the nuclear arsenals. What is your take on this?
 
I don’t want to get into this kind of speculative thing. I think even the ideas of US coming and snatching or capturing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals is utter nonsense. Let me be clear that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are in safe hands and there is no need to worry about.
 
Western world is very scared of Pakistan’s nuclear technology. Why?
This is an old problem; basically there is no rational reason for it. One fear is that the extremist organizations are present in this region and they may get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals. I think this is far-fetched, very imaginative and has got nothing to do with reality.
 
Terrorism has now become a global challenge. In your opinion what is the way out to fight this threat?
 
Well, there are several reasons but in order to tackle this menace we have to address the root causes of terrorism, which is that, the people who have been deprived of the basic rights must given their fundamental rights. In Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir you see the people are still living under foreign domination and the illegal occupation. This I think is one of the major causes that is contributing to extremism and terrorism.
 
What I really mean to say is that fundamental issues in the Muslim world like Palestine-Israel issue and Pakistan-India dispute over Kashmir has to be resolved. More importantly, the people of Kashmir have to be given their natural and legitimate right to decide their future.
 
Also in the Muslim world there is huge resentment about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Western polices, the policies of the US administration, particularly president Bush generated lot of hatred in the Muslim world.
 
There has been severe criticism on Pakistan’s foreign policy? As an expert of foreign affairs do you think there is need to review and re-evaluate the policy?
 
Well, Pakistan’s foreign policy is made keeping in view the vital interests of the country’s internal dynamics and of course the external environment. There is a symbolic relationship between the internal and external policies.
 
We may have made some mistakes here and there in some context but essentially our foreign policy is centred on our relation with India, USA, European Union, China and the Muslim world. By and large I would say these relationships stand on their own. For example we have excellent relations with china. It is a trouble free relationship. The two countries having completely different social and political systems but they have developed a model relationship between two neighbouring countries.
 
Similarly, we have excellent relations with all Islamic countries. We have no problems with European countries. This is one of the best examples I can give you of Pakistan’s successful foreign policy. However, we do have problems in our foreign policy, especially with India and some issues with the US.
 
Indeed our relations with India are a very complicated subject. Not much progress has really been made despite our efforts to improve our relationship with India. We have not been successful this is a long and sad story……….
 
Our relationship with other world counties are also trouble free, co-operative and friendly and some of our friends have helped us a lot in different situations. Our relationship with America has gone through various stages there have been positive as well as negative phases. However in our relationship with USA, today, the American factor is dominating our foreign policy. As I told you earlier we have got into a situation because of this war on terror. This has complicated our foreign policy.
 
We have benefited marginally from the US relationship in terms of economic and military assistance but we have also suffered enormously. What the current situation in and around Pakistan is that we continue to suffer and there is no idea as when and where this saga is going to end.
 
So there are voices in this country who do argue that Pakistan’s foreign policy should be in its own vital self national interest. But some times personal interests of our leaders take precedence. Musharraf ignored national interests and one seas continuation of that approach in the present regime in Islamabad.
 
Coming to Indo-Pak ties, due to the prevailing hate syndrome and hostility, the people of India and Pakistan have miserably failed to reap the benefits of regional economic co-operation, backwardness, poverty, hunger and unemployment are the major challenges.  Do you think the two nations could afford to be at loggerheads any longer?
 
Fundamentally it is in the interest of India as well as Pakistan to have good relations with each other. This is something, shall we say, a desire on both sides and I think it is there. Actually the problem is how to work out a modus vivendi between India and Pakistan. We have fundamental problems….the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is one principal problem that has been causing ill-will between the two nations. You know there have been wars, conflicts and tensions over this issue. So this, I think, is the root cause of the problem between India and Pakistan.
Secondly, we have other issues flowing out of it, the Siachen, and the water issue, which is becoming more serious by the day. We may not link them together but there is a certain degree of linkage after all the rivers are flowing through Kashmir. So this is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed.
 
Then you have Sir Creek and other minor matters for instance trade between India and Pakistan is not an issue, I think it can be easily sorted out provided the trade serves the interests of both the countries.
 
The trade between the two countries has reached to $ 2 billion and the potential is huge. What is actually happening at the moment, the balance of trade is heavily in India’s favour. Indian exports are 1.5 billion and Pakistan exports to India are 350 million. You see the huge gap and it is growing. We have to explore ways and means to narrow the gap. If it is not narrowed there will be a clamour in Pakistan to restrict Indian exports.
 
In other areas there is a dire need for confidence building measures, and developing improved contacts at all levels. We need to facilitate free flow of people if it is possible, I don’t know how it is at the moment but visa has been the big issue between the two countries.
 
What about back door diplomacy? Do you think it would be helpful to bridge the gap between the two neighbouring countries?
 
In my opinion back door diplomacy has its limitations. Nothing should happen between India and Pakistan behind the backs of the people. Honestly speaking, I have serious reservations vis-à-vis the back channel diplomacy initiated during Musharraf’s rule. Because if parliament in India and the parliament in Pakistan, people in India and Pakistan don’t know what was being worked out how you can come to an understanding, you can’t shock and surprise your own people.
 
Musharraf is being blamed for giving too many concessions to India. People think that he was working on a “Sell out” on Kashmir and Indians were so happy and thrilled with him.
 
However, I believe that there should be no difference what is happening on the front channel and what is happening on the back channel. If they are operating on different spheres then there would certainly be other problems, sending wrong signals. I would say that we should have formal contacts for enhanced diplomatic relations, we should have more meetings more exchanges at all levels.
 
What about composite dialogue process?
 
Composite dialogue process I think is good provided both the countries pursue it sincerely. But there is so much lack of trust and confidence in each other that it stifles real progress….
 
What is the reason that India and Pakistan have not been able to settle the log-simmering dispute of Kashmir?
 
Primarily there are three parties to the dispute, India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In my opinion the people of Jammu and Kashmir are the most important party and they must decide their own future. Whether, they want to join with India or Pakistan. If they decide they want to be with India, we will accept it. If they decide that they want to accede to Pakistan, it seems that India will not accept it. The historical fact since 1948 is that India is scared that people of Jammu and Kashmir will decide against being with India.
 
But we as a nation stand for Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and strongly plead that the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be given this right. India had made a commitment in the past and you know they took the problem to the United Nations. India even tried its best to have Pakistan declared as an aggressor but failed. Then we had series of UN resolutions, which were voluntarily accepted by India, Pakistan and the world community. These resolutions enshrined and sanctified the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and determined how it should be honoured through a free and fair plebiscite.
 
What about UN resolutions?
 
Those who think the UN resolutions are outdated are doing a great disservice to the Kashmiri cause. Here I would like to say that huge responsibility rests on those who claim to be the leaders of Kashmiri people. They should be vigilant and should neither compromise with Pakistan nor with India. They must hold steadfastly to the principle of self-determination and protect the interests of their own people.
 
Do you believe in out of the box solution? As it was suggested by the former president of Pakistan?
 
What out of the box solution? Whatever Musharraf had suggested was absolute nonsense. He was basically ensuring that for all times to come Kashmiris remained enslaved under Indian domination. This is what he worked out…..Where is the solution now…..? He was neither sincere to the people of Kashmir nor to the people of Pakistan. Many people here believe that he had no authority and no right to barter away the future of Jammu and Kashmir by his so-called back door diplomacy. He did not ask any body. In India, prime minister was answerable to the parliament. Musharraf was not answerable to any one. He thought he was God’s gift to Pakistan and he could play around with the fate of the people of Pakistan and the fate of the Kashmiris through his secretive back door diplomacy. He thought he was the only gifted mind in Pakistan. Basically he tried to appease India.
 
I know that other than a few people and a few so-called leaders, Musharraf’s policies had no support among the people of Kashmir. A few compromised individuals were with him. As a matter of the fact Musharraf undermined Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir.

You have been High Commissioner to India in 90s and certainly you have had interactions with Indian leaders and government officials there. Did you see any change in Indian mindset vis-à-vis the issue of Kashmir?
 
Well when I was in India, those were very difficult days. I noticed no change in Indian mindset.
 
You were described as a “Hawk”, a hard liner. Why?
Well I think it is very naïve and stereotype way of branding people. I remember Mr. Natwar Singh who was once asked a similar question. I think he said, “We are not birds”, we are people and we have interests, the interests of our countries”. I don’t care whether I was described as a hawk or a hardliner. I was doing what I was asked to do. I did it faithfully. However, I have great respect for Indian leaders and great respect for my colleagues in the Indian Foreign Service, which is one of the best diplomatic services in the world. Very able and competent people, who know how to defend their country’s interests and I respect people who defend their country’s interest faithfully.
 
During the early years of Musharraf government, you served as a foreign secretary. In the meantime India and Pakistan formally decided to initiate peace talks so as to resolve all outstanding issues. Would you like to share with us the agenda that was set out for the bilateral negotiations?
 
The agenda of composite dialogue process is all clear, there were eight areas in which Jammu and Kashmir and security issues in my opinion is the most important issues. Then there is trade and several other issues. But Kashmir is actually the most important issue on the agenda. The composite dialogue will ultimately succeed or fail depending on the progress we make on these fundamental issues. I believe that both India and Pakistan must sincerely pursue the composite dialogue and make efforts to resole all disputes. India is at the moment too pre-occupied with the question of terrorism and we are pre-occupied with Jammu and Kashmir. So we have to find some middle road and make sincere and serious efforts to resolve the problems.
 
Most importantly, the people of Jammu and Kashmir are suffering; the people of India and Pakistan are also suffering. This has to end. South Asia is facing multiple problems and most important issues are problems related to the development of this region. In the Composite Dialogue we have made marginal progress in some areas such as trade, people to people contacts etc. but no real progress on Kashmir and on durable peace in South Asia.
 
In order to resolve fundamental disputes, do you think the dialogue process should be properly institutionalized to ensure a smooth progress?
 
Dialogue is already institutionalized but at the moment there is a dead lock because terrorism is the key issue for India. And this is the reason that the foreign ministers of both the countries who met in New York recently could not agree as how to proceed on the dialogue.
 
Although we don’t dismiss it as a problem, we recognize it is an issue between India and Pakistan but one should not ignore the fact that Pakistan is itself a victim of terror, we have so many problems, we want to solve it provided India first co-operates with us. What is happening at the moment India is accusing us and we are accusing India of interfering in Balouchistan and FATA (Tribal Areas). It is a blame game that must come to an end. The only way is that we must sit down seriously and solve the problems. If India lays down conditions that we will not do this until you do that it will not work out. Pakistan will not allow India to push it against the wall. So the best bet is to co-operate sincerely and seriously if we want to deal with the scourge of terrorism.

What is the motive behind the Indian approach? Do you think India is trying to back out from talks?
 
Well I don’t want to read the motives in Indian approach. To be fair to India what happened in Mumbai was a horrible incident, many people were killed and the city was badly hit. So I condemn it. I think the people of Pakistan also felt it badly and deplored the action. Now it has become a problem, India does not want to move forward unless this issue is resolved but this is not something that could be resolved in 24 hours. It will take time, like India we have our own courts and we have our own procedures. We have to put solid evidence before the courts. So in this area we need India’s co-operation. India has taken a position that “we have produced evidence” and you hang the person. This is not enough. Our courts are no different from Indian courts. Will such evidence stand up in Indian courts?
 
What is the scope and future of Composite Dialogue Process?
 
Well I hope the dialogue is resumed sooner the better would be for both India and Pakistan and the region and the international community. War between India and Pakistan is totally unacceptable and therefore we have just one option that is dialogue to find solutions to all our problems.
 
Do you agree with president Zardari’s idea of leaving Kashmir settlement to next generation?
 
Not many people in Pakistan will agree with it. His late father in law, the martyred Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the martyred Benazir Bhutto would certainly not share his view.
 
Under the given circumstances what is the possible solution of Kashmir dispute?
 
Well it is not for me to decide what would be the solution. Solution actually comes through sincere dialogue. When you talk about out of the box solution that means you have to come up with some creative solution in which there is a win-win situation for all of us particularly for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Their rights and aspirations must not suffer or sacrificed. They are the ones who have to decide... And here I would say people of Kashmir must strengthen their leaders and it is equally important for Kashmiri leaders not to allow their own interests to override the interests of their own people. They have to be more assertive. And the demonstrations, agitation whatever they want to do must be peaceful. Adhering strictly to peaceful means would certainly strengthen their moral position.  
 
Pakistan has announced an autonomy package for the people of Gilgit Baltistan that generated a new debate in Kashmiri circles, what is your opinion in this regard?
 
Look they did have certain needs, certain demands and as long as they are met administratively and politically without undermining Pakistan’s over all position on Jammu and Kashmir, I am for it. After all they have a right; they are not different from people of Pakistan and the people of Azad Kashmir. They must be treated fairly and equally and should be given all the opportunities as we people are enjoying.
 
Any message you want to convey to the people of Kashmir and the leadership of India and Pakistan?
 
My message is simple that India and Pakistan must get engaged in substantive dialogue to find solutions to all the problems. Let us work for peace and stability in South Asia. Let us work for the development of this region.
 
For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, I pray for their wellbeing and hope that one day they will Inshallah see, feel and breathe freedom. And for the several thousands who have been martyred, I salute them and respect them for their supreme sacrifices. They will always live and live forever.

Note:
It may be recalled here that Mr. Khokhar was High Commissioner to India in early 90s when Kashmiris intensified their struggle for right to self-determination. Before assuming the charge as the country’s foreign secretary, he also served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the Unites States of American and China.

Wishes of Kashmiris must be asertained: Zaki

“Wishes of the people should be the criteria of what should be the future of Kashmir”, the former Secretary General and Mister of State for Foreign Affairs, Senator Akram Zaki said this during an exclusive interview to Greater Kashmir.

The renowned diplomat while talking on the changes sweeping across the globe said that a beginning can be made for a European Union like co-operation in this region provided that India holds plebiscite in Kashmir.

Citing the example of Saarland, Zaki said, “Let us not quote what Europeans are doing today let us see as how they settled their disputes. Let us apply the same principle of referendum in Kashmir, which Germany and France applied in resolving the dispute of Saarland, we will become friends”.
After 9/11 there has been a great change in US foreign policy that has by and large affected the entire world in general and the Muslim world in particular. This paradigm shift in American policy had also adversely affected Pakistan politically, socially and economically. As an analyst how do you evaluate this whole situation?


Generally people refer to 9/11 but the US policy has changed or began to be changed in 1991. After the collapse of Soviet Union, the America came to the conclusion that they were now the sole supper power; they thought they can reshape the world the way they wanted. Initially they focused on Europe because the Europe was the dividing line so they expanded in Eastern as well as the western parts of the former USSR, in Baltic States and expanded NATO gradually, which was their target. Having completed that they shifter their focus back to Middle East and our area.

First they made policy document called the American Centaury, which meant that next centaury will be America’s centaury in which they will reshape the world according to their own will, especially to redraw the maps of middle east. This has been their policy. So for as the incident of 9/11 is concerned it came as a great shock for Americans, because being the sole superpower, they thought to themselves that they could do any thing they like in the world. They had not been hit on their land for over 200 years and here it was that two most important and powerful symbols of their economic and military (Pentagon and twin-towers) were hit at a time. So they became almost mad, with anger and rage and then they made an irrational policy and rushed into a brute use of force, without going into the facts as who was responsible for it. By the end of 90’s decade they had come to the conclusion that two targets were to prevent the rapid rise of china and emergence of Muslim nations. Because they used Islamic spirit of Jihad to defeat the Soviet Union and they were now afraid of it. So the Mujahideen whom they honoured, trained, financed and equipped were now declared as terrorists. They thought that Pakistan was no longer needed because they used it against Russia and therefore made two new allies one was the oldest one that is Israel and the other was India.

Realizing the seamless decline of the USSR soon after the Kargil India also became ready to co-operate with them. Like 9/11 the Kargil war was a turning point. Actually India changed this policy in 1991 when the first war to liberate Kuwait was started and it was India that provided fuelling facility to US war planes and subsequently India started dialogue with the US for the defence co-operation. As a result they signed first agreement for stronger co-operation in various technical defence related fields on 12th of January in 1995.

India claimed to be non-aligned, but it had signed agreements with the US much earlier. The first agreement between the two countries was signed in 1951 but it was never publicized. The second one was signed in 1958 and during the China-India conflict in 1962, India invoked these agreements to get massive aid and support from America. So India was doubly aligned with Russia and with the US.

Now from 1995 onwards there has been rapid military co-operation between India and the US and Pakistan became under various sanctions. Later Musharraf took a U-turn on Afghanistan and therefore he became officially an ally of the US but actually an instrument of American policy. So with India they were developing long turn relationship and with Pakistan they had a convenient instrument to be used temporarily.

Since the slogan was war on terror but India very cleverly took advantage by declaring Kashmiris’ liberation struggle was terrorism. The US also gave assurance to India that after dealing with Afghan problem they will help them to get rid of Kashmir issue also. So the US and Israel started helping India and the Israel came in even during the Kargil and subsequently they trained Indians for crushing Kashmiris’ struggle. Even Pervez Musharraf was pressurized to stop support to Kashmiris who were fighting for the liberation of their home land.

Basically Musharraf wanted to remain power and he made an open U-turn on Afghanistan and U-turn on Kashmir without openly declaring it. Even he banned some organizations who were lending support to Kashmiris. Virtually through back door diplomacy he almost gave up support to Kashmiris. Although he claimed that he was highlighting Kashmir issue.

So you mean Musharraf was playing in the hands of America?


Yes, Musharraf betrayed Kashmiris and reversed polices of Pakistan and pretended as if he was working for the resolution of Kashmir issue.

But he acted in such a way and gave the impression that he had no other alternative option?
He acted because he had no alternative to remain in power without the support of America. His main task was to any how retain the power, make money and kill his own people.

Q: There is also a perception that the US presence in this region is in fact a part of American grand design to give practical shape to New World Order. What is your opinion?


Yes they are in Afghanistan. They expelled Soviet Union with our help and expelled us and brought in India through back door in Afghanistan. Now India’s presence is being strengthened and they are even talking of bringing more Indian troops. Actually America wants to control the whole world but they don’t want their soldiers to die, they want others to die for them. Pakistanis died for them during their battle against Russians and now they want cheap Indian soldiers to die in Afghanistan.

What is the reason that India has assumed such an important role?

You see American’s have a history, they use people and through them away. In world war 2nd Germany was the target, they were against communism but they made an alliance with Russia to fight against Germany. The main fighting was done by Russians, they lost about 20 million people, when they were about to defeat Germany, Americans jumped into the war to get their share. In the meanwhile they started planning against Russia and it took them 50 years to destroy Soviet Union. They used Muslims to defeat Russia and now they declared Muslims as their enemy thereby making Hindu India and Jewish Israel as their friends.

Isn’t it that America is propping up India to contain china?

What contain China……., China is their biggest trading partner now. They are collapsing and are begging China for aid to sustain economically. They owe three trillion dollars to china. Recently the US secretary was again in China and was asking them to buy more bonds so that they can survive financially. Actually as I said earlier they have double standards. Currently their love-affair is India whereas their permanent love affair is Israel.

How do you see Indo-US defence co-operation and what is its impact on this region?

I think indo-US military co-operation has further aggravated the security situation in the region. India’s arrogance has reached to new dimensions and therefore all its neighbours feel insecure.

War on terror created havoc all across the globe; Muslims have been the worst victims, hundreds and thousands of innocent people were ruthlessly killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think the use of force would help to root out what is called as the surging militancy and extremism in Muslim states?

Use of force never solves the problems rather force leads to reaction and counter use of force. American have actually failed in Iraq, they failed in Vietnam and are failing in Afghanistan too. Russians failed in Afghanistan and Indians failed in Kashmir through use of force. They have admitted the fact that use of force leads to increase in terrorism. In Iraq and Afghanistan you have seen it has increased manifold. I think America is collapsing economically. There is debt of 50 trillion on the United States. That is why they didn’t dare to attack Iran. You know when they attacked Afghanistan there was every day talk of which next country but having learnt the lesson both in Iraq and Afghanistan they decided not to jump into another war.
Do you mean this approach is counter-productive and has to be changed?

Yes, it has to be changed, the Americans have to retreat and they are retreating from Iraq. They have at least 850 bases all over the world, they can’t sustain them, they will have to cut down the bases, they will have to withdraw troops from some parts of the world, and they have to restructure their economy. Even the European leaders like Germany and France say that America can no longer dictate to us because they are no more a super power. They can’t dictate to china and rising Russia. So the world is evolving towards multi-polar system. The age of uni-polarity was a temporary aberration that is over now.

Even there are some people who are predicting the break up of the US into four parts. The American and Russian scholars have written that America is trying to break up other countries; the US is itself going to disintegrate.

Pakistan has been under turmoil since the NATO forces set foot on Afghan soil and it is for the first time that Pakistani Armed forces launched an operation in Northern Areas to hunt down the anti-state elements. What is your opinion regarding this operation?


My point of view is that Musharraf took an extremely unwise decision, under the American pressure he moved 80,000 troops in FATA as a result there was a resistance and conflict started. FATA has never been a troublesome area before Musharraf sent troops there. 700 troops were killed at that time. However, foreign powers took advantage of that rebellion. India, Afghanistan and Israel backed by the US started sending arms and ammunition to the rebels in fighting against Pak-army. But now we will have to cut down their supply line. Pakistan has been very careful not to openly blame any body only recently our officials have started saying that India is involved in Balouchistan and FATA. They have not started saying that US is involved. But US is involved there and I say it.

I think this operation in which many soldiers have made sacrifice was very brave and timely action and Inshallah we will root out foreign agents from our area.

The Military offensive in Malakand division is almost over, do you think peace will now prevail in the area?

It is a long process; the people who are displaced have to be rehabilitated, their homes, hospitals and schools have to be rebuilt. So it is a difficult process that will take time. A lot of good work has been done but still some work remains to be done. Three million people were displaced due to this operation, they are gradually being sent back to home but their lands have to be cultivated again and their orchard have to be looked after. It is a painful and difficult process we hope law enforcement agencies will help to maintain peace and international community will not abandon us like they did in past.

The supreme court of Pakistan issued a notice to former president Musharraf for violating constitution of Pakistan. What is your view point in this regard, do you think those who have violated the constitution should be tried in the court?


You see the judiciary of Pakistan went through a great transformation as a result of the popular movement led by the lawyer’s community. Musharraf acted arrogantly and deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan in March 2007 and he was restored back in July and later on 3rd November Musharraf declared emergency and repeated the same thing and put the judges in jail. Then the country rose against him and he had to lose the job. So it is with the popular will of people that independent judiciary was established in the country. Since the case is in the court, I don’t want to comment on it. It is the judiciary that has to decide but without going into specifics I believe that anyone who breaks law of the land must be brought to justice.
What about Musharraf’s Nov-3 actions?
His action of November 3 was immoral, illegal and unconstitutional and criminal and I said it at that time when Musharraf was at the helm of affairs.
Coming to Indo-Pak ties, what is the way forward as the decades’ long hostility between the two countries have badly affected the socio-political development of the region?

You know we have an institution like SAARC, all the member countries of this regional organization agreed to gradually build a free trade area. We also signed a social charter in which the basic problem with regard poverty alleviation was discussed in detail. You know more than 50% of world’s poor who live less than one dollar a day live in this region and yet every year India spends more and more funds on building war machines. They have increased their defence budget by 34%, they have introduced Nuclear Submarine, and they have a nuclear doctrine of nuclear weapons in all three services. They are even talking about first, second and third strike capabilities. I think this is very lopsided priority. A country where 50% of people live below poverty line and they claim to be democracy should focus on the welfare of their own people rather spending huge money on defence. And if they really become to that conclusion then they will have rational approach towards neighbours. They will not have an arrogant approach. I think SAARC is successful and can become a vibrant organization only if India adopts a reasonable attitude.
What do you mean by reasonable approach?
I mean India should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Secondly they should stick to table like decent people and resolve all disputes. You know ASIAN became successful because the Indonesia the largest country decided not to oppress smaller neighbours on territorial disputes.
India and Pakistan have been holding talks since long, there have been bilateral agreements, even many protocols aimed at enhancing bilateral relationship were signed but disputes are there?
India has not honoured any single agreement with Pakistan. Since 1947, India signs agreement and then backs out. Look at Canal Water Agreement, having appropriate three Easter Rivers; they are now denying us the waters of Western Rivers. In Sharm-el-Shaikh, the Indian prime minister agreed that dialogue will not be linked with terrorism. Immediately after that he made a statement that we will not start dialogue until Mumbai culprits are punished…………..etc.
In 2005, there was an agreement between India and Pakistan that our process of talks is irreversible and it was agreed that terrorism will not be used to discontinue the process but after Mumbai the talks were put to halt.
You tell me just one agreement India has honoured. India signs agreement to dishonour it. So unless this approach changes, how can the problems be solved. India break up Pakistan, yes we committed some mistakes in East Pakistan but without Indians’ military intervention Pakistan would not have been broken up. After the that, Indra Ghandi said that I have taken revenge for hundreds of years of Muslim Rule and have buried the two nation theory into Bay of Bengal. If this is the mentality how do you expect that disputes could be settled?
Since the initiation of peace talks India and Pakistani officials held several meetings. As such the issue of Kashmir never came under discussion, although Pakistan’s ex-foreign minister claimed that there was a lot of progress on this issue. What is your opinion, had the resolution of Kashmir really been on the agenda of peace talks in the past?
When there are dictators like Musharraf who are willing to give away anything for retaining power, how can you expect progress?
In Egypt, the prime ministers of both the countries have yet again decided to resume the stalled dialogue process, do you think that the dialogue process should be resumed from the point they had reached under Musharraf regime?
You see when people meet, they have to review the previous progress and then move forward accordingly. But here I think they have moved backwards, previously they used to say all disputes including Jammu and Kashmir and now they say all disputed issues.
In joint communiqué issued at Sharm-el-Shaikh, the most important item on the agenda was peace and security; apparently there had been no mention of Kashmir issue. Do you think durable peace and security can prevail without resolving the core issue of Kashmir?
The Indian emphasis was they only want to discuss terrorism. My view point is that terrorism is a product of unsettled disputes. As a matter of the fact what they call as terrorism we call it liberation struggle so it is linked to Kashmir.

Terrorism threatens the security of both the nations, security is linked to terrorism, and therefore, how you can discuss terrorism without discussing Kashmir.
Pakistan’s priority was that Kashmir should be resolved first, now priorities seem to have changed as emphasis is being given on other issues what is your assessment in this regard?
Before 1997 Pakistan’s priority was that Kashmir should be solved first and India’s emphasis was that other issue should be resolved first. It was first time that on 23rd June 1997, the idea of composite dialogue was put forth, India and Pakistan officially agreed to constitute eight groups and it was agreed that neither this nor that first let us move together equally on all fronts. It is possible in some fields we can make rapid progress but progress should be made on all fronts. The result was that we made some progress on confidence building but there was no progress on Kashmir. And therefore Pakistan asserted that since it is a composite dialogue and it can not go forward unless you made progress on Kashmir issue. So this is our theory that issues should be taken simultaneously.
But, Musharraf communiqué in 2004 stated that Kashmir will be solved to the satisfaction of both parties (India and Pakistan). As a matter of the fact the issue of Kashmir can’t be settled unless Kashmiris are taken into confidence. It is an issue in which Kashmiris are the basic party so without their satisfaction it can’t be solved. Pakistan and India are parties to the dispute because of the UN resolutions; if you set aside the resolutions you are no more a party, neither India nor Pakistan.
Musharraf is being accused of damaging Kashmir cause for offering alternative solutions even his formula was termed as a sell-out of the Kashmir cause. What do you say about it?
Musharraf has been thrown into the dustbin of history let us not waste time on him.

Do you agree with president Zardari’s idea of leaving Kashmir settlement to next generation?
No, I don’t.
Are you satisfied with Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, do you think Pakistan should rethink its approach and retain Kashmir on the top of bilateral agenda?
The incumbent regime has not yet evolved a clear policy. I think parliament should debate the issue and formulate a comprehensive policy.
What about Kashmir and Kashmiris struggle, do you think it has made any impact on world community?
Quaid-e-Azam has said that Kashmir is the jugular vain of Pakistan. It was true because all the rivers that come to Pakistan flow down through Kashmir and we are an agriculture state our life depends upon those waters. They are the life line of our agriculture and now India by sitting there in Kashmir is trying to control the waters just to convert Pakistan into desert. So Pakistan’s destiny is linked with Kashmir. Neither Kashmir can prosper without Pakistan nor can Pakistan can progress without Kashmir. The natural outlet to world for Kashmiris’ trade and Kashmir’s waters is through Pakistan. So for as the Kashmiris’ liberation struggle is concerned it is a historic struggle that started in 1931 and then on 19 July 1947, Kashmiris passed a historic resolution “Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan resolution”. Notwithstanding the peoples’ aspirations India later on occupied the territory. You see Lord Mountbatten acted dishonestly and along with Red Cliff, the district of Gurdaspore was given to India just to provide land route to India for Kashmir. According to 3rd June plan, district Gurdaspore was with Pakistan. Since then you see there have been three wars and even a conflict in Kargil. Kashmiris have given unprecedented sacrifices but what happened in 2008. The people in Kashmir rose and wanted to march towards Pakistan because India in sheer vengeance closed the artificial route, which they created in 1947. Responding to agitation in Jammu they blocked Kashmiris access to India and by themselves revived the two nation theory hence making it abundantly clear that natural route of Kashmiris is towards Pakistan. During this march prominent Kashmiri leader Sheikh Aziz and several others were brutally killed. Even Indian scholars at that time said that Pakistan was not in any involved.
So it made an impact on world community and the US president Barak Obama during his election campaign made a commitment that he would resolve Kashmir dispute and said that he would appoint a special envoy for Kashmir if he was elected. And that is where Indians got nervous and they started thinking as how to change the whole scenario. Anyhow they staged Mumbai drama and blamed Lashkar Tayyaba, which was struggling in Kashmir to call it terrorist so as to get an excuse to back out from the further negotiations, which were going on at that time. They were looking for an excuse to back out and magnified it and used the incident as a pretext to stop negotiations. In the mean time they gained time to impress Obama not to interfere. So they played this game, blamed Pakistan and those groups which are working in Kashmir…….not in Mumbai, Lashkar has never been there and no solid evidence was provided so far.
They have their own people like Colonel Prohit, who is involved in Samjotta Express and Maligaon terrorist attacks. Interestingly the man who was investigating the case against the Army Colonel was the first person to be killed in the Mumbai Attack. So there is something much bigger in the Drama.
Anyways I am convinced that the verdict of the history will be against India. It is now the question of freedom of Kashmiri people as well as the survival of Pakistan. Therefore Kashmiris and Pakistan have to work together. No one can separate them, the God has connected them.
Status-quo or division of Kashmir is unacceptable to the people of Kashmir, India is not ready to move beyond its stated position, the UN has failed to discharge its legal and moral responsibility vis-à-vis the resolution of Kashmir. So what is the way out?
India claims that they will not allow any other solution on the basis of religion. Ok let them have a solution on the basis of democracy as they claim to be the biggest democracy. Consultations with the people, is the best way to find out solution of Kashmir and to know where people want to go. The peoples’ verdict should be respected without that the problem can not be solved. Wishes of the people should be the criteria of what should be the future of Kashmir. Everybody today gives lectures that look Germany and France were enemies, they are now friends, and they have made European Union. Yes they were enemies; they fought wars but after the world war 2nd the territory of Saarland that actually belonged to Germany was controlled by France. They had agreed that the future will be decided through referendum. In 1955, the referendum was held and the decision went in favour of Germany, which was a defeated country. France being the victorious country handed over the territory to Germany and then started the co-operation. They then six countries joined and made common economic market and gradually they expanded and now they are at this stage. So after the referendum and transfer of land, leaders of these countries met in 1958, they met five years later and signed a treaty of friendship in 1963.
Likewise if India is ready to hold plebiscite in Kashmir, only then a new beginning can be made for an EU like co-operation in this region. So let us not quote what Europeans are doing today let us see as how they settled their disputes too. A victorious country honours the peoples’ verdict and hands over territory to defeated country. Apply the same principle of referendum in Kashmir, we will become friends.
Any message you want to convey to the people of Kashmir?
Be steadfast, time is on your side, the verdict of history would be against imperial control and you will be free.

Greater initiatives needd to resolve outstanding issues like Kashmir: Gen. Talat

Islamabad: 5 July 2009:

Talking on various issues and their possible solution, the renowned peace activist and the country director of Pagwash International, Lieutenant General retired Talat Masood says that rather pursuing the establishment-oriented policies the leadership of India and Pakistan will have to move beyond the composite dialogue and take greater initiatives to seek settlement of all out standing issues including Kashmir.

In an exclusive interview to Greater Kashmir's Nisar Ahmed Thokar, Masood said, “It would be a big achievement if we could really lay down a roadmap for Kashmir. If not for the solution we should at least draw a roadmap for the process and it is quite possible that over a period of time we can find a solution of Kashmir dispute”.

Pakistan finally took a very tough stand against the militants and operation is underway in Swat and other Tribal areas but there is a common perception that whatever is happening in Northern areas is an international conspiracy to destabilize Pakistan. What is your view point in this regard?

Well I don’t agree that it is an international conspiracy, for instance, if you really look at the conditions in Swat and the whole of Malakand division, it has been very much neglected because it used to be ruled by a prince for a pretty long time. Later when it was integrated into the settled areas of Pakistan, the respective governments failed to take care of the inhabitants of these areas. So the people of Swat have genuine grievances, in the sense that they didn’t have justice, they didn’t have proper security, and the employment opportunities were very meagre, in short governance was very poor, which finally led to a movement what they called as the movement for the enforcement of Sharia and Nazim-e-Adl. But ……but this demand has been there for quite some time, which as a matter of the fact is a reflection, that they wanted good governance and justice for the people. Unfortunately governments have failed to deliver; demands of the people were neglected that in fact gave rise to the militant forces in the area, which Sufi Muhammad had fully exploited. And obviously in addition to that situation in Afghanistan and its consequences in Tribal belt in which the Taliban became powerful also had an impact on Swat. A combination of all these factors basically led to importance and strengthening of militancy in Swat. So I think people should look it in this context rather saying it is a conspiracy. But obviously any country or any forces which may be hostile towards Pakistan would always benefit when Pakistan is on stake.

So for as the situation in Pakistan’s tribal belt is concerned, you know it is the result of neglect of 61 years. It is also consequence of our participation in Afghan Jihad. It is also the result of the way the US and other forces led Afghanistan through warlords after the end of Afghan-jihad. Afterwards the rise of Taliban and last but not the least the event of 9/11, all these factors together had an adverse effect on these areas.

Q: Do you think the ongoing military operation in these areas would yield desired results?

Military offensive is only a part of the overall policy of the government to establish writ in the area. It is not an end in itself but to install administrative setup in these areas. However, for a durable solution you need to win the hearts and minds of the people thereby installing an effective civilian administration in Tribal belt and swat valley.

Q: But political parties are not seen at the gross root level how is it possible to initiate political process there?

Well, I think political parties must learn the lesson that when they come into power, it does not simply mean to share power. It is all about providing good governance to the people. Unfortunately, good governance has been missing in the past and it is missing now. This mistake they can’t afford anymore, otherwise, the vacuum would be filled up by the militants.

Q: So you mean amalgamation of tribal areas is must?

Yes definitely, ultimately you would have to integrate these areas, politically, socially and economically because no country can afford to have such neglected areas.

Q: There are some indications that foreign agencies are fomenting violence in Pakistan. What do you say about it?

There have been reports in the media; sometimes even the government officials make a mention of that but---what is unfortunate as for as I see it that no single evidence has been produced against them which makes our case weak. If there is a foreign involvement, it is the duty of the government to bring it to the notice of the people and tell them who these elements responsible for aiding the militants are. So that they may know about the enemies of Pakistan.

The government has never given us any solid evidence that you know x, y z country or any group is responsible for fomenting violence in Pakistan. So I think these are very generalized and meaningless statements, which in fact reinforces the belief that intelligence agencies and others are probably not aware as what is happening. And if they are aware, they have not been able to produce evidence which could be so effective and should have been used as a tool to expose such elements at international level. I mean we could go to international community, the UN, united states of America and EU and tell them as how we are been persecuted.

Q: The US on one hand speaks high about Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty while on the other it carries drone attacks on Pakistani soil in which hundreds of innocent civilians including women and children have been killed? Do you think the sort of hegemonic approach would help to settle the problem?

This is very controversial problem between Pakistan and the US, which is creating a lot of friction between the two countries. The continued drone attacks have in fact political and moral dimension apart from the sovereignty aspect. But the question is when you have lost your own control over sovereignty, the internal sovereignty, over the territory then it is very easy for external powers to exploit it. So the reason is that unless we really regain our control over those areas, irrespective of how much we shout and how much we complain you will see that these drone attacks would continue.

Q: Pakistan has paid highest price in fighting war against terror, despite that it is facing severe criticism at international level, every now and then it‘s been asked to do more…. How do you see this hostile attitude?

Actually the voices of do more have now lessened since the military operation was undertaken in Northern areas on a very wide front. So there is a change in the attitude but I think we have to act according to our own interests…..and of course our interests also lie in curbing militancy and to fight against those militants who have been creating instability in Pakistan. However, we have to see that this military operation does not extend too much that would lead to collateral damage. You have to really see that the interests of the people for whom you are fighting are served in a better way.
Q: There is widely held perception in Pakistan that the US, in league with its allies, is playing a double game just to create anarchy in Pakistan to justify its intervention to take over the nuclear arsenals. What is your opinion?

I don’t agree with this theory there are many who do but I am one of those who doesn’t agree with this, because their interest is not so much in taking over our nuclear assets…their primary interest is like our interest should be that is the country might not slip into anarchy and chaos. And if that happens, god forbid, there is always a danger because we are nuclear power so the best approach is not to bother about what others think, what is important for us is to do what is good for us that is------- if you want to take full advantage of nuclear capability, which is obviously one in the form of deterrence that is military utility of nuclear capability to have strategic parity with India. But its’ real utility and value is political in the sense it gives the country a political leverage----that political leverage is useful if other elements of national power are balanced. If your economy is in distress, political situation is unstable and law and order situation is bad and if there is rise in extremis then your nuclear capability becomes liability instead of an asset.
Q: General ® Pervaiz Musharraf has been blamed for creating mess by adopting pro-American policy regarding war on terror. Do you think Musharraf had any other alternative available at that time?
Well I think we could have probably worked out terms and conditions of the agreement with the US somewhat to the advantage of Pakistan, which………he didn’t. Actually Musharraf had a serious legitimacy problem. And when you have legitimacy problem you are very weak internally. People had some misperceptions that an army person is very strong but my own view is that when army rules a country it is very weak from inside as they lack support of the masses.
Coming to Indo-Pak ties, do you think the prevailing hate syndrome and India’s antagonistic attitude towards Pakistan has further complicated the security situation in this region?
Obviously you see since Mumbai incident Indian attitude has been very hostile, although they have some genuine reasons for that one can understand that the incident created a trauma but it does not mean they should have made whole of Pakistan a hostage, I mean which they are doing…….., however, they know it fully well that it is for their own interest in the long run to have a stable and prosperous Pakistan instead of pressurizing and destabilizing it. So I would have thought the Congress after having won again with more comfortable majority would have more confidence to initiate a dialogue rather trying to gain political leverage out of it thereby asking Pakistan to do dismantle what they say as “terrorist infrastructure”. Pakistan has been cooperating so for as the Mumbai incident is concerned but India will also have to provide us more evidence, and if they can’t, it is likely that the courts may drop case against them, which may be counter-productive.
Q: Both the nations have yet again decided to resume dialogue process, as a peace activist, how do you see this development?
So for India has only said in a limited sense that they will revive the peace process and that too is related to terrorism. It would have been for better to have a full-fledged dialogue in a broader perspective. Revival of composite dialogue, I think, they must go beyond that if they genuinely want to move forward in Pakistan-India relations. What is more important that both the countries should look forward and find out solution of Sircreek, Siachen and try to remove misunderstandings about the water issue that has arisen in the recent years. And should create an environment wherein they can move forward on Kashmir as well. And of course they should improve trade and economic linkages but this is possible provided that the statesmanship on both sides understand that the policy they pursuing are people oriented. At the moment policies pursued by India and also by Pakistan are more establishment-oriented.
So you mean this attitude has to change?
Yes, definitely it has to change, unless the attitude changes, I think one should not expect much progress apart from that you will see a slight movement at government level. For a substantial progress you will have to take much bolder and greater initiatives. Just talking on terrorism and marginalizing other issue is not going to yield desired results.
Q: Composite dialogue was basically initiated to explore ways and means to settle all out standing issues including the core issue of Kashmir but so for no progress has been made on this front even India is not ready to budge an inch over Kashmir. So what is there for Pakistan to gain out of peace talks?
Well Pakistan has an interest in having good relations with India irrespective of Kashmir, I mean Kashmir is an extremely important issue but it does not mean that if it is not resolved we should have very bad relations with India because that creates other problems for Pakistan. Pakistan at this time wants peace at its borders and wants to focus on its internal problem. So it is both strategically and tactical perspective important for Pakistan to have a reasonable level of understanding and peace with India. However, we should continue to pursue on Kashmir but it does mean we should not try to have good relations with India.
Q: You are regularly interacting with Indian intellectuals and think tanks do you see any change in their mindset?
Well I am disappointed that after Mumbai attacks there has been a drastic change in their thinking and they seem to be very disillusioned with Pakistan. May be there had been a serious setback as a result they lost confidence but it will take some time and I think time would be a healer before we expect they would start moving towards some form of normalization.
: Kashmiri leaders have expressed dissatisfaction over the outcome of peace talks, saying that there was a dire need to set time frame to resolve long-simmering dispute of Kashmir. What is your opinion in this regard?
I think Hurriyat is quite justified and someway perturbed because India wants to have solution of Kashmir on its own terms completely. So for as the flexibility is concerned, Indians are not even prepared to budge an inch, their intransigence so strong that they would like to settle Kashmir totally on their own terms and conditions as they realize that Pakistan is in a weak position internally and externally. To the contrary Indians have an advantage of adopting a policy that converges with the policy of the US, the European Union, China and Russia. So that is also a big boast to India to keep Kashmir problem suppressed. So I think we have to understand and wait in the sense and look for an opportune moment to pursue our view point.
Q: What is the way forward to settle the dispute?
Well I have a feeling that if trade, cultural and other linkages continue at a very faster pace between the two sides of Kashmir and also economic linkages continue between India and Pakistan it is quite possible that two countries would realize that they have stakes in each other and they might work towards finding a solution of Kashmir problem. Having a hostile approach towards each other and being very intransigent and inflexible and trying to build up the military aspects, I think we would not achieve much.
: General ® Musharraf also suggested a 4-point formula to resolve Kashmir dispute. How do you see that?
I think Musharraf came up unilaterally with that formula as a result he lost a lot without gaining any thing out of it. You know he gave concessions without even India responding to them. So I think we need to start in a way in next dialogue asking India exactly what does it want and then try to develop some framework as how to solve Kashmir issue. So for as 4-point formula is concerned it is not necessary that we use that as a benchmark, it had certain aspects of it which were detrimental for Pakistani side. May be it was a bold initiative but I think Musharraf gave in too much without achieving anything. He gave an impress as though he wanted to solve the issue without solving the problems of Kashmiri people.
Q: In past, India and Pakistan have been holding talks randomly; virtually there has been no road-map as how to move forward on various issues systematically. Do you think there is a need to have an appropriate and well thought-out policy to bring about a solution of all issues particularly the issue of Kashmir?
Yes absolutely, it would be a big achievement if we could really lay down a roadmap for Kashmir. If not for the solution we should at least draw a roadmap for the process and it is quite possible that over a period of time we can find a solution of Kashmir dispute.
Q: Pagwash International has been playing a vital role in promoting peace and harmony across the globe, would you give us some insight about the efforts that the organization has been making to bring the people of India and Pakistan close to each other. And what sort of role it can play to resolve Kashmir dispute?
Well Pagwash essentially a nuclear oriented organization that has been striving for a nuclear free world but at the same time it realizes the fact that nuclear problem is also because the conflicts continue in the various parts of the world. Had there been no conflicts there would have no need to achieve nuclear capabilities for various countries. In recognition of its efforts in seeking a nuclear-free world the organization was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1997. And Pagwash continues and pursues those efforts and policies, so for as your question is concerned Pagwash International held so many discourses wherein people from different shades and opinions were brought together to share their view point. You know it arranged several meetings in which NGOs, former diplomats, military officials and think tank people from both India and Pakistan were invited that has really helped to develop better understanding.
As you know Pagwash was the only institution that brought Kashmiri leadership of entire hue, which means the political spectrum on both sides together first in Nepal and then in other places and even in Pakistan. So I think our contribution in bringing two sides close to each other and suggesting lot of confidence building measures both for Kashmir, nuclear and other things has been quite reasonable.
Q: How productive these discourses have been?
I think they have been quite fruitful in the sense that it helped a lot to iffuse the tensions besides providing good ideas to the respective governments. In fact Pagwash doesn’t have a solution to any conflict; all that it wants is to create a platform and the framework to facilitate dialogue between the various sides which are not talking particularly when governments are not talking Pagwash plays an important role.
Do you have any plan to arrange such conferences on Kashmiri soil I mean Srinagar or Muzaffarabad?
Although not in immediate future but surely we will do that as we think the process even if it doesn’t continue at the government should never stop because people to people contacts are the best contacts and the way forward in South Asia.