“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.
