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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes why not, they are after all Kashmiris.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Any message to the people and Kashmiri leadership?

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

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

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

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