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.

Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan:Hameed Gul

Nisar Ahmed Thakur
11 June 2009

“Kashmiris must not draw a line on the UN resolutions as this is the only tag on which they can hang their fate on” says General retired Hameed Gul, the former Director General of Pakistan’s intelligence agency the ISI.

Former Director General ISI, General Hameed Gul talks to Nisar Ahmed Thakur about Pakistan crisis, Muslim world, American policy, Kashmir dispute and all in an exclusive interview for Greater Kashmir.

Swat has turned into a battle field nowadays; would you give us some historic insight about the area?

Well, it has a long history; the area had enjoyed special status. For more than 120 years the people in Swat and Malakand division experienced Sharia laws and even it continued until 1969 when Swat valley was formally amalgamated with the settled areas of Pakistan.

The people were happy with this legal system. The area was quite peaceful; there have been no crises at all. There were no demands like some bigoted Mullahs are demanding right now. Swaties basically wanted enforcement of Sharia in the area, which is a legitimate demand, but this demand was then exploited by the governments. When Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1994, she too signed a deal regarding the implementation of Sharia Law in the area. The same thing was repeated by Nawaz Sharief in 1999. But unfortunately the promises were broken. The governments continuously failed to hold on their commitments they made with the people of this region.

And now the ANP, which is a secular party, struck a peace deal regarding the enforcement of Nizam-e-Adle, but yet again the deal was aborted under American pressure. Because Americans don’t want it to happen, they perceive it (Sharia) to be an alternative socio-economic model for the world. You know there is no viable socio-economic model existing in the world, to the contrary there is free-market economy based on capitalism that brought economic meltdown and every body is now saying that the capitalism is dying down. Anyways, whatever it is, they actually don’t want to see an alternative system to emerge in the world. Because it is successful anywhere in the world, even at miniscule level, they fear that it would demolish their system by which they are dominating the whole world.

If the peoples’ demand is genuine then who are these elements the Pakistani forces are fighting against? Are they Taliban?

No, they are not Taliban, they are mercenaries, playing in the hands of foreign agencies; they are funded, trained and equipped by these agencies. In the guise of Talibans, these mercenaries have let loose rein of terror in the area.

The genuine Talibans are actually fighting against American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

As for as the people of Swat are concerned I told you earlier that they wanted the legal system, that is not actually the problem. During Mughal rule the whole of India enjoyed that legal system. It is only after the Anglo-Saxon law, introduced by British; we got the present judicial system where right is wrong and wrong is right.

So the peoples’ demand was natural. But the Indians sitting across the Durand-Line on the other side in Afghanistan wanted to destabilize Pakistan. Taking advantage of the situation, Indians played the same game that it had played in erstwhile East Pakistan. You know they first incited people and made them migrate and then used it as an excuse and attacked Pakistan. And this is the replay of the same game being played out now.

Not only India, Israel is fully involved in this game, although they are not concerned about Sharia, they basically want to denuclearize Pakistan. Both Indians and Israelites are afraid of the nuclear power of Pakistan.

What about the military operation that is ongoing on in Malakand division?

To my liking too much fire power is being used that caused great amount of dislocation of the common masses. Although operation is going on successfully but there are fears that the mercenaries wherever they come from may probably come back once the operation in the area is called off. So I think it is very important that political system must run in parallel. Eventually it is the civil administration not the army that has to take the control of the area and maintain writ of the government.

Obviously operation was carried out to push away the mercenaries who let loose rein of terror in the Malakand division, that is all right, but political system must take over.

So you mean Military offensive was necessary to hunt down the anti-state elements? What steps do you suggest the government take to deal with this problem?

In my opinion, we should have explored other options to deal with the situation. I think we were rather in hurry under American pressure. Now that the operation is going on in the area, I don’t want to pick holes in it. Anyways it had to be done, but methodology has to be worked out to thrash out a permanent solution of the problem.

The question still remains there as how to establish writ of the government. You have to give the people of swat what they have been demanding since long that will certainly enable you to establish writ in the area. So both things have to be done. Otherwise, the Sharia Law will be an excuse, which the mercenaries will again exploit and use it as a pretext.

To fix the problem permanently there is dire need to have proper infrastructure, for example Federal Sharia court must establish a bench in Malakand Division, which I have demanded before and secondly there should by adjudication as what is Sharia and what is not.

President Zardari recently said that military operation would be launched also in tribal areas of Pakistan. What is your take on this?

That would be a disaster, because it would not only create a mess but would also render more people homeless. We have already millions of internally displaced person. Secondly, the tribal people are different from that of Swat, they are fighters and they will resist in case operation was launched. I would say the operation will not serve our interests rather it suits Americans as they want to see Pakistani troops engaged in fighting against their own people.

Pakistan is under great turmoil, in your opinion what steps should be taken to steer the country out of the prevailing chaos?

First I think democracy must find answer to that, secondly the crises we are facing right now are due to the pro-American policies, which were adopted by the previous governments. Particularly during the Musharaff’s rule, the country has plunged into deep crises. He was responsible for causing anger in the Tribal belts, which resulted in the suicide bombings and various acts of terrorism inside Pakistan. He attacked Jamia Hafsa, killed Akbar Bughti, abrogated the constitution and launched operations in South Waziristan. So all these things together, created a mess and the nation is paying the price for those follies. So if president Musharraf is taken to the court and punished for his wrongs, he committed during his 11-year rule, fifty percent of problems will go away, because the anger in the hearts and minds of people will gradually subside, the peoples’ wrath will go away. If he is punished many things would settle down automatically.

Secondly American and NATO forces’ presence in Afghanistan is also a cause of tension in the region. They should leave the region immediately. You know to reduce the resistance in Afghanistan they turned the tide towards Pakistan. They have been successful in bringing Pakistan under immense pressure. The main objective was to bring Pakistan’s nuclear capability into doubt, block the Sharia, and destabilize Pakistan by making Pak army to attack our own people.

Western world is very much scared of Islamization and Talibanization, terming Talibans as threat to world peace. What is your point of view in this regard?

Islamization, they are very much worried about that, but so for as the Talibanization in Pakistan is concerned, first of all they are not Taliban as a matter of the fact they are mercenaries who are hell-bent on destabilizing Pakistan. Secondly Americans believe that Talibanization brings a bad name to Islam and Sharia. So they are happy about it.

Taliban and Talibanization, this is not applicable in Pakistan. The real Talibans are actually fighting against foreign troops in Afghanistan and they have nothing to do with Pakistan.

No doubt, Talibans in Afghanistan indulged in certain excess, but they did many good things also, no body seems to talk about that. They deweopnized the society and rid Afghanistan of the poppy cultivation brought peace and centrality to the war-torn country. They gave women, the right to inheritances, lot of good things they did but it is very unfortunate that no talks about it.

They are concerned about the safety of nuclear arsenals of Pakistan casting doubts that it might fall into the hands of Islamic militants. What do you say about it?

This is absolutely ridiculous and nonsense approach. Hizbullah is sitting just 16 miles away from the Israelis nuclear weapons. Just 16 miles away this is not the matter of concern for them. Are they not insecure? They just find lame excuses to build pressure on Pakistan. It is in fact a conspiracy to deprive our nation from its nuclear assets.

So for as, our nuclear arsenals are concerned they are safe, well-protected and well-guarded. No one can dare to cast an evil eye on it. If they try to get too smart in an attempt to snatch it from us by force, let me assure you that many things will blow up in smoke in this region.

Pakistan’s intelligence agency has been under sever criticism for a quite long time as Washington believes that ISI have links with Islamic militants operating in the tribal areas. What do you say about it?

This is quite astonishing that sometime they criticize the Armed forces of Pakistan, sometime the ISI. Now that the army is fighting its own people they are happy about it. Tomorrow when army will call off the operation, they will again start criticizing Pak army. They are evil, all their utterances and approach are ill-willed. They have put the whole world in jeopardy by destroying the peace of entire world, particularly the peace of this region. In quest of so-called weapons of mass destructions they ruthlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and turned Afghanistan into a barren land.

You have been the DG of the ISI. During service, you worked with United States to funnel weapons and aid to Afghan freedom fighters in their struggle against Soviet occupation. What went wrong that the people with whom you worked so closely for more than 10 years now describe you as a part of the problem?

Well, whenever you speak for your own nation, they will certainly discredit you and would never spare you. Actually after the fall of USSR, the Americans thought that we will continue to serve them, which is absolutely gibberish. We were not mercenaries; we served our own nation and struggled for our own cause. We are an independent nation. I am a free individual, a patriot and above all a Muslim. And if they start killing Muslims I will raise my voice. I don’t have any means to resist but I do resist with my tongue.

As a matter of the fact, what the Americans do, they are tarnishing the image of their own nation. The policies they are pursuing are again destructive for their own people. Their policies are in fact directed and steered by Israelis and by the Indians now. Both of them are mysterious and aggressors by nature. Israel is an artificial state, they have aggressed against Palestinian people and they continue to make them suffer. Indians are also aggressors; they have first of all attacked Pakistan a thrice and occupied Jammu and Kashmir unlawfully, killing half a million people there.

Americans made New York attack as basis to wage a war against terror as a result it attacked Afghanistan and then virtually occupied Iraq. Do you think Bin Laden was really the mastermind behind this attack?

I am on record and have said it many times that the terrorist attack on New York was designed and implemented by Jewish and American neo-cones just to use it as pretext to coax up the world. But they failed in their designs. Under the pretext of war against terror they destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides confining china, their main objective was to capture oil fields and take hold of the natural resources in this region. In Iraq they tried a lot to divide Iraqi people to give a wider protective shield to Israel.

President Musharraf made Pakistan a front line state against war on terror. You strongly criticized his policies; do you think Pakistan had any other option available at that time?

Yes, we should have set our own priorities without bowing to the American dictates. We should have conveyed them that we will cut our relations with Taliban. We will try to stop our people from going into Afghanistan but you will not demand from us to give air bases. But see what happened. The attack was carried out in New York, not a single person was arrested there why?

To the contrary we arrested more than 700 people and handed them over to America. When America attacked Afghanistan lot of people went to Iran, have they handed over a single person? No. all of the three families of Osma left via Iran not via Pakistan but have they captured any one of them? What they have done to Iran? Where does Pakistan stand today? So actually our policies have boomeranged on us. “Musharraf is a tyrant an intellectual joker”; he indulged in gross excess against our own people.

He has gone now but the stories of his corruption still hound the people. I know what his financial assets were. Now he has got a palatial house in Islamabad. He is touring the world and has got a million pound flat in London. Where he got this money from?

Musharraf said it was our own war even the present government seems to have toeing the same line. What is your view point in this regard?

If you look at the initial address President Musharraf delivered the nation on September 19 wherein he said the US was very angry and we had no choice but to support the “so-called war against terror”. Later he changed the language saying it is also in our interest, it is in the interest of both the nations. At the later stage he claimed that war on terror was entirely in our own interest. What does that mean? It clearly indicates that the decision was taken in pressure and has nothing to do with the interests of the people.

It is simply the metamorphosis that has taken place in the minds of rulers. They did not stand up to Americans. Present government has also come into power through a deal. The NRO-democracy is result of the deal, and it is because of this deal they are confined and bound. Actually it is just the greed, fear and lust for power that makes the rulers to bend to American diktats.

You also hold Musharraf responsible for damaging Kashmir cause for offering alternative solutions. In your opinion what is the solution of Kashmir issue?

I think at the moment UN resolutions are the only viable solution. This is an agreed formula, accepted and acknowledged by the leadership of India, Pakistan and the world community.

So for as Musharraf’s Kashmir policy is concerned I don’t agree with his point of view that actually leads to the division of Kashmir. No division is acceptable. Why should we divide a nation that has given unprecedented sacrifices for their legitimate right, the right to self determination? They are not a flock of cattle that any one can divide them. No not at all, they have a glorious history; they have their own culture, tradition and their own values.

As for as the solution of Kashmir tangle is concerned, personally, I want Kashmiris’ will to prevail and there will is not with India. According to partition plan if they want to join Pakistan, well there is no problem, they have every right to choose their political fate. They can decide what they like…. But let say they move away from it even if they join Pakistan they must join Pakistan conditionally because our rulers have failed to govern the country according to the wishes of our own people and in line with the vision of our founding father.

So Kashmiris must enjoy an autonomous status, whereby Pakistan can have only the responsibility to deal with the issues related to defense, foreign affairs, currency and nothing else. In my opinion that will be a good position for Kashmiris to take. Luckily the constitution of Pakistan says that future status of Kashmir will be decided only after the merger. So there is a provision in the constitution of Pakistan, whereby, Kashmiris can diktat their terms to Pakistan.

Secondly Kashmir is surrounded by four nuclear powers; therefore, it is very important that it should not become a play field between them. Even then if Kashmiris decide that they have to go independent, it is their right. But under the present circumstances, it is imperative that they must not draw a line on the UN resolutions as this is the only tag on which they can hang their fate on.

Are you satisfied with present government’s policy on Kashmir?

No, presently I am not satisfied with Kashmir policy as it is being dictated by America. They want division of Kashmir. Americans want to use Kashmir as forward base against China which is very terrible. We will not want it to happen.

Do you agree with president Zardari’s idea of leaving Kashmir settlement to next generation?

Mr. Zardari has no right to issue such statements. All the statements coming out from him have no credibility. The settlement of Kashmir issue is must and it can not be just ignored or delayed. No way, you can not simply put it into abeyance. This is a core issue. To have good bilateral relations resolution of Kashmir is the key.

Coming to Indo-Pak relationship, what do you think is the way forward?

Way forward is to settle the lingering dispute of Kashmir. Except Kashmir we have no problem, we can have good relations, we can live together peacefully, and India can have transit route to central Asia. But for that matter Kashmir issue has to be settled without that peace can not prevail in South Asia. If they think they will be able to cow down Pakistan, it is wrong. They must behave like a democratic state; democracy does not only mean the voting exercise on a particular day. It is more than that it is about respecting the will of the people.

What about composite dialogue process?

What composite dialogue? It is astonishing to see compromising politicians and dictators harping on composite dialogue process. Unfortunately they have failed to understand the dynamics the very essence of dialogue. It is just a cheating, delaying tactics. India is not sincere about the dialogue. Dialogue needs sincerity. If you have ill-intention, if you lack sincerity, tell me as how the process of dialogue can proceed. So India must accept ground reality and come forward with seriousness and settle Kashmir issue once and for all.

So you mean sincerity can only lead to the settlement all outstanding disputes?

Absolutely, otherwise it is a futile exercise, in the name of composite dialogue process you got to see good faces of some Indian actress, what else you achieved so for. The way it is going on will never solve the problems.

Any message you want to convey to the people of Kashmir?

There are two messages one for the leadership and other for the valiant people of Kashmir who have stood up and fought with courage and valor for their legitimate right.

One, the unity is key to success, but unity should be on the basis of principles. There are two things which can be made as a basis to forge unity at leadership level A). No division of Kashmir. B). Right of self-determination as envisaged in the UN resolutions.

These two things I think can provide a strong basis to establish complete unanimity within the leadership so they must get united and evolve a broad based consensus on these two basic principles. Kashmiris are very intelligent but in many cases they are self-willed. So what I mean to say is that the leadership at the moment should burry their differences get united to lead the movement with wisdom and collective approach.

Two, so for as the Kashmiri people are concerned, particularly the youth of Kashmir, they must not think that their sacrifices would go in vain. In my opinion Kashmiris are witnessing the last round of imperialistic power. And the day is very near when they will achieve their cherished goal for which they rendered great sacrifices. (Inshallah).