India, Pak agree to insulate dialogue

Rao, Bashir Devise Modalities For Comprehensive,
NISAR AHMED THOKAR

Islamabad, June 24: India and Pakistan Thursday agreed that dialogue was “the best way forward” and should not be allowed to be derailed by “militant groups”.
“We should jointly work together towards our goal of resolution of outstanding issues and also to dealing with the dangers, with the threat of terrorism,” Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said after holding delegation level talks with her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir in Islamabad.
“We believe that dialogue is the best way forward,” Rao said at a packed press conference. She clearly indicated that the talks were the harbinger of closer dialogue between India and Pakistan in the coming months. “During our discussions, we have accepted the modalities for restoring trust and confidence for comprehensive sustained and meaningful dialogue,” added Rao.
However, she demurred from stating that this was a resumption of the Comprehensive Dialogue, which India had suspended after the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. “You must focus that dialogue is the best option for deepening relationship. It is not an issue of nomenclature,” said Rao.
Rao said the two countries have been expressing commitment to a serious, sustained and comprehensive dialogue and they were seeking to re-engage each other. “We owe it to our people to chart out a course for normalisation of relations, narrow differences and embark upon a collaborative engagement,” she said.
At the same time, India’s “core concern about terrorism (was) also articulated” at the discussion and Pakistan reminded about Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani’s commitment that its soil will not be used against India. “We believe that is an important commitment,” said Rao.
She was referring to the “commitment” made at the meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Gilani in Thimpu (Bhutan) on the sidelines of the SAARC summit in April this year.
She added that both sides will have to work together so that these “dangers, threats and evils of terrorism” are countered effectively.
The Pakistani Foreign Secretary described the talks as being marked with “great deal of cordiality, sincerity and earnestness.”
“I would like to borrow a phrase from Nirupama Rao, that this has been a good essay in mutual comprehension,” Bashir said and added that the two countries adopted a forward looking approach and discussed “all issues of concern and mutual interest.”
Bashir said that after Thursday’s engagement, he was “much more optimistic about the good outcome for the ministerial level meeting”. He was referring to the meeting between Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi on July 15.
“We have been able to review comprehensively the state of bilateral relations. All issues of concern and interest touched upon, always keeping in mind the need to move ahead,” said Bashir.
On the issue of terrorism, Bashir said both countries were discussing ways to cooperate in counter-terrorism, which would be discussed in detail at the meeting of Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram and his Pakistani counterpart Rehman Malik Saturday.
“We will not allow terrorists space to act against each other,” he said.
This is the second stand-alone meeting between the two foreign secretaries this year. Foreign Secretary Bashir had travelled to New Delhi for talks in February.
“I am much more confident of good results at the ministerial meeting,” said Bashir. “All in all, it was a most useful meeting,” he added of the talks.
“It was a good essay in mutual comprehension,” Bashir said, adding: “All issues were touched upon.”
“We need to move forward,” Bashir said.
Meanwhile, Nirupama Rao had a separate meeting with Pakistani Foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi wherein they discussed the issue of mutual concern.
The meeting between the Foreign Secretaries was meant to set the agenda for the July 15 meeting between Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and his Indian counterpart S M Krishna.
Before that, Home Minister P Chidambaram is due to visit on Islamabad on Saturday for a meeting of the SAARC home ministers.
Commenting on the secretary-level meeting, noted peace activist and writer General (retired) Talat Masood told Greater Kashmir that the engagement was a good beginning and said that rather than moving on spontaneously there was a need to have a structured dialogue to seek settlement of all the issues including Kashmir.
“There are several issues like bilateral-trade, commerce, terrorism or the issue of Kashmir I think all these issues must be addressed through a structured dialogue,” he said.

Gilgit Baltistan govt passes Rs 13 bn budget

Nisar Ahmed Thokar

Islamabad, June 23: The Gilgit Baltistan Legislative Assembly has announced the budget for the fiscal 2010-11 with an outlay of over Rs 12.98 billion. During a special session held in Gilgit, the finance minister Muhammad Ali Akther while presenting the budget said that 6.40 billion rupees grant has been allocated for the non-development programs.
He said that salaries of the government were increased by 50 per cent whereas medical allowances of the employees have been increased up to 16 per cent.
He said besides other facilities a grant of Rs 20 crore has been allocated for the Hunza-Lake sufferers.

PaK presents Rs 47 bn budget

NISAR AHMED THOKAR

Islamabad, June 18: Announcing big sops for its employees, the Pak administered Kashmir government today presented a Rs 47.33 billion budget for 2010-11.

Minister for finance Raja Nisar Ahmad Khan presented the budget at a special session chaired by speaker Shah Ghulam Qadir in the legislative assembly. The opposition staged a walkout blaming the government for not taking it on board before presenting the budget.

The budget earmarks Rs 11.17 billion for development schemes and over Rs 30 billion for non-development programs. The budget carries big sops for the government employees whose salaries have been raised by 50 per cent.

While Rs 4.66 billion have been allocated to meet the expenditure on account of salary hike, Rs 98 crore grant has been announced separately to increase the pay of police personnel. The finance minister said a comprehensive reconstruction program had been launched to accomplish work in the quake-hit areas. “Over 1000 projects have been completed and the work is going on over 2000 other projects whereas 1800 development projects would be launched in next financial year,” he said.

The minister hailed Pakistan government for “its generous support for the development and prosperity PaK.” However, he added that even as the PaK government was expecting 10-14 per cent increase in the grants from federation government due to rising inflation, “we faced cut this year.”

He said if the adequate share of the federal taxes, incomes generated from the hydle projects and other properties and resources from PaK was given to “us we won’t need further grants/aid from the federal government.”

Sectoral allocations

On sectoral allocations Khan said over Rs 4185.343 million had been earmarked for the development of infrastructure including the transport, roads and communication.

He said the education sector would receive Rs 828.811 million, Rs 149.394 million rupee will go to agriculture and live stocks, Rs 40.377 million to civil defense, Rs 171.607 million to development authorities, Rs 20.189 million to environment, Rs 916.487 million to foreign aided projects, Rs 361.380 million to forestry, fisheries and wild life.

He said Rs 308.147 had been earmarked for health, Rs 20.189 for information and media development, Rs 228.132 million for information technology, Rs 165.548 million for industries and minerals, Rs 1500 for electricity, Rs 766.160 million for physical planning and housing, Rs 110.369 million for research and development, Rs 34.321 million for social welfare, Rs 171.924 million for sports and Rs 196.587 million for tourism.

Non-development expenditure has been estimated to over Rs 36.71 billion.

Revenue

Revenue receipts of Rs 11,672.15 million have been estimated from its own resources, Rs 750 million from water uses charges, Rs 4500 million from Kashmir Council, Rs 6680 million from federal tax share. Revenue deficit has been put at Rs 5555 million which will be met by grant from the federal government. There is a budget deficit of Rs.17.5 billion.

Pakistan hopeful that re-engagement would lead to sustainable dialoge

Settlement of disputes imperative to enhance bilateral ties

Nisar Ahmed Thokar

Islamabad, June 03: Expressing optimism over the forthcoming ministerial moot to be held in Islamabad, the Pakistan’s foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit has said that his country was hopeful that this re-engagement would lead to a sustainable and meaningful dialogue process between India and Pakistan.



“We hope this meeting will lead to a sustainable and meaningful dialogue process so that we can free this region and our two countries from conflicts and disputes”, Basit said this while responding to query during a weekly press briefing in Islamabad today. He made it clear that the settlement of disputes was imperative to enhance bilateral ties between the two states.



He said, “There is indeed trust deficit between the two countries and we need to bridge this gap seriously”. He was of the view that amongst various factors the unresolved dispute of Kashmir was one of the main issues that creates mistrust between the two nations.


Foreign office spokesman refused to comment on Indo-Pak water commissioners’ meeting that took place in New Delhi saying that he is yet to go through the details of the meeting. He said that there have been violations of Indus water treaty by India in the past and Pakistan has serious reservations regarding the controversial Kishanganga project. However he said “We will not compromise on our national interests and as a responsible state Pakistan would continue to pursue the dispute settlement mechanism”.

When asked whether there was any foreign pressure on Pakistan to launch military operation in Southern Punjab, he said there was no pressure on government of Pakistan. He maintained that the law enforcement agencies, armed forces and the people of Pakistan have rendered great sacrifices to defeat terrorism and therefore the government of Pakistan would do whatever it feels to be done keeping in view the vital interests of the country.

Responding to a query regarding Indo-US strategic dialogue he said, “I can only express the hope that it brings more peace and prosperity in the region”. About India-Afghanistan relations he said that the two countries do have bilateral relations but Pakistan’s position is clear that these relations should not be at Pakistan’s cost.

About Israeli attack on Gaza-bound aid ship Basit said that Pakistan has moved a resolution in the UN that besides condemning Israeli aggression demanded the highest body to send the fact finding mission to probe the Israeli assault on freedom flotilla carrying relief goods to Gaza. The resolution he said also urged Israel to lift the siege on Gaza and other occupied territories of Palestine.


About Pakistani nationals who were on board the Gaza-bound aid ship, which was attacked by Israeli commandos he said that the Pakistani nationals including Talat Hussain would be back soon. He added that Freedom Flotilla have safely reached Amman and senior officials of the Embassy have received them on arrival at the Jordan-Israel border.

Dr Singh’s talks offer eyewash: PaK speaker

NISAR AHMED THOKAR

Islamabad, June 9: The speaker of the Pakistan administered Kashmir (PaK) Legislative Assembly, Shah Ghulam Qadir on Wednesday described Prime Minister Dr Manmohan’s Singh’s talks offer to Kashmiri leadership as an attempt to “hoodwink” the international community.
“History stands testimony to the fact that India has never been serious to resolve the Kashmir dispute. India’s only motive seems to defer Kashmir resolution,” Shah told Greater Kashmir.
“If India is serious it should hold talks with Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership as well. Dr Singh’s statement reflects the India’s inflexible approach and its long-drawn-out policy of intransigence,” he said.
“India is actually trying to kill two birds with one stone on one hand it wants to change the international posture of the Kashmir issue while on the other it wants to divide Kashmiris on different lines,” he added
On Dr Singh’s offer to hold talks with Kashmiri leaders separately he said, “India is trying to create confusion among the masses. There is no problem in talking but in that case Kashmiri leadership should be united otherwise holding talks with India on individual bases will damage the Kashmir cause, secondly there should be no preconditions whatsoever”, he added.
He said that in view of the ground realities in Kashmir India should adopt a “realistic approach” to resolve Kashmir issue.
Meanwhile, Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami PaK Abdur Rasheed Turabi has said that resolution of Kashmir dispute was must to ensure durable peace in South Asia.
Addressing the Party’s central executive committee he said, “The United Nations resolutions about holding plebiscite in JK should be implemented in JK.”
He also flayed the Israeli attack on Gaza-bound aid ship. “The turmoil in the middle east is the result of the Israel’s imperialistic policies to grab land of helpless Palestinians”

Pakistan-Iran Gas Pipeline Project beyond the purview of limitations: Basit

• Dialogue must to settle issues relating Iran’s nuclear program
• Zardari to represent Pakistan at SCO summit

Nisar Ahmed Thokar

Islamabad, June 10: Terming Pakistan-Iran Gas Pipeline contract as purely a commercial pact the foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit has said that the agreement signed by the two countries recently was beyond the purview of the limitations being imposed on Iran by the United Nations Security Council.

“As for as the Gas Pipeline Project is concerned this is purely a commercial agreement that is beyond the purview of the limitations”, Basit said this during a weekly press briefing in Islamabad today. He said that there were 37 operative paragraphs of the resolution which were relating to the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear and Ballistic Missile program and these sanction will have no bearing upon the project whatsoever.

Stressing the need for a negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear issue, the foreign office spokesman said, “Pakistan has always called for a negotiated settlement of the issues surrounding to Iran’s nuclear program”. He maintained that Pakistan would continue to encourage all parties concerned to re-engage in a purposeful diplomacy to settle difference in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration.

To a query about Israel’s nuclear program he said that during an international conference held in New York recently there was a resolution calling for a nuclear-free zone (Middle East) and “I think international community needs to act upon the said resolution to achieve the objective”.

When asked about American state department official’s statement that instead of Kashmir issue it would be the issue of terrorism that would figure on top of the agenda on the 15^th July meeting the foreign office spokesperson said that trust-deficit, which existed between the two countries was not a new phenomena and “it is there for decades due to many reasons”. He however added that there was a dire need to bridge this trust-deficit to move forward positively. “This is what we intend to do when the foreign ministers of our two countries would be meeting in Islamabad next month”, he added.

With regard to Chinese vice premier’s visit to Islamabad he said that for last two years the two countries have focused on augmenting bilateral relationship in order to bring them at par with our political relations. The Chinese vice premier who is in-charge of energy and other matters he said had had very significant discussions with Pakistani leaders and hoped that his tour to the country would serve good purpose in completing the projects that were already in place and the projects that were in the pipeline.

He said that president Zardari would be visiting china soon adding that such engagements were going on and the two countries were moving in the right direction. When asked about the possibility of any civil nuclear deal between the two countries he said that the there were various projects in place but refused to comment on the specific issue.

Referring to president Zardar’s visit to Tashkent he said that besides attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit President Asif Ali Zardari will hold separate meetings with President of Russia, China, Uzbekistan and other dignitaries. He said that Pakistan attaches great importance to the CEO forum and hopes that the summit would help to bolster peace and stability in the region.

Hunza Lake crisis continue to hound people of Gilgit

Outburst in the lake could be a major set back to region’s development

Nisar Ahmed Thokar

Islamabad, May 28: The escalating water level in the landslide-triggered Hunza Lake is posing a serious threat to the region’s ecological system besides causing inconvenience to thousands of people who had to flee away from their homes as a result of this natural calamity that hit the area a couple of months back.

Hunza River, one of the tributaries of River Sindh, took the shape of an artificial Lake after a massive landslide blocked off its flow completely. A village near Attabad also came under the mudslide that killed more than 17 people on January 04 this year.

Owing to melting of glaciers and extreme hot weather the river by now has turned into a big dam stretching over an area of more than 25 kilometers. About 27 thousand people living in up and downstream of the river have been affected directly or indirectly, whereas hundreds of Kanals of cultivable land, houses, schools and community centers have been submerged under the water.

Talking to Greater Kashmir Hafiz Hafeez-ur-Rehman the PML-N chief in the region said that a population of 30 to 50 thousand people of the Hunza valley was affected badly since the disaster struck the area. The internally displaced people he said were now living in more than 50 camps established in various areas in and around Gilgit Baltistan.

In order to safeguard the lives of the people Rehman said that in view of the rising water level in the lake people living in the suburbs of Hunza valley have been completely evacuated and moved to safer areas. “There is no risk of humanitarian loss in case there is a flood like situation in the area”, he said.

When asked about how many villages were affected due to this landslide-triggered lake on Hunza River he said, “About 40 villages of the Hunza valley have been directly affected and thousands of people have been displaced”.



However he stated that Non Government Organizations (NGO) were playing important role in serving the internally displaced people. Expressing dissatisfaction over what he called the inappropriate arrangements by the government of GB he said that incumbent regime has failed mitigate the sufferings of the people of the area.

He said that the region’s economy was badly shaken as there has been no trade and tourism activity in the area.

Meanwhile, the experts monitoring the Hunza lake situation have said that the water from the lake would start to flow through the spillway within a couple of days. All the arrangements have been made to deal with any emergency situation. While on the other hand government has put in place a round-the-clock monitoring system and early-warning mechanism in the area.


In case of the outburst, flooding could potentially damage the Karakoram Highway that would certainly be a major set back to region’s economy.

Sharah-e-Resham is the only road-link that connects the region with rest of the country and it also serves as economic back bone for Gilgit Baltistan.

Most of our problems stem from Kashmir: Dr. Mazari

• Most of our problems stem from Kashmir
• No dialogue without Kashmir
• Kashmiris principled party to the dispute
• Resolution of conflicts must for economic and socio-development of the region

Doctor Shireen M Mazari, is a highly revered intellectual and commentator on Strategic Studies and Political Science. She holds a Ph.D in Political Science from Columbia University, New York.

She has also served as the Director General of the Institute of Strategic Studies. Ms Mazari was formerly an Associate Professor and then Chairperson of the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Having a deep understanding and knowledge on world issues Dr. Mazari presented papers on the issues relating to peace and conflict resolutions at various international conferences. She presented a paper titled “International Perception of the Kashmir Issue” in Global Discourse on Kashmir, published by ICHR Kashmir Centre EU Brussels Belgium, 2007.

She has also authored a book, The Kargil Conflict 1999: Separating Fact from Fiction.

In an exclusive interview to GK Bureau Cheif Nisar Ahmed Thokar, the prolific writer spoke on various regional as well as international issues and their implications on Pakistan's internal security and geo-political situation of the region.

After 9/11 episode there has been paradigm shift in the US policy that triggered uproar in the world and Muslim world in particular. As an analyst how do you evaluate the post 9/11 scenario and what have been its impacts on Pakistan and geo-political situation of the region?

I think this paradigm shift in the US policy, you are talking about, had already been operationalized much before the 9/11 incident. With the end of Soviet Union we found America as the sole superpower, they were looking for a new enemy and in many ways the hostility between America and the Muslim world had started right before the twin tower attack in New York. The 9/11 actually brought things ahead and following this incident certainly the Americans got justification in their minds to destabilize the entire Muslim world with a view to re-structure it as per their own design. That is what they were initially talking about greater Middle East project and so on. However, they could not do it because people in the area were not prepared to accept that. The greater Middle East was to put all the Muslim countries in one bracket right from Arab world up to Pakistan. Although it was not feasible….but they have certainly destabilized the core areas of the Muslim world. If you look at the West Asia what they call as Middle East, they have destabilized Iraq. By doing this they created power vacuum and that is why Iran has been able to exploit this power vacuum. Then they tried to destabilize Iran and even they tried to undermine Saudi Arabia. Now there is reason to believe that UAE is being undermined and we saw what happened to Hamas issue and Israelis coming straight to Dubai on British passports. Earlier, there has been an attempt to destabilize Dubai as a lot of Iran’s financial trade and business was going through Dubai. To sustain financial crunch in Dubai the Americans tried to encourage Abu-Dhabi to come up.

And indeed they destabilized Pakistan with the sort of war they conducted in Afghanistan. Yes they have been able to carry out agenda for Muslim world at one level------but they did not succeed in restructuring the Muslim world the way they wanted to…..

Q: What about war against terror? Did it really serve the purpose for which the war was waged?

Not really, previously there was Al-Qaeda hardly any where in the world except in Afghanistan. Post 9/11—you see Al-Qaeda boomeranged and spread all over the world. It became a brand name, instead of defeating; they allowed it to spread other parts of the world. I think war on terror had opposite effects what the Americans may have wanted. As a matter of the fact it encouraged extremists, and you see greater extremist forces in Muslim countries especially in those countries where rulers and the ruling elite were favorably disposed to the west.

Q: The US has been carrying out drone attacks on Pakistani soil. Isn’t it an assault on the territorial integrity of Pakistan?

It is total assault on Pakistan’s sovereignty; it is in total disregard to the international covenants and international law. But Americans keep saying that Pakistani government has given them the permission while on the other hand Pakistan says they have not. But the reality is that drones are flying from Bandari Airbase some 7 miles south of Kaharan in Balouchistan. So how come they can fly without Musharraf’s and incumbent government’s consent?

Q: There is a perception that the US, in league with its allies, is playing a double game to create anarchy in Pakistan to justify its intervention to take over the nuclear arsenals. What is your take on this do you believe in such theories?

I think it is very credible because they have been trying to seek information about our nuclear arsenal and they would like to take control of it and now the thing is that they want to show the international community that Pakistan is unsafe and there should be UNSC control over the nuclear arsenals that effectively means the American control.

Q: Comparatively Pakistan has immensely contributed in the US led war against terror campaign even then the West is not satisfied with its performance. Why?

They will never be satisfied. They want us to do exactly their bidding but we have to look at our own compulsions and ground realities. So at some stage we make our own policies which Americans may or may not want to.

Q: Do you see any change in the US policy as the military-to-military relations between the US and Pakistan seems to be gradually improving?

That is because the Pakistani military has made it clear to Americans that they will decide by themselves as how and where they want to fight and how they are going to deal with the problems. The Pakistani military has also strongly condemned the Kerry-Lugar Act and so the Americans who only understand strong language have finally understood that Pakistani military means some thing and that is why they have become more conciliatory towards the military but on the other hand we see that they are still very harsh with the political leadership that is very unfortunate.

Q: Since, Pakistan has effectively overcome the challenges that have been posing serious threat to its stability. How do you visualize this improving internal situation in the country, do you think Pakistan is now in a better position to tackle the regional issues more effectively?

Pakistan has always had options to tackle the regional issue well as it has a lot of bargaining chips vis-à-vis the Americans but it is political and psychological will of the leadership to make good bargains and good agreements with the US.
Q: Coming to Indo-Pak relations, after 2008 Mumbai attacks India had now shown its readiness to resume bilateral talks? How do you see Indian proposal repeated by Indian ministers in varying tones? Do you see any role of international community in this whole process?

Certainly there is a lot of pressure on India to initiate dialogue with Pakistan but nevertheless India is not willing to resume composite dialogue process as it is the only format that both the countries have agreed to. Indians are blowing hot and cold----one day they say they will only discuss terrorism and at the same time they say that they are ready to discuss other issues as well.

Q: Pakistan stresses that terrorism should not be linked with dialogue while India on the other hand wants that Pakistan should bring the perpetrators of Mumbai incident to justice and dismantle what it says as “terrorist network” in the country. What is your take on this?

We don’t know who the perpetrators are? Because the evidence so difficult and inadequate and even Qasab has now retracted from his testimony. So how do we know who the culprits are? I don’t see why Pakistan is not demanding India to bring to justice the culprits who managed and executed Samjota Express (Train) massacre, one of whom is a retired army officer.

Q: Under the given circumstances what is the scope of dialogue and do you expect any breakthrough?

Not much it is just an opportunity for a photo-up, I think it serves no purpose at all. So I don’t thing much is happening………these are diplomatic games…I think Pakistan should not accept this offer.

Q: There is an opinion that under the garb of talks India has always been buying time just to achieve strategic objectives besides consolidating its position in the region. What is your opinion?

India has always been trying to see how it improves its position in the region and certainly it buys time to achieve its strategic objectives as well. It has been talking only in military terms to Pakistan, advocating cold-start and limited war strategies. Now there is a lot of pressure on India and the world community is pressing it to stop aggressive policy against Pakistan. Because, if they push Pakistan too far on that side then it will have to bring back its troops from the western border, which does not serve the American interests.

So there is certainly pressure on India but still it is reluctant to have a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan. I think it is not in our interest to get engaged with India at this point of time.

Q: Prime Minister Gilani has recently said that India was not agreed to discuss Kashmir issue while on the other hand the government seems ready to re-engage India in composite dialogue process that has so far proved unproductive. What is your opinion in this regard?

It is illogical and totally irrational approach because if the Prime Minister Gilani knows that India is not going to talk about Kashmir issue then it is fruitless having a dialogue -------simply because most of our problems and conflicts stem from the Kashmir issue.

Water issue is related to Kashmir, Siachen is related to Kashmir and even drawing of borders in Sir-Creek is not going to take place unless this dispute is settled. Every issue actually is related to Kashmir so how can you have a successful and meaningful dialogue without talking on Kashmir it makes no sense at all.

Q: You mean Kashmir is the core issue?

Yes of course, if Kashmir tangle is resolved there will be not water dispute. If Kashmir issue is settled all the peripheral issues related to it would be automatically resolved.

Therefore, Kashmir issue, which ever way you look at it is the core issue. You can not ignore it.

Q: What about Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi recent statement?

The foreign minister had made an “idiotic statement” that they will discuss water issue and put Kashmir on the backburner. It is quite astonishing, does he not know that water issue flows out from Kashmir dispute. So this is ridiculous one.

Q: Do you think Kashmir issue can be resolved through bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan? Is there any role of Kashmiri people?

I think it can’t be resolved bilaterally because Kashmiris are the main party to the dispute. Being principled party to the dispute their views have to be taken into consideration. And Pakistan’s policy is that we support the UN resolutions and Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. But we will do what Kashmiris want us to do. We acknowledge that Kashmiris are the primary party and they need to be part of the process.


Q: Do you think India and Pakistan need to have an appropriate and well thought-out policy to bring about a solution of all outstanding issues?


I think there is a dire need of good policies as we have no policies on any of these issues that is doing us a lot of damage.

Q: The outcome of peace talks has been quite disappointing for Kashmiris in particular because no substantial progress was made on Kashmir front during last five years…what is your view point in this regard?

It is because Musharraf added to the confusion by suggesting his four point formula this and that ……He started quoting Omar Abdullah and other people and the APHC which struggled for Kashmiri people and their cause was pushed aside. This was very unfortunate you are not supposed to play games with Kashmiri nationalist leaders…….but let us hope that things will now move in right direction.

Q: So you don’t believe in out of the box solutions?
No, I don’t have any problem but when you talk about out of the box solutions----------it does not mean that you deprive Kashmiris from their inalienable right the right to self-determination. What you can do is that you can have self-determination in separate areas. You can divide Kashmir that way……but you can not deprive them from their fundamental right. No matter what out of the box solution…if it means that you accept LOC as international border, you accept autonomy under the frame work of Indian constitution….that in no way mean out of the box solutions. This is just deception and nothing else.

Q: What should be Pakistan’s strategy to tackle the water dispute as it has now become even more dangerous problem between the two nations. Political pundits believe that the issue could trigger yet another war in the region. How do you see it?

For water issue you don’t need to have a dialogue because there is Indus Water Treaty guaranteed by major powers and the World Bank. We have not been appealing them so the only feasible thing is to move towards conflict resolution. Once you do it other issues will be move towards the resolution automatically.

Q: Are you satisfied with the incumbent regime’s Kashmir policy?
They have no policy.Do you think Pakistan should revisit its wisdom on Kashmir?

I think Pakistan should reassert its clear cut policy on Kashmir. Unfortunately over a decade now we have no policy at all.

Q: The people of India and Pakistan have failed to reap the benefits of regional economic co-operation. Backwardness, poverty, hunger and unemployment are the major challenges. In your opinion what steps should be taken to address these burning issues?

If you have political conflicts, which are unaddressed and there is no possible solution that one of the parties is willing to accept then you can not move towards reducing poverty, hunger and unemployment. And certainly you can not move towards economic development of the region. Even world bank in its report has clearly said that peace is essential for economic development of pluralistic democracy but peace can only come when conflicts will disappear…..the conflicts can only die off once you resolve them.

Again you go back to starting point--------without resolving the core issue of Kashmir you can not move ahead in the subcontinent.

Q: What about Aman Ki Aasha?

You know this is a very strange definition of Aman that the Indians have evolved. On one hand they talk of peace while on the other they have started cold-start and limited war strategy against Pakistan, simultaneously threatening Pakistan.

No peace, without solving Kashmir : Raja Farooq Haider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bilateral talks futile: Salah-ud-Din

'Militant Leadership To Support Dialogue If Resolution Is Agenda'

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

Dialogue the only option to resolve disputes: Riaz H Khokhar

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

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

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

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

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