Tuesday, Sep 10, 2002
Tuesday, Sep 10, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By B. Muralidhar Reddy
Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan
Ever since Pakistan began emphasising the aspect of "moral, political and diplomatic" support to the "indigenous freedom struggle" in Kashmir in the aftermath of September 11, Mr. Khan has been in the forefront, jetting across the world, particularly the western capitals. His mission: to convince them of the need to distinguish between "freedom struggle" and "terrorism".
In a candid interview to He differs with Anglo-American interlocutors that the Kashmir elections could be the first step towards peace and maintains that it could only worsen the situation. The following are excerpts from the interview: B. Muralidhar Reddy: The U.S. and its allies, such as the U.K., view the elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly as a first step towards resolution of the Kashmir problem and have appealed to Pakistan and all organisations concerned to facilitate peaceful polls. What are your views on the subject? Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan: Elections in occupied Kashmir are a multi-dimensional issue to say the least. India in the past has unilaterally held elections in occupied Kashmir. In 1957, the U.N. Security Council categorically rejected these elections and any other election as a substitute for plebiscite. It has been duly recognised that all elections in Kashmir ever since were massively rigged. The last election was successfully boycotted by the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, representing the movement. The existence of brutal laws such as TADA and POTA and a hostile Army eight hundred thousand strong does not merit any semblance of fairness in the elections even if they were a domestic requirement. The requirement of oath under the Indian Constitution has clear and unambiguous implications. To say the least, it is a total surrender to the illegal occupation of the State and a negation of the U.N. resolutions on Kashmir. On top of this, if this sort of an election is required to be accepted by the parties, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, it is not going to work. Elections will remain unacceptable and the tension in the region is sure to aggravate, much less subside. The version of the U.S. and the U.K. and desire to accept these elections as a first step is self-contradictory. These powers, as of today, are under a spell of fear and fail to distinguish between right and wrong. The Indian Government exploits this position and tries to fish in troubled waters. All I can say is that the wishes of the U.S. and the U.K. are pious desires never to be reciprocated. Do you think post-September 11 there is a change in the perception of the international community on Kashmir? September 11 has affected perceptions of not only Kashmir but also almost all matters. What was right at one time is being drastically considered as wrong and vice versa. Instead of wisdom, use of force is considered to be the panacea. Fear, rather than trust and confidence, motivate all actions. In fact, the old-world order is becoming redundant while a new one is yet far away. As head of the National Kashmir Committee of Pakistan you went to several western capitals recently. What message did you carry and what was their response? I visited some western capitals in a particular situation, as you know. People seem to have been overtaken by the aftermath of 9/11. My message to them was to highlight the danger to regional peace, the need to help the peace process for a resolution of the conflict and the need to address the root cause instead of beating about the bush. The response, as I said, was by and large encouraging though there was some confusion also resulting from the 9/11 incidents. India is saying that cross-border terrorism is one of the major impediments in the path of peace in South Asia and resolution of the Kashmir issue. What is your response to the Indian formulations? The word `border' is unrealistic and a misnomer deliberately used as a ploy to exploit the situation. If border means the ceasefire line, it is a misnomer as there is no border in Kashmir. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is one indivisible entity so far. If it means the territories of Pakistan, yes. But that crossing has totally stopped as a result of Pervez Musharraf's policy about these armed crossings. The January 12 speech of Gen. Musharraf and his subsequent commitment to the international community to put a "permanent end to infiltration across the LoC" to some extent amounted to acknowledgement of Indian concerns. On January 12 and May 27 he had categorically said that no group or individual would be allowed to indulge in terrorist activities even in the name of Kashmir. How successful do you think the Pakistani Government has been in translating these promises? Gen. Musharraf's statement in no way acknowledged or recognised the Kashmir freedom movement as terrorist activity. He has honoured his commitment clearly in the sense that all Pakistani-based activity has stopped and that is what lay in his powers. If there was any support lent by the Government of Pakistan that has also ceased except the moral, political and diplomatic support, which is an obligation of Pakistan as an inalienable party to the dispute. Then with regard to the crossing of the ceasefire line by Kashmiris, there is no international bar nor it is ever possible. When with 8,00,000 hostile troops, equipped with all the sophisticated technology provided by the U.S. and Israel, these crossings cannot be stopped, how come the 50,000 Pakistan troops deployed along the same border can stop it? Then why should the Government of Pakistan undertake that unnecessary liability at all and turn to fight the Indian battle on its own soil? Nobody with an iota of just sense would require of the Government of Pakistan to fight the indigenous freedom movement. Nor can the Government of Pakistan be asked to abandon or forego its entitlement and commitment as a party to the dispute. The militant character of this freedom movement will automatically reduce and may even end compatible with a proper substitute and not before that. Let everyone work to find a proper substitute for militancy. The claim that the Kashmiri militants should leave the gun has its counter position also. The Indian armed forces must also withdraw. As chairman of the Kashmir Committee and even before, you had talked about the harm done to the cause by a few organisations based in Pakistan and in Kashmir. Has your Committee been able to establish contacts with `mujahideen' groups such as the United Jehadi Council and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (after it was banned in Pakistan, it announced the shifting of its operations to PoK) to persuade them to give up the gun? You must be having enough information about the Pakistan-based groups having been banned and having conveniently accepted that position. The harm that some organisations caused to the movement, as I said, was by changing their agenda from Kashmir to the conquest of India and other countries. Their operational headquarters have not shifted to PoK and I have had no contacts with them ever since. Maybe, maybe I am considered to be a persona non grata. The gun is, in fact, no serious problem. It is not the gun but the man behind it. As long as the cause remains, the danger persists. The gun is only a technical and tactical matter. What I fear is the recurrence of the situation. If at all it comes, it will pose absolutely a new challenge and create a situation far more dangerous and grave. You have named Ajmal Khattak as a representative of Pakistan's Kashmir Committee, who would travel to India if New Delhi gave him a visa. What is the purpose of sending him? We had in principle decided to take the initiative towards a peace process. The purpose is to create an atmosphere conducive to a peace process. Ajmal Khattak was nominated on account of his past experience with Indian politics.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
