Clinton Tour: JKLF delegation meets the US State Dept officials overKashmir A Kashmiri pro-independence Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF)delegation has been in contact with Whitehouse in connection with USpresident Clinton's forthcoming tour of South Asia.
International delegation of the organisation comprising of organisation's UK president Shabir Choudray, Majid Tramboo, Abbas Butt from London andJKLF's former vice chairman Raja Muzafar their legal advisor in US AJazNiaz from New York made representation to the State Dept in Washingtonon friday and discussed in detail their suggestions for peace and theorganisations stand point on the issue of Kashmir.
JKLF's pro-active initiative in the week leading up to presidentClinton's historic visit to India and Pakistan is regarded as majordiplomaitc break through for Kashmiri protagonists working forre-unification and independence for Jammu-Kashmir.
The JKLF delegation made several proposal for peace and prosperity in the region andinsisted to the US State Dept officials that the will of the people ofJammu Kashmir was of paramount importance and that any proposal leadingto the solution of the issue must at the end involve the testing of theunfettered will of 13 million people of Jammu Kashmir.
They also insisted that US president must put pressure on India to releaseKashmiri political activist from Indian jails including the leaders ofthe All Party Hurriat Conference (APHC) and JKLF chairman MohammedYasin Malik who is suffering from an acute heart condition.
The US state dept officials meeting the JKLF delegation made the USposition clear on the issue of Kashmir by stating that entire State ofJammu-Kashmir was seen as a disputed territory and that Pakistan andIndia had to resume their dialogue in order to resolve this problemproblem in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris. The JKLFdelegation was briefed about President Clinton's tour of India andPakistan. T
he delegations re-iterated JKLF position for theunification and complete independence and made it clear that anysolution imposed upon the Kashmiris without their involvement would orany formula leading to the permanent division of the state would not beacceptable and that the JKLF would continue its struggle until itsobjectives were achieved.
The JKLF delegation warned that the sub-continent has come closer tonuclear conflict and that if the Kashmir issue was not resolved in theimmediate future the consequences could be disastrous for the regionand for the world. The JKLF emphasised on the need for PresidentClinton to meet an APHC delegation while in India and to organise aspecial fact finding mission to be sent to both sides of the so-calledLoC to determine the facts.
Commenting on the JKLF meeting with the State Dept officials, JKLFsecretary general, Azmat A Khan said today that while it was animportant break through for JKLF's diplomacy and efforts for the voiceof Kashmiris to be heard in important places he did not pin much hopestoward the resolution of the Kashmir issue during President Clinton'stour this time round but hoped that it would lead to measures being putin place for a tri-partite dialogue to resume soon which could delivera permanent and equitable solution to the costly issue of Kashmir whichhas been outstanding for over 5 decades.
Endsnewsroom@jklf.comwww.geocities.com/jklf_uk_europehttp://www.jklf.com
Monday, 2 June 2008
A brief history of JKLF
A brief history of JKLF
Written for benefit of some non Kashmiris who wanted to know about JKLF in 2004, but initially it was written for Ghulam Rasool Dar.
This I wrote this some years ago for benefit of Secretary General of JKLF in J&K. There have been more problems since. Yasin Malik had 2 splits in the Valley one led by Javed Mir who was Commander in Chief of JKLF militancy at one time and Vice Chair He formed JKL Forum (still JKLF); another by Saleem Nanaji and Iqbal Gandroo, they are also using JKLF name. Amanullah Khan has a very small group there, in fact just a few names. There are other independent groups of JKLF operating in Europe and AK as well. We can discuss reasons behind all these splits if that is what you and….. want to discuss.
I am sending you other materials on JKLF, and my articles which could help you and Peter to understand some of the problems.
Shabir
Dear Dar Sahib Aslamo Alaykam
I don’t know why you need full history of JKL, it is not possible to write full history as it could take many months and could become a book of many hundred pages. However brief details are as follows:
Situation before JKLF
In Azad Kashmir there was JK Plebiscite Front, which believed in nationalist politics, but was badly oppressed and shattered after the Ganga Hijacking case. Also because of very strong propaganda of Pakistan it was considered as pro Indian with Indian agents in it. Another problem was that it was considered as party of ‘Ansari Family’.
All other political parties and other groups were first Pakistanis and considered Kashmir to be already part of Pakistan.
Situation in UK was also similar. In Britain there was Pakistan Peoples Party and other Pakistani political and community based parties like Pakistan welfare associations.
There were some individuals of Plebiscite Front but with no network of any kind.
There were around 4-5 lakh Kashmiris from Azad Kashmiri, but nearly all of them considered them as Pakistanis, and it was at this time (late 1972-73) I and a few of my colleagues from Panjeri area of Mirpur district started writing article in favour of united and independent Kashmir. Of course, apart from Indian held Kashmir I started writing and talking about situation in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan as well.
As I was a regular contributor in papers and very focal in my writings I was called an Indian agent in 1973. My other senior colleagues were also labelled. Pakistani people were still trying to recover from the shock of fall of Dahaka. Unfortunately they blamed Ganga hijacking and the Kashmiris for their fate in Bangladesh, and for them talk of an independent Kashmir meant Indian agents trying to weaken Pakistan.
It was under this environment Ch Abdul Rehman, Malik Latif, Sultan Zumard and I organised Kashmir Youth Movement with some kind of networking. We were encouraged and motivated by trials of Ganga hijacking case and statements of people like Maqbool Butt.
We went to Azad Kashmir in 1974, Malik Latif and Ch Abdul Rehman met Maqbool Butt and other leaders in Mirpur (I was unable to attend although I was supposed to be there as well).
We continued our work in UK under the banner of Kashmir Youth Movement, there were other individuals like Afzal Jatalvi who were working on the nationalist agenda, and there was Kashmiri Workers Association in Birmingham, which also pursued the same cause.
Later on in 1975 Khaliq Ansari came to UK to organise Kashmiris in UK, and he was followed by Amanullah Khan in 1976. They had meetings in many parts of UK to organise Kashmiris. They also came to my house in Halifax and asked us not to have separate small groups and set up a national organisation.
Of course Amanullah Khan and Khaliq Asnsari were big leaders and we were kids compared to them, and we agreed to work together, and learn from their experience.
There were many others who wanted to work for the nationalist cause but not under the name of Plebiscite Front; whereas Khaliq Ansari and his close associates insisted that we work on the platform of Plebiscite Front It was later decided that in Britain we will work under new name and in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan under the Plebiscite Front.
Formation of JKLF
So in 1977, we formed the JKLF in Birmingham. Mr Jabbar Butt was elected its first President and Nazir Nazish General Secretary. For technical reasons Amanullah Khan did not take any official position, although he was the main driving force. Afzal Jatalvi was elected Vice President, my name was proposed for Assistant General Secretary, but I withdrew my name. Including me, four members of Kashmir Youth Movement were elected to the Executive Committee.
We all worked here together under very challenging conditions. Amanullah Khan realised that there are problems - world community wanted to know if JKLF had any roots on the soil of Kashmir.
First split
To overcome this problem, Amanullah Khan travelled to AK and in 1982 JKLF was set up in Azad Kashmir. This was seen as a clear breach of agreement by leaders of Plebiscite Front, and since their relatives and friends had important positions in the JKLF in Britain (main body), it was easy to have a revolt.
The break away group was later renamed as JKNLF, which still exists in Britain and in AK. JKNLF had rebels of JKLF and some rebels from Plebiscite Front.
It is important to note here that Maqbool Butt was never a member of JKLF. He was member and later President of Plebiscite Front. In 1967, he formed JKNLF within Plebiscite Front to have armed actions. He was arrested and sentenced in IHK. He managed to escape to AK, got arrested and sentenced. He was also arrested at the time of Ganga Hijacking, but released by Supreme Court of Pakistan. He crossed border to IHK again in 1976, and got arrested, and hanged in 1984.
People like Hashim Qureshi, Dr Farooq Haider, Rashid Hasrat, Raja Muzaffar Nazir Gilani etc worked very hard for the JKLF in AK Pakistan. They had opposition from many groups and officials.
Second split
With the JKLF Ansari family was also split, some supported Amanullah Khan and others opposed him. In 1984 there was a kidnapping and killing of Rawindera Mahatare, Indian diplomat in Birmingham. It was half cooked plan which had very serious consequences for JKLF and its members and the movement.
Butt Sahib was hanged as a direct result of this. In UK people were arrested and harassed by the police, some members who were a part of this plan being arrested and sentenced. Some of these members accused Amanullah Khan for treason, as they believe it was he who informed British police about them and got them arrested.
It was against this depressed and bleak situation I was elected General Secretary in 1985. Afzal Jatalvi Sahib was elected President. We worked extremely hard under very difficult situation and kept the morale of members high. Demands were made to investigate accusations against Amanullah Khan. We said it is not appropriate time as he was in prison and his trial was about to start, and accusers were also in jails, and party was in crises.
Also there were complaints against Amanullah Khan from senior and dedicated members of JKLF. They were not happy the way he managed the JKLF. Amanullah Khan manoeuvred everything to make it appear as a communist plot against him. As a result of these reasons there was another split and Jatalvi Sahib and I were accused of protecting Amanullah Khan. We lost some very dedicated and intelligent people.
Amanullah Khan was later deported to AK and Pakistan by Britain, the morale of colleagues here was very low, but we continued and established the JKLF on firm grounds. It was the biggest and most organised party of Pakistanis and Azad Kashmiris with strong diplomatic and political base.
Third split
At the height of the movement, in June 1990, Amanullah Khan without taking the party in to confidence announced ‘provisional government of Kashmir’, even though there is an Azad Kashmir government. This caused serious problems in the party and party was split in two with very negative impact on the party and the movement.
Attempts were made to influence the JKLF Britain; we sent a delegation from here to get a compromise, but failed. However we managed to keep unity here.
Fourth split
Jatalvi and I got elected again in 1988 and continued till 1992. We decided not to contest in the elections of 1992, but Jatalvi Sahib was later persuaded by Zafar Khan and Amanullah Khan to contest the elections. Earlier Jatalvi Sahib agreed that his candidate was Younis Sahib, and his U turn on the elections caused resentment and conflict in the party.
In the election Younis Sahib won as a President by 4 votes from Jatalvi Sahib, and Zafar Khan became General Secretary. On advice of Zafar Khan, Jatalvi Sahib and Malik Latif, Amanullah Khan unconstitutionally disbanded the organisation with its 7 institutions.
This decision was opposed by 24 branches out of 31, and even those who decided to supported Amanllah Khan agreed that it was illegal and wrong decision which was taken at a time when we needed unity and movement was at its peak.
A compromise was worked out between the both groups in Choudhry Quban played an important role. This written agreement signed by both parties was later rejected by Central Committee. Important thing to note is that agreement which united the party was rejected that split could be engineered. CC decided by not allowing us to put forward our point of view. It is believed that Amanullah knew the outcome if we had an opportunity to appear before the CC, so he prevailed on them to take a decision.
JKLF was at its peak but after this split there was a gradual decline. We operated under two different names, Amanullah Khan’s group is known as JKLF Britain and we are known as JKLF UK and Europe.
A lot of effort was spent opposing each other rather than fighting the cause, and other parties took advantage of it.
Fifth split
In 1994 Abid Shaheen and his colleagues in Azad Kashmir and some individuals in Europe, broke away from JKLF Amanullah Khan, and formed Abid Shaheen Group. Already in AK there were two groups, with Amanullah Khan’s group being the biggest one.
Sixth split
In 1995-6, after Yasin Malik came out of prison, there were problems between Valley JKLF and the Centre and that led to another split, and you people know it very well.
Seventh split
This split had its impact in UK as well, and another group in the name of JKLF United is operating here with very little support.
JKLF and its history on that side of the LOC is best known to you people.
The rest you know, but if there are any specific questions then ask me, I’ll answer to best of my ability.
Shabir Choudhry
Written for benefit of some non Kashmiris who wanted to know about JKLF in 2004, but initially it was written for Ghulam Rasool Dar.
This I wrote this some years ago for benefit of Secretary General of JKLF in J&K. There have been more problems since. Yasin Malik had 2 splits in the Valley one led by Javed Mir who was Commander in Chief of JKLF militancy at one time and Vice Chair He formed JKL Forum (still JKLF); another by Saleem Nanaji and Iqbal Gandroo, they are also using JKLF name. Amanullah Khan has a very small group there, in fact just a few names. There are other independent groups of JKLF operating in Europe and AK as well. We can discuss reasons behind all these splits if that is what you and….. want to discuss.
I am sending you other materials on JKLF, and my articles which could help you and Peter to understand some of the problems.
Shabir
Dear Dar Sahib Aslamo Alaykam
I don’t know why you need full history of JKL, it is not possible to write full history as it could take many months and could become a book of many hundred pages. However brief details are as follows:
Situation before JKLF
In Azad Kashmir there was JK Plebiscite Front, which believed in nationalist politics, but was badly oppressed and shattered after the Ganga Hijacking case. Also because of very strong propaganda of Pakistan it was considered as pro Indian with Indian agents in it. Another problem was that it was considered as party of ‘Ansari Family’.
All other political parties and other groups were first Pakistanis and considered Kashmir to be already part of Pakistan.
Situation in UK was also similar. In Britain there was Pakistan Peoples Party and other Pakistani political and community based parties like Pakistan welfare associations.
There were some individuals of Plebiscite Front but with no network of any kind.
There were around 4-5 lakh Kashmiris from Azad Kashmiri, but nearly all of them considered them as Pakistanis, and it was at this time (late 1972-73) I and a few of my colleagues from Panjeri area of Mirpur district started writing article in favour of united and independent Kashmir. Of course, apart from Indian held Kashmir I started writing and talking about situation in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan as well.
As I was a regular contributor in papers and very focal in my writings I was called an Indian agent in 1973. My other senior colleagues were also labelled. Pakistani people were still trying to recover from the shock of fall of Dahaka. Unfortunately they blamed Ganga hijacking and the Kashmiris for their fate in Bangladesh, and for them talk of an independent Kashmir meant Indian agents trying to weaken Pakistan.
It was under this environment Ch Abdul Rehman, Malik Latif, Sultan Zumard and I organised Kashmir Youth Movement with some kind of networking. We were encouraged and motivated by trials of Ganga hijacking case and statements of people like Maqbool Butt.
We went to Azad Kashmir in 1974, Malik Latif and Ch Abdul Rehman met Maqbool Butt and other leaders in Mirpur (I was unable to attend although I was supposed to be there as well).
We continued our work in UK under the banner of Kashmir Youth Movement, there were other individuals like Afzal Jatalvi who were working on the nationalist agenda, and there was Kashmiri Workers Association in Birmingham, which also pursued the same cause.
Later on in 1975 Khaliq Ansari came to UK to organise Kashmiris in UK, and he was followed by Amanullah Khan in 1976. They had meetings in many parts of UK to organise Kashmiris. They also came to my house in Halifax and asked us not to have separate small groups and set up a national organisation.
Of course Amanullah Khan and Khaliq Asnsari were big leaders and we were kids compared to them, and we agreed to work together, and learn from their experience.
There were many others who wanted to work for the nationalist cause but not under the name of Plebiscite Front; whereas Khaliq Ansari and his close associates insisted that we work on the platform of Plebiscite Front It was later decided that in Britain we will work under new name and in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan under the Plebiscite Front.
Formation of JKLF
So in 1977, we formed the JKLF in Birmingham. Mr Jabbar Butt was elected its first President and Nazir Nazish General Secretary. For technical reasons Amanullah Khan did not take any official position, although he was the main driving force. Afzal Jatalvi was elected Vice President, my name was proposed for Assistant General Secretary, but I withdrew my name. Including me, four members of Kashmir Youth Movement were elected to the Executive Committee.
We all worked here together under very challenging conditions. Amanullah Khan realised that there are problems - world community wanted to know if JKLF had any roots on the soil of Kashmir.
First split
To overcome this problem, Amanullah Khan travelled to AK and in 1982 JKLF was set up in Azad Kashmir. This was seen as a clear breach of agreement by leaders of Plebiscite Front, and since their relatives and friends had important positions in the JKLF in Britain (main body), it was easy to have a revolt.
The break away group was later renamed as JKNLF, which still exists in Britain and in AK. JKNLF had rebels of JKLF and some rebels from Plebiscite Front.
It is important to note here that Maqbool Butt was never a member of JKLF. He was member and later President of Plebiscite Front. In 1967, he formed JKNLF within Plebiscite Front to have armed actions. He was arrested and sentenced in IHK. He managed to escape to AK, got arrested and sentenced. He was also arrested at the time of Ganga Hijacking, but released by Supreme Court of Pakistan. He crossed border to IHK again in 1976, and got arrested, and hanged in 1984.
People like Hashim Qureshi, Dr Farooq Haider, Rashid Hasrat, Raja Muzaffar Nazir Gilani etc worked very hard for the JKLF in AK Pakistan. They had opposition from many groups and officials.
Second split
With the JKLF Ansari family was also split, some supported Amanullah Khan and others opposed him. In 1984 there was a kidnapping and killing of Rawindera Mahatare, Indian diplomat in Birmingham. It was half cooked plan which had very serious consequences for JKLF and its members and the movement.
Butt Sahib was hanged as a direct result of this. In UK people were arrested and harassed by the police, some members who were a part of this plan being arrested and sentenced. Some of these members accused Amanullah Khan for treason, as they believe it was he who informed British police about them and got them arrested.
It was against this depressed and bleak situation I was elected General Secretary in 1985. Afzal Jatalvi Sahib was elected President. We worked extremely hard under very difficult situation and kept the morale of members high. Demands were made to investigate accusations against Amanullah Khan. We said it is not appropriate time as he was in prison and his trial was about to start, and accusers were also in jails, and party was in crises.
Also there were complaints against Amanullah Khan from senior and dedicated members of JKLF. They were not happy the way he managed the JKLF. Amanullah Khan manoeuvred everything to make it appear as a communist plot against him. As a result of these reasons there was another split and Jatalvi Sahib and I were accused of protecting Amanullah Khan. We lost some very dedicated and intelligent people.
Amanullah Khan was later deported to AK and Pakistan by Britain, the morale of colleagues here was very low, but we continued and established the JKLF on firm grounds. It was the biggest and most organised party of Pakistanis and Azad Kashmiris with strong diplomatic and political base.
Third split
At the height of the movement, in June 1990, Amanullah Khan without taking the party in to confidence announced ‘provisional government of Kashmir’, even though there is an Azad Kashmir government. This caused serious problems in the party and party was split in two with very negative impact on the party and the movement.
Attempts were made to influence the JKLF Britain; we sent a delegation from here to get a compromise, but failed. However we managed to keep unity here.
Fourth split
Jatalvi and I got elected again in 1988 and continued till 1992. We decided not to contest in the elections of 1992, but Jatalvi Sahib was later persuaded by Zafar Khan and Amanullah Khan to contest the elections. Earlier Jatalvi Sahib agreed that his candidate was Younis Sahib, and his U turn on the elections caused resentment and conflict in the party.
In the election Younis Sahib won as a President by 4 votes from Jatalvi Sahib, and Zafar Khan became General Secretary. On advice of Zafar Khan, Jatalvi Sahib and Malik Latif, Amanullah Khan unconstitutionally disbanded the organisation with its 7 institutions.
This decision was opposed by 24 branches out of 31, and even those who decided to supported Amanllah Khan agreed that it was illegal and wrong decision which was taken at a time when we needed unity and movement was at its peak.
A compromise was worked out between the both groups in Choudhry Quban played an important role. This written agreement signed by both parties was later rejected by Central Committee. Important thing to note is that agreement which united the party was rejected that split could be engineered. CC decided by not allowing us to put forward our point of view. It is believed that Amanullah knew the outcome if we had an opportunity to appear before the CC, so he prevailed on them to take a decision.
JKLF was at its peak but after this split there was a gradual decline. We operated under two different names, Amanullah Khan’s group is known as JKLF Britain and we are known as JKLF UK and Europe.
A lot of effort was spent opposing each other rather than fighting the cause, and other parties took advantage of it.
Fifth split
In 1994 Abid Shaheen and his colleagues in Azad Kashmir and some individuals in Europe, broke away from JKLF Amanullah Khan, and formed Abid Shaheen Group. Already in AK there were two groups, with Amanullah Khan’s group being the biggest one.
Sixth split
In 1995-6, after Yasin Malik came out of prison, there were problems between Valley JKLF and the Centre and that led to another split, and you people know it very well.
Seventh split
This split had its impact in UK as well, and another group in the name of JKLF United is operating here with very little support.
JKLF and its history on that side of the LOC is best known to you people.
The rest you know, but if there are any specific questions then ask me, I’ll answer to best of my ability.
Shabir Choudhry
Sunday, 1 June 2008
Dictatorial attitude has weakened JKLF.
Dictatorial attitude has weakened JKLF. 01 July 2004
Dr Shabir Choudhry, Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF
Dr Shabir Choudhry said JKLF is unfortunate organisation and its members are also unfortunate people because despite sincerity of its cadres and great sacrifices the organisation is becoming weaker and misdirected because of dictatorial attitude of its top leadership.
Commenting on the resignation of Javed Mir, Dr Shabir Choudhry said, Mir Sahib has played a leading role in setting up the JKLF on that side of the LOC, and made great sacrifices, especially as a militant commander. His departure from the JKLF and departure of many other talented people before him is due to dictatorial attitude of JKLF top leadership on both sides of the divide which frustrated people and they were left with no choice but to say good bye to the JKLF.
Apparently he has resigned from the basic membership of the JKLF due to health reasons, and people in politics know very well that whenever some one is forced out, ‘bad health’ is always the reason given to people.
Dr Choudhry said up till Friday his health was good enough to be active in all JKLF activities, even he was an active member of the signature campaign travelling from one village to another, but within few days it allegedly got so bad that he resigned from the basic membership. Who is going to believe this lame excuse? On serious health grounds he could have resigned from his position or reduced his activities until his health recovered.
Inside story is that there are serious differences the way the organisation is run from the top, and this resentment runs across all zones of the organisation. As a result of dictatorial policies and misguided loyalty of top leadership, many senior JKLF people have decided to stay at home, and some have decided to call it a day, call it ‘health reason’, disillusionment or something else, people slowly but surely are leaving the JKLF ranks.
Some time back I and other colleagues like Abbas Butt were also attacked by this ‘disease’, but we decided to fight back, rather than sitting at home under pretext of ‘bad health’. Dr Shabir Choudhry said, if human body is affected by some disease, medical help is provided to that person to cure his body, but if body of organisation is suffering from some disease then we cannot go home under pretext of ‘bad health’. We have to cure body of organisation and fight back our corner.
Dr Choudhry said, on this point I was told by a senior member that if Javed Mir was in London he ‘would surely have fought back’; and if you had been resident of Srinagar you would have also resigned under pretext of ‘bad health’.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said we have also given sacrifices and spent more than 25 years of life time to project the JKLF and its policy of united and independent Kashmir. He said problems arose due to lack of democratisation in the organisation, and subtle shift in the fundamental policy of the JKLF. Instead of speaking for rights of all Kashmiris irrespective of their social, ethnic and regional background, some senior leaders became very selective and only spoke about rights of the Valley, hence seriously damaging the fundamental character of the JKLF. END
Dr Shabir Choudhry, Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF
Dr Shabir Choudhry said JKLF is unfortunate organisation and its members are also unfortunate people because despite sincerity of its cadres and great sacrifices the organisation is becoming weaker and misdirected because of dictatorial attitude of its top leadership.
Commenting on the resignation of Javed Mir, Dr Shabir Choudhry said, Mir Sahib has played a leading role in setting up the JKLF on that side of the LOC, and made great sacrifices, especially as a militant commander. His departure from the JKLF and departure of many other talented people before him is due to dictatorial attitude of JKLF top leadership on both sides of the divide which frustrated people and they were left with no choice but to say good bye to the JKLF.
Apparently he has resigned from the basic membership of the JKLF due to health reasons, and people in politics know very well that whenever some one is forced out, ‘bad health’ is always the reason given to people.
Dr Choudhry said up till Friday his health was good enough to be active in all JKLF activities, even he was an active member of the signature campaign travelling from one village to another, but within few days it allegedly got so bad that he resigned from the basic membership. Who is going to believe this lame excuse? On serious health grounds he could have resigned from his position or reduced his activities until his health recovered.
Inside story is that there are serious differences the way the organisation is run from the top, and this resentment runs across all zones of the organisation. As a result of dictatorial policies and misguided loyalty of top leadership, many senior JKLF people have decided to stay at home, and some have decided to call it a day, call it ‘health reason’, disillusionment or something else, people slowly but surely are leaving the JKLF ranks.
Some time back I and other colleagues like Abbas Butt were also attacked by this ‘disease’, but we decided to fight back, rather than sitting at home under pretext of ‘bad health’. Dr Shabir Choudhry said, if human body is affected by some disease, medical help is provided to that person to cure his body, but if body of organisation is suffering from some disease then we cannot go home under pretext of ‘bad health’. We have to cure body of organisation and fight back our corner.
Dr Choudhry said, on this point I was told by a senior member that if Javed Mir was in London he ‘would surely have fought back’; and if you had been resident of Srinagar you would have also resigned under pretext of ‘bad health’.
Dr Shabir Choudhry said we have also given sacrifices and spent more than 25 years of life time to project the JKLF and its policy of united and independent Kashmir. He said problems arose due to lack of democratisation in the organisation, and subtle shift in the fundamental policy of the JKLF. Instead of speaking for rights of all Kashmiris irrespective of their social, ethnic and regional background, some senior leaders became very selective and only spoke about rights of the Valley, hence seriously damaging the fundamental character of the JKLF. END
Interview of Dr Shabir Choudhry for Liberty International
Interview of Dr Shabir Choudhry for Liberty International
Q1.
As a result of this devastating earthquake a generation has perished, especially those closely involved with the Kashmiri struggle have died; and in view of this how do you see the future of Kashmir dispute?
Answer 1:
This earthquake will have far reaching consequences not only for Jammu and Kashmir but also for future of South Asia. Earthquake has not only destroyed militant camps which have been a stumbling block in the progress of peace process, but also have seriously damaged Pakistan’s defence on this side of the LOC.
You might recall that for success of the peace process Indian government demanded immediate end to infiltration and dismantling of militant training camps; and the international community fully supported this demand as it could have helped them to fight global war on terrorism.
President Musharaf agreed to do the needful in a public statement, as curbing activities of the jihadi groups also suited him; but despite his uniform and unprecedented powers at his disposal, he failed to deliver because he did not have full control over all organs of the government।
So destruction of these militant camps and death of thousands of militants on its own will have a serious affect on the militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, and on the Kashmiri struggle. And you got to see things in perspective that apart from the above, thousands of villages and some towns have been destroyed and more than hundred thousand people have been killed and millions have been uprooted.
The whole generation of young people have lost their lives, especially students; thousands of schools and colleges have been destroyed. There were little employment and professional education opportunities available in Azad Kashmir due to lack of proper investment and appropriate infrastructure, and now that everything is destroyed and millions of people are homeless and living on aid, my fear is that it will promote begging and unemployment which will surely have great negative impact on the Kashmiri society and on the freedom struggle.
This tragedy, as has been pointed out by some, could be used to make progress in resolving outstanding issues between India and Pakistan including the Kashmir dispute. But this could only happen if there is a change of heart on all sides, and there is will to resolve all disputes in order to have peace and stability in South Asia that this region could face challenges of the 21st Century.
Q2 The region has been hit by a great earthquake which has caused death and destruction, and unprecedented human suffering, and as a result all the attention is focussed on relief and reconstruction work। In view of the above it appears that the Kashmir dispute itself has been put on the back burner; or there is some understanding between the governments, and people are kept in dark। What is your view on this?
Answer 2:
The region has been hit by the biggest disaster where more than hundred thousand innocent people have lost their lives, and more than two hundred thousand people are likely to lose their lives because their homes are destroyed, and five weeks after the disaster still millions of people are waiting for help, food and shelter; and in view of the above it appears that the Kashmir dispute might have gone on the back burner or in the storage.
It is true that attention has been focussed on the earthquake and its consequences, but it has not undermined the importance of the dispute itself, if anything, sane voices are saying that if there was no LOC then thousands of lives could have been saved। And many even suggest that behind the scenes serious efforts are being made to reach the final settlement on Kashmir.
Even if we look at statements of general Musharaf, one feels that he is more eager to make some progress on Kashmir। He asserts that in view of the earthquake it is ‘more possible’ to resolve the long - standing dispute of Jammu and Kashmir. ‘This opportunity’ he asserts, ‘should be utilized to reach fair settlement of the dispute’. But he on his own, no matter how sincere or desperate he is, cannot make any progress on this issue, and he realises this when he says, that, ‘We cannot clap with one hand, I hope India realizes that the solution has become more possible now in the wake of the tragedy, in which Kashmir suffered’.
This shows that serious efforts are being made behind the scenes, but what I want to emphasize is that these efforts have to be sincere and pragmatic as well. Sincerity and pragmatic approach demand that they take Kashmir as human issue not a territorial issue; and make genuine Kashmiri leaders part of the peace process, those leaders who represent aspirations of the people and not wishes of Islamabad and New Delhi.
If India and Pakistan only promote those leaders as genuine leaders, who actively dance on tune played by them, then this approach will not produce the desired results to establish peace and stability in Jammu and Kashmir and in South Asia.
Q3
Pakistan has suggested flexibility on LOC and withdrawal of forces, how do you see this suggestion, and what impact this can have on bilateral relations; and how could this help to resolve the Kashmir dispute?
Answer 3
Since start of the peace process Pakistan has made many suggestions, some even say too many suggestions - almost one a week. When too many suggestions come directly from head of a state and without proper home – work, then these suggestions are not taken seriously by the international community, as it brings him down to level of Sheikh Rashid who is not taken seriously when he says something.
In process of making these suggestions Pakistan has considerably shifted its ground on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, and has also weakened its position and also weakened the Kashmiri struggle. India on the other hand has not given away anything, and in my opinion India seems to be in the strongest position since the start of the militancy in 1988.
And in view of this many people say that CBM means continue bending man, as General sahib has been shifting ground since he has taken over power in Pakistan. He is seen as a man in hurry to find a solution, and that may be is because of his weak, and to some, unconstitutional position at home, whereas Indian leadership despite a weak case and different pressures appears to be much more relaxed and in control.
I have strongly advocated non - military solution to the Kashmir dispute, and have been criticised by those who have made Kashmiri struggle as a business. I support the peace process, and strongly advocate Confidence Building Measures to ease tension and pave the way for the final solution of the dispute. But CBMs have to be well thought out and must be made with good intentions.
I say armies of both countries should leave Kashmir that state of Jammu and Kashmir could be united, but we have to be realistic, and in any case who is going to fill in vacuum created by withdrawal of these forces? Have we got some kind of international or UN force to move in should India and Pakistan agree to move out? For scoring political points, we all say things that sometimes are not practical.
We have to be practical if we are serious and sincere in resolving this dispute, and work out a mechanism to reach this stage of withdrawal. We cannot say India should pull her forces from Kashmir whereas Pakistan keeps army in parts of Jammu and Kashmir, for example, Siachin or Gilgit and Baltistan.
Apart from that we cannot ask India to take Indian troops out of Kashmir when militants are still there and are involved in militancy. Even after devastating earthquake they have not stopped their actions in which innocent people have lost lives, if anything their activities have increased; and whether we accept it or not it is known fact that directly or indirectly they still get help\and support from this side of the LOC. In view of this situation, which government will withdraw her forces from a disputed area like Kashmir, especially when that government is a democracy and is answerable to people.
Indian army was in Jammu and Kashmir before the start of the militancy, but they were not roaming around in streets and knocking doors at midnight. It was militancy that has provided an opportunity to troops to invade our privacy and abuse peoples rights. This is not to say that only Indian army has committed human rights violations and militants are exonerated from this, we all know that they are also accused of abusing and killing people.
In view of this, many say that before Indian forces could go back to barracks, militant activities have to cease. And in words of JKLF President Abbas Butt, ‘First in first out, militants moved in first to populated areas and the troops followed them, and now it is only logical that militants should move out or cease their activities before India could be asked to do so.
I fully support flexibility on LOC, but withdrawal of troops of both countries without some kind of mechanism seems to be a political statement. Under what rule both countries should withdraw their troops- if we follow the UN resolutions then they only ask Pakistan to withdraw, and once Pakistan has completed its withdrawal then India is only supposed to withdraw ‘bulk’ of her troops.
In absence of any agreed mechanism of withdrawal both countries need to create appropriate conditions before the withdrawal of troops could be seriously considered, and if somehow a workable mechanism is agreed, and withdrawal takes place then it will surly be a big step in resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Q 4
President Bush and other American officials have shown extra ordinary interest in this disaster; and in name of relief work American and NATO forces are active in Azad Kashmir. People are concerned about this as Pakistan has a large army of her own. What are your views on this?
Ans 4.
This is very important question and there is more than one way of looking at it. Simple way of looking at it is that Pakistan is a close friend of America and is ‘fighting America’s war’, and America being a good and sincere friend wants to help Pakistan in this time of need. But we know politics and international relations is not that simple.
Policies of countries are decided with national interest in mind, and there is generally more than one motive behind these policies, especially policies of big powers that have history of colonialism.
Small and weak countries are often let down by big powers after they have used them to achieve certain aims; and Pakistan has also tasted this medicine in the past, and is likely to do it again.
No doubt a major earthquake with unimaginable devastation has hit Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Pakistan, and Pakistan desperately needs help to cope with this disaster. But there are some issues that are of concern to me and to many other thinking people.
One has to see why Pakistan did not seek China’s help to meet these crises when Pakistan calls China as ‘all weather friend’ - a friend which is tried and tested more than once? China also has a large fleet of helicopters and vast experience to deal with natural disasters, and in view of this one wonders why they preferred to wait for heavy equipment, helicopters and other help from Britain and USA, at a time when innocent people were dying and crying for help.
Apart from this, Pakistani authorities refused to accept Indian helicopters, which could have saved thousands of lives because they could have reached there in no time, just across the LOC. We have to see things in perspective, there was a peace process going on between India and Pakistan, certain CBMs were in place and trade between them is booming since the peace process. There was no threat of war, and there was a cease- fire on the borders, and yet Indian help with helicopters was refused, yet Israeli help was accepted, and Pakistan has no diplomatic or trade contacts with that country.
Apart from the men in uniform, men in militia uniform (members of Jihad outfits) were also seen very actively helping the victims. It is good to note that they have heart and desire to help people in need; but this also worried many as it clearly indicated their manpower, resources and command and control system.
Many people, especially Westerners, thought help of Jihadi organisations will surely create a soft corner in the hearts of these victims, and they could be persuaded to join ranks of these groups, which could seriously damage their war on terrorism. As far as victims of the earthquake are concerned they need help and need it desperately, no matter where it is coming from.
It appears that there are four advantages of inviting NATO and American forces.
Most obvious one is ‘help’ to the earthquake victims, some of whom still have not received any help, and they are lying under the sky in extremely cold weather without proper food and shelter.
Other main advantage was to counter presumed Indian attack in wake of a serious blow to Pakistani defences in the area. Pakistani military officials thought that despite the peace process India could take advantage of the situation; and they might return ‘Kargil’ adventure with interest.
Third advantage is that these forces could ‘find’ Osama Bin Laden, or his remains, as he is presumed dead in this earthquake. Also their presence here will help them to keep track of the Alqaeeda operatives, if there are any, in the Pakistani Administered Kashmir, North Pakistan and Gilgit and Baltistan.
Their help and support and mere presence will keep jihadi groups on guard, and will deter them to do anything else than the relief work.
Some commentators feel that even Pakistan is less visible with the relief work when compared to activities of NATO and America, never mind ‘azad government’ of Pakistani Administered Kashmir; which is taken as a puppet or mere shadow of Ministry Of Kashmir Affairs, Islamabad.
It looks that NATO’s role is fast changing, and from being a military alliance it is becoming an extended tool of UN Commission on Human Rights. When we analyse the role of NATO and American troops in our region, we got to see what role NATO played in other natural disasters. For example, not long ago the tsunami devastated many countries, but we did not see NATO or American troops in action to help victims of that disaster. And moreover NATO, as an organisation, showed no interest and concern for the Katrina-devastated population of New Orleans.
At one time Pakistan was even reluctant to let an aircraft fly over certain areas of Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Northern Pakistan and Gilgit and Baltistan; and now thousands of NATO and American troops with highly sophisticated technology are wandering up and down as they please. How do this affect Pakistan’s military installations, intelligence gathering installations and other sensitive matters in these areas?
Above all how do our neighbours, especially China and Iran; view this and what impact this is going to have on future relations with these countries because of obvious concerns these countries have about America’s military presence at their door steps.
One reason given for their presence here is that they have sophisticated technology, which is needed here. This advanced technology was more useful to locate and rescue victims under the rubble, and surely that stage has passed; and if we still require this technology then why didn’t Pakistani government asked to borrow this, as it was the case with the Indian helicopters. I am sure a large Pakistani army with high level of technical know how, and a nation that successfully manufactured and exploded an atomic bomb had sufficient skilled manpower to use this technology.
Another point that worries many people is the role of Pakistani government in all this? Civilian government is no -where visible. What role has parliament and Cabinet played in all this?
I am among those who believe that presence of NATO and American troops are here to stay for some time. I understand some statements suggest that they will stay here for 80 days, and purpose is relief work; but I have my doubts about this because I don’t know whether this 90 days promise is a military promise or a civilian one. If it is a military promise then it reminds me of 90 days of Zia Sahib; and these troops could be here for many years.
In any case my feeling is that they are not only here for relief work, the kind of relief work they are doing, delivering food items and building walls etc, could very easily be done by Pakistan army. As has been noted above these troops have multiple roles in this area, which includes a political and military agenda.
Q6 China’s role in earthquake
Ans 6.
(It is partly answered above)
China has very close relationship with Pakistan. One can say that China is the only country, which has lived up to expectations and has not let down Pakistan at any time. But one can question if Pakistani governments have lived up to expectations of the Chinese?
One can say that more than once Pakistani governments intentionally or unintentionally worked or allowed its territory to be used against interests of China. And China instead of retaliating or showing annoyance in open decided to remain quiet or decided to play a low profile role. In my opinion China is facing that situation again, and it is because of that China appears to be side lined in the whole process.
American policy towards China clearly shows that they see China as a major emerging threat, and want to encircle it, and contain its growth and potential. America has clearly made considerable progress in this regard, and one can see that apart from troops in Afghanistan, America has bases in some Central Asian countries. Also America has strong influence in South Korea, Taiwan and some countries of South East Asia; and now that they have direct presence in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan and Northern Pakistan, and this is a serious concern to China.
No Chinese government would like to see American troops in Azad Kashmir, Northern Pakistan and in Gilgit and Baltistan, as this is the region which provides important link to China, generally known as ‘outside window for China’.
Since 9/11, without much homework, Pakistan has made important policy decisions, which were also of major concern to China; and Pakistan did not even consult old and traditional ally. China appears to feel betrayed but they don’t have much options open to them at this stage. In any case Chinese diplomacy is unique in many ways, and even when they are annoyed they don’t express it and continue with the cooperation and work at hand.
China for obvious reasons is upset with new developments taking place in South Asia, but feels that it is better to watch and see the changing situation and wait for the appropriate time when tide starts to change.
Q7 MQM
Ans 7
There are people who have many bad things to say about MQM as a party and a movement, and they even have criticism to make over their role in the relief work. As a Kashmiri nationalist I welcome their help. According to news in Pakistani papers there have been some clashes between MQM workers and Jammat E Islami workers in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Rivalry between these two go back to Karachi and has manifested itself even in the filed of relief work.
As far as I am concerned MQM was among the first to activate its cadre to support the victims of the earthquake, and they have provided millions of rupees and blankets etc; and have helped to save thousands of lives. We are grateful to MQM for everything they have done for us, and we hope that they will continue to help us because still there are millions of people without any shelter.
MQM, at one time, was only a regional or ethnic party with interest largely restricted to Karachi and Hyderabad, but we saw role of MQM gradually expanding to the rest of Pakistan. Over the years they have played an important role in the national politics of Pakistan; and now they have moved to Pakistani Administered Kashmir to help the quake victims.
Before the rise of MQM, Jammat e Islami had a big say in politics of Karachi, and after bitter confrontation their position was take over by MQM. And now that MQM workers came to Pakistani Administered Kashmir this alarmed Jammat e Islami, because they feel they could be squeezed here as well.
I can see MQM playing an important role not only in Pakistan but also in Kashmir as well. Sooner or later Pakistani government has to make some compromise on Kashmir and they have shown their ability to make u turns on important issues and get away with it. Kashmir dispute is a different ball game; the government has to get support of some powerful forces in the country.
MQM over the years has proved that they have the ability to mobilize public support on important issues, and effectively support the government. MQM Chief, Altaf Hussain, by sitting in London can call shots and make things happen in Pakistan. The military government and MQM need each other in order to be relevant. Their interests are common, and they have to forge closer ties to be successful in the next phase, which starts in 2007; but for that a lot of work needs to be done beforehand.
As noted above Pakistan has to swallow a bitter pill on Kashmir, and MQM could be a useful ally in this. It would not surprise me at all if MQM starts its branch in Azad Kashmir. I oppose Pakistani parties to have their branches in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in Gilgit and Baltistan; but if other Pakistani parties can have their branches here then no one can stop MQM to set up their branch here.
Should MQM decides to follow other Pakistani parties and move in to this area, which in one way they have already done because of the relief work, then they could soon be a successful party as they know how to make alliances and mobilize masses.
Q8.
Recently International Kashmir Alliance, IKA, held an international Kashmir Conference in Brussels, what were the aims of that conference and how successful you were in this? Apart from that what was the purpose of formation of IKA, and what role it has played in the Kashmiri politics?
Ans 8.
IKA was formed under Geneva Declaration to provide a platform to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that they can express their views without any threat or intimidation. It is a pro people and pro peace Alliance which believes that there is no military solution to the Kashmir dispute; and that the dispute has to be resolved in a process of dialogue involving all three parties to the dispute. It strongly opposes politics of vested interests which is commercialised and which has encouraged violence and proxy war; and this has resulted in loss of thousands of valuable lives and has done enormous damage.
We can proudly claim that we have made a difference in the Kashmiri politics. We openly opposed commercialised politics and gun culture in Jammu and Kashmir; and strengthened those groups and individuals who opposed all this but did not have courage or did not have a platform to oppose these power groups. We provided a voice to disadvantaged groups in the society; and promoted culture of tolerance and coexistence.
IKA not only promoted peaceful resolution of the dispute but also promoted Kashmiri nationalism, as we are the first party or alliance to have reached out to people of all communities and regions and provided them a platform. From this platform, a first International Kashmir Conference in its true sense was held in London, which was also attended by notable people like Benzair Bhutto and Dr Farooq Abdullah.
Despite strong opposition from certain powerful groups it was very successful conference from anyone’s standards; and notable delegates from different social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds sent a powerful message that we don’t want any more violence, and that we want peace, dignity and right to live our lives like other human beings.
We were the pace setter, it helped to change thinking of the people. This provided them encouragement and they felt that they could oppose and challenge those who want to continue this proxy politics and proxy war in Kashmir resulting in mayhem and bloodshed. It also showed that the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, and especially areas of Gilgit and Baltistan also came to limelight first time since the present militancy. A clear message came out of this conference that majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is against division, violence and sectarianism.
IKA London conference also opened a flood- gate and many groups with vested interest started holding conferences in various parts of the world, but they failed to attract delegates from all regions and all communities; and they only looked official show representing one view point.
IKA held its second International Kashmir Conference in Canada, which also proved to be very successful, as more people representing ethnic minorities of Jammu and Kashmir were present. And we also managed to issue a joint declaration from the delegates, which reinforced IKA programme and promoted politics of tolerance and coexistence. It rejected division of Kashmir, and condemned violence and sectarianism. It promoted more confidence building measures, opening of LOC and peaceful resolution of all issues including dispute of Jammu and Kashmir; and insisted that there must be an active participation of the Kashmiri people.
It must be noted here that apart from these conferences IKA leaders held a number of seminars in various parts of the world, and have held many press conferences to highlight different issues, which directly concern the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Also IKA leaders have met British MPs, European MPs and MPs of various other countries, including diplomats of important countries and Think Tanks to project a Kashmiri point of view.
In pursuance with IKA policy and programme of reaching out to people and give out Kashmiri version to the international community, we arranged third International Kashmir Conference in Brussels. This conference, like our previous conferences, was very successful, and some would say more successful because of the contribution, debates, interaction and final outcome in the form of comprehensive agreement known as Brussels Declaration.
But this conference should not be an end itself, this is means to an end, and end being a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of everyone concerned that we can have peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Many positive changes have taken place since our first conference, India and Pakistan are firmly committed to the peace process; and there has been change of attitude to violence and many stumbling blocks.
Even there have been some major changes in Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia since our last conference in Brussels. Earthquake has destroyed thousands of villages and towns in Kashmir and Pakistan, and there are millions of people who desperately need help; and the world community and aid agencies have been very active in dealing with the disaster.
India and Pakistan have also come closer since the earthquake; and they have opened five points across the LOC to help the quake victims. Indian government was among the first to offer massive help, although there were some trust and confidence related hiccups that delayed the relief work and as a result we failed to save thousands of valuable lives. This also indicates that we all need to do more to boost trust and confidence that all the concerned parties to the dispute could sit down around the table and resolve all issues which hold our progress.
What this means is that role of IKA has not finished yet. We need to do more to build bridges among different communities and ethnic groups that we can all trust each other, and work out a strategy to establish peace in the region and face challenges of the 21st century.
I understand that there are other peace loving people and groups who share our ideals and we are willing to work with them; and in this respect IKA leadership has taken some decisions to incorporate and affiliate other like- minded groups and individuals. We planned to announce this strategy in October after completing our discussions with all the concerned groups, but that could not happen due to massive earthquake which has not only killed more than lakh people and destroyed nearly half of Azad Kashmir, but political activities have also been taken over by relief work.
We could not have continued with our political programme after this tragic event for obvious reasons. Anyhow like other aid agencies we have also been active with the relief work, as first priority was to save lives and be with people in this time of desperate need.
However we shall soon be starting our political activities which will have a strong element of relief work. I believe IKA can play a leading role in helping and supporting the peace process; and bringing people from different social and cultural backgrounds on one platform. For this purpose IKA can hold a conference in Islamabad followed by one in New Delhi, which could help people of all shades of political opinion to discuss and debate issues; and forge alliances and unity among different groups.
Apart from that IKA leadership has ability and skills required to help in the negotiations because of their understanding of jurisprudence of the Kashmir dispute; and play crucial role as we believe in non - religious politics, and have strong commitment to liberal and democratic ideals. And this way we can justifiably claim to speak for all sections of the Kashmiri nation as majority share our political ideals.
Q10 It appears that your first priority now days is article writing, analysis and interviews; and your activities for JKLF seem to be on decline what is reason for this? Apart from this you seem to have no visible contacts with the JKLF leadership like Yasin Malik; and in view of this where do you stand politically?
Ans 10
It is an interesting question which requires a detailed answer. Every national struggle for independence goes through different phases, and Kashmiri struggle is no exception to this. However our struggle is unique in the sense that we are occupied by more than one country, and some sections of our people don’t want independence. To put it crudely they either want to be Pakistani or Indian but not a Kashmiri. And our occupiers because of their physical control exploit the situation by projecting these people as leaders of the Kashmiri people, whereas it is known fact that their loyalties either lie with Islamabad or New Delhi; and in some cases with both.
Every genuine struggle for independence has many fronts, and militancy is only one front, and political activity is the other. As militancy has seen its hey day, and is no longer seen as a viable and acceptable method of pursuing one’s objective; and in any case as I have no role in militancy, so let us talk of political work.
Political activity consists of meetings of different organs of the party, public meetings, press conferences, political statements and interaction with other political parties etc, and purpose of all that is to send political message to party members, and people in general and governments. First of all I would like to know which of the above we have not done.
We regularly have party meetings, press conferences, political statements and close interaction with other political parties. In fact, you will be surprised that we are perhaps the only Kashmiri political party, which has regular meetings. However I accept that we might not have had same media coverage in Pakistani media, and that is because they want to project other JKLF groups, which are perceived as ‘their own’ and projecting a Pakistani agenda.
In our effort to refine and clarify the JKLF ideology, which has been tarnished by compromises made by Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik, we had to reassert our position with regard to Gilgit and Baltistan and Pakistani Administered Kashmir; and that didn’t win us friends in Pakistani media and in Pakistani establishment. Pakistani establishment went out of its way to instruct different organs and members of the civil society to either boycott our activities or present them in negative sense.
Apart form that in this global village and with access to new technology one doesn’t have to hold a rally to get its message across. In a struggle for independence parties carry out different kinds of activities some legal and others not so legal, and purpose is to highlight the cause. Kashmir dispute has been highly publicised because of some legal and some illegal activities, and there is nothing more that one could to do further highlight it.
With help, support and influence of outside forces a lot of work has been done to resolve the Kashmir dispute; and one can see a considerable progress in this regard. There are a number of direct and indirect channels working full time to work out modalities to move forward; and hammer out a formula that could be acceptable to all the concerned parties.
And in this phase of the struggle, a public meeting, a rally or violence is not going to change anything. To me it is a battle of ideas, and JKLF cannot win this or influence this by holding a public meeting or by throwing a bomb, and that again in public place. This phase of the struggle needs an intellectual input from the JKLF, and we don’t want to be out of step with that.
We need to demonstrate to people who matter that we know what is happening, and that we are willing and capable of making a positive contribution to support the peace process and reach an acceptable solution. Over the months and years we have made concerted effort to influence or at least get an ear of those who matter; and some of this activity is best to be kept away from the media.
If we are not holding rallies it does not mean we don’t have means to do so, and one should not construe that we don’t have support on the ground; if anything we have more support and more friends in Pakistan, Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan then ever before. Apart from that tell me which Kashmiri party is holding big public meetings and rallies, in fact most are waiting for a miracle to happen. They have already given in, and live in hope that someone else will do the needful.
Unlike our JKLF other JKLF groups and some other Kashmiri parties have no financial worries, in fact, they have so much that they don’t know what to do with it, so we have to use our meagre resources carefully.
Generally when a Kashmiri party holds a public meeting they get up to a thousand people after a lot of effort and expense; and after people leave the meeting they hardly remember what was said. A message heard by people from a platform in a speech is difficult to remember and nearly impossible to pass on; whereas a message on a paper is easy to understand, could be read again and is easy to pass on.
So we use our resources sensibly, and by spending half of that money we produce books and booklets, which help to pass on our message to thousands of people. In the past two years we have produced more than six books and booklets on different aspects of the Kashmiri struggle; and in December of this year we will (inshallah) produce at least three more booklets We will hold launching function for these, and that itself is a political activity, which to us, is more productive and long lasting.
I write articles on current affairs, act and react on the everyday issues, and not on ancient history to get my name published and stay alive in media; and those who have this in mind they are totally wrong. My articles are published in many papers and are also used by different Internet papers, and by Grace of Allah, are read and noted in various places.
With regard to Yasin Malik, what you and others got to remember is that he joined the JKLF in late 1980s, and I am one of those who helped to form it in 1977. I have my own contribution and standing in the JKLF and he has his own. We don’t need umbrella of Yasin Malik or Amanullah Khan to continue our struggle for unification and independence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
In any case these two have alleged to have maligned the JKLF name by making ideological compromises; and our JKLF would not make any agreement with them until they come clean on their ideological stand. There is an old saying that there are no free dinners in business, similarly there are no protocols without an ideological compromise.
This is not only our view, this is a widely held view in political circles; and no nationalist party of Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan want to have any political contacts with them. Apart from that they are regarded as ‘b team’ of agencies. Their activities sometimes reflect and reinforce this image, for example, Amanullah Khan attempted a border crossing of LOC in 1992; and now everyone knows that it was funded and engineered by Pakistani agencies.
He seems to be more worried about rights of people living on the Indian side and less worried about rights of his own people in Gilgit and Baltistan, who have far worse living conditions in the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir. One may ask how many demonstrations he had taken out for rights of people of Gilgit and Baltistan, or for that matter for rights of people Mirpur who will be displaced fro the second time to meet needs of Pakistan. One can give many other examples to support above point.
Similarly Yasin Malik’s JKLF gets official patronage, and in view of some, on both sides of the divide. Officials of Pakistan miss no opportunity to project him, and high level government officials take part in his functions, Ministers and even Prime Minister and President of Pakistan have enough time to attend his functions and project him.
One can only get this level of official support and media projection if there is some understanding behind the scenes, which in practise means an ideological change; and this is visible in policies of Yasin Malik’s group, as he doesn’t talk about rights of people of Gilgit and Baltistan and Pakistani Administered Kashmir. He doesn’t even talk about rights of people of Mirpur who will be evicted from their homes for the second time to provide water and electricity to Pakistan.
Very recently I met an Indian journalist and a Pakistani journalist, both of them have good understanding of Kashmiri politics and during course of discussion both of them acknowledged that Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik have compromised their ideology.
This proves the point that we are the only JKLF group which adheres to the original ideology as it was enunciated by the JKLF in 1977, and this is the ideology of Maqbool Butt Shaheed. In view of the above we are proud to say that, at least, we have the correct ideological stand.
As far as our strength and public support is concerned, soon after the deadly earthquake, we were the first Kashmiri political party to announce help of 50 lakh rupees and have practically given out help in form of tents, blankets, clothes, food and building of tin houses. This money was raised by JKLF members and given to us by public who trust us.
Which other Kashmiri party or JKLF group has done this. One might say that Yasin Malik announced one cror rupees and he went across to help and support the earthquake victims. But there are some serious questions attached with the help he has given, and there is no comparison between the two.
Yasin Malik, it is claimed, raised this money from Kashmir, the Valley. Within days after the tragic event he came to New Delhi to sort out his visa, and practically stayed less than a week in the Valley, and war torn Kashmiri society is not that rich that he could raise one cror within a few days, especially when there is serious trust vacuum there. Even if he did, he must have got that money in Indian currency; and he went to Pakistan by air, so he could not have put that money in a suitcase and boarded the plane.
Fact of the matter is that he got this money in Pakistan, and it was not one cror it was much less. It was good of him to come and show solidarity and support people on this side of the divide, and we appreciate this; but as far as money is concerned it was not raised but given to him. And as a good and obedient boy he gave it back most of the money to those who provided it in first place. There is an old saying that Kunwainh ki matti kunwainh main lag jati hai, meaning that soil out of well is generally used on it to complete it. You might recall that he gave ten lakhs rupees to President of Azad Kashmir’s relief fund and twenty lakhs to President of Pakistan’s relief fund; and very little money was actually given out to the people in the form of relief work.
Corruption in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir is rampant, Pakistan is still fifth most corrupt country in the world, and Yasin Malik knows it; and in view of this why leave this money, especially if it was given to him by the people in form of Zakat and Sadka etc at the mercy of corrupt officials.
I hope this explains the situation with regard to the JKLF, and why we don’t want to align ourselves with either of these two leaders of JKLF because it will tarnish our image and reputation. I also hope that now you know where we stand in practical politics and on ideology. Whereas others have made some advances by ideological flirtation and by making compromises on ideology, but we have not shifted ground; and history will tell who were loyal to the ideology and the cause.
Q11. How do you see future of India and Pakistan talks, and in your opinion how long it will take to resolve it?
Ans 11.
Despite a lot of hard work and many proposals on the table, in my opinion no one exactly knows what will be the final outcome of the Kashmir dispute. Both governments because of internal and external pressures have agreed to continue their talks even though if there is no visible progress, and even if some groups commit violence to derail the process. They have also agreed not to resort to military adventure to solve political disputes.
In view of the above agreement I can safely say that the peace process will continue, as both governments have no option but to continue talking. Not only this soon against their tradition and agreed policy of the past, they will have to invite the Kashmiris to the negotiating table, which has been a ‘no go area’ for the Kashmiris since 1947.
It would be interesting to see, who in their opinion represents the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. On both sides of the LOC both governments have groomed their own ‘b teams’, and have been projecting them as leaders of the Kashmiri people. Reality however is that no single leader, party or even alliance represents whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
If after agreeing on some kind of solution they plan to invite their chosen few, who are known to feel proud to dance on the tune played from Islamabad and New Delhi, and get their thumbprints, then it might not work. The best thing is to facilitate meetings of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and they can decide who are the best people to defend Kashmiri identity and Kashmiri interest.
The concept of United States of Kashmir is very much talked these days. It is good that different options are discussed, and we are no longer asked to decide between India and Pakistan. However it is strange that it is coming from a man or men who have opposed the concept of united Kashmir in the past, and who do not have ideological clarity.
This United States of Kashmir is different to the concept of an independent Kashmir we have in mind, as this USK might not be s sovereign state. However perhaps it is the best option available on the table at present, and should not be rejected as it provides some way out.
During my last visit to the region in June 2005, this idea of autonomous regions on both sides of the LOC came under discussion with senior Western diplomats and some other people. I said to them that the idea of autonomous states as it is would not work, as people did not pay sacrifices for autonomy. However if it could be improved, for example, by having a Senate consisting of 25 members, (five from each autonomous region) to work out intra region matters and also to deal with matters with others including Indian and Pakistan, then it might be acceptable to the people.
This idea of USK could not have been put forward without a green signal from Islamabad; in fact, it would be quite safe to say that it was discussed between the two in great details. But important question is if this idea has been discussed with the third party or was it broadcasted to score a political point and to cause embarrassment. I hope it was properly discussed at different levels before it went to the press because when the parties to a dispute discuss matters through the media it could create problems and misunderstandings.
Although it appears that progress on Kashmir is being made quite quickly, and some even suggest that we can see some kind of settlement soon; but I tend to disagree with this view. No doubt peace process has been going on for a long time now, and good progress has been made; but all that is to create conducive environment where all parties could comfortably sit down and discuss all disputes with an open heart.
That has been done and different options have been discussed and looked at, and from this stage we need to move to the next stage, which is to work out a mechanism that could be applied to negotiate and implement an agreed formula on Kashmir. In my considered opinion that is not going to happen soon, as both countries, especially India, are not yet ready to make big concessions on Kashmir.
Even after tripartite or triangular negotiations a decision is reached then still it is questionable if democratic government of India would make a final deal on Kashmir with a government which is not recognised as a democratic and does not enjoy a public support, as it is often said that public support is with Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.
This has to be seen in the context that Kashmir dispute is the biggest dispute between the two countries, and has great emotional, economic and strategic value to them. It is debatable if government of India which claims to be the biggest democracy on earth, would sign an agreement on an issue like Kashmir with a man in uniform, or wait a few more years until more acceptable and popular government is in place.
It is hoped that many big political changes will take place in Pakistan after 2007, and future government will have a popular support, even though it will have the same man as a President without army uniform. It is believed that the Indian government might feel more comfortable in signing a deal on Kashmir with that government then the one in place at present; and hopefully that government will have more credibility and public support as it is expected that it will have some input from Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.
This means we are still a few years away from the final settlement on Kashmir, and this should not disappointment people as this is not a long time in life of nations, especially when we expect to get better outcome with a few more years of struggle.
Q1.
As a result of this devastating earthquake a generation has perished, especially those closely involved with the Kashmiri struggle have died; and in view of this how do you see the future of Kashmir dispute?
Answer 1:
This earthquake will have far reaching consequences not only for Jammu and Kashmir but also for future of South Asia. Earthquake has not only destroyed militant camps which have been a stumbling block in the progress of peace process, but also have seriously damaged Pakistan’s defence on this side of the LOC.
You might recall that for success of the peace process Indian government demanded immediate end to infiltration and dismantling of militant training camps; and the international community fully supported this demand as it could have helped them to fight global war on terrorism.
President Musharaf agreed to do the needful in a public statement, as curbing activities of the jihadi groups also suited him; but despite his uniform and unprecedented powers at his disposal, he failed to deliver because he did not have full control over all organs of the government।
So destruction of these militant camps and death of thousands of militants on its own will have a serious affect on the militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, and on the Kashmiri struggle. And you got to see things in perspective that apart from the above, thousands of villages and some towns have been destroyed and more than hundred thousand people have been killed and millions have been uprooted.
The whole generation of young people have lost their lives, especially students; thousands of schools and colleges have been destroyed. There were little employment and professional education opportunities available in Azad Kashmir due to lack of proper investment and appropriate infrastructure, and now that everything is destroyed and millions of people are homeless and living on aid, my fear is that it will promote begging and unemployment which will surely have great negative impact on the Kashmiri society and on the freedom struggle.
This tragedy, as has been pointed out by some, could be used to make progress in resolving outstanding issues between India and Pakistan including the Kashmir dispute. But this could only happen if there is a change of heart on all sides, and there is will to resolve all disputes in order to have peace and stability in South Asia that this region could face challenges of the 21st Century.
Q2 The region has been hit by a great earthquake which has caused death and destruction, and unprecedented human suffering, and as a result all the attention is focussed on relief and reconstruction work। In view of the above it appears that the Kashmir dispute itself has been put on the back burner; or there is some understanding between the governments, and people are kept in dark। What is your view on this?
Answer 2:
The region has been hit by the biggest disaster where more than hundred thousand innocent people have lost their lives, and more than two hundred thousand people are likely to lose their lives because their homes are destroyed, and five weeks after the disaster still millions of people are waiting for help, food and shelter; and in view of the above it appears that the Kashmir dispute might have gone on the back burner or in the storage.
It is true that attention has been focussed on the earthquake and its consequences, but it has not undermined the importance of the dispute itself, if anything, sane voices are saying that if there was no LOC then thousands of lives could have been saved। And many even suggest that behind the scenes serious efforts are being made to reach the final settlement on Kashmir.
Even if we look at statements of general Musharaf, one feels that he is more eager to make some progress on Kashmir। He asserts that in view of the earthquake it is ‘more possible’ to resolve the long - standing dispute of Jammu and Kashmir. ‘This opportunity’ he asserts, ‘should be utilized to reach fair settlement of the dispute’. But he on his own, no matter how sincere or desperate he is, cannot make any progress on this issue, and he realises this when he says, that, ‘We cannot clap with one hand, I hope India realizes that the solution has become more possible now in the wake of the tragedy, in which Kashmir suffered’.
This shows that serious efforts are being made behind the scenes, but what I want to emphasize is that these efforts have to be sincere and pragmatic as well. Sincerity and pragmatic approach demand that they take Kashmir as human issue not a territorial issue; and make genuine Kashmiri leaders part of the peace process, those leaders who represent aspirations of the people and not wishes of Islamabad and New Delhi.
If India and Pakistan only promote those leaders as genuine leaders, who actively dance on tune played by them, then this approach will not produce the desired results to establish peace and stability in Jammu and Kashmir and in South Asia.
Q3
Pakistan has suggested flexibility on LOC and withdrawal of forces, how do you see this suggestion, and what impact this can have on bilateral relations; and how could this help to resolve the Kashmir dispute?
Answer 3
Since start of the peace process Pakistan has made many suggestions, some even say too many suggestions - almost one a week. When too many suggestions come directly from head of a state and without proper home – work, then these suggestions are not taken seriously by the international community, as it brings him down to level of Sheikh Rashid who is not taken seriously when he says something.
In process of making these suggestions Pakistan has considerably shifted its ground on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, and has also weakened its position and also weakened the Kashmiri struggle. India on the other hand has not given away anything, and in my opinion India seems to be in the strongest position since the start of the militancy in 1988.
And in view of this many people say that CBM means continue bending man, as General sahib has been shifting ground since he has taken over power in Pakistan. He is seen as a man in hurry to find a solution, and that may be is because of his weak, and to some, unconstitutional position at home, whereas Indian leadership despite a weak case and different pressures appears to be much more relaxed and in control.
I have strongly advocated non - military solution to the Kashmir dispute, and have been criticised by those who have made Kashmiri struggle as a business. I support the peace process, and strongly advocate Confidence Building Measures to ease tension and pave the way for the final solution of the dispute. But CBMs have to be well thought out and must be made with good intentions.
I say armies of both countries should leave Kashmir that state of Jammu and Kashmir could be united, but we have to be realistic, and in any case who is going to fill in vacuum created by withdrawal of these forces? Have we got some kind of international or UN force to move in should India and Pakistan agree to move out? For scoring political points, we all say things that sometimes are not practical.
We have to be practical if we are serious and sincere in resolving this dispute, and work out a mechanism to reach this stage of withdrawal. We cannot say India should pull her forces from Kashmir whereas Pakistan keeps army in parts of Jammu and Kashmir, for example, Siachin or Gilgit and Baltistan.
Apart from that we cannot ask India to take Indian troops out of Kashmir when militants are still there and are involved in militancy. Even after devastating earthquake they have not stopped their actions in which innocent people have lost lives, if anything their activities have increased; and whether we accept it or not it is known fact that directly or indirectly they still get help\and support from this side of the LOC. In view of this situation, which government will withdraw her forces from a disputed area like Kashmir, especially when that government is a democracy and is answerable to people.
Indian army was in Jammu and Kashmir before the start of the militancy, but they were not roaming around in streets and knocking doors at midnight. It was militancy that has provided an opportunity to troops to invade our privacy and abuse peoples rights. This is not to say that only Indian army has committed human rights violations and militants are exonerated from this, we all know that they are also accused of abusing and killing people.
In view of this, many say that before Indian forces could go back to barracks, militant activities have to cease. And in words of JKLF President Abbas Butt, ‘First in first out, militants moved in first to populated areas and the troops followed them, and now it is only logical that militants should move out or cease their activities before India could be asked to do so.
I fully support flexibility on LOC, but withdrawal of troops of both countries without some kind of mechanism seems to be a political statement. Under what rule both countries should withdraw their troops- if we follow the UN resolutions then they only ask Pakistan to withdraw, and once Pakistan has completed its withdrawal then India is only supposed to withdraw ‘bulk’ of her troops.
In absence of any agreed mechanism of withdrawal both countries need to create appropriate conditions before the withdrawal of troops could be seriously considered, and if somehow a workable mechanism is agreed, and withdrawal takes place then it will surly be a big step in resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Q 4
President Bush and other American officials have shown extra ordinary interest in this disaster; and in name of relief work American and NATO forces are active in Azad Kashmir. People are concerned about this as Pakistan has a large army of her own. What are your views on this?
Ans 4.
This is very important question and there is more than one way of looking at it. Simple way of looking at it is that Pakistan is a close friend of America and is ‘fighting America’s war’, and America being a good and sincere friend wants to help Pakistan in this time of need. But we know politics and international relations is not that simple.
Policies of countries are decided with national interest in mind, and there is generally more than one motive behind these policies, especially policies of big powers that have history of colonialism.
Small and weak countries are often let down by big powers after they have used them to achieve certain aims; and Pakistan has also tasted this medicine in the past, and is likely to do it again.
No doubt a major earthquake with unimaginable devastation has hit Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Pakistan, and Pakistan desperately needs help to cope with this disaster. But there are some issues that are of concern to me and to many other thinking people.
One has to see why Pakistan did not seek China’s help to meet these crises when Pakistan calls China as ‘all weather friend’ - a friend which is tried and tested more than once? China also has a large fleet of helicopters and vast experience to deal with natural disasters, and in view of this one wonders why they preferred to wait for heavy equipment, helicopters and other help from Britain and USA, at a time when innocent people were dying and crying for help.
Apart from this, Pakistani authorities refused to accept Indian helicopters, which could have saved thousands of lives because they could have reached there in no time, just across the LOC. We have to see things in perspective, there was a peace process going on between India and Pakistan, certain CBMs were in place and trade between them is booming since the peace process. There was no threat of war, and there was a cease- fire on the borders, and yet Indian help with helicopters was refused, yet Israeli help was accepted, and Pakistan has no diplomatic or trade contacts with that country.
Apart from the men in uniform, men in militia uniform (members of Jihad outfits) were also seen very actively helping the victims. It is good to note that they have heart and desire to help people in need; but this also worried many as it clearly indicated their manpower, resources and command and control system.
Many people, especially Westerners, thought help of Jihadi organisations will surely create a soft corner in the hearts of these victims, and they could be persuaded to join ranks of these groups, which could seriously damage their war on terrorism. As far as victims of the earthquake are concerned they need help and need it desperately, no matter where it is coming from.
It appears that there are four advantages of inviting NATO and American forces.
Most obvious one is ‘help’ to the earthquake victims, some of whom still have not received any help, and they are lying under the sky in extremely cold weather without proper food and shelter.
Other main advantage was to counter presumed Indian attack in wake of a serious blow to Pakistani defences in the area. Pakistani military officials thought that despite the peace process India could take advantage of the situation; and they might return ‘Kargil’ adventure with interest.
Third advantage is that these forces could ‘find’ Osama Bin Laden, or his remains, as he is presumed dead in this earthquake. Also their presence here will help them to keep track of the Alqaeeda operatives, if there are any, in the Pakistani Administered Kashmir, North Pakistan and Gilgit and Baltistan.
Their help and support and mere presence will keep jihadi groups on guard, and will deter them to do anything else than the relief work.
Some commentators feel that even Pakistan is less visible with the relief work when compared to activities of NATO and America, never mind ‘azad government’ of Pakistani Administered Kashmir; which is taken as a puppet or mere shadow of Ministry Of Kashmir Affairs, Islamabad.
It looks that NATO’s role is fast changing, and from being a military alliance it is becoming an extended tool of UN Commission on Human Rights. When we analyse the role of NATO and American troops in our region, we got to see what role NATO played in other natural disasters. For example, not long ago the tsunami devastated many countries, but we did not see NATO or American troops in action to help victims of that disaster. And moreover NATO, as an organisation, showed no interest and concern for the Katrina-devastated population of New Orleans.
At one time Pakistan was even reluctant to let an aircraft fly over certain areas of Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Northern Pakistan and Gilgit and Baltistan; and now thousands of NATO and American troops with highly sophisticated technology are wandering up and down as they please. How do this affect Pakistan’s military installations, intelligence gathering installations and other sensitive matters in these areas?
Above all how do our neighbours, especially China and Iran; view this and what impact this is going to have on future relations with these countries because of obvious concerns these countries have about America’s military presence at their door steps.
One reason given for their presence here is that they have sophisticated technology, which is needed here. This advanced technology was more useful to locate and rescue victims under the rubble, and surely that stage has passed; and if we still require this technology then why didn’t Pakistani government asked to borrow this, as it was the case with the Indian helicopters. I am sure a large Pakistani army with high level of technical know how, and a nation that successfully manufactured and exploded an atomic bomb had sufficient skilled manpower to use this technology.
Another point that worries many people is the role of Pakistani government in all this? Civilian government is no -where visible. What role has parliament and Cabinet played in all this?
I am among those who believe that presence of NATO and American troops are here to stay for some time. I understand some statements suggest that they will stay here for 80 days, and purpose is relief work; but I have my doubts about this because I don’t know whether this 90 days promise is a military promise or a civilian one. If it is a military promise then it reminds me of 90 days of Zia Sahib; and these troops could be here for many years.
In any case my feeling is that they are not only here for relief work, the kind of relief work they are doing, delivering food items and building walls etc, could very easily be done by Pakistan army. As has been noted above these troops have multiple roles in this area, which includes a political and military agenda.
Q6 China’s role in earthquake
Ans 6.
(It is partly answered above)
China has very close relationship with Pakistan. One can say that China is the only country, which has lived up to expectations and has not let down Pakistan at any time. But one can question if Pakistani governments have lived up to expectations of the Chinese?
One can say that more than once Pakistani governments intentionally or unintentionally worked or allowed its territory to be used against interests of China. And China instead of retaliating or showing annoyance in open decided to remain quiet or decided to play a low profile role. In my opinion China is facing that situation again, and it is because of that China appears to be side lined in the whole process.
American policy towards China clearly shows that they see China as a major emerging threat, and want to encircle it, and contain its growth and potential. America has clearly made considerable progress in this regard, and one can see that apart from troops in Afghanistan, America has bases in some Central Asian countries. Also America has strong influence in South Korea, Taiwan and some countries of South East Asia; and now that they have direct presence in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan and Northern Pakistan, and this is a serious concern to China.
No Chinese government would like to see American troops in Azad Kashmir, Northern Pakistan and in Gilgit and Baltistan, as this is the region which provides important link to China, generally known as ‘outside window for China’.
Since 9/11, without much homework, Pakistan has made important policy decisions, which were also of major concern to China; and Pakistan did not even consult old and traditional ally. China appears to feel betrayed but they don’t have much options open to them at this stage. In any case Chinese diplomacy is unique in many ways, and even when they are annoyed they don’t express it and continue with the cooperation and work at hand.
China for obvious reasons is upset with new developments taking place in South Asia, but feels that it is better to watch and see the changing situation and wait for the appropriate time when tide starts to change.
Q7 MQM
Ans 7
There are people who have many bad things to say about MQM as a party and a movement, and they even have criticism to make over their role in the relief work. As a Kashmiri nationalist I welcome their help. According to news in Pakistani papers there have been some clashes between MQM workers and Jammat E Islami workers in Pakistani Administered Kashmir. Rivalry between these two go back to Karachi and has manifested itself even in the filed of relief work.
As far as I am concerned MQM was among the first to activate its cadre to support the victims of the earthquake, and they have provided millions of rupees and blankets etc; and have helped to save thousands of lives. We are grateful to MQM for everything they have done for us, and we hope that they will continue to help us because still there are millions of people without any shelter.
MQM, at one time, was only a regional or ethnic party with interest largely restricted to Karachi and Hyderabad, but we saw role of MQM gradually expanding to the rest of Pakistan. Over the years they have played an important role in the national politics of Pakistan; and now they have moved to Pakistani Administered Kashmir to help the quake victims.
Before the rise of MQM, Jammat e Islami had a big say in politics of Karachi, and after bitter confrontation their position was take over by MQM. And now that MQM workers came to Pakistani Administered Kashmir this alarmed Jammat e Islami, because they feel they could be squeezed here as well.
I can see MQM playing an important role not only in Pakistan but also in Kashmir as well. Sooner or later Pakistani government has to make some compromise on Kashmir and they have shown their ability to make u turns on important issues and get away with it. Kashmir dispute is a different ball game; the government has to get support of some powerful forces in the country.
MQM over the years has proved that they have the ability to mobilize public support on important issues, and effectively support the government. MQM Chief, Altaf Hussain, by sitting in London can call shots and make things happen in Pakistan. The military government and MQM need each other in order to be relevant. Their interests are common, and they have to forge closer ties to be successful in the next phase, which starts in 2007; but for that a lot of work needs to be done beforehand.
As noted above Pakistan has to swallow a bitter pill on Kashmir, and MQM could be a useful ally in this. It would not surprise me at all if MQM starts its branch in Azad Kashmir. I oppose Pakistani parties to have their branches in Pakistani Administered Kashmir and in Gilgit and Baltistan; but if other Pakistani parties can have their branches here then no one can stop MQM to set up their branch here.
Should MQM decides to follow other Pakistani parties and move in to this area, which in one way they have already done because of the relief work, then they could soon be a successful party as they know how to make alliances and mobilize masses.
Q8.
Recently International Kashmir Alliance, IKA, held an international Kashmir Conference in Brussels, what were the aims of that conference and how successful you were in this? Apart from that what was the purpose of formation of IKA, and what role it has played in the Kashmiri politics?
Ans 8.
IKA was formed under Geneva Declaration to provide a platform to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that they can express their views without any threat or intimidation. It is a pro people and pro peace Alliance which believes that there is no military solution to the Kashmir dispute; and that the dispute has to be resolved in a process of dialogue involving all three parties to the dispute. It strongly opposes politics of vested interests which is commercialised and which has encouraged violence and proxy war; and this has resulted in loss of thousands of valuable lives and has done enormous damage.
We can proudly claim that we have made a difference in the Kashmiri politics. We openly opposed commercialised politics and gun culture in Jammu and Kashmir; and strengthened those groups and individuals who opposed all this but did not have courage or did not have a platform to oppose these power groups. We provided a voice to disadvantaged groups in the society; and promoted culture of tolerance and coexistence.
IKA not only promoted peaceful resolution of the dispute but also promoted Kashmiri nationalism, as we are the first party or alliance to have reached out to people of all communities and regions and provided them a platform. From this platform, a first International Kashmir Conference in its true sense was held in London, which was also attended by notable people like Benzair Bhutto and Dr Farooq Abdullah.
Despite strong opposition from certain powerful groups it was very successful conference from anyone’s standards; and notable delegates from different social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds sent a powerful message that we don’t want any more violence, and that we want peace, dignity and right to live our lives like other human beings.
We were the pace setter, it helped to change thinking of the people. This provided them encouragement and they felt that they could oppose and challenge those who want to continue this proxy politics and proxy war in Kashmir resulting in mayhem and bloodshed. It also showed that the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed, and especially areas of Gilgit and Baltistan also came to limelight first time since the present militancy. A clear message came out of this conference that majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is against division, violence and sectarianism.
IKA London conference also opened a flood- gate and many groups with vested interest started holding conferences in various parts of the world, but they failed to attract delegates from all regions and all communities; and they only looked official show representing one view point.
IKA held its second International Kashmir Conference in Canada, which also proved to be very successful, as more people representing ethnic minorities of Jammu and Kashmir were present. And we also managed to issue a joint declaration from the delegates, which reinforced IKA programme and promoted politics of tolerance and coexistence. It rejected division of Kashmir, and condemned violence and sectarianism. It promoted more confidence building measures, opening of LOC and peaceful resolution of all issues including dispute of Jammu and Kashmir; and insisted that there must be an active participation of the Kashmiri people.
It must be noted here that apart from these conferences IKA leaders held a number of seminars in various parts of the world, and have held many press conferences to highlight different issues, which directly concern the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Also IKA leaders have met British MPs, European MPs and MPs of various other countries, including diplomats of important countries and Think Tanks to project a Kashmiri point of view.
In pursuance with IKA policy and programme of reaching out to people and give out Kashmiri version to the international community, we arranged third International Kashmir Conference in Brussels. This conference, like our previous conferences, was very successful, and some would say more successful because of the contribution, debates, interaction and final outcome in the form of comprehensive agreement known as Brussels Declaration.
But this conference should not be an end itself, this is means to an end, and end being a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of everyone concerned that we can have peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Many positive changes have taken place since our first conference, India and Pakistan are firmly committed to the peace process; and there has been change of attitude to violence and many stumbling blocks.
Even there have been some major changes in Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia since our last conference in Brussels. Earthquake has destroyed thousands of villages and towns in Kashmir and Pakistan, and there are millions of people who desperately need help; and the world community and aid agencies have been very active in dealing with the disaster.
India and Pakistan have also come closer since the earthquake; and they have opened five points across the LOC to help the quake victims. Indian government was among the first to offer massive help, although there were some trust and confidence related hiccups that delayed the relief work and as a result we failed to save thousands of valuable lives. This also indicates that we all need to do more to boost trust and confidence that all the concerned parties to the dispute could sit down around the table and resolve all issues which hold our progress.
What this means is that role of IKA has not finished yet. We need to do more to build bridges among different communities and ethnic groups that we can all trust each other, and work out a strategy to establish peace in the region and face challenges of the 21st century.
I understand that there are other peace loving people and groups who share our ideals and we are willing to work with them; and in this respect IKA leadership has taken some decisions to incorporate and affiliate other like- minded groups and individuals. We planned to announce this strategy in October after completing our discussions with all the concerned groups, but that could not happen due to massive earthquake which has not only killed more than lakh people and destroyed nearly half of Azad Kashmir, but political activities have also been taken over by relief work.
We could not have continued with our political programme after this tragic event for obvious reasons. Anyhow like other aid agencies we have also been active with the relief work, as first priority was to save lives and be with people in this time of desperate need.
However we shall soon be starting our political activities which will have a strong element of relief work. I believe IKA can play a leading role in helping and supporting the peace process; and bringing people from different social and cultural backgrounds on one platform. For this purpose IKA can hold a conference in Islamabad followed by one in New Delhi, which could help people of all shades of political opinion to discuss and debate issues; and forge alliances and unity among different groups.
Apart from that IKA leadership has ability and skills required to help in the negotiations because of their understanding of jurisprudence of the Kashmir dispute; and play crucial role as we believe in non - religious politics, and have strong commitment to liberal and democratic ideals. And this way we can justifiably claim to speak for all sections of the Kashmiri nation as majority share our political ideals.
Q10 It appears that your first priority now days is article writing, analysis and interviews; and your activities for JKLF seem to be on decline what is reason for this? Apart from this you seem to have no visible contacts with the JKLF leadership like Yasin Malik; and in view of this where do you stand politically?
Ans 10
It is an interesting question which requires a detailed answer. Every national struggle for independence goes through different phases, and Kashmiri struggle is no exception to this. However our struggle is unique in the sense that we are occupied by more than one country, and some sections of our people don’t want independence. To put it crudely they either want to be Pakistani or Indian but not a Kashmiri. And our occupiers because of their physical control exploit the situation by projecting these people as leaders of the Kashmiri people, whereas it is known fact that their loyalties either lie with Islamabad or New Delhi; and in some cases with both.
Every genuine struggle for independence has many fronts, and militancy is only one front, and political activity is the other. As militancy has seen its hey day, and is no longer seen as a viable and acceptable method of pursuing one’s objective; and in any case as I have no role in militancy, so let us talk of political work.
Political activity consists of meetings of different organs of the party, public meetings, press conferences, political statements and interaction with other political parties etc, and purpose of all that is to send political message to party members, and people in general and governments. First of all I would like to know which of the above we have not done.
We regularly have party meetings, press conferences, political statements and close interaction with other political parties. In fact, you will be surprised that we are perhaps the only Kashmiri political party, which has regular meetings. However I accept that we might not have had same media coverage in Pakistani media, and that is because they want to project other JKLF groups, which are perceived as ‘their own’ and projecting a Pakistani agenda.
In our effort to refine and clarify the JKLF ideology, which has been tarnished by compromises made by Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik, we had to reassert our position with regard to Gilgit and Baltistan and Pakistani Administered Kashmir; and that didn’t win us friends in Pakistani media and in Pakistani establishment. Pakistani establishment went out of its way to instruct different organs and members of the civil society to either boycott our activities or present them in negative sense.
Apart form that in this global village and with access to new technology one doesn’t have to hold a rally to get its message across. In a struggle for independence parties carry out different kinds of activities some legal and others not so legal, and purpose is to highlight the cause. Kashmir dispute has been highly publicised because of some legal and some illegal activities, and there is nothing more that one could to do further highlight it.
With help, support and influence of outside forces a lot of work has been done to resolve the Kashmir dispute; and one can see a considerable progress in this regard. There are a number of direct and indirect channels working full time to work out modalities to move forward; and hammer out a formula that could be acceptable to all the concerned parties.
And in this phase of the struggle, a public meeting, a rally or violence is not going to change anything. To me it is a battle of ideas, and JKLF cannot win this or influence this by holding a public meeting or by throwing a bomb, and that again in public place. This phase of the struggle needs an intellectual input from the JKLF, and we don’t want to be out of step with that.
We need to demonstrate to people who matter that we know what is happening, and that we are willing and capable of making a positive contribution to support the peace process and reach an acceptable solution. Over the months and years we have made concerted effort to influence or at least get an ear of those who matter; and some of this activity is best to be kept away from the media.
If we are not holding rallies it does not mean we don’t have means to do so, and one should not construe that we don’t have support on the ground; if anything we have more support and more friends in Pakistan, Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan then ever before. Apart from that tell me which Kashmiri party is holding big public meetings and rallies, in fact most are waiting for a miracle to happen. They have already given in, and live in hope that someone else will do the needful.
Unlike our JKLF other JKLF groups and some other Kashmiri parties have no financial worries, in fact, they have so much that they don’t know what to do with it, so we have to use our meagre resources carefully.
Generally when a Kashmiri party holds a public meeting they get up to a thousand people after a lot of effort and expense; and after people leave the meeting they hardly remember what was said. A message heard by people from a platform in a speech is difficult to remember and nearly impossible to pass on; whereas a message on a paper is easy to understand, could be read again and is easy to pass on.
So we use our resources sensibly, and by spending half of that money we produce books and booklets, which help to pass on our message to thousands of people. In the past two years we have produced more than six books and booklets on different aspects of the Kashmiri struggle; and in December of this year we will (inshallah) produce at least three more booklets We will hold launching function for these, and that itself is a political activity, which to us, is more productive and long lasting.
I write articles on current affairs, act and react on the everyday issues, and not on ancient history to get my name published and stay alive in media; and those who have this in mind they are totally wrong. My articles are published in many papers and are also used by different Internet papers, and by Grace of Allah, are read and noted in various places.
With regard to Yasin Malik, what you and others got to remember is that he joined the JKLF in late 1980s, and I am one of those who helped to form it in 1977. I have my own contribution and standing in the JKLF and he has his own. We don’t need umbrella of Yasin Malik or Amanullah Khan to continue our struggle for unification and independence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
In any case these two have alleged to have maligned the JKLF name by making ideological compromises; and our JKLF would not make any agreement with them until they come clean on their ideological stand. There is an old saying that there are no free dinners in business, similarly there are no protocols without an ideological compromise.
This is not only our view, this is a widely held view in political circles; and no nationalist party of Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan want to have any political contacts with them. Apart from that they are regarded as ‘b team’ of agencies. Their activities sometimes reflect and reinforce this image, for example, Amanullah Khan attempted a border crossing of LOC in 1992; and now everyone knows that it was funded and engineered by Pakistani agencies.
He seems to be more worried about rights of people living on the Indian side and less worried about rights of his own people in Gilgit and Baltistan, who have far worse living conditions in the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir. One may ask how many demonstrations he had taken out for rights of people of Gilgit and Baltistan, or for that matter for rights of people Mirpur who will be displaced fro the second time to meet needs of Pakistan. One can give many other examples to support above point.
Similarly Yasin Malik’s JKLF gets official patronage, and in view of some, on both sides of the divide. Officials of Pakistan miss no opportunity to project him, and high level government officials take part in his functions, Ministers and even Prime Minister and President of Pakistan have enough time to attend his functions and project him.
One can only get this level of official support and media projection if there is some understanding behind the scenes, which in practise means an ideological change; and this is visible in policies of Yasin Malik’s group, as he doesn’t talk about rights of people of Gilgit and Baltistan and Pakistani Administered Kashmir. He doesn’t even talk about rights of people of Mirpur who will be evicted from their homes for the second time to provide water and electricity to Pakistan.
Very recently I met an Indian journalist and a Pakistani journalist, both of them have good understanding of Kashmiri politics and during course of discussion both of them acknowledged that Amanullah Khan and Yasin Malik have compromised their ideology.
This proves the point that we are the only JKLF group which adheres to the original ideology as it was enunciated by the JKLF in 1977, and this is the ideology of Maqbool Butt Shaheed. In view of the above we are proud to say that, at least, we have the correct ideological stand.
As far as our strength and public support is concerned, soon after the deadly earthquake, we were the first Kashmiri political party to announce help of 50 lakh rupees and have practically given out help in form of tents, blankets, clothes, food and building of tin houses. This money was raised by JKLF members and given to us by public who trust us.
Which other Kashmiri party or JKLF group has done this. One might say that Yasin Malik announced one cror rupees and he went across to help and support the earthquake victims. But there are some serious questions attached with the help he has given, and there is no comparison between the two.
Yasin Malik, it is claimed, raised this money from Kashmir, the Valley. Within days after the tragic event he came to New Delhi to sort out his visa, and practically stayed less than a week in the Valley, and war torn Kashmiri society is not that rich that he could raise one cror within a few days, especially when there is serious trust vacuum there. Even if he did, he must have got that money in Indian currency; and he went to Pakistan by air, so he could not have put that money in a suitcase and boarded the plane.
Fact of the matter is that he got this money in Pakistan, and it was not one cror it was much less. It was good of him to come and show solidarity and support people on this side of the divide, and we appreciate this; but as far as money is concerned it was not raised but given to him. And as a good and obedient boy he gave it back most of the money to those who provided it in first place. There is an old saying that Kunwainh ki matti kunwainh main lag jati hai, meaning that soil out of well is generally used on it to complete it. You might recall that he gave ten lakhs rupees to President of Azad Kashmir’s relief fund and twenty lakhs to President of Pakistan’s relief fund; and very little money was actually given out to the people in the form of relief work.
Corruption in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir is rampant, Pakistan is still fifth most corrupt country in the world, and Yasin Malik knows it; and in view of this why leave this money, especially if it was given to him by the people in form of Zakat and Sadka etc at the mercy of corrupt officials.
I hope this explains the situation with regard to the JKLF, and why we don’t want to align ourselves with either of these two leaders of JKLF because it will tarnish our image and reputation. I also hope that now you know where we stand in practical politics and on ideology. Whereas others have made some advances by ideological flirtation and by making compromises on ideology, but we have not shifted ground; and history will tell who were loyal to the ideology and the cause.
Q11. How do you see future of India and Pakistan talks, and in your opinion how long it will take to resolve it?
Ans 11.
Despite a lot of hard work and many proposals on the table, in my opinion no one exactly knows what will be the final outcome of the Kashmir dispute. Both governments because of internal and external pressures have agreed to continue their talks even though if there is no visible progress, and even if some groups commit violence to derail the process. They have also agreed not to resort to military adventure to solve political disputes.
In view of the above agreement I can safely say that the peace process will continue, as both governments have no option but to continue talking. Not only this soon against their tradition and agreed policy of the past, they will have to invite the Kashmiris to the negotiating table, which has been a ‘no go area’ for the Kashmiris since 1947.
It would be interesting to see, who in their opinion represents the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. On both sides of the LOC both governments have groomed their own ‘b teams’, and have been projecting them as leaders of the Kashmiri people. Reality however is that no single leader, party or even alliance represents whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
If after agreeing on some kind of solution they plan to invite their chosen few, who are known to feel proud to dance on the tune played from Islamabad and New Delhi, and get their thumbprints, then it might not work. The best thing is to facilitate meetings of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and they can decide who are the best people to defend Kashmiri identity and Kashmiri interest.
The concept of United States of Kashmir is very much talked these days. It is good that different options are discussed, and we are no longer asked to decide between India and Pakistan. However it is strange that it is coming from a man or men who have opposed the concept of united Kashmir in the past, and who do not have ideological clarity.
This United States of Kashmir is different to the concept of an independent Kashmir we have in mind, as this USK might not be s sovereign state. However perhaps it is the best option available on the table at present, and should not be rejected as it provides some way out.
During my last visit to the region in June 2005, this idea of autonomous regions on both sides of the LOC came under discussion with senior Western diplomats and some other people. I said to them that the idea of autonomous states as it is would not work, as people did not pay sacrifices for autonomy. However if it could be improved, for example, by having a Senate consisting of 25 members, (five from each autonomous region) to work out intra region matters and also to deal with matters with others including Indian and Pakistan, then it might be acceptable to the people.
This idea of USK could not have been put forward without a green signal from Islamabad; in fact, it would be quite safe to say that it was discussed between the two in great details. But important question is if this idea has been discussed with the third party or was it broadcasted to score a political point and to cause embarrassment. I hope it was properly discussed at different levels before it went to the press because when the parties to a dispute discuss matters through the media it could create problems and misunderstandings.
Although it appears that progress on Kashmir is being made quite quickly, and some even suggest that we can see some kind of settlement soon; but I tend to disagree with this view. No doubt peace process has been going on for a long time now, and good progress has been made; but all that is to create conducive environment where all parties could comfortably sit down and discuss all disputes with an open heart.
That has been done and different options have been discussed and looked at, and from this stage we need to move to the next stage, which is to work out a mechanism that could be applied to negotiate and implement an agreed formula on Kashmir. In my considered opinion that is not going to happen soon, as both countries, especially India, are not yet ready to make big concessions on Kashmir.
Even after tripartite or triangular negotiations a decision is reached then still it is questionable if democratic government of India would make a final deal on Kashmir with a government which is not recognised as a democratic and does not enjoy a public support, as it is often said that public support is with Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.
This has to be seen in the context that Kashmir dispute is the biggest dispute between the two countries, and has great emotional, economic and strategic value to them. It is debatable if government of India which claims to be the biggest democracy on earth, would sign an agreement on an issue like Kashmir with a man in uniform, or wait a few more years until more acceptable and popular government is in place.
It is hoped that many big political changes will take place in Pakistan after 2007, and future government will have a popular support, even though it will have the same man as a President without army uniform. It is believed that the Indian government might feel more comfortable in signing a deal on Kashmir with that government then the one in place at present; and hopefully that government will have more credibility and public support as it is expected that it will have some input from Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.
This means we are still a few years away from the final settlement on Kashmir, and this should not disappointment people as this is not a long time in life of nations, especially when we expect to get better outcome with a few more years of struggle.
PROFILE OF Dr SHABIR CHOUDHRY
PROFILE OF Dr SHABIR CHOUDHRY
PROFILE OF Dr SHABIR CHOUDHRYDr Shabir Choudhry has done extensive research on the issue of Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations। He passed BA Honours in Politics and History, and Mphil in International Relations (title of the thesis, ‘Kashmir and Partition of India’); and title of his PhD thesis is ‘Kashmir- An issue of a nation not a dispute of land’.
PROFILE OF Dr SHABIR CHOUDHRYDr Shabir Choudhry has done extensive research on the issue of Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations। He passed BA Honours in Politics and History, and Mphil in International Relations (title of the thesis, ‘Kashmir and Partition of India’); and title of his PhD thesis is ‘Kashmir- An issue of a nation not a dispute of land’.
Apart from this Dr Shabir Choudhry passed Post Graduates Certificates in Education, and NVQ Assessor’s qualifications; and taught English in London।Political Achievements:
- Founder member of JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front) and got elected as a Press Secretary in 1984।
- Became its General Secretary in 1985, and resigned from this post in 1996।
- Got elected President of JKLF and Europe in May 1999, and decided not to contest in elections of July 2001.
At present: - Director Diplomatic Committee and Spokesman of Kashmir National Party;
- Spokesperson for International Kashmir Alliance;
- Founder member and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs;
Previously:
Founder Member and Trustee/ Director of London based registered charity, Kashmir Foundation International and resigned from this position in August 2001। - On many occasions addressed UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, and regularly take part in proceedings of the Human Rights Commission।
- Participated in a Round Table Conference on Kashmir, organised by Socialist Group of European Parliament in Brussels in 1993।
- Addressed as a Chief Guest in a seminar on issue of Mangla Dam during the UN Sub Commission’s proceedings in August 2003।
- Addressed as a key - note speaker in a seminar on the issue of Gilgit and Baltistan, organised by Association of British Kashmiris।
- Addressed as a keynote speaker on human rights conference in Paris in 1991।
- Addressed at Cambridge University as a Chief Guest in a conference on Kashmir in 1990।
- Addressed as a keynote speaker at New Delhi conference on Kashmir, which was part of Track Two diplomacy in November 2000।
- Addressed as a speaker in a NGO Conference on Self - Determination in Geneva in August 2000।
- Addressed as a keynote speaker in a fringe meeting of Liberal Democrats at their Annual Conference in Brighton in 1995।
- Participated in World Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 1993।
- Before President Clinton's visit to India and Pakistan in 2000, lead a JKLF delegation to the State Department to discuss Kashmir dispute and situation in South Asia; and had two rounds of meetings with senior State Department officials before President Musharraf’s meeting to Washington in June 2003
- Played a leading role in supporting and providing important materials and support to Baroness Emma Nicholson and MEPs during different passing stages of EU Kashmir Report which despite aggressive and massive campaign by pro Pakistan lobby was passed in 2007 with majority
- Apart from that had meetings with senior officials including Ministers of different countries,
- Also held meetings with the State Department officials on number of occasions।
- Won first prize in an essay competition in Urdu in 1976. It was organised by High Commission of Pakistan in London, and title of the essay was 'Qaaid-e- Azam's role in Islamic History'.
Publications
Got first Urdu novel ‘Fareena’ published at the age of eighteen। - Second Urdu novel ‘Bay-Khataa’ which was about the problems of Asian youths living in UK published in 1983।
- Third Urdu book ‘Pakistan and Kashmiri struggle for independence’ published in 1990।
- Fourth Urdu book is also on Kashmiri struggle, 'Is an independent Kashmir a conspiracy?'
- Apart from that Twenty Five books and booklets published in English on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle.
Recent publications are:
Kashmir dispute as I see it - Different perspective on Kashmir
- Kashmir needs a change of heart
JKLF visit to Pakistan Administered Kashmir
If not self determination then what?
Future publications
Following books were completed some time ago and shall be published in near future: ·
In Search of Freedom - My visit to Srinagar and Islamabad
Kashmir and Partition of India
Struggle for independence, jihad or proxy वर
A brief background
Dr Shabir Choudhry was born in a small village called Nakker Shamali (near Panjeri) in District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. He went to UK in 1966, and like other people from the region, holds a dual nationality. He left secondary school in 1970 with no qualifications and began his life as a textile worker.
In 1975 he started part time studies and passed Matriculation from Government High School Panjeri, passed ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels from UK, and resumed full time degree course in 1981, and passed BA (Hons) in Politics and History in 1984. He continued full time and part time jobs until he got his Mphil. He passed his PGCE (Post Graduates Certificate in Education) in 1990, and then started full time job as a Lecturer.Due to health problems he resigned from teaching in 1999. At present he is self - employed, provides private tuition, translation and interpretation and consultancy. Through out his adult life he has actively worked for the cause of Kashmir, and even during long illness he effectively carried out his responsibilities as a leader of the JKLF, a ‘prolific writer’ and consistent campaigner of Rights Movement and peace in Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia.
Professor Rafiq Bhatti, Mirpur
Right Honourable Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Right Honourable Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Dear Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri Sahib Aslamo Alaykam
Re: Visas for participants of JKLF Mirpur conference
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front UK & Europe is holding an International Kashmir Conference in Mirpur Azad Kashmir, and our aim is to support the peace process in Jammu and Kashmir and to formulate a Kashmiri strategy in these talks.
Before announcing the conference I contacted Pakistani High Commission officials and talked about possibility of visas for participants who wish to travel from the other side of LOC. I was assured that there should be no problem as long as I provided details of the conference together with the names of invitees. This I did about four weeks ago.
Now that invitation cards for the conference have been delivered to all important Kashmiri leaders in all regions of the State, and leaders from various political and ethnic backgrounds have shown great interest in this conference, I am told that Pakistani High Commission in Delhi is not helping them with the visas.
I understand that both governments are engaged in a peace process on Kashmir, and have established good friendly relationship; and many delegations from various walks of life have been permitted to visit each others country which has helped to create better understanding. In view of this I can’t understand the logic of creating problems for those Kashmiri leaders who wish to take part in this conference, especially when we also want to support the process which both governments have pursued for some time.
Previously we used to hear that India is creating certain obstacles that Kashmiri leaders cannot travel abroad. If these leaders don’t get visas to take part in the conference, then unfortunately it will be taken as Pakistan’s attempt to create obstacles. And this will be bad for Pakistan’s image and will affect Pakistan’s relationship with the people of Jammu and Kashmir, as it could be seen as Pakistani government’s attempt to oppose Intra Kashmir Dialogue which could help us to work out a strategy on Kashmir dispute.
Sir, right to travel is a basic human right; and under the UNCIP resolutions on Kashmir, which Pakistan supports, we people have right to travel from one part of Kashmir to the other; and in this regard we need your help. I am faxing you a complete list of invitees from there and the letters we have sent to your government.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF
CC to Suleman Bashir, Additional Secretary Asia Pacific
Dear Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri Sahib Aslamo Alaykam
Re: Visas for participants of JKLF Mirpur conference
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front UK & Europe is holding an International Kashmir Conference in Mirpur Azad Kashmir, and our aim is to support the peace process in Jammu and Kashmir and to formulate a Kashmiri strategy in these talks.
Before announcing the conference I contacted Pakistani High Commission officials and talked about possibility of visas for participants who wish to travel from the other side of LOC. I was assured that there should be no problem as long as I provided details of the conference together with the names of invitees. This I did about four weeks ago.
Now that invitation cards for the conference have been delivered to all important Kashmiri leaders in all regions of the State, and leaders from various political and ethnic backgrounds have shown great interest in this conference, I am told that Pakistani High Commission in Delhi is not helping them with the visas.
I understand that both governments are engaged in a peace process on Kashmir, and have established good friendly relationship; and many delegations from various walks of life have been permitted to visit each others country which has helped to create better understanding. In view of this I can’t understand the logic of creating problems for those Kashmiri leaders who wish to take part in this conference, especially when we also want to support the process which both governments have pursued for some time.
Previously we used to hear that India is creating certain obstacles that Kashmiri leaders cannot travel abroad. If these leaders don’t get visas to take part in the conference, then unfortunately it will be taken as Pakistan’s attempt to create obstacles. And this will be bad for Pakistan’s image and will affect Pakistan’s relationship with the people of Jammu and Kashmir, as it could be seen as Pakistani government’s attempt to oppose Intra Kashmir Dialogue which could help us to work out a strategy on Kashmir dispute.
Sir, right to travel is a basic human right; and under the UNCIP resolutions on Kashmir, which Pakistan supports, we people have right to travel from one part of Kashmir to the other; and in this regard we need your help. I am faxing you a complete list of invitees from there and the letters we have sent to your government.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Chairman Diplomatic Committee of JKLF
CC to Suleman Bashir, Additional Secretary Asia Pacific
Issue of Baglihar Dam 18 January 2005
Issue of Baglihar Dam 18 January 2005
Dr Shabir Choudhry
One of regular readers of my articles has asked me an interesting question. He wants to know why I have not written anything against construction of ‘Baglihar Dam’; whereas I am more than eager to write against upraising of the Mangla Dam.
It is a good question, but before I begin to formulate an answer we need to establish the difference between the two projects.
The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India and we challenged this accession by saying that he did not satisfy all the rules of accession enunciated in the light of Indian Independence Act. Pakistan was not a party to this accession and became a party only because of de facto control of the Kashmiri territory, and assumed obligations under the UNCIP.
In other words both countries had no legal and constitutional rights to control or annex the State of Jammu and Kashmir, hence they have no right to use or divert resources which belong to the people of Kashmir.
We know both countries love to have Jammu and Kashmir because of its resources and strategic position. Both countries desperately need water resources which, by grace of Almighty, we have in ample supply. Indus Water Treaty is about the division of water resources of Kashmir.
This treaty was signed by President Ayub Khan and Pundit Nehru on 19 September 1960, and Mr Eugene Black, then President of World Bank, played a leading role in preparation of this agreement, according to which India has exclusive right over three Eastern Rivers, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, and Pakistan have right over the three Western rivers, Chenab, Jhelum and Indus. It was an agreement between the two occupying countries to share the water resources of Jammu and Kashmir against the will of its legitimate owners.
I am not a legal expert so I don’t know whether this kind of use is considered as theft, loot, plunder or what. But one thing is clear that it was, and still is, exploitation of our resources by the both countries. We don’t mind them using our resources, including water, provided we get appropriate rewards for this. If gas and petrol could be sold to those who want to pay a price for it, then why not a price is charged for water and other resources used by India and Pakistan.
The treaty gave exclusive right to India over the three Eastern Rivers, it also allowed India a limited use of the Western rivers for agricultural use, domestic use and any development projects, as long as it did not obstruct the flow of water into Pakistan. Although the Treaty was regarded as a best possible solution to the water distribution problems between India and Pakistan, it had inbuilt possibilities of controversy as both government could have different interpretation of domestic use and development projects.
In light of this agreement illegal construction of Mangla Dam took place against the expressed will of the local people. Irony of the matter is that this mega project, which uprooted lakhs of Kashmiri people, was not for the welfare and interest of the local people, but for the interest of Pakistani land lords and industrialist who wanted water and energy.
Like Mangla Dam’s illegal construction, its illegal upraising is also going to uproot more than lakh local people; and this time too to cater for needs of Pakistani land lords and industrialists. Pakistani land lords will get water, industrialists will get energy, contractors will get business and WAPDA and their agents will get money in form of kick backs and financial corruption, but the question is what is there for the people of Mirpur?
Whereas Mangla Dam was built on the river Jhelum, Baglihar is built on the river Chenab, near Doda which is in Jammu province of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan's contention is that the design of the 450mw Baglihar hydro-power project violates the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. According to Pakistani expertsthe design of the project, which provides for submerged gated spillways, gives India control over Pakistani waters, and that is a breach of the Indus Waters Treaty.
What this means is that Pakistan has no objection over the project itself but has concerns over its design, and demands that it should be changed. Pakistan submitted six technical objections to the project, and if no agreement is reached between the parties then Pakistan has a right to seek neutral expert help under the Article IX of the Treaty.
It is true that India does not like any outside interference in any matters which they regard as ‘bilateral’ or ‘internal’, but one wonders what Pakistan is going to gain from this exercise. Surely Pakistan can embarrass India by this approach and also send this signal that it is impossible to work out any deal with India bilaterally, be it on small issues like Baglihar, Siachin and Sir Crick or the resolution of the Kashmir dispute itself.
This approach can help Pakistan to score political goals and perhaps win some support at home, but surely it will not have any impact on the construction of Baglihar project itself. This project started in 1992, and is due to be operational before the end of this year, or the next year at the latest. While these talks were taking place India got extra manpower and resources to ensure that the project is completed on time.
As yet Pakistan has not taken a decision whether to approach the World Bank or not, and when they do it will take many months to appoint neutral experts. And once this hurdle is over neutral experts will obtain technical data from the both countries. The submission of the data and its subsequent examination by experts will be a long and complicated process which could take years. And at the speed India is working, the construction work will be over; and I am sure Pakistani experts are not unaware of this.
Then one wonders what the objective of this exercise is? In past six seven months Pakistan has worked hard on this agenda, and brought it to the lime light; but the question is why it took them so long to get their act together. Is this some kind of diversion from other issues, or some kind of smokescreen that attention of the people is focused on this issue while something else with greater importance is taking place?
It is understandable why Pakistan is so desperate for resources of Jammu and Kashmir including water from Kashmiri Rivers. Pakistan’s per capita water availability was 5600 cu meters in 1950, and it has drastically dropped to1400 cu meters; and if appropriate measures are not taken then it could further fall down to 1000 cu meters within the next ten years.
Whereas I can understand Pakistan’s water problems for which only they can be blamed as they did not build Kala Bagh Dam and planned properly to utilise water resources, I can not sacrifice interest of Kashmiri people for the sake of Pakistani landed lords.
If a dam was being built inside the Indian Territory and it affected flow of water to Pakistan, then choice was a simple one, I had to choose between a Pakistani interest and an Indian interest. But here situation is different. Call it Baglihar dam or Baglihar hydro-power project, it is being built in Jammu which is a Kashmiri territory; and if electricity is generated from this or land is irrigated then it is going to benefit my own people - citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. It may or may not affect the flow of water to Pakistan, and to true Kashmiri nationalists, interest of Kashmir and its people is paramount.
Even moderate Kashmiri leaders, who at one time, were considered as ‘B team’ of the Pakistani establishment, are coming in support of the view point expressed above. Former Hurriyat Conference (A) Chairman Moulvi Mohammed Abbaas Ansari said ‘India and Pakistan are fighting on the rivers and water which do not belong to them. The rivers are the sole property of Kashmiri people and no body has a right to talk on behalf of Kashmiris.’
It will be of interest to many that India has plan to complete 35 power projects inside Jammu and Kashmir, and this will have economic and political impact on lives of the people there. One view is that Pakistani establishment wants to ensure that the ‘Kashmiris are not empowered’ by projects like these, as they will create jobs and bring economic prosperity there. And according to the view of this establishment if economic prosperity together with some kind of ‘normalcy’ returns to Jammu and Kashmir, then it will help India to have edge over Pakistan.
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Dr Shabir Choudhry
One of regular readers of my articles has asked me an interesting question. He wants to know why I have not written anything against construction of ‘Baglihar Dam’; whereas I am more than eager to write against upraising of the Mangla Dam.
It is a good question, but before I begin to formulate an answer we need to establish the difference between the two projects.
The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India and we challenged this accession by saying that he did not satisfy all the rules of accession enunciated in the light of Indian Independence Act. Pakistan was not a party to this accession and became a party only because of de facto control of the Kashmiri territory, and assumed obligations under the UNCIP.
In other words both countries had no legal and constitutional rights to control or annex the State of Jammu and Kashmir, hence they have no right to use or divert resources which belong to the people of Kashmir.
We know both countries love to have Jammu and Kashmir because of its resources and strategic position. Both countries desperately need water resources which, by grace of Almighty, we have in ample supply. Indus Water Treaty is about the division of water resources of Kashmir.
This treaty was signed by President Ayub Khan and Pundit Nehru on 19 September 1960, and Mr Eugene Black, then President of World Bank, played a leading role in preparation of this agreement, according to which India has exclusive right over three Eastern Rivers, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, and Pakistan have right over the three Western rivers, Chenab, Jhelum and Indus. It was an agreement between the two occupying countries to share the water resources of Jammu and Kashmir against the will of its legitimate owners.
I am not a legal expert so I don’t know whether this kind of use is considered as theft, loot, plunder or what. But one thing is clear that it was, and still is, exploitation of our resources by the both countries. We don’t mind them using our resources, including water, provided we get appropriate rewards for this. If gas and petrol could be sold to those who want to pay a price for it, then why not a price is charged for water and other resources used by India and Pakistan.
The treaty gave exclusive right to India over the three Eastern Rivers, it also allowed India a limited use of the Western rivers for agricultural use, domestic use and any development projects, as long as it did not obstruct the flow of water into Pakistan. Although the Treaty was regarded as a best possible solution to the water distribution problems between India and Pakistan, it had inbuilt possibilities of controversy as both government could have different interpretation of domestic use and development projects.
In light of this agreement illegal construction of Mangla Dam took place against the expressed will of the local people. Irony of the matter is that this mega project, which uprooted lakhs of Kashmiri people, was not for the welfare and interest of the local people, but for the interest of Pakistani land lords and industrialist who wanted water and energy.
Like Mangla Dam’s illegal construction, its illegal upraising is also going to uproot more than lakh local people; and this time too to cater for needs of Pakistani land lords and industrialists. Pakistani land lords will get water, industrialists will get energy, contractors will get business and WAPDA and their agents will get money in form of kick backs and financial corruption, but the question is what is there for the people of Mirpur?
Whereas Mangla Dam was built on the river Jhelum, Baglihar is built on the river Chenab, near Doda which is in Jammu province of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan's contention is that the design of the 450mw Baglihar hydro-power project violates the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. According to Pakistani expertsthe design of the project, which provides for submerged gated spillways, gives India control over Pakistani waters, and that is a breach of the Indus Waters Treaty.
What this means is that Pakistan has no objection over the project itself but has concerns over its design, and demands that it should be changed. Pakistan submitted six technical objections to the project, and if no agreement is reached between the parties then Pakistan has a right to seek neutral expert help under the Article IX of the Treaty.
It is true that India does not like any outside interference in any matters which they regard as ‘bilateral’ or ‘internal’, but one wonders what Pakistan is going to gain from this exercise. Surely Pakistan can embarrass India by this approach and also send this signal that it is impossible to work out any deal with India bilaterally, be it on small issues like Baglihar, Siachin and Sir Crick or the resolution of the Kashmir dispute itself.
This approach can help Pakistan to score political goals and perhaps win some support at home, but surely it will not have any impact on the construction of Baglihar project itself. This project started in 1992, and is due to be operational before the end of this year, or the next year at the latest. While these talks were taking place India got extra manpower and resources to ensure that the project is completed on time.
As yet Pakistan has not taken a decision whether to approach the World Bank or not, and when they do it will take many months to appoint neutral experts. And once this hurdle is over neutral experts will obtain technical data from the both countries. The submission of the data and its subsequent examination by experts will be a long and complicated process which could take years. And at the speed India is working, the construction work will be over; and I am sure Pakistani experts are not unaware of this.
Then one wonders what the objective of this exercise is? In past six seven months Pakistan has worked hard on this agenda, and brought it to the lime light; but the question is why it took them so long to get their act together. Is this some kind of diversion from other issues, or some kind of smokescreen that attention of the people is focused on this issue while something else with greater importance is taking place?
It is understandable why Pakistan is so desperate for resources of Jammu and Kashmir including water from Kashmiri Rivers. Pakistan’s per capita water availability was 5600 cu meters in 1950, and it has drastically dropped to1400 cu meters; and if appropriate measures are not taken then it could further fall down to 1000 cu meters within the next ten years.
Whereas I can understand Pakistan’s water problems for which only they can be blamed as they did not build Kala Bagh Dam and planned properly to utilise water resources, I can not sacrifice interest of Kashmiri people for the sake of Pakistani landed lords.
If a dam was being built inside the Indian Territory and it affected flow of water to Pakistan, then choice was a simple one, I had to choose between a Pakistani interest and an Indian interest. But here situation is different. Call it Baglihar dam or Baglihar hydro-power project, it is being built in Jammu which is a Kashmiri territory; and if electricity is generated from this or land is irrigated then it is going to benefit my own people - citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. It may or may not affect the flow of water to Pakistan, and to true Kashmiri nationalists, interest of Kashmir and its people is paramount.
Even moderate Kashmiri leaders, who at one time, were considered as ‘B team’ of the Pakistani establishment, are coming in support of the view point expressed above. Former Hurriyat Conference (A) Chairman Moulvi Mohammed Abbaas Ansari said ‘India and Pakistan are fighting on the rivers and water which do not belong to them. The rivers are the sole property of Kashmiri people and no body has a right to talk on behalf of Kashmiris.’
It will be of interest to many that India has plan to complete 35 power projects inside Jammu and Kashmir, and this will have economic and political impact on lives of the people there. One view is that Pakistani establishment wants to ensure that the ‘Kashmiris are not empowered’ by projects like these, as they will create jobs and bring economic prosperity there. And according to the view of this establishment if economic prosperity together with some kind of ‘normalcy’ returns to Jammu and Kashmir, then it will help India to have edge over Pakistan.
Writer is a Chairman of Diplomatic Committee of JKLF and author of many books and booklets. Also he is a Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)