Jammu & Kashmir - Articles

Is there any major change on ground with the Mufti-led coalition government in power?

There is been no change on the ground; no decrease in bloodshed; and no decrease in violence. The Coalition government promised various changes like merging the Special Operation Group (SOG) into police, and end the atrocities committed by the forces on the people. But nothing has been done on the ground. There was an assurance that enforced disappearances would be investigated; however, in Mufti’s tenure 37 persons have been subjected to enforced disappearance and the killings have not stopped. SOG is still operating; just a few days back a blast occurred in court in Pattan of Baramullah District which was the handiwork of renegades intended to free one of their colleagues.

As far as healing touch policy of this Government is concerned, it is just to befool people. There is nothing like ‘Healing touch’ on ground. Everything has remained unchanged.

Is the APHC working towards the resolution of dispute or has its stand vis-à-vis Kashmir aggravated the situation?

The APHC basically represents the public sentiment. The National Front is a constituent body. The Hurriyat Conference wants to resolve the dispute in accordance with the promises made to the people in 1947 and the resolutions passed in the UN. We have always been interested in resolving the issue but India never reciprocated. Still there is hope of a breakthrough in view of the recent Indo-Pak peace diplomacy. We believe in dialogue and want to resolve the issue once and for all through peaceful means.

Does the "freedom struggle" carried by the militants (Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris) in the Valley aggravate the situation and internationalize the Kashmir dispute?

Kashmir is already an internationally recognized issue. Militancy has been there since long. Nevertheless, if India does not bring flexibility in its policy vis-à-vis Kashmir, the militancy has to pick up which is not good as for a resolution of issue. In the 90s, the militancy was not so mature and calculated as it is in 2003.

Is conversion of LOC into International Border a viable solution to the dispute or is an ‘Independent Kashmir’ a viable option?

If conversion of LOC into International Border would have been a viable solution, then there would have been no bloodshed at all. In fact, people here are not satisfied with the constitutional and political system of both countries. I don’t see freezing the Kashmir issue or converting the LOC into International border as a viable solution to the dispute. Dialogue at the highest level with seriousness is need of the hour. As far as ‘Independent Kashmir’ is concerned, no Kashmiri would deny it. However we prefer the Kashmir issue to be resolved in accordance with the UN resolution.

Is there any role for outside powers, especially the UN or the US, in resolution of the Kashmir dispute?

There is already American intervention in Kashmir issue. America and Britain are the leading global nations and they are dictating terms to the Third World. They can play a role of facilitator, or what you call ‘arbitrator,’ in the Kashmir issue. Their intervention is necessary. It was because of America’s intervention that Kargil war came to an end. We appeal the Indian leadership not to be reluctant and come to the negotiation table to find a solution.

What should the governments of India and Pakistan do in finding a viable solution to Kashmir?

Kashmiris are a party to the dispute. They have offered 80,000 lives. Credit goes to Pakistan in showing flexibility in its stand on Kashmir. Pakistan earlier wanted India to give right of self determination to the Kashmiris according to the UN resolution, which India denies. Pakistan later said that if UN resolutions are not practicable, it is ready to talk to India, but talks should include the Kashmiris also (third party to the dispute), which also India denies. We have always wanted India and Pakistan to talk first and then involve the Kashmiris to find a solution to the dispute.