Jammu & Kashmir - Articles

How do you see the situation in Kashmir under Mufti’s leadership?

There has not been a major change on the ground until now under Mufti’s government. Mufti has failed to provide good governance. During election campaigning, Mufti, Muzaafar Hussain Beig, and Mehbboba Mufti were the first to accept that Kashmir is a dispute between two countries. Besides these two countries, Kashmiris themselves are a party to the dispute. Mufti has failed to fulfill the promises made to the people, except for providing jobs to those whose kith and kin have been killed during turmoil. This is nothing new, even the NC government used to do the same. After coming to power, Mufti has become more or less like the Farooq Government, not caring much for the masses.

How do you see the "healing touch" policy of this Government?

Healing touch does not mean that a person gets killed and the Government pays him Rupees one Lakh as the cost for his life. 80,000 people had been martyred. Kashmir has become a hell. Healing touch, in its real sense, meant that the coalition Government would act as a bridge between the two countries and involve Kashmiris to resolve the Kashmir issue. But nothing like that has been done. Instead, the Government acts on the orders from Delhi.

Do you see a role for the APHC? Are they the real representatives of Kashmir?

There is a contradiction of opinion in the APHC. Some people talk of independent Kashmir; others talk of accession to Pakistan. However, APHC as a whole talks of resolving the Kashmir issue. The Democratic Freedom Party has a unified stand. The Hurriyat has a wide exposure throughout the world, which is mainly because of Pakistan. If APHC stands unified, they have a great role in the resolution of the issue. They need to overcome the differences within their party.

APHC are not the sole representatives of the Kashmiris. For that, they have to go to the grass root level. We must believe in “United we stand divided we fall.”

Does the presence of militants (Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris) in the Valley aggravate the situation or contribute to the resolution of the issue?

Militancy is all because of the Indian Government. Militants did not take up the gun until 1988; the freedom movement did not start in 1988; it has been there since 1947. In those times, we always wanted to talk to the Indian Government, but were not heard at all. Finally, the youth took guns in their hands to bring life to the freedom movement and challenge the Indian Government. In fact, the movement received a great set back in times of well known leader Sheikh Abdullah. As far as the militants in the Valley are concerned, they have done their role by offering their lives. It is the responsibility of the political leaders to give it a final shape.

If the Government of India sincerely talks to Pakistan and the separatists in Kashmir – separatists are not fond of bloodshed – they would love to find a solution through dialogue. It is only because of militants that Kashmir is in the International forum.

How do you see NN Vohra as interlocutor to Kashmir?

It is an exercise in futility. Vohra met people from the PDP, Congress, surrendered militants and outgoing NC, which served no purpose. The Democratic Freedom Party believes in dialogue. Also, there has always been a solution in the form of an agreement like the Shimla Agreement, Tashkent Agreement, Nehru Agreement etc, when there was a war between two countries. We have always advocated the dialogue process and whenever there was a move from Delhi, we reciprocated.

Nobody dared to talk to KC Pant due to tremendous fear from different sides; but we talked to him as we knew that the Government of India would highlight that Kashmiris don’t believe in dialogue in case we would not have talked to Pant. Through the Kashmir Committee, we (DFP) were told by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to facilitate the dialogue between separatists and the Government of India, we responded but it was always the Government of India which limped back.

Now NN Vohra has been sent as an interlocutor without any specific agenda vis-à-vis Kashmir. The Government of India should take major opposition parties like the Congress and CPM into confidence before initiation of dialogue and then the Prime Minster himself should initiate the dialogue process. If after this NN Vohra becomes the head of the working Group, we are ready to talk to him.

How do you see the border confrontation between India and Pakistan?

It has always been there at regular intervals. It was there in 1971. It cannot come to an end unless India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir issue through dialogue. We are ready to talk to India but then India should talk to Pakistan and finally it should become a trilateral dialogue. Ther Government of India was never interested in a purposeful dialogue that could guarantee a viable and amicable solution to the dispute.

Do you think an ‘Independent Kashmir’ would be a lasting solution to the dispute?

It would be premature to say anything about independent Kashmir being a viable solution to the Kashmir dispute. Some people here want accession to Pakistan; others may be satisfied with an independent Kashmir. In Jammu and Ladakh, people want India. Let both countries come to the negotiation table first and then decide what the majority wants in Jammu and Kashmir.

Is there any role for the US and UN in resolving the Kashmir issue?

To me, the UN has lost its prominence, especially after Iraq war. However, the US being a superpower has a role in resolution of the Kashmir issue. In the war against Iraq, the UN failed to play any role. America always has its own decisions to work with. It fought war against Iraq on its own terms. Might is Right in today’s world.