Jammu & Kashmir - Articles

Prof Abdul Gani Bhat, Chairman, All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), in an exclusive interview to the IPCS shared his views on current developments in Kashmir

How do you see the recent Indo-Pak peace diplomacy? Do you think that it would contribute to resolution of the Kashmir issue?

The Kashmir dispute has a historical perspective. It is to be understood with reference to the political history of the sub-continent. The dispute is not to be linked by any stretch of imagination either to territory or to ethnicity or to religion. It is directly and explicitly, probably inexplicably, linked with the political right of the people to exercise their choice –which is, whether to be a part of India or be a part of Pakistan.

This is exactly why, when you talk about ‘dialogue-diplomacy’ or for that matter ‘cohesive diplomacy’ taking shape in the sub-continent, the question arises, will diplomacy of a dialogue between two neighbouring countries (India and Pakistan) lead to the resolution of Kashmir dispute or not. It is a big question and in my opinion, the answer is yes. The reason being that not only are the Indians and Pakistanis concerned about inherent dangers following the possession of nuclear weapons by the two countries, but countries like America, China, the European Union, Russia, and Japan, apart from other countries, are all equally disturbed about what happens in the South Asian region as a consequence of the undercurrent of tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

In light of this, dialogue between the two will centre round just one single issue – Kashmir. When the whole exercise is focused on a single issue, we will obviously have to find the solution. How you do it is different; what form the solution take is different; but, the two leaders (Atal Bihari Vajpayee and General Parveez Musharraf) have the capacity to hammer out a solution to the pleasure of all hearts across the globe.

As for as the APHC is concerned, let me make it abundantly clear that we will contribute to the peace process which is directed towards finding a permanent solution to the problem of Jammu and Kashmir and put in an effort to consolidate the process at all levels, in every respect, and that we have demonstrated that sufficiently in terms of our words, our thoughts and our deeds. I, therefore, think: Yes, the dialogue is to focus on Kashmir and when you talk of Kashmir, you naturally and directly talk of the solution to Kashmir.

How do you see Pakistan President’s visit to US? Is there a role for the US in resolving the Kashmir issue?

United States is the world’s most powerful country. We cannot dismiss the US as a country that has no role in international affairs. The role America had in Bosnia, Kosovo, in the Middle-East and earlier in certain other regions should speak volumes of the interest the Americans have, directly or indirectly, implicitly or explicitly, overtly or covertly, in South Asian affairs as well. When you talk of the South Asian region in particular, the Americans have security concerns, strategic ties and, of course, commercial interests. To safeguard all these interests, they will obviously prefer that peace returns to the entire region. And, peace is not possible in a vacuum. You cannot restore peace unless and until you address the issues that constitute a potential threat to peace.

Therefore, I think, they have a role as the world’s powerful country and as a country which has many stakes in the South Asian region. They know that the two countries need to be brought a little closer. Only then would the Kashmir dispute be resolved. Of course, India and Pakistan need to cooperate in more than one respect. We may have lines but the lines are not to be seen and we can move about here and there and do everything possible for the good of the people. We should understand and respond to the call of the times, we should read the writing on the wall, and we should feel the pulse of the people. All of us, India, Pakistan, Kashmir and other countries in the region want to live in a better world and leave behind a bright future for generations to come.

With the peace process gaining little momentum, what exactly should both countries do vis-à-vis Kashmir at this point of time?

I may partly agree with you. The required all-out effort is not available. But, if you consider the blistering hostility between India and Pakistan, you can probably not expect miracles to happen in a day or two or in a month or so. We will have to move step by step with all prudence. In my opinion, one thing we – India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir – need to do is to rise above the traditional position on Kashmir. Indians need to rise above their traditional position on Kashmir, Pakistanis should respond equally and the Kashmiris should pick up the dynamics of the situation and move forward to pursue a broad based and forward looking policy with regard to future dispensation of Jammu and Kashmir.

All the three (India, Pakistan and Kashmiris) should recognize somber stark political realities on the ground. Let us not throw dust into our own eyes. Let us be wide open to the realities around. Let us decide that we will move forward and find a solution to Kashmir in a specified period of time�six months, one year or two years. This will introduce an element of urgency in finding an acceptable, honourable and durable solution to the problem of Kashmir.

Do you think an independent Kashmir would be a viable solution to the Kashmir issue? How do you see conversion of the LoC into an international border? If greater autonomy is granted to Kashmir, would it help restore lasting peace in Jammu and Kashmir? And, what about accession to Pakistan?

In my honest view, Independent Kashmir is not a workable idea. Indians don’t accept it, Pakistanis too, more importantly; China also may not choose to accept it. The reasons are not far to seek, and are as obvious as anything. Maybe all three do not accept it and therefore, Kashmir doesn’t go independent.

Talking of the LoC, let’s not forget that the line was drawn in blood as a consequence of hostilities between India and Pakistan. The line is the root of the problem and no root of any problem can be misconstrued as offering a solution to the problem. Therefore, line drawn in blood can never be converted into a stable peaceful international border. The artificial line cutting across the hearts of people can never ever be misinterpreted as a stable peaceful line. Never forget history. Artificial lines cannot last long; the Berlin Wall collapsed. The forces of history are more powerful than atomic arsenal. Look at Russia, it broke. The forces of history shape up in such a way that you can probably not control the movement of these forces.

Greater autonomy is the slogan of a political party not of the people; even for the National Conference (NC) it was a slogan on paper and never in their hearts. If it were a slogan in their hearts and in their minds, I think, they would have probably got at least a modicum of it – they did not get anything. The whole structure was eroded as a consequence of the apathy that the NC demonstrated with regard to this issue. Moreover, the people who laid down their lives, who shed blood profusely, day in day out in Kashmir … what for did they do it? Never for autonomy; but for a right which is inalienable as far as international law goes. According to the UN charter, people are the masters of their fate, they are the final arbiters and they are the captains of their ship.

Accession to Pakistan is for the people to decide. But first things first: will India and Pakistan agree to organize a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir to ascertain the wishes of the people? Do Kashmiris want India or Pakistan? Pakistan says: Yes, let people of Kashmir decide. Indians say: No, they have decided; Maharaja has acceded Kashmir to India. The assemblies constituted from time to time in Kashmir have ratified the Maharaja’s accession to India. Pakistan has taken a position which is rooted in international law and I concede. The resolutions passed by the UN Security Council were accepted by India and Pakistan. The resolutions enshrine a provision that the dispute ultimately will have to be resolved with reference to the people’s verdict.

Has the Mufti Government been able to bring some changes on the ground? How do you see its healing touch policy?

This question should go straight to Mr. Mufti Mohd Sayeed and probably not to me. It is not in my agenda. However, let me make it absolutely clear that the root cause needs to be addressed. Offshoot effects may be taken up, discussed or you may present these offshoot effects, dress them up in very beautiful words, it doesn’t matter. But, we will have to address the root cause and unless the root cause is addressed, the offshoot effects will have no relevance to the situation.

I think, no healing touch will do, no confidence building measures will do, and no psychological changes can work unless we recognize the root cause of tension. The undercurrent of tension (Kashmir) between the two countries must be addressed. Occasionally, you may have a spell of peace but it is not a permanent peace that you can dream of unless you buy it. If we have to buy peace for Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris, we will have to recognize the realities and address the root cause.

Do you think interlocutor NN Vohra’s visit to the Valley was a step in right direction?

I think the Prime Minister’s statesmanlike speech on the soil of Kashmir, followed by the Press Conference and later speech on the floor of the Parliament produced a change – a change in the mindset, in the attitudes and change in the style. You may not be able to gauge the depth of the change but the change is there. This change renders Mr.Vohra’s exercise relevant. I wouldn’t call it futile or irrelevant but when events start happening at a higher level, lower levels probably loose importance.

Vohra was discussing Kashmir on an internal track which is aimed at better relationship between Delhi and Srinagar. This provides no permanent settlement. Vohra is a retired bureaucrat; a bureaucrat is never a politician. Kashmir is primarily a political issue and needs to be politically addressed. Politicians are better in dealing with the situation in Kashmir rather than bureaucrats.

How do you view the role of the APHC in resolving the Kashmir issue?

We are the masters of our fate. We will have to be taken into confidence and involved in the process if a legitimate, just and honourable solution has to be hammered out. We have a very significant role and if this role is denied to us, it will mean the principles of justice are not met.

Does the role of foreign militants aggravate the situation or contribute to the resolution of the Kashmir issue?

No freedom struggle is imported or exported. All freedom struggles are indigenous and it is the native people who matter. Supporters are supporters and never masters. The solution to the dispute has to be linked with the masters and not the supporters. The supporters of the native people in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo were just supporters. They never passed judgment on the future of a particular country nor would they pass any such verdict in the  future.