Delaying solution to Kashmir has consequences for world

-AJK President Masood Khan

In an interview with Turkey’s Anadulo Agency President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar Masood Khan, has said that threats of war and use of nuclear weapons have made the situation in South Asia highly volatile.

He charged that India was foisting a military solution, contrary to Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir insisting on a diplomatic and political solution to the longstanding issue of Kashmir.

AA: Whether Kashmir is a crisis only between India and Pakistan. What we must understand when you mention the Kashmir crisis or conflict?

Sardar Masood Khan (SMK): Kashmir is not a bilateral issue. It is a trilateral issue because there are three parties to the dispute — Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who are the most important party to the dispute, because way back in 1947 their aspirations were not respected, by the Indian government.

And then the UN Security Council recognised these three parties. In a way, they have said that Kashmiris are the most important party. Because while India and Pakistan would prepare the conditions or work with the UN to create the right kind of environment and right kind of infrastructure, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have to determine their political future, they have to make a final decision. So, when we talk about the Kashmir crisis, we are in fact talking about four constituents — Pakistan, India, the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the UN. Because the UN was the guarantor or for the implementation of the Security Council resolutions and the guarantor for the protection of rights.

AA: Last time, when you were in Turkey, you said bilateral process between India and Pakistan has failed and it is time to take Kashmir back to the world stage. What has been the progress?

SMK: When I was here last time [in May at Anadolu Agency], I said that the bilateral process was not working. But now I can say that the bilateral process is broken.

There is no bilateral regime. Because India has taken a raft of unilateral measures on August 5 and implemented it on October 31. These are all unilateral steps that India has taken in the disputed territory. Because of these actions that India took on these two dates, the Kashmir issue has been internationalised.

For the first time after many years, on August. 16 this year, the issue was discussed in the UN Security Council, in an informal setting. And there have been many international conferences.

One conference was held a couple of days ago here in Ankara. There was sitting on Kashmir in the European Parliament. They had a plenary session. The French Parliament held a session for the first time. In the U.K., the House of Commons held a debate.

The US Congress so far has held two hearings. One was by a Congressional Subcommittee and the other was by Tom Lantus Human Rights Commission. So, what has happened, since I came here last, that the Jammu Kashmir dispute has been internationalised. It is receiving attention from international media.

But I would like to add, that while the issue is receiving attention from the media from the parliaments and from civil society organisations, the most powerful nations who influence decisions with regard to evolving a final solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, are inactive. They are reluctant to give a signal to the UN Security Council that it should deliberate on Kashmir and come up with a fresh initiative for the resolution of the dispute. The governments are tight-lipped and they are not acting, because of the economic and strategic interests tied with India.

That is why I was drawing an analogy between the events happening in South Asia currently, with those prior to World War II, when countries were cosying up with Nazi’s and fascists in Europe. The world paid a heavy price for that.

AA: India took a major decision stripping the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir. What are its implications on your part of Kashmir?

SMK: Its implications are serious. India had absolutely no right to take these steps. India has been calling the repeal of Article 370 and Article 35A of its constitution, as something which ended the special status of the Jammu and Kashmir state. But it did not have a special status, it is a disputed territory, it is under occupation.

Since 1947, it did not have a special status in the sense that India was trying to project. In fact, way back in 1947, India first coerced the Maharaja of Kashmir, to sign a fake instrument of accession. PanditJawaharLal Nehru, then prime minister of India, listed support of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who was then the most popular leader of Kashmir.

And that’s why this pact between Indian loyalists and the Indian elite, came into being. This pact now has been completely unravelled. As far as the people of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned, for them, the greater reality, is that they have been under occupation for the past 72 years.

This time, India has formalised its occupation. Previously, they used to delude the world that the state of Jammu and Kashmir is autonomous. They have now taken all those privileges that they have given to Kashmiris under their own constitution. It is the constitutional and legal part from the viewpoint of international law.

The second part is the campaign or brutalisation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Sexual molestation and use of rape as an instrument of war, as an instrument, to subjugate the entire population. Day to day life of people of Jammu and Kashmir, In which they face Indian terror. This is the bigger reality. These are the consequences of the steps that India has taken.

AA: There is an impression that post-August. 5, India’s actions were not opposed by the international community as they should have been. Is Kashmir losing relevance international front? You are an experienced diplomat. You worked at the UN representing Pakistan. How can you revive the international community’s interest in the Kashmir issue?

SMK: I would say that there has been a visible spike in the international community’s interest in the Jammu Kashmir dispute, particularly in the non-governmental realm.

The international media, civil society, and human rights organisations have condemned Indian actions. And many thinkers and correspondences and parliamentary leaders in the Western countries have also condemned and criticised India for what it has done. So, there is awareness about Kashmir; Kashmir is on the radar of the world. It is on the diplomatic radar.

But as I mentioned earlier, it is not getting equal attention on the government level. The world is distracted, the US has its own problem, preoccupied with impeachment. The U.K. is busy with elections. Europe itself is trying to come to grips, with its own problems. Despite that Kashmir is getting attention. The real tragedy is that Kashmir is not getting attention from the governments of the powerful nations who can help us make the transition from awareness-raising to actions to decisions. 

AA: Pakistan has been warning that if the world does nothing to stop India’s decision on Kashmir, the two nuclear-armed countries will get ever closer to a direct military confrontation. Some call it nuclear blackmail. Is Kashmir really a nuclear flashpoint?

SMK: It is not a blackmail. In fact, it is a narration of the facts on the ground. We’ve been trying to inform the world about the serious developments and these provocative statements which have been made by India, because warmongers in India who sit in the India cabinet and unfortunately that includes prime minister himself, have been holding threats. And their extremist organisations like RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS), they are all mentioning that they will use nuclear weapons against Pakistan.

In their election manifesto this year, and previously in 2014, they said that they would repeal Article 370 and Article 35A. They have repealed these two articles.If they are saying today that they would attack Azad Kashmir, and they would disintegrate Pakistan. And they would use nuclear weapons against Pakistan, should we not believe them? Why should we give them the benefit of doubt? Because they are saying that they will do it.

So, all Pakistan is doing is informing the international community that this is what India intends to do. And if the international community does not intervene, or it does not activate a political and diplomatic process or processes, then the people of Azad Kashmir and the people of Pakistan will have to fight back and defend their own territory and their own people.

So, this is an existential threat. That’s what we are saying; we are saying that if there is a war that starts at the conventional level and spirals into a nuclear exchange, then the consequences would not just be confined to the South Asian region.

I mean, of course, scientists are projecting that if such an exchange takes place, nearly 120 million people will be killed instantly, and 2.5 billion people all around the world would be affected directly or indirectly.

But what we are saying is that now it is the time to intervene. When Kashmiris have been killed, when they have been ethnically cleansed, when they have been displaced, totally, it would be too late for the UN Security Council to intervene.

We also know that in the Balkans when the serious situation was developing, when people were killed there. And there was a genocide and organised genocide and there were pogroms and when there was genocide in Rwanda and Burundi in the mid-90s, the UN did not do anything.

So, it is not blackmailing the international community. We are telling them about the realities as they are developing and emerging in the region, and that the international community should act under the UN Charter and in accordance with international law. So, it is a very, very real threat to Pakistan and to the entire region and the globe.

AA: Considering the sensitives of the US Congress on issues such as Uyghurs, Hong Kong and Rohingya, how should we evaluate its attitude towards the Kashmir dispute?

SMK: The United States in the past has been very cautious in regard to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and it has been trying to balance its statements when it made the best statements. But recently, I mean before August 5 when the Prime Minister of Pakistan was in the United States, the President of the United States offered mediation, but that was rejected by India.

And after that, in September this year, the President of the United States has been repeating or reiterating this offer of mediation, but he made it conditional.

He said that he would mediate if both countries — India and Pakistan — concur. You have to look at the pages of history to substantiate that India has never ever agreed to third party mediation from the 1960s onward.

So, the United States has expressed this desire to do something. But I think that the United States itself is distracted by impeachment proceedings in the US Congress. There are also elections. But let me add here that for the first time, in many decades, this taboo that India cannot be held accountable for its crimes against humanity in the Indian-occupied territory has been broken.

Because, now, several Congressmen, in fact, more than 50 Congressmen, have criticised Indian actions and have raised questions about the way it is conducting its war operations in the territory and they have asked for lifting telecommunications blockade and ending the security lockdown. There are many senators who have written to the US president to intervene in the situation.

So, I think that all around the world, there is this new awareness about the seriousness of the Kashmir dispute and that many parliamentarians, including US Congressmen and senators, are rejecting India’s one-sided narrative, and they know more about more facts about Kashmir on the ground.

So, I think that this is a positive change.

AA: Do Kashmiris living on the Indian side expect assimilation, identity or cultural erosion in the medium term? How they will be affected?

SMK: You know, India has announced that it would bring these Hindus from all over India and settle them in the occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Now, they have made preparation for that. It’s not that this is something happening all of a sudden and they would start doing now. They’ve given these rights of permanent residence or semi-permanent residence to the so-called West Pakistan refugees are refugees from Azad Kashmir. They have also manipulated statistics by using the statistics act. There’s another act, Banking Act, which is called the SARFESI Act [Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest] and they have tried to illegally attach Kashmiri properties and give them to Hindus or non-Kashmiris. So, this process has already started.

They’ve also planned elaborately for establishing these illegal settlements to start with separate colonies for pundits and ex-army personnel. And now, they want to bring these people particularly Hindus from all over India, from Delhi or Haryana or Rajasthan or Kerala or Bangalore or Bihar and settle them in Kashmir. And bring rich entrepreneurs from India to settle them there and give them long leases for businesses, the 40-year lease or more so that they can reconfigure the population of the territory and they can reduce the Muslim majority here — we should be 70 per cent of the entire population — to a minority. So, this is what India has planned for years. Especially Sayed Ali Geelani and his followers and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik they have been warning about it year after year. Now, this has started happening now.

This is ethnic cleansing. And they will change the names of the towns, they started it all today, they would accomplish this task. And they would kill people. They would displace them, they would create stress within the Valley of Kashmir and force people to flee the territory, either to Azad Kashmir or to other parts of the world. It would create a refugee wave, I’m sure. And Kashmiris have started thinking about it. In fact, the Kashmiri families who can afford to flee or leave the territory, they are looking at different options.

So, ethnic cleansing has already started. And you know, when I came to you last time I use these terms, I said that ethnic cleansing was taking place or crimes against humanity was taking place, the genocide was Taking place. Now, it’s not the president of Azad Kashmir who is saying, it is the Genocide Watch or the United States is saying that Kashmir is passing through different phases, different stages of genocide. So, what we used to say and was not believed, is now being acknowledged and propagated by the independent media community and civil society representatives.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More