|
Q: Do you think that the India-Pakistan dialogue will have a positive
impact on the Kashmir issue?
A: So far the talks between India and Pakistan have had no impact
on Jammu and Kashmir. Indian forces are still present in Jammu and
Kashmir and they continue to suppress the freedom struggle. Killings,
arrests and violence against the civilian population is rampant.
In fact, this dialogue has encouraged India, because in the past
Pakistan had raised the issue of human rights violations [in Occupied
Kashmir], but not any more. The Pakistani media and government have
changed their polices because they think that pointing out violations
will undermine the peace process.
Q: What is your major complaint against Pakistan's policy?
A: Pakistan wants to have good relations with India,
but they are not displaying any emotion for the Kashmir issue or
showing any seriousness towards it. This attitude disappoints the
people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Q: President General Pervez Musharraf says that Pakistan
has not compromised any principles in relation to Kashmir; only
the strategy has changed
A: Principles are mirrored through strategy and strategies
have to match principles. [You say] you have sympathy with the people
of Jammu and Kashmir, you support their right of self-determination,
you support them morally, politically and diplomatically - this
is your principle. But your strategy is to shake hands with the
people who play with our lives, rape our daughters, arrest our people,
kill them and discard their bodies in police stations. You show
cordiality with those who have detained 10,000 Kashmiris and we
do not know whether they are dead or alive. And President Musharraf
says that Manmohan Singh is a nice person
These all are fantasies
and dreams. There is no change in India's policy on Kashmir. They
are cheating Pakistan. Indians have adopted this policy for the
past 57 years. In 1995 they passed a resolution in both houses of
parliament stating that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of
India. Whether it's the ruling party or the opposition, unless and
until they roll back this resolution, how can they accept Jammu
and Kashmir as disputed territory?
Q: War is not a solution to this problem. Don't you think
that the issue can be resolved through dialogue?
A: Your question is very important. It is true that
India and Pakistan have fought three wars where the main cause was
Kashmir and the main cause for the separation of East Pakistan was
also Kashmir. We understand that wars create problems, but it does
not mean that Pakistan should move away from its principled stand
on Kashmir. Pakistan has to stand firm on the Kashmiri people's
rights of self-determination and not show any flexibility on this
position.
I have said many times
that we will accept the result of a plebiscite, but India has to
accept the results as well. Pakistan should not be reluctant to
say that Hindustan was divided on the basis of the two-nation theory.
Although India does not admit this fact, it is crystal clear that
Pakistan came into being based upon this theory. Pakistan seems
to be under pressure and its policies are becoming fragile. We do
not say that we should indulge in war; what we say is that Pakistan
should be steadfast.
Q: Is there any decrease in cross-border infiltration
from Pakistan?
A: Nobody supports terrorism. But this does not mean
that a justified right should be curbed in the name of countering
terrorism. Hindustan's political leaders themselves used force against
the British empire. Bhagat Singh sacrified his life on the gallows.
On April 14, 2000, after my release from an Indian jail, some media
personnel asked me what justification there was for infiltration.
I responded, 'Why did India send its troops to East Pakistan to
support the movement there?' The questioners were rendered speechless.
Q: Some people blame you for dividing the APHC. Why did
you force the split?
A: Briefly, in 2002 while we were in jail, the APHC
did not follow the constitution of the Hurriyat Conference. They
caused a great setback to the movement for independence and it was
agreed that no other such opportunity would be afforded to them. 
|