KW File 2002
The Nation
02 Nov 2002
Abdul Latif Bhat
At last India has accepted Kashmir as a disputed territory. For many
years India's stand on Kashmir remained that it was her internal affair and could not be negotiated. India said the issue could only be addressed
bilaterally without outside interference.
Indian Ambassador to the United States Lalit Mansingh has said that "The US can be a 'facilitator'
rather than a 'mediator' in solving the Kashmir issue." While explaining the diplomatic term 'facilitator' in a conference for retired diplomats
and counsellors in Washington, he said, "a facilitator is somebody who is a friend, and can suggests things and does not dictate. To that extent we
welcome the role of United States." (Times of India, 12 Oct 2002).
In the month of October two meetings were held between the Indian Kashmir
Committee (fully supported by Government of India) and the US officials in Delhi.
A meeting was held between US Ambassador to India Mr Blackwill
along with his diplomats and the head of Kashmir Committee, Mr Ram Jethmalani, accompanied by its members former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, Times of
India editor Dileep Padgaorkar, former diplomat VK Grover and its convenor Ashok Bhan, Dileep Padgaorkar and MJ Akbar. Grover held another round of
talks with Donald Camp, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, for more than an hour.
Giving the detail of the meetings to the
media Mr Jethmalani said "We had a clear understanding of each other and resolved to work in coordination in the future." After a few days when
asked why the Americans were showing so much interest in the working of the Kashmir Committee, Jethmalani said "they are anxious to know what role
the Committee could play as the elections are over and whether it would shut shop." (Times of India, 21 Oct, 2002). Keeping in view the above
statements of Jethmalani the outcome of meetings with US officials would be interpreted as;
1. The American officials were satisfied with the
elections held recently in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir and might have urged India to accept these elections as an ultimate solution to Kashmir
problem.
2. America was trying to send a message to India that if she was not satisfied with the recently held elections then she should think for
some other solution. And for some other solution, America might have stolen the chance to dictate to India its own solution. The following statement
of Mr Jethmalani confirms this idea, "One thing is certain- perceptions and aspirations of Ladakh and Jammu are not the same as those expressed in
the Valley. And in the Valley, there is so much of difference of opinion- a whole spectrum of conflicting opinions." (Times of India, 21 Oct, 2002).
Actually Mr Jethmalani was trying to convey the message through the diplomatic terminology used in the meetings with US officials that the
strength of the freedom struggle or the resistance movement against India was strong but limited to areas of the Valley only and the position was in
favour of India in Jammu and Ladakh.
This theory of Mr Jethmalani was similar to the Dixon Plan which was proposed by Sir Owen Dixon, a Judge of
the Australian High Court who came to the Subcontinent as a United Nations' Representative for India and Pakistan. It (Dixon Plan) assigned Ladakh to
India, the Northern Areas and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) to Pakistan, split Jammu between the two, and envisaged a plebiscite in the Kashmir
Valley. (Frontline 17-25-Oct 2002).
It is obvious that USA is more worried about the Kashmir problem than India is, because of its desire that
there should be a division of Kashmir as soon as possible according to US wishes. US Ambassador to India Mr Blackwill's statement expresses the
extent to which America is showing its interest in the issue of Kashmir.
"If India and Pakistan do not discuss their differences seriously and in
a prolonged way, why is this crisis ever going to go away?" Blackwill said. (Indian Express, 21 Oct 2002). This is an officially clear message to
both the neighbouring countries that they should start the talks and the purpose of talks should be to reach a final solution of the Kashmir issue.
Now the question arises that why India and US have abruptly intensified their efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue? We can observe this phenomenon
under the following assumptions:
1. Whether India and US have given a shape to any solution and now they are trying to force Pakistan to accept
that solution?
2. Is USA only dictating a solution that has in fact been drafted by India?
3. Is Pakistan supporting the US dictation in the
region?
4. Is US giving the impression that India wishes to agree upon a solution while remaining behind the scene itself.
5. Do USA and India
foresee that in case of an Islamic Revolution Kashmir would become part of Pakistan. In view of this fear both countries have given priority to the
division of Kashmir.
According to the Indian media, Mr Jethmalani is expected to visit US in the first week of November, where he is scheduled to
have meetings with the American officials and the expatriate Kashmiri leadership. Prior to the US visit, Mr Jethmalani is scheduled to attend the
third round of the talks with the Kashmiri leaders in Srinagar. It is not a secret anymore that the central point of the proposed talks in
Srinagar-would be to discuss extraordinary US interest in the Kashmir issue.
This indicates that the Kashmiri leaders would not oppose the move of
Mr Jethmalani. APHC Chairman Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat had rejected the United Jihad Council's (UJC) Chairman Syed Salahuddin's suggestion of
avoiding fruitless talks with Mr Jethmalani last week saying that "We are in politics.... politics consists of reconciliation, balancing and
interpreting various opinions." (Greeter Kashmir 13 Oct 2002)
There is no doubt that Mr Bhat is soft towards India and the US. Another APHC leader
Mirwaiz Omer Farooq had also wished "his group would consider an 'alternative negotiated settlement' giving greater autonomy to the Kashmiri
people, even if it doesn't lead to an independent state." (The Washington Times 23 September 2002).
Shabir Shah, head of the People's Democratic
Front (PDF) has said "During the 50-year long struggle, the people had carried out armed resistance for the independence of the valley. We have
nothing to do with Jammu and Ladakh".
Mr Jethmalani is hopeful that his trip to USA would be successful with the support of moderate leadership
of Kashmir. And certainly his next stop-over would be Islamabad. Are US and India preparing a "diplomatic offensive" on Pakistan so that they be
able to create division among the religious, moderate and national leadership while giving the twist to the planned controversy created in the name of
solving the Kashmir issue through territorial division.
The point to be noted is that US and India are now agreed upon on a 50-year old document,
the Dixon Plan. The plan was presented by a single man and it was not even based on the universally admitted resolutions which have given the right to
the people of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise their franchise on whether to remain with India or Pakistan.
The ground situation is that 50 years the
ago people of Jammu and Kashmir were not so hated by India as they are now. The new generation has laid to rest more than 80 thousand corpses (of
martyrs) smeared with blood in every nook and corner of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
The truth is that one man's document is irrelevant and
outdated as the people of Jammu and Kashmir do not support this idea. Yes, it is being supported by US only, for his own interest. On the contrary,
universally accepted and international resolutions have become more relevant and fresh as they have the backing of a long history of sacrifices, which
are still continuing in the presence of more than 0.7 million Indian troops.
Is it possible now for Pakistan to give up its stand on Kashmir as its
jugular vein, the symbol slogan of Takmeel-i-Pakistan. Is it possible that in the absence of the most popular leaders of the soil like Syed Ali Shah
Gilani, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, Yasin Malik etc., moderate leaders would be supported by the people on the proposed solution based on the division of
Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Let us leave the lines about the next stage for the historian.
The author is Kashmiri journalist.
Email:kashmiriwriter@hotmail.com
Print Version |
