By Ghulam Hussan Kaloo and Izhar Wani

Syed Ali Shah Gilani, leader of Jamaat-e-Islami and a prominent leader of the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), is not only a veteran politician but a religious scholar, who by virtue of his long association with politics, has carved out a niche in a large cross-section of society and thus occupies an important place in the political firmament of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). He is not only suave and sober, but is a fiery orator with a discerning eye locked into the many political developments taking place in the South Asian subcontinent.

Q. While rummaging the pages of Kashmir history, we notice that the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 13^th August 1948 and on 5^th January 1949, amply demonstrate that the governments of India and Pakistan had affirmed their wish that the future status of the State would be determined in accordance with the will of the people. What is the legal status of these resolutions? Are they still relevant even after Tashkent and Simla Agreements?

A. As far as the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council are concerned they are relevant and shall remain relevant until they are implemented. It is unfortunate that the UN is not implementing these resolutions which would have solved the Kashmir problem a long time ago. India's attitude is rigid and unrealistic and as a result, these resolutions have not been implemented. The APHC is of the opinion that until and unless these resolutions are implemented, Kashmir's issue shall remain unresolved and the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir will continue to remain unfulfilled. The APHC strongly demand that the UN, especially its Security Council, utilise its resources and exert its influence in order to have these resolutions implemented soon. The right to self-determination is a very basic human right and the people must be given a chance to decide their own future. Not only are these resolutions the basis upon which the freedom struggle stands, but the commitment of the Indian government is also an important factor. Everyone is aware that India's first Governor-General, the late Lord Mount-Batten, had committed that accession is provisional and conditional, and that it will be referred to the people of the State for clarification by way of a free plebiscite. India's claim is that this was done by the late Maharaja Hari Singh.

Indian prime minister, the late Jawahar Lal Nehru, had also given a solemn commitment on many occassions, that the people of J&K would be given a choice of remaining with India or joining Pakistan. He further pledged the same not only to the people of Kashmir and India but also to the government and people of Pakistan, as well as to the entire world. The people have been peacefully demanding the implementation of these resolutions, and when peaceful demands failed, Kashmiri youths took up arms. Therefore, I can say with authority that the UN resolutions are relevant. Commitments made by Indian leaders should be fulfilled by New Delhi.

Q. India has been propagating that the international agreement, embodied in the Security Council resolutions, has been superseded by the Simla Agreement concluded between the two countries in 1972. Do you subscribe to this view; if not, why?

A. The Tashkent Agreement was signed in 1966 as a consequence of the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965. The former Soviet Union's intervention led to a cease-fire. Under the supervision of the Soviet Union, an agreement was reached in Tashkent. That agreement also implied that the Kashmir issue must be resolved according to its historical background and according to the commitments made at international forums. As far as the Simla Agreement is concerned, it has been agreed upon that Kashmir's dispute will be settled according to the international agreements and bilaterally between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan are committed to implementing the UN resolutions. When both countries have signed an agreement, it is natural that they have recognised these historical facts as valid.

Q. The Indian government has been advancing an argument that after Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession, many elections were conducted wherein some members of the APHC also participated and gained entry into the State Legislature. Therefore, there is no valid reason for anyone to boycott the elections. How do you react to it?

A. As far as the state elections are concerned, it is to be recalled that in 1956 when the first elections were held in Kashmir, the prime minister of Pakistan, the late Liyaqat Ali Khan, wrote a letter to his Indian counterpart, the late Jawahar Lal Nehru, stating that these elections should not be conducted since the people of Kashmir have been promised by the UN that they will decide their future through a plebiscite. The late Jawahar Lal Nehru gave an assurance that these elections are only for internal matters and that they will not affect the UN resolutions and India's commitment to the people of J&K in regards to the UN supervised plebiscite. These were Nehru's words. The State Assembly has no right to decide the future of the State or to rectify the accession. If the State Assembly gives any opinion, it is non-binding. Nehru asserted that it will not supersede the UN resolutions and that elections would not affect the UN Security Council resolutions. History is on the side of the freedom struggle. State elections are not an alternative to the plebiscite. These elections have been held for internal and local administration purposes. It has no relation with the resolutions that have been passed by the UN Security Council, which give the people of Kashmir their right to self-determination.

Q. It is alleged that the APHC has an unwritten Constitution and as such has unlimited powers as far as induction or expulsion of members is concerned. Had it not been so, an important executive member would not have been expelled without having been given a fair hearing?

A. As far as the Constitution of the APHC is concerned, it is written and adopted by the executives and other concerned members. As far as the suspension of Mr. Shabir Shah is concerned the decision has been taken against him for indiscipline. One decision was taken unanimously by the executive body, in the presence of Mr. Shah, which the said "important executive member" later did not obey. The APHC called him on several occasions to explain why he was accused of acting in an indisciplined manner and to inquire why he had not followed the decision taken in his presence. Three weeks later another letter was sent to him, signed by six executive members, inviting him to attend a meeting at the APHC headquarters to discuss the matter. If that were not feasible for him then he was told to come over to Peerbagh Office for a frank discussion. If that too was not acceptable to him then Umar Farooq's or at Imam Hi's home. However, unfortunately, Mr. Shah preferred not to respond.

Q. The APHC is a conglomerate of several organisations and groups having different shades of opinion and different ideologies, yet it is reported that there is no homogeneity in this heterogenous body. Do you subscribe to this view?

A. As far as the basic point is concerned that the people of J&K should be given the right of self-determination, and if implementation of the UN resolutions is difficult, the APHC has suggested tripartite conference among India, Pakistan and the true representatives of the people of Kashmir. In the conference everyone should strive for finding an acceptable, peaceful and lasting solution to the Kashmir dispute. As far as the basic point of the right of self-determination is concerned, all the units of the APHC are united. There is a complete homogeneity among all segments of the APHC.

Q. It is alleged that the APHC has failed to develop an organisational structure. What you have to say obout this?

A. It is under consideration of the APHC and in the near future the APHC is going to have a provincial and district level organisational structure. The freedom loving people are being harassed and tortured daily by Indian security forces and by their agents. The APHC believes that when it nominates individuals for districts they will meet the same treatment and might even get eliminated. Taking this into consideration, the APHC would calmly do its best to improve our structure across the State.

Q. How do you react to Farooq Abdullah's autonomy slogan? What impact has it had on the new political setup and the ongoing movement?

A. As far as Abdullah's position on internal autonomy is concerned, the APHC is of the opinion that it will not resolve the crisis in any way. The sacrifices that the people of Kashmir have given since 1947 and especially from 1989 onwards, have not been given for autonomy, but for their right of self-determination and for a permanent solution to the J&K dispute. So this internal autonomy is not an issue for the APHC. We have no interest in this slogan as the APHC sincerely believes that internal autonomy will not resolve this issue. This so-called autonomy was given to the people of Kashmir in 1952 but it was snatched back in 1953. India has lost its credibility in J&K. The people have no faith in the promises of Indian leaders and the Indian governments. I am not sure whether Dr. Abdullah will succeed in getting greater autonomy for the State. Even if he does, it will not solve the Kashmir dispute. However, I doubt his success since the people doubt India's credibility. As far as the freedom struggle is concerned it will continue until we achieve our goal of having a plebiscite. The struggle will continue.

Q. How do you gauge political developments in Pakistan viz-a-viz Kashmir? Do you foresee any honourable settlement of the Kashmir imbroglio? If so, please specify.

A. As far as Pakistan's internal political scenario is concerned, it will not affect us. The people and the government of Pakistan are sincere towards the Kashmir issue and they want this dispute resolved according to its historical background. The government of any country are supposed to reflect the people's view. No government in Pakistan can afford to ignore the Kashmir issue. They can never take it lightly. The APHC is thankful to Pakistan and its people that they have sacrificed so much for the cause of Kashmir. Pakistan became divided because of Kashmir. Today, it is suffering economically and politically because of Kashmir. As far as the Pakistani government is concerned, they have given due attention to the Kashmir issue. The APHC is not concerned about Benazir's dismissal because it is an internal matter. Nevertheless, the APHC wishes for an honest and sincere regime which will govern and settle the affairs of Pakistan. The situation in Pakistan will normalise only when the honest people emerge at its helm. Since the people have given their confidence to Nawaz Sharif, I hope he will fulfill the dreams of the people of Pakistan. The APHC hopes that his government will solve the problems in Pakistan and address the Kashmir issue. I am of the view that accountability should take place in Pakistan so that all the previous regimes must be taken to task amd judged according to their performance and attitude towards the people. They should investigate how honest they were towards the country and the people. I hope the new government will give priority to the process of accountability.

Q. There are wild charges against the leaders of the APHC for having failed to rehabilitate orphans, widows, and other affected victims notwithstanding its sound financial position. How do you react to it?

A. You cannot imagine how many orphans, widows and disabled people there are in Kashmir these days. This is a grave situation experienced by the people of Kashmir. None of the NGOs are in a position to fulfill their obligations and needs. Even the government cannot meet such a challenge. The APHC cannot claim that it is fulfilling these obligations. As far as our resources are concerned, we are trying our level best to ease their sufferings. However, in this direction, the APHC has a long way to go.

Q. Nobody can dispute the fact that Kashmiris have been passing through a crucial phase in their history. They have lost and continue to lose their loved ones. With such a grim scenario, what message do you have for the people of the State in general and for Kashmiris in particular?

A. As far as people in general are concerned, the APHC would like to tell them that J&K is a disputed territory and India's attitude is unrealistic. This is our sincere and honest belief. It is only for this reason that India is suffering due to its arrogant use of power. Indian authorities must accept the harsh reality that Kashmir is a disputed area and stop being stubborn. India would have to accept that Kashmir is a disputed State and only after that will a solution to the issue take place. At this moment it is very unfortunate that the Indian leadership and the Indian government are not accepting the hard facts that elections will neither solve the Kashmir dispute, nor stop the killings in Kashmir. People should be able to express their opinions freely. The sacrifices of the people would not go to waste and these sacrifices will take us to our goal. The APHC assures the people that their sacrifices will be remembered when serious negotiations over the Kashmir dispute takes place and a settlement is in sight. The sacrifice we make is the solid base for our cause. People must have faith in their leadership. The APHC will achieve the ultimate goal of freedom. There is no need to get frustrated since the international community is convinced that Kashmir is a serious dispute. India's defeat by Japan over a non-permanent seat in the UN Security Council is an indication of the support we have. The whole world is aware of the repression going on in Kashmir at the hands of Indian security forces. India's rejection at the U.N. was directly related to the Kashmir issue.