Blog

Barkha Dutt 

“The United States does not recognize our countries as great powers.” Chairman Mao Zedong, the Communist revolutionary and the founding father of the People’s Republic of China, said this to Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, in 1954. The two leaders met in Beijing and bonded over a shared sentiment of anti-imperialism. “The ruler that the United States uses to measure other countries will no longer be useful in the future,” Nehru agreed with Mao, according to archives now declassified and released by the Wilson Center. “In addition to money there are other factors, the human factor is the most important,” he said idealistically; “ … our two countries should play more important roles in Asia. In any case, the population of our two countries reaches one billion. This will lead to immense influence.”

More than six decades later, between them, China and India make up 36 percent of the world’s population and are the globe’s fastest-growing economies, with a recent report placing India ahead. Nehru was prescient about the influence they would wield — he coined the phrase “Hindi-Chini bhai bhai” (the Indians and Chinese are brothers) — but absolutely misjudged their imagined partnership. His naiveté about China resulted in a war in 1962 that caught India off guard. This year, as Chinese and Indian soldiers stand eyeball to eyeball in the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan in a month-long standoff, the state-run Chinese media has threatened India that “it will suffer greater losses than in 1962.”

But, as Indian Defense Minister Arun Jaitley said, “India of 2017 is very different” from the India of 1962. India has refused to kowtow to China’s entitled assumptions about a hegemonic control of Asia.

At the epicenter of the growing crisis is the Doklam plateau, which sits at the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan, near the northeastern Indian state of Sikkim. In June, the Bhutanese army objected to the Chinese constructing a road in territory that it says is within its sovereignty. It asked the Indian military for help to resist the Chinese aggression, and Indian troops moved into the construction area in Bhutan. India says China has violated an agreed-upon status quo and is in violation of a 2012 boundary agreement. Beijing has referenced a much earlier colonial treaty signed between Great Britain and China. The Indian military maintains a permanent training presence in Bhutan; its current king was a graduate of the National Defense College in Delhi. China, for its part, has for years wanted full diplomatic ties with Bhutan.

But still, Bhutan may simply be a decoy for a bigger play: Who will lead Asia?

“The larger battle is essentially about strategic competition for geopolitical space and influence in Asia between India and China,” said Nirupama Rao, who served as India’s ambassador to China and retired as the government’s top-ranking diplomatic official. “The gauntlet thrown is not directed against Bhutan, but against India,” she told me in an interview.  The entire Indo-Pacific region is now the gladiatorial ring where a global joust is unfolding, pulling in countries well beyond Bhutan. The United States, India and Japan just completed trilateral naval exercises amid reports of Chinese submarine presence in the Indian Ocean region.

Tibet — and India’s support for the Dalai Lama — has been another flashpoint; as China sulked, India allowed the Buddhist leader, who has championed independence for Tibet, to visit Tawang in the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims to have rights over.

Regional provocation is also spinning along the Sino-Pakistan axis. China has regularly blocked action at the United Nations against Pakistan-based terrorist groups. China’s ambitious “one belt, one road” initiative passes through territory that India regards as sovereign, angering New Delhi. Beijing has used the Sikkim-Bhutan standoff to threaten India on possible interference in the Kashmir Valley, in support of Pakistan.

Many Indians believe that infrastructure, power projects, highways in Pakistan are the instruments of Chinese neo-colonialism. Beijing’s protectorate over Pakistan, Islamabad, is now seen as a virtual colony of China, locked into inescapable dependence.

Yet, despite the Indian military chief asserting his readiness for a “two-and-a-half-front war” (a reference to Pakistan, China and internal threats), some believe that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s observation that India and China have not fired a single bullet in 40 years will remain true. India is China’s largest trading partner; a sixth of India’s imports are now Chinese. “China is no monolith,” said Alok Bansal with the India Foundation, a think tank linked to the government. “We have to look at the subterranean currents; Chinese society today is extremely driven by commercial interests. I don’t think the people there want conflict with India. Indian soft power has also made its own ingress.” Bansal said that what really bothers the Chinese is India’s growing proximity to the United States and points out that any maleficent aggression will achieve precisely that.

There are also murmurs in strategic circles about overdependence on Washington. “If ever there was a war with China, America would never come to our rescue,” one government official said. India’s road to equality with China may eventually route itself not through Washington or the West, but through the East; Modi has invested energy in building relationships with Japan, Vietnam and South Korea, all of whom are suspicious of China.

Amid current fears of a second Sino-Indian battle between two nuclear-armed giants of Asia, the only denouement can be a mutual withdrawal of soldiers from the contested Bhutan region. Anything else could be cataclysmic.

 

Courtesy: Washington Post

Jammu: The government has rejected any likelihood of talks with separatists or other fundamental groups in the Valley unless the level of terrorism and violence comes down substantially.“Already some attempts were made to reach out to separatists and other fundamental groups but they shut their doors to the delegations from the Centre. Besides, there is a clear message from the Centre that unless the Valley returns to normal, the government will not take any initiative for talks,” said Deputy Chief Minister Nirmal Singh talking to The Tribune.He said the time was not opportune as well as atmosphere not conducive to take any step for dialogue. Admitting that the scenario in the Valley was steadily changing, Nirmal Singh said people were trying to come out of the “false consciousnesses” created over the years by the forces inimical to peace and stability in the region.On the frequent killing of soldiers on the border as well as while battling insurgency in the Valley, the Deputy Chief Minister expressed anguish.“The unfortunate killings like those of Lt Ummar Fayaz, Naik Mudasser Ahmed, Lance Naik Mohammad Naseer and DSP Mohammed Ayub Pandith are highly condemnable. But these have also started alienating people of Kashmir from the separatist propaganda and radicalisation supported by the Hurriyat and its mentor,” said Nirmal Singh.When asked why the BJP had not given a serious thought to scrapping Article 370, which has been the greatest impediment for the state’s total integration with India, the Deputy Chief Minister said the issue was under consideration and needed a constitutional amendment.“Since it would be a constitutional amendment, the Bill would have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament with two-thirds majority and has to be signed by the President,” said Nirmal Singh, adding that first it would have to be passed by the “constituent Assembly” of J&K before it is sent to Parliament.

Srinagar: Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti has said dialogue or engagement should not be confused with appeasement as the exercise is for reconciliation. In an interview with The Hindu, first since the attack on Amarnath yatris, she said the widespread condemnation of the attacks showed Kashmiriyat is still most important for Kashmir, and advocated restarting the dialogue with separatists.

“As soon as one says the word dialogue, electronic media and others say you are appeasing the separatists, appeasing the other side. Dialogue is engagement for reconciliation,” Mehbooba said.

On media’s portrayal of Kashmir, the CM said, “The electronic media is powerful and its images have an impact. We see on TV 24X7 only the same images of a dozen odd young boys with their faces covered, pelting stones. This also encourages the stone pelters, as they see that gets them attention. Kashmiris feel offended by the debates on TV that pits India against Pakistan and paints Kashmiris badly, and that adds to their alienation. Even if the intention of the media may be good, but not understanding the situation on ground, they tend to get carried away.”

When asked several districts becoming no-go areas for Central security forces, particularly her own area of South Kashmir, she said, “This is a false idea. Of course we are going there, maybe Ministers aren’t visiting as much, but our workers are there. But if you follow national electronic media, you would think every part of Kashmir is like that. I don’t think it should be shut down, but someone needs to explain to them that they are not helping the country in anyway with these aggressive debates and putting Kashmiri youth in a bad light. I was really shocked when I heard someone asking “Why do Kashmiris have pink cheeks” and raising questions about their ancestry. It can’t get worse than that.”

On her China statement, Mehbooba explained, “Whenever there is an external threat, whether it is from Pakistan or from China, or any other country, the whole country gets together like, in the current standoff, all the Opposition parties met and assured the government that they are behind them. Kashmir is the place where everything is centred — first it was Pakistan, and now with China too, when they find nothing else worked in the [Doklam situation], they have picked up the Kashmir stick to beat India with. My point is, in the rest of the country this is seen as a national threat, where everyone is united. But when it happens in Jammu and Kashmir, it becomes the State government’s fault. As if there is no external factor, no infiltration, no problem other than a law and order one. How can you ignore that there has been a problem in J&K for 70 years? Everyday our security forces and civilians are sacrificing lives, why not see that?”

To a question whether PDP’s standing in the Valley has suffered because of the alliance, she answered, “When you have a larger objective in mind, which my father did, he put everything at stake: his leadership, credibility, the party he worked so hard to build, all because he wanted to bring the State out of the mess of so many years. He thought that Mr. Modi, with such a huge mandate, was the one person who could follow in the footsteps of Mr. Vajpayee, and create again that magic of 2002. I think Mr. Modi has tried all around, he even went to Lahore, but unfortunately it wasn’t reciprocated in the same manner. And I have to do the same.”

Asked about transfer of power projects, AFSPA, Kashmiri Pandits and West Pakistan refugees, the CM said, “Unfortunately our government didn’t have time to stabilise. It was hardly three months before all hell broke loose [with Burhan Wani killing]. With this situation and the violence, it became more difficult to identify places for example, for Kashmiri Pandits to move back to. Again, we have discussed the transfer of power projects: it will give Kashmiris a real sense of achievement about the alliance, but it is taking time to persuade people in Delhi. We will hand over more transit accommodation in the next 2-3 months. The Pandits have said they would prefer to live in the locality they are already living in. We will also build new colonies that will be mixed, with all faiths, and presently two-three families share one flat.”

On allegation of nepotism in the government, her younger brother, despite not elected, nor being part of the government, but seemingly wielding a lot of power in the civil secretariat, Mehbooba said, “He is not in the civil secretariat. If he has ever set foot there, I would put in my papers. He is an internationally acclaimed cinematographer. Yes he is a coordinator in the Chief Minister’s grievances cell, and deals with people who have problems, and maybe he ruffles some feathers when he asks for action to be taken. He works without a salary, but he is very attached to Kashmir and cares about environmental and public issues. It’s too early to say what his future role will be, we don’t even know when the Anantnag election will be held [that he is the PDP candidate for].” 

(COURTESY THE HINDU)

Srinagar: The Government has clarified that all private and government schools will reopen after a short summer break of ten days from tomorrow (Monday).
Talking to KNS Secretary to Government School Education Department Farooq Ahmad Shah said there would be no extension at any level in the summer break announced for government and private schools ending today.
The speculations about any extension in the short summer break of ten days ending today (Sunday) are totally baseless and all government and private schools will reopen from tomorrow. (KNS)

 NEW DELHI: Congress today lauded the youth of Banihal and Army, local administration for their efforts and hard-work in saving many lives in the bus accident of Amarnath Yatris at Ramsu Banihal. At least 16 Amarnath pilgrims were killed and over 30 injured when a bus skidded off the Jammu-Srinagar national highway and rolled down into a deep gorge in Ramban district of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday. Senior Congress leader & Secretary Salman Nizami said “Locals rush to rescue Amarnath Yatri’s putting own life at risk. Humanity has no religion. It bridges the gaps of religion. We salute their efforts and hard work. Nizami said “Had the Army, JK Police & local youth – not helped, the death toll could have been much more. I want to thank these youth, who were not paid salaries, but who, on their own saved many people,” he said.

Chinese Media Say No Room For Negotiations on Doklam

New Delhi: Firing a fresh salvo against India over the ongoing standoff at the Sikkim border, China on Saturday said there is ‘no room’ for negotiations and the only solution is the withdrawal of Indian troops from the Donglang or Doklam region.

India will face “embarrassment” if it does not withdraw its border troops to its own side and the situation could get “worse”,  the official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary on Saturday night.

The remarks, made by Chinese state media, comes days after New Delhi said it is using diplomatic channels to resolve the issue with Beijing in a ‘peaceful manner’.

Xinhua warned India of major consequences if its troops are not withdrawn from the territory of Doklam. “If the trespassers of India do not backout unconditionally, the situation would get worse,” it said, further warning New Delhi of suffering an “embarrassment” if the Indian forces choose to continue to remain at standoff.

“India has repeatedly ignored China’s call for pulling its border-crossing troops from Doklam area back to its own territory. However, turning a deaf ear to China will but worsen the month-long standoff and put itself further into embarrassment,” the commentary added.

The statements issued through Xinhua, experts say, should be considered as the official policy line of Beijing, as the publication is controlled by the all-powerful Communist Party of China (CPC).

Significantly the commentary also referred to Ladakh region and linked it to Pakistan, China’s “iron brother” ally.

“India should not regard the existing situation as the same as or even similar to the previous two standoffs in 2013 and 2014 near Ladakh, a disputed area between China, Pakistan and India in southeastern Kashmir.Diplomatic efforts led the troop’s frictions there to a well-arranged end. But this time it is a totally different case,” it added.

The commentary, apart from warning India of repelling from Doklam, also accused New Delhi of spreading false propaganda against China. Rubbishing the Indian claims of acting on behalf of Bhutan in the disputed region, Xinhua opined that New Delhi is attempting to undermine the sovereignty of Thimphu.

It alleged that Bhutan “never sought India’s intervention” in the territorial dispute with China over Doklam, referred to as Donglang by Beijing. Accusing India of “lying” before the world, the Chinese government’s mouthpiece read, “New Delhi claimed encroachment of its own territory by China before saying it sent troops to ’protect’ its ‘ally’ Bhutan, a sovereign state which has apparently so far made no such an invitation for the sake of that boundary area.”

The standoff at Sikkim erupted in mid-June, after the Indian forces prevented the road construction party of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from entering Doklam, lying at the tri-juncture of India, China and Bhutan.

Introduction: Junaid Qureshi is a Writer, Columnist, International Human Rights Activist, Political Analyst and Director of the European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) based in Amsterdam. EFSAS provides strategic in-depth analysis, research, statistical data, policy advice and forecasts related to developments in the fields of politics, international relations, conflict management, human rights, security, diplomacy, strategic affairs and conflict resolution in South Asia. The core specialization of EFSAS is in the fields of Terrorism, Indo-Pak relations and the Jammu & Kashmir conflict and its greatest strength lies in the application of comparative regional analysis and research. It furnishes decision-making institutions, opinion-makers, civil society and academics with high-quality policy analysis and recommendations regarding South Asia in general and Jammu & Kashmir in particular. For more about EFSAS, please visit their website: http://www.efsas.org/

• You said almost a year ago, on the death of Burhan Wani, that gun and stones will not achieve anything? What are your views about where we are now?

Indeed some people were outraged on my comments on the death of Burhan Wani as tensions and emotions were high at that time. Yet, I said the truth and I believe that speaking out was the need of the hour. Just because a narrative is unpopular given the circumstances at that time or because of religious and sentimental alliances, it does not make the narrative incorrect or untrue. Today, when things have relatively settled down, many people, especially youngsters, are saying exactly what I said. Let me reiterate; “One Burhan Wani died, another will die tomorrow until and unless we understand that picking up the gun is not a way out. The youth of Kashmir must understand and their leaders should understand as well that one Kalashnikov, a hundred Kalashnikovs, a thousand Kalashnikovs are not going to make a difference to the Kashmir issue. The Kashmiri youth need to ask a pertinent question to these Separatists: “If Jihad is so pious, why don’t you or your children pick up guns or stones?” Now, my words have triggered a debate about the issue and many youth are asking this question on Social Media, in drawing rooms and on the streets. The so-called leaders have always maintained that the cause of Azaadi needs sacrifices, but what they do not tell the people of Kashmir is that these sacrifices should always come from the neighbour’s children and not theirs. This is pure hypocrisy. This is not a struggle for Azaadi. This is a business on the dead bodies of the youth of Kashmir. I am proud that, despite the opposition at that time, I said the truth a year ago and today I am pleased to know that many in Kashmir endorse and support my views. It’s time for alternative narratives. We have been bombarded for decades with a false propaganda of lies. We have been kept in the dark about our history, our legal standing and the International perspective. It’s time to speak out and speak out loud. This propaganda of lies can only be countered by a propaganda of truth.

• Will the current uprising yield results?

I find the question a bit misleading when you ask what this ‘uprising’ will yield. I do not call this an uprising. Uprisings are spontaneous and not sponsored. Of course, one cannot deny that there is some anger and resentment, but about what? Is there resentment and anger about the fact that gun-wielding militants are killed? What did we expect?

We are unaware about the realities of the world. Of course, gun-wielding militants will be killed. That is how the world works. Again, I said it a year ago and say it again, that this will not achieve anything. Jammu & Kashmir is much more than the Valley only. It is much more than only Hyderpora, Maisuma or a few alleys of Downtown Srinagar. What do we expect to gain from pelting stones, burning our schools, breaking windows of the cars of Kashmiris, calling for shut-downs, destroying apple-orchards? This behaviour is unfortunately not new; When Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged in Pakistan, there was an outrage in Kashmir against the Jamaat-e-Islami and its members. Members of Jamaat-e-Islami were beaten up, their houses burned to ashes and acres of tree orchards belonging to the Jamaat, particularly in South-Kashmir, were totally destroyed. The office of Jamaat-e-Islami in Baramulla was ransacked and books of Tafsir by Maulana Madudi including many copies of the holy Quran were thrown out on the street and burned.It doesn’t take much common sense to conclude that the actions after the hanging of Bhutto and the actions of today, only hurt interests of Kashmir and Kashmiris. It does not make a damn difference to India or Pakistan. A few stones will not get the Kashmir-issue settled in favour of Pakistan. We lost more than 200 young children in the past 8-9 months, while we lost thousands of people in the past few decades. What exactly did we achieve? Which inch of Jammu and Kashmir did we liberate? Which country in the world, except an occupier, is talking about Jammu & Kashmir? How many of us remember the names of those who lost their lives? Have the so-called leaders, who are spearheading this menace, ever enquired about the dependants of those who lost their lives? Leave India and Pakistan, both of which are acting in their national interests, what are we Kashmiris doing?

• What does the World, in particular the West think about the Kashmir-issue?

The world views issues through legal, strategic and economic perspectives. There is no space for sentiments or religious affiliations. The consensus in the worldis that on legal grounds, the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India gives India a valid legal claim to the State of Jammu and Kashmir while it completely excludes Pakistan, which manifests itself as a self-styled protector of the rights of people of Indian Administered Jammu and Kashmir while it illegally administers almost half of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir (Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Jammu and Kashmir). That is the reality. Whether some may like it or not.

Currently, the world has economic interests with India and strategic interests with Pakistan. These circumstances, and the various bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan, growing terrorism in the region and expansionist designs of China make the issues much more complex. With the rise of radical Pan-Islamism, especially post 9/11, the world is not bothered and neither interested in what is happening in a few Mohallas or alleys of the Kashmir Valley. This is not a Nationalist movement, which would have made things different. It started in the late eighties with the support of an occupier and soon turned into a religious movement when militants started targeting the Kashmiri Pandits. Now, it has transformed into a radical Pan-Islamic movement, in which the demands are not for freedom, more autonomy or the rectification of political grievances, but for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and the implementation of the Sharia. The world is astonished as well as surprised that we Kashmiris, while protesting the killing of terrorists, wave flags of ISIS, demand ‘Azaadi’ and at the same time wrap the dead bodies of our youth in flags of Pakistan.The world is confused and has been struggling with a question; What exactly is it that the Kashmiris want? I believe that even we Kashmiris do not have a conclusive answer to that question. We have no consensus among ourselves. Let’s not forget that by Kashmiris, I mean every State Subject of the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir irrespective of caste, creed or colour.

• You have been very active at the United Nations. Could you tell us a bit more about your activities and the status of Jammu & Kashmir in the UN?

Yes, I as the Director of the European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) have been very active at the United Nations, in particular at the Sessions of the UN Human Rights Council. I speak there and share my views on Kashmir, Indo-Pak relations and geo-politics of the region. I have noticed that there are many confusions about the UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir, even among those in Kashmir who demand its implementation. Despite the fact that the Shimla Agreement of 1972 between India and Pakistan has made the UN Resolutions immaterial, I would like to clear a few facts about the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir. Please be advised that these are all verifiable facts:

The invasion led by Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir on 22^nd of October 1947 was against all canons of International Law and a clear contravention of the UN Charter. In July 1948, the Pakistani Foreign Minister admitted delinquency but cited fear of Indian aggression as a main reason behind Pakistan’s actions, of which there were no evidences. Furthermore, in accordance to the United Nations Charter, Pakistan had “no right of self-defense in the absence of an armed invasion or attack on its territory”. The Pakistani Foreign Office in a letter to the Security Council, signed by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Zafrullah Khan enquired if the words “Future Status” as stated in the resolution of 13th August 1948 could mean an Independent Jammu and Kashmir. The reply was that the Kashmiri people could have an Independent Jammu and Kashmir if that was the majority’s decision. After receiving this reply, the Pakistani Government decided to suggest an amendment to this resolution and in a letter to General A. G. L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council, dated 28th December 1948, Pakistan wrote to propose a change in this clause for the words, “The future status of State of Jammu and Kashmir” substituting it with, “The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan”. Pakistan proposed this change to which India did not object and as a result of this request the next resolution which was passed on 5 January 1949, read:

1) “The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”.

The second clause was: 2) “A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948 have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed”.

Part II of the Truce agreement stated:1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council; the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3) Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authoritiesunder the surveillance of the commission.

This was formally agreed upon by Pakistan on 25th of December 1948, and conveyed to the Security Council. Till date Pakistan has failed to implement its clauses, and as such, the UNCIP was unable to communicate to India ratification of implementation of the Resolution of 13th August 1948 by Pakistan. With that, the question of a Plebiscite fell through and was never revived at the UN level. The factual situation is that these resolutions are based on choice between India and Pakistan; these do not allow unlimited self-determination which means a choice without limitation. If the resolutions were based on self-determination like East Timor, then under the UN Charter, the Secretary-General could move the case at UN level. In such a situation he was not obliged to wait for the willingness of India and Pakistan to discuss the matter in the UN. This was precisely what two former General Secretaries, Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan have stated.

When the Hurriyat Conference demands implementation of the UN Resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir, then it should put forth its demands to Pakistan and not India, as Pakistan has to first withdraw its troops from Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Jammu and Kashmir in order for these Resolutions to be implemented. Instead, it tries to befool the people of Jammu and Kashmir by claiming that India is responsible for the non-implementation of the UN resolutions. Legally, that is incorrect. In my opinion, we Kashmiris have been making demands from India which we should have made from Pakistan and vice versa.

• What do you think about the role of the Hurriyat Conference? What does the world think about the Hurriyat Conference?

Like I said, the Hurriyat’s claim that they represent the aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir is absolutely false to the extent that I would call it an utter lie. Perhaps it does enjoy some limited support in certain Mohallas and alleys of some cities and villages in the Valley only, but it does not represent the whole of the Kashmir Valley, let alone the people of Ladakh, Jammu, Gilgit Baltistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir. The Hurriyat Conference is not taken seriously by the world.The only time when some came to know about the Hurriyat Conference and at the same time stopped paying further attention to it, was when the Chairman of the Hurriyat Conference, Mr. Syed Ali Shah Geelani led to funeral prayers in absentia of Osama Bin Laden, which confirmed that the Hurriyat Conference supports terrorism and terrorists.  In my discussions with various Western Institutions, Scholars and Governments, I have observed that they do not even know what or who the Hurriyat Conference is, let alone that they are aware about its rather debatable aims and objectives.  After the recent admission of a Senior Hurriyat leader, Mr. Naeem Khan, during a sting operation by an Indian TV channel (on the basis of which the Chairman of the Hurriyat Conference, Mr. Syed Ali Shah Geelani has suspended him) in which he admits that the current unrest is sponsored by Pakistan and that the Hurriyat has been involved in burning schools in Kashmir in return for monetary benefits from Pakistan, I think that we Kashmiris should count our blessings that the World does not know the Hurriyat Conference. What would we explain to the world? That the claimants of our aspirations are burning schools for hard cash? That would be embarrassing.What is the roadmap of the Hurriyat Conference anyway? Attaining accession to Pakistan by keeping our children illiterate and giving stones and guns in their hands instead of pens? I am pleased that the World does not know about the Hurriyat Conference. If it would, it would shame us Kashmiris for having such people among us.

• What are your views on the recent use of Human Shields by the Indian Army?

I am not a Military Strategist, but I strongly condemn the recent use of human shields by the Indian Army. The Indian Army is bound by the Constitution of India and is part of the State of India. A State should always, without exception, adhere to the rules of engagement. That makes a State, a State. There are examples of uses of human shields, notably by Israel, but India should not want to emulate Israel. India is the heir of the ideology of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a regional power and an aspiring world power. It should find alternative ways to deal with violence while adhering to the spirit of its own Constitution.

• As you have been among the first Kashmiris to take up the issue of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, could you elaborate your stand a bit more?

Indeed, I have been an ardent critic of the China Pakistan economic Corridor (CPEC). I have spoken about it many times at international forums and have also held a Europe-wide Signature Campaign in order to create awareness about the illegality of this project. The construction of this corridor complimented by the military benefits for both China and Pakistan and an investment of 54 billion dollars, has all the ingredients to exacerbate the complexities of the Kashmir-Issue, threaten peace and secure China’s strategic interests by allowing it, to increase its illegitimate share in Jammu and Kashmir.Pakistan’s proposed move to illegally annex Gilgit Baltistan, change the fundamentals of the actual Jammu and Kashmir-issue and cement China’s stake in this dispute are in response to concerns raised by Beijing. China finds it internationally indefensible to invest billions of dollars on a road that passes through a disputed territory claimed both by India and Pakistan. In case Pakistan imposes its sovereign writ over Gilgit-Baltistan, India will then have a political and moral right to fully integrate Jammu and Kashmir into India and scrap Article 370 of its constitution, which gives Jammu and Kashmir a Special Status. Any kind of solution to the long standing issue of Jammu and Kashmir will only be jeopardized by such intrusions. Historical evidence and logically drawn inferences and analyses, support the notion that the construction of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor is illegal and in contravention of International Law. China is not investing billions of dollars to simply withdraw if any solution is found to the Kashmir Issue.China’s heavy investment in the disputed region is not speculative: it is a calculated investment to bolster her strategic interest in the region.

• Any hopes for the future?

The current situation of distrust and fundamentalism is not likely to alter unless there is a structured and genuine dialogue at diplomatic level while at the same time there is an Intra-Jammu & Kashmir dialogue which aims to reach a consensus among the people of Jammu & Kashmir. There must be a sense of ownership by all stakeholders and efforts made ensuring positive steps forward which includes putting a halt to cross-border terrorism. There is an urgent need for Pakistan and India to comprehend that while they are sovereign and independent, in order to ensure peace in South Asia their very existence has become more interdependent than before. Interrelated stakes, appetite for peace, economic progress, growing menace of Terrorism and respective introspection among all stakeholders should necessitate a solution based on the principles of coexistence.

Kashmir Magazine/ KNS/ Kashmir Today