'Violence or no violence, we will have to talk'

Interview with Sardar Abdul Qayyum.

"Don't be fooled by the long beard," joked Pakistan's former Information Minister Mushahid Hussain, "he's actually a bit of a radical."

Radical or otherwise, Sardar Abdul Qayyum has been central to politics on the Pakistan side of the Line of Control (LoC) for decades. Having served as both Prime Minister and President of Pakistan-held Jammu and Kashmir, he was, in January 2002, appointed chair of President Pervez Musharraf's National Kashmir Committee. The committee was set up to "project the Kashmir cause at the international level and mobilise world opinion for settlement of the dispute in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions". Qayyum's appointment was, however, widely interpreted as an effort to contain the Islamist Right, sections of which have for long shaped Pakistan's agenda on Jammu and Kashmir. In May, for example, at a meeting attended by senior political and military figures, Qayyum reportedly endorsed efforts to cut back Islamist rhetoric and allow ethnic Kashmiri organisations a pre-eminent role in Jammu and Kashmir.

In this exclusive interview to Frontline, Qayyum discussed at length his role in the ongoing behind-the-scenes dialogue process involving senior political leaders from Jammu and Kashmir. He spoke of his recent meeting with the assassinated All Parties Hurriyat Conference leader Abdul Gani Lone, and his wider effort to bring about what he described as a "wider dialogue among Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC". Qayyum argued that such a process held out the best prospect for peace between India and Pakistan. Several elements of his interview, notably his rejection of Pakistan's traditional calls for United States mediation on the conflict, are new, at least for an Indian audience. The National Kashmir Committee chairman also made the interesting observation that Pakistan saw continued violence in Jammu and Kashmir as its sole factor of leverage to secure a political solution. Violence, he argued, would not end until meaningful political progress was made.

This interview with Praveen Swami was conducted in the resort town of Monterey, California, at the end of a conference on the Kargil war. Excerpts:

Frontline: You had extended meetings with Abdul Gani Lone shortly before his assassination. What did you discuss?

Qayyum: For many years, I had been longing to speak to someone within the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), as a precursor to a wider dialogue among Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control. I wanted a quiet, informal dialogue process free from public and media pressures so we could all speak our minds. India had a problem of trust on this issue. It wanted guarantees that such a meeting would not be used as a platform for anti-India polemic. I assured them that all the discussions we held would be closed-door and off-the-record.

Lone was among the most mature of Kashmiri leaders, and our discussions were very fruitful. He was in a unique position, in that he could engage with both the people in Kashmir and with the governments of India and Pakistan. Sadly, some misguided people, whoever they were, did not wish this dialogue process to continue. It is a terrible tragedy.

What did you hope would emerge from this intra-Kashmiri dialogue process?

Well, you have to place the question in its context. I was the first to call for such a dialogue. Many years ago we did manage to organise a meeting in Casablanca where many shades of opinion were represented. Even Farooq Abdullah was there. Sadly, Benazir Bhutto made some intemperate statements after Pakistan's Cricket World Cup victory, and India responded by calling off the whole thing. In South Asia, ego often plays a very destructive role. Anyway, the damage was done, and the whole thing seemed to be over. But I pushed ahead with my efforts. I insisted that Kashmiris need to discuss what their political role should be and what they need to do in order to realise their role. My firm conviction is that Kashmiris alone hold the keys to peace. To do this, they must first have the opportunity to talk and discuss issues frankly amongst themselves.

After Lone's assassination, does the dialogue process still have a future? Is it possible for politicians to talk freely under the shadow of guns?

Absolutely. I have been receiving threats from hardliners, but will not be intimidated. I would like to see a widening of the process now, not a retreat from it. I think it would be excellent if Karan Singh, who I believe is a very honest and trustworthy man, can be brought on board to speak for the Hindus of Jammu. Even Farooq Abdullah, whatever my political differences with him might be, could have a role. Tapan Bose had, some time ago, drawn up a list of 20 or 30 people who could speak for different sections of people and communities. We have to work towards bringing this about.

How might an atmosphere be created to bring about such a consultation? Do you have a road map in mind?

First, we have to bring about a meaningful reduction in tension. Thirteen years ago I had suggested a ceasefire within Kashmir. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee did this in 2000, but it did not succeed because it was a unilateral move, carried out without consultations and in completely the wrong context. Second, India must understand that there are some elements who are not under anyone's control. Their activities must not be allowed do derail the dialogue process. In fact, the dialogue process will, in the long run, help engage them and bring pressure upon them. Third, an exchange of delegations made up of representatives from both sides of the ceasefire line has to take place.

Who is to decide what legitimacy these representatives have? Do the coming elections in Jammu and Kashmir have any relevance to the process you envisage?

Please note that I did not per se oppose the 1996 elections that brought Farooq Abdullah to power. I had three caveats. First, the elections were not a substitute for a plebiscite on the future of Kashmir. Second, there had to be a troop withdrawal from Kashmir to ensure that the elections were actually held in a fear-free atmosphere. Finally, there had to be some impartial monitoring mechanism in place. I had even told Robin Raphael, the U.S. Assistant Under-Secretary for State in charge of South Asia, about this. The Pakistan Army was very angry with me, and all kinds of people accused me of being a traitor. But even now I believe my proposals are relevant. In the present context, when proposals for the monitoring of the LoC are being considered, it might be worth working towards the creation of a demilitarised zone as a first step.

How can Indian troop withdrawal take place in a climate of continued cross-border infiltration and continued violence? Surely, a reduction in violence must be a precondition for the initiation of a political process.

Violence has to go down in parallel with steps towards initiating a political process. If violence ends today, given India's past record, there is no guarantee it will do anything towards meeting our legitimate demands. There is a deep body of mistrust that dialogue alone can resolve. Violence or no violence, we will have to talk. That alone can end the violence. I believe India's current tactic of pressuring President Pervez Musharraf to end the violence is deeply misguided. Let us say it succeeds, with the help of the U.S., in achieving its objectives. Will a humiliated and cornered Musharraf be good for India? Will it really serve India's interests?

Your last point is particularly interesting, because Pakistan has traditionally sought third-party intervention on Jammu and Kashmir. Now, with U.S. pressure being targeted at Pakistan, you seem to be suggesting that a bilateral process might be more fruitful.

I have said what I am saying for a long time - not because of any current developments. Isn't it absurd that we have to meet here in California instead of in New Delhi or Islamabad, or Srinagar or Muzaffarabad? I feel sad that we in South Asia always look to America to solve all our problems. Are we less intelligent or less educated than them? Are we stupid and incapable of solving our own problems? The fact is that we are keeping defence industries in the West running because of our wars.

They tell us to observe restraint, but sell us costly weapons that bleed our resources. Instead of spending resources on benefiting our peoples, we waste them on subverting each other. I constantly tell friends in the West that the best thing they could do for us is to leave us alone for a little while. But for that, we first have to commit ourselves to dealing with each other.