JEDDAH, 27 September — Kashmir has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan for the past five decades. The issue has triggered two of the three wars between the archrivals and has the potential to spark another war between the two countries which now possess nuclear arsenals.

With a million troops standing eyeball to eyeball on both sides of the border, the situation remains pretty volatile. Belligerent statements by the leaders from both sides at times stoke the situation. Nevertheless, diplomacy is also at work that buoys hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

A five-member Kashmiri delegation was in the Kingdom recently led by former President of Azad Kashmir Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan. The team visited several countries to drum up support for the Kashmir issue. Arab News spoke to Sardar Qayyum, who is also chairman of the National Kashmir Committee.

Qayyum in his interview dwelt on the Kashmir issue, the proposal to make LoC an international border and the ongoing elections in Indian part of Kashmir. He also spoke about the Indian government-backed Ram Jethmalani committee’s efforts to bring about peace in the disputed valley.

Qayyum ruled out any possibilities of Pakistan taking a U-turn on Kashmir and going for some compromise with India on the Kashmir dispute.

He was of the opinion that it was high time the crisis should be resolved with the mediation of the world community. He said since India and Pakistan both were nuclear states they can never afford to go for a war and hence will try to resolve the issue across the table. He said that peace in the region can only be brought about by holding plebiscite in Kashmir. Qayyum categorically denied that President Pervez Musharraf has diluted his stand on Kashmir and said Musharraf instead brought the Kashmir dispute on the forefront.

Excerpts from the interview:

Q. You have visited several countries recently. What message did you carry?

A. The purpose of my visit to several countries is to inform the leaders of those countries about the Kashmiris’ freedom struggle. As you know people have been overwhelmed by the 9/11 events which have eclipsed all other issues.

I’m trying to tell the leaders of the countries I am visiting about the potential threats posed to the regional peace by the Kashmir issue. I am also trying to hammer home the view that Kashmir is a disputed territory and peace process for a resolution of the conflict should be advanced. I am emphasizing on the need to address the root cause — that is Kashmir — instead of talking about some minor irritants. The response so far is encouraging.

Q. Do you mean to say that the international perception about the Kashmir issue has also changed after Sept. 11?

A. Certainly, Sept. 11 has affected perceptions not only about Kashmir but also about other issues. What was right at one time is now being considered as wrong. Instead of dialogue, use of force is now being considered to be the panacea.

Q. India cites cross-border terrorism as the major hurdle for peace in South Asia? What do you feel about it?

A. The border is unrealistic. India is deliberately using the issue of cross-border terrorism to exploit the situation. If border means the cease-fire line it is a misnomer as there is no border in Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is one indivisible entity. If it means the territories of Pakistan, yes.

As regards the infiltration of militants, it has stopped after President Musharraf’s government took measures. It is unthinkable that infiltrators would escape the vigil at the LoC by more than 800,000 fully equipped troops and intelligence apparatus with sophisticated technological support from Israel.

Moreover, the word terrorism is again used by India to exploit the post 9/11 situation in its favor and to hoodwink the West. But let me tell you frankly the world knows that the movement in Kashmir is by all means a legitimate indigenous struggle for freedom from Indian rule.

Q. There were reports in the media that India and Pakistan both were toying with the idea of accepting the LoC as an international border. What is your comment?

A. There is nothing new about this idea. In 1972-73 after Shimla agreement Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had also discussed this preposition with us. And after a brainstorming session it was Bhutto himself who rejected it. This is not acceptable to Kashmiris and Pakistan. India, though it takes a different stand in public, is willing to agree to it but so far Kashmiris and Pakistan is concerned — this is unthinkable.

Q. President Musharraf is an ally of the US in war against terror. He abandoned Taleban. If he takes a U-turn on Kashmir also what would happen to your campaign?

A. Musharraf called me after Sept. 11 attacks on the US. I told him if Taleban are killed it would be bad, but if they remain it would be worse. Taleban themselves are responsible for their ouster no one else. What Musharraf did was in the larger interest of Pakistan and world peace. As far as your question about Musharraf taking a U-turn on Kashmir is concerned. Musharraf is lending his voice to Kashmiris with all sincerity and commitment. I can tell you that speculations about his U-turn are nothing but an Indian campaign to create confusion and to mislead the world. Everybody knows Pakistan Army’s policy about Kashmir is very straight and firm. No leader, whoever he might be, can make any changes in it. And as you must be knowing, fortunately or unfortunately, in Pakistan it is the army which matters not the individual. There is no change in Kashmir policy rather the policy being followed by the present government is devoid of any contradictions and ambiguities.

In fact Musharraf has projected the Kashmir issue at the international forums and made clear to the world that no confidence-building measure between the two countries can be fruitful unless we first talk on Kashmir and resolve the issue.

Q. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference has favorably responded to a proposal from the Indian government-backed Kashmir Committee headed by Ram Jethmalani. What is your reaction?

A. It is a positive development that the government of India has realized the need to initiate dialogue with the representative party of Kashmir.

Q. Shabir Shah and some other separatist leaders first weighed Indian government’s proposal about taking part in Kashmir elections. But later rejected it. Don’t you think these leaders want some benefits in exchange for their participation in poll?

A. No certainly not. All of them are very much committed to the Kashmir cause. As far as Shabir is concerned when he was invited to Delhi to meet Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, he called me first before leaving for Delhi and in very clear terms said that if Advani is willing to talk about the Kashmir dispute he will meet him, but if he simply wanted him to participate in elections he will not. And this was what happened. Shabir declined to meet Advani when he got to know that Advani was not willing to talk about the Kashmir issues. However, the Indian media misreported that it was Advani who refused to meet Shabir. All Kashmiri leaders are committed to the freedom movement, though perception might vary from person to person. I have tremendous confidence in all these young leaders.

Q. What do you feel about elections in Indian Kashmir. How far they will help in resolving the Kashmir problem?

A. This is not the first elections staged in Kashmir. India in the past unilaterally held elections in occupied Kashmir with the claim that they fulfilled the requirements of the promised plebiscite and therefore they were substitute for it. In 1957 the UN Security Council rejected these elections and any other elections as a substitute for plebiscite. India is holding Kashmir’s elections in phases to ensure rigging and manipulationof results. However, there are certain proposals under consideration by all the parties concerned to resolve the dispute. But at this moment it would be premature to speak about them.