Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Khalid Ibrahim Khan
President of Jammu Kashmir People’s Party, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK)

Amina Rawat

Initially part of PPP (Pakistan People’s Party), Khalid Ibrahim Khan, President of Jammu Kashmir People’s Party, left the party in 1990, at the time of Benezir Bhutto, due to the differences he had developed with them. He is also a Member of Legislative Assembly, Azad Jammu & Kashmir, and was elected during the elections of 2006.

What are the main differences in opinions between your party, JKPP, and the other key political parties in AJK?
We, JKPP, believe in ‘conditional’ accession to Pakistan but the Muslim Conference believes in unconditional accession.

In fact, as in the movement in 1947, most people here are pro-Pakistani. The ruling party, Muslim Conference, and also the opposition party belong to the same school of thought. But there are some differences with regards to the government i.e. the interference of the Pakistan government in the internal affairs of AJK (Azad Kashmir). Actually, at that time in 1947, we were more Pakistani as we had decided to join Pakistan on 20^th July ’47, i.e. before Pakistan came into being.

How strong is the voice for the independence of Kashmir here in AJK?
The youth are very vocal, thus there is a strong element for independence, although small in numbers. Around 7-10% people in AJK believe in the independence.

Why do you think they want independence?
The quest for independence started about 20 years ago due to policy of the government which alienated the youth. But a youth being alienated is an ego problem; they think that their ego has been challenged in that they are mistreated by the government’s policies. Although, it is stated that there are, for example, the same educational or representational opportunities in AJK as in the rest of Pakistan, I feel this is based on wrong data.

It seems many youths in Northern Areas want independence for the same reason; alienation, particularly for not having the same constitutional rights as the rest of Pakistan.
The Northern Areas (NA) didn’t join our struggle (i.e. of AJK) for its constitution, its current political status or form part of any other movements, for example, for democracy, therefore they remained with less rights and democracy. They have deep-rooted reasons for alienation, but they have their own faults. It is true that there was less political influence in Northern Areas due to road inaccessibility, therefore they were less vocal, but after the Karakoram Highway there was more access.

There is a theory that the Pakistani government has not given Northern Areas constitutional rights to help gain votes if there is ever to be a plebiscite to decide the future of Kashmir.
That is correct that the votes from NA will help Pakistan gain Kashmir, therefore Pakistan has not fully integrated NA into its constitution.

But many youths there do not even see NA as part of Kashmir, what do you think?
Of course NA is part of Kashmir, although not part of AJK, even the UN resolutions says so.

What about Kashmir Valley, what is that a part of?
Kashmir Valley is part of Pakistan.

In terms of identity, on the Indian side of Kashmir, most people see themselves as Kashmiri first, and then Indian, if at all; what about you?
I myself see as a Pakistani first then Kashmiri, although you will find that most people think vice-versa. However, the Kashmiris here have strong economic and social links with Pakistan, even nationalists such as Amanullah Khan lives in ‘Pindi’ [Rawalpindi].

Many people accuse the government in AJK as a puppet of the Pakistani government.
There is not a puppet government here, but you could say at times a weak government.

What do you think are the origins of the Kashmir dispute?
The whole problem is misunderstood; in fact, the Kashmir dispute is more than 150 years old, from when the Kashmiri people were not consulted in the dispute between the Dogras and the locals in 1832. At that time the local people were skinned alive. The dispute continued, more evidently in the 1947 partition which resulted in the UN resolutions, and then after 1957 India back-tracked on its commitments; i.e. the UN resolutions, including Nehru, due to materialistic and pragmatic/strategic reasons. It all boils down to the concept of the Great Game.

And today, what is keeping the conflict going? For example, many people blame the international community for their vested interests.
There are no vested interests in keeping the conflict going by the international community, thus, they have positive interests in the Kashmir conflict; to resolve it as both India and Pakistan are nuclear states. It is difficult to deal with them both as they are sensitive states. But the international community does have economic interests here and it would be a disaster for them if there was a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The international community can facilitate this process which is already there, and be impartial.

Basically it’s a matter of the right of self-determination of Kashmiris. This is a basic fact and if not via the UN resolutions, then via some other solution where the people’s will should be respected.

What role does the government of Pakistan play in militancy?
Government of Pakistan is not involved in militancy, it is other organisations and individuals who can cross the LoC (Line of Control) or allowed to cross it, it is not the other way round.

Also due to the high level of forces in IJK (Indian Jammu and Kashmir), there is a lot of insecurity there, this in turn has increased militancy. If the forces were to be withdrawn, there would be less militancy. The Kashmiri people are generally peaceful, thus the 8,00,000 army personnel have been deployed in IJK as India forcibly wants to keep Kashmir. It is the mindset of India’s leaders; as a future superpower, they are using force to keep the union, as was the case in Goa in 1962; they also used force there.

Generally, how do you think AJK has been affected by the Kashmir dispute?
Generally speaking there has been less development, particularly in the first 40 years with Kashmir being a disputed area. But it is the areas near the LoC that have been particularly affected by violence, especially in the last 15 years.

Has the October 2005 earthquake made any impact on the current peace process?
I don’t think the earthquake has affected the Kashmir issue in either a negative or a positive way.

Rawalakot, Azad Kashmir, 23^rd August 2006