Category — Kashmir

By Babar Dogar in The News, Apr 28
LAHORE: Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri has disclosed that the agreement on Kashmir, worked out through back-channel diplomacy, was an interim one, and was subject to review after 15 years.
Talking to The News here on Tuesday in the backdrop of ‘Aman Ki Asha’ – a joint venture of the Jang Group of Pakistan and The Times of India, Khursheed Kasuri claimed the Pakistani and Indian sides at that time had the realisation that in view of the history of Jammu and Kashmir dispute, no solution that they could think of would be an ideal one. He termed that agreement on Kashmir the best possible under the circumstances.

“We were aware of the fact that there would be an overwhelming support for this agreement; but we also realised that there would be criticism from some sections in Kashmir, Pakistan and India,” he said, adding that it was impossible to offer a solution which could be acceptable to everyone.

Kasuri said they decided that the arrangement they had arrived at would need a review after 15 years of its announcement. During this period, its implementation would be monitored by all parties concerned and, in the light of the experience, this arrangement could further be improved.

He said the water issue was not discussed as a crucial matter at that time; the agreement on Kashmir was being negotiated. However, the management of water was one of the issues included in the joint mechanism. He claimed that the joint mechanism was apart from the Indus Basin Treaty, which was the basis of water sharing arrangement between the two countries.

Responding to allegations from religio-political parties, which termed the proposed agreement an attempt to sell out Kashmir, Kasuri said the basis of the agreement was the assumption that Pakistan and India had tried everything in their power to enforce their version of a Kashmir settlement.

“They have fought five wars, including two minor ones in the Rann of Katch and Kargil. There have been various mobilisations of troops, including the largest one since First World War (Operation Parakram), in which one million soldiers remained eyeball-to-eyeball for almost a year,” Kasuri claimed. He said the nuclear parity had been established in South Asia after the nuclear tests India and Pakistan conducted, making war between the two countries nearly impossible.

Reacting to the criticism by Syed Ali Geelani of his statement on the reported Kashmir agreement, Kasuri claimed that he had great respect for Ali Geelani for his being a freedom fighter, but he disagreed with him that the solution that was envisaged for Kashmir would have led to further disturbances in the valley and that the people of the valley would never have acquiesced in a settlement that he described as one perpetuating the status quo. Giving reasons for his disagreement, he said the whole purpose of the disagreement was to improve the comfort level of the Kashmiris by the gradual demilitarisation. “The Kashmiri leaders, we met in India, Pakistan and overseas, attached highest importance to withdrawal of the Indian forces,” he claimed. Furthermore, he said the Kashmiris, due to the proposed agreement, would have become in-charge of their own destiny in a vast array of specified subjects in the economic, social and political spheres. He claimed that the very creation of a joint mechanism consisting of Kashmiri representatives from both sides as well as Indian and Pakistanis would have comprehensively negated the criticism that status quo had not been changed. He said the agreement arrived at once signed could not be unilaterally changed by either side. He believed that it would have given a lot of relief and hope to the Kashmiris.

He welcomed the statement of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani that efforts were being made through the back-channel diplomacy to resolve all outstanding issues with India. He said it was important that negotiations be resumed because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government with which they negotiated the arrangement was still in power, and the BJP the other majority party had started the process during the tenure of former prime minister Vajpayee. He said he welcomed it despite being in the opposition because he believed that in matter of national interest one had to rise above the spirit of partisan.

He claimed that there was no need to reinvent the wheel and the recent comments from the Foreign Office of Pakistan suggested the same and were encouraging. He said painstaking and detailed work had already been done and the two governments should take off from where they had left.

Kasuri claimed that they conducted secret negotiations with all stakeholders because they wanted to avoid any spins or leaks, which could damage the level of trust between the parties. He said they could not have signed an agreement without authorisation from their respective cabinets and parliaments. He claimed that the whole idea was to produce a draft which the governments of Pakistan and India felt would be acceptable to the large majority of Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Indians, and the draft agreement would then have been submitted to the appropriate constitutional authorities in both the countries for their approval.

Kasuri believed that the present government also supported the agreement. He claimed that President Asif Ali Zardari, in his very first interview at the Aiwan-e-Sadr, said the nation would have good news about Kashmir very soon. He claimed that though this announcement was premature, yet it was clear that he could only make the statement because he was aware of the progress made on back-channel and supported it. He said the incumbent government appointed Tariq Aziz, their representative on back-channel, to continue his work after the present government took over. He further referred Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s announcement during an interview with CNN that former foreign secretary Riaz Muhammad Khan, who was privy to all negotiations on the Kashmir agreement, was asked to start working on the back-channel.

Kasuri pointed out that those who criticised the secret nature of the back-channel needed to take note of the great secrecy with which the representatives of various political parties conducted their negotiations in parliament over the issue of the 18th Amendment, although this was purely an internal matter and not even marginally capable of exploitation by premature leaks or spins as against the protracted and difficult nature of negotiations between Pakistan and India given their troubled history on the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir.

Regarding taking all the stakeholders on board, he stated it was unthinkable that an issue of this nature could be negotiated without having all the stakeholders on board. He claimed that besides the Foreign Office and the Presidency, the Military was appropriately represented.

Kasuri claimed that the nature of Pakistan-India relations following the Mumbai attacks needed concerted efforts not just by the government but also by the civil society to bring the two countries to the dialogue process once again. He appreciated ‘Aman ki Asha’ by the Jang Group and The Times of India Group as an important contribution in helping to remove some of the trust deficit that existed between the two countries.http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28528

Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri’s startling disclosure that a solution to the Kashmir problem had been worked out under the Musharraf government and that all that was required was a signature on the relevant documents is rather unexpected and opens up all kinds of new possibilities. While there had been talks on the issue that contributes most to continued tensions between India and Pakistan, we had not known a solution was so tantalisingly close. The information offered up by Kasuri, at a seminar organised as part of the Jang Group-Times of India Aman ki Asha initiative is most encouraging. It suggests that in the first place it is possible for both countries to work towards a lasting solution. The entrenched positions taken in the past have left doubts open on this score. It is also significant that in both capitals there is awareness of the need to settle the matter as one that holds the key to easing the relationship between the two nations. The formula for peace that Kasuri outlined, involving autonomy that stopped short of complete independence and a demilitarisation of the Kashmir territory, also appears – on paper at least – to be feasible. While almost all Pakistanis would favour the accession of Kashmir to their country, 63 years after Partition, this dream has remained elusive. It is said the terms worked out had been opposed only by a single, hard-line leader in Kashmir, while the ex-foreign minister stated the solution worked out had deliberately not been publicised to avoid an outcry in either country. In fact, Kasuri’s revelations show how both sides had reached a level of understanding where they were mindful of public reaction in both countries and were willing to show flexibility in order to ’sell’ the deal to their respective people. As we all know, hawks dominate the debate in many ways both in India and Pakistan and have in the past campaigned ferociously against efforts aimed at peace. Their influence within the structure of the establishment in both countries makes them especially powerful. It is also a fact that much of the justification for maintaining immense armies would evaporate if a solution was indeed worked out in Kashmir.

As far as people go, one must, however, hope the papers Kasuri spoke of are indeed signed in the not-too-distant future. This act could change the fate of the subcontinent and go a long way towards creating security and an escape from abject poverty for a sea of people. While there has been a longstanding debate on whether Kashmir should be tackled first or Confidence-Building Measures put in place to create the right environment for the issue to be taken up, the revelations made by the former minister indicate that a great deal of ground had already been covered. This should motivate the leaders in both Islamabad and New Delhi to move more rapidly towards sealing the deal. It would also encourage those championing people-to-people initiatives on both sides of the border to exert pressure on their governments in order to create a more conducive atmosphere. It is clear that many of the major players in both India and Pakistan are mentally prepared to resolve this long-festering problem. What they require is the backing of public opinion and moral courage and statesmanship. The stakes are extremely high. By moving towards peace they would play a part in the making of history and the settlement of a dispute that has through the decades since 1948 taken a huge toll on both countries, eating into resources, claiming hundreds of lives and keeping the people of Kashmir apart from each other while it is unity they yearn for. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=235924

By Tariq Naqash  in The Dawn, Apr 25
MUZAFFARABAD, April 24: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister Raja Farooq Haider said on Saturday that recommendations of the Supreme Judicial Council calling for removal of non-functional chief justice Reaz Akhtar Chaudhry were binding on the AJK Council chairman — the prime minister of Pakistan.

“Some elements are conspiring to get the SJC recommendations held in abeyance to create unrest in AJK, but I hope that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani will not let their nefarious designs succeed,” he said while talking to delegations of lawyers from Hattian Bala and Neelum valley. “Even if the SJC report is held in abeyance for one year, ultimately the decision will have to be made on the basis of its recommendations,” Mr Haider said and warned that any unconstitutional action could trigger strong reaction in AJK.

Raja Farooq said he had made it clear to all concerned that constitutional issues could not be settled through jirgas, but only through the process laid down in the Constitution.

“Any jirga could have been held prior to the filing of reference to the SJC, but once the recommendations have been submitted to the AJK Council chairman he is left with no option but to implement the same,” he added.

The AJK premier reiterated that the reference was purely a constitutional matter and the points therein involved subversion and transgression of constitution by justice Reaz.

Referring to the contention of President Raja Zulqarnain Khan that his office was ‘misused’, he pointed out that the AJK constitution provided same powers to the acting president. “AJK has a parliamentary form of government where the president is bound to act upon the advice of the prime minister.”

About media reports that the deposed CJ had filed recommendations against Justice Manzoor Hussain Gilani and Justice Ghulam Mustafa Mughal to the AJK Council chairman, Raja Farooq said it carried no legal sanctity.

“There cannot be a parallel SJC. Courts cannot be established in residences or in markets. There is only one Supreme Court headed by Justice Gilani (acting CJ), one high court headed by Justice Mughal and one SJC,” he said.

The AJK premier welcomed the 18th Amendment and expressed the hope that much-needed amendments to the AJK interim constitution would also be effected at the earliest. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/sjc-recommendations-binding-on-gilani-ajk-premier-540

By Babar Dogar & Ranjan Roy in The News, Apr 24
LAHORE: Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri has said the solution to the Kashmir dispute is just a signature away once India and Pakistan decide to pull the file from the rack.

While addressing the concluding session of the two-day seminar — held as part of the ongoing Aman ki Asha campaign, launched by the Jang Group and Times of India — and later talking to The News and the Times of India here on Friday, the former foreign minister revealed the previous Musharraf government had completed almost 90 per cent of the spadework on the half-a-century old Kashmir dispute by 2007 as the whole exercise just needed the formal signature of all the three parties to the issue – Pakistan, India and representatives of Kashmir.

“All India and Pakistan now need is to defreeze the process. The entire paper-work has been done. The copies of related documents are safe with some friendly countries as well,” said Kasuri.

Kasuri said that negotiators from Islamabad and New Delhi had quietly toiled away for three years, talking to each other and Kashmiri representatives from the Indian side as well as Kashmiris settled overseas to reach what he described as the “only possible solution to the Kashmir issue”.

He said the two sides had agreed to full demilitarisation of both Indian Kashmir as well as Azad Kashmir. In addition, a package of loose autonomy that stopped short of the azadi and self-governance aspirations, had been agreed on and was to be introduced on both sides of the disputed frontier. “We agreed on a point between complete independence and autonomy,’’ he said.

He said that hardliner Sayeed Ali Shah Gilani was the only Kashmiri leader who refused to come on board. “He would accept nothing but merger with Pakistan, which ironically is something we too wanted but knew wasn’t practical. I once had a seven-to-eight hour meeting with him and even Musharraf met him but he refused to budge,’’ Kasuri said. He refused to give details of the stance other moderate Kashmiri leaders adopted.

He said the former government had finalised the formula of giving independence to the Kashmiris like the one they had before the dispute surfaced in 1948. When Pakistan and India decided to engage the Kashmiri leadership, it made it clear the people of Kashmir would not settle for anything less than the kind of independence they had during the tenure of the maharaja before the partition. However, with the scenario changed altogether, and Pakistan and India having strategic compulsions against such an independence, the issue had to be worked out again on different linesî.

“Well, India and Pakistan had serious reservations over that kind of independence. So, it was decided let the Kashmiris have their homeland as desired by them, and Pakistan and India should roll a plan for gradual evacuation of the strategically important parts of the united Kashmir,’’ the former foreign minister informed.

’It was also decided both the countries would gradually withdraw their forces from Indian and Pakistani held territories of Kashmir. We decided a nominal chunk of forces would be kept back in the strategically important areas of liberated Kashmir for sometime,’’ he added.

Furthermore, Kasuri went on to say, Indian and Pakistani governments decided not to sell victories in their respective countries for avoiding a general public backlash in the other. `îIt was a dicey situation in terms of political fallout of any solution back home in both the countries. If that exercise had to materialize, both the countries needed to tell their respective masses what actually had been done for breaking the status quo,’’ Khursheed Kasuri said. He maintained it was very hard for making the public accept the achieved results either. So, at one point in time, it was decided to make the Line of Control (LoC) `irrelevant’ so that the Kashmiris could be allowed to move freely across the Valley, using their ID cards.

He said: ‘The two nuclear neighbours were quite worried about the volatile situation in the region, especially around the LoC. There were insurgencies in both the countries. The freedom struggle in Indian-held Kashmir and the growing menace of terrorism in Pakistan were becoming a cause of serious concern for the two governments by the end of 2005. The Mumbai attack worked as a catalyst for finding an immediate solution to all issues, which had the potential of sparking a full-fledged armed conflict in the subcontinent’. Kasuri further explained both the countries just couldn’t afford any Mumbai-like attack in India as it would force them to retaliate at all costs.

He said the three-year long arduous efforts were rendered fruitless by the sudden emergence of the judiciary-executive row in 2006, which forced the Musharraf regime to put the matter on the backburner for the time being. Kasuri further revealed former president Pervez Musharraf had a possible signal from the Manmohan Singh government in early 2006 vis-‡-vis formalizing the almost reached solution in August 2006. Or, if delay was inevitable, the announcement to this effect could be made by March 2007. However, Kasuri added, he suggested President Musharraf to hold the process back for a while as the political situation in Pakistan was not conducive for unveiling such a big plan, which had the popular sentiments involved to a great extent. As the media, the opposition, the people, especially the civil society and the lawyer community, resorted to opening afterburners against the former president in the aftermath of the judicial crisis, any initiative, however sincere and productive, by the government would be eyed with suspicion.

He said to soften public opinion before making this breakthrough public, India and Pakistan decided to resolve the Sir Creek issue. Indian PM Manmohan Singh was scheduled to come to Pakistan in 2006 for signing the settlement of the Sir Creek issue. However, the Indian government postponed the meeting in view of general elections in India the same year. The Sir Creek matter was put ahead of the already agreed agenda on Kashmir with the purpose to give more credibility to Indo-Pak endeavours. “There was a usual perception that Pakistan and India just couldn’t resolve any mutual dispute through bilateral engagements,’’ said the former foreign minister.

’By that time, Pakistan and India had already held over 15 informal meetings for chalking out a feasible plan to settle the dispute. In the latter part of the deliberations, both the countries realised the need for involving the crucial party to the conflict, the Kashmiris, in the ongoing negotiations. Apart from Indo-Pak meetings during the process, India and Pakistan held talks at various levels with the Kashmiri leadership. “I had held covert meetings with the Kashmiri leadership even in other countries,’’ Kasuri added. Meanwhile, a senior Indian official involved in the backdoor talks corroborated the statement of the former foreign minister.

Kasuri was all praise for the Jang Group of Publications and the Times of India Group. He said only the media had the guts and the credibility to take such an initiative of warming the process again, which was a whisker away from glory. “The media can make the difference at this point in time. If more credible media groups joined the cause, wonders could be done in near future. I hope these two media giants kept the momentum up for sometime till the respective audience realised the significance of peace in the region.’’ Kasuri stressed the need for frequent media people movement across the border, which, he believed, would go miles in propelling this vital campaign. http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28466

There are agreements on many issues that are voiced from time to time. Track-Two diplomatic efforts between Pakistan and India have in the past resulted in demands that people-to-people contact across the border be encouraged by easing visa restrictions. This issue has been brought up once more by the vice-chancellor of Punjab University, who met a high-powered Indian media delegation visiting Pakistan under the Jang Group’s Aman ki Asha initiative. The visa curbs that hamper flow across the border are indeed an impediment in the way of better understanding between our people. The more often this issue is raised the stronger the reminder to the governments to act. As media persons from both Pakistan and India have pointed out, the subcontinent hosts a huge proportion of the world’s people. Building peace here can indeed have a global impact.

It is also significant that during the discussions held under the broad Aman ki Asha umbrella there has been a genuine bid to see things through the perspective of people in the other country. Such an exchange of thoughts and ideas is of course essential to the solution of problems. It is true that today many difficulties face the two nations and they have sadly been significantly aggravated since the unfortunate Mumbai events in November 2008. Hawks in both the countries have taken advantage of this. But the tensions that have existed since the bombings make it all the more imperative that efforts to bring people together be stepped up. This can be achieved only by allowing them greater access to each other’s countries and ensuring that bureaucratic mechanisms currently in place on both sides of the border do not prevent this. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=235769

ISLAMABAD: The AJK Supreme Court has set the “historic wrong” committed by its deposed chief justice on Friday when it dismissed a petition against the Supreme Court of Pakistan, declaring AJK a separate country. Because of this very petition, a reference against the AJK deposed CJ Riaz Akhtar Chaudhry was filed and proceedings were initiated against him in the Supreme Judicial Council where he was found guilty of blasphemy, subversion of the constitution and misconduct.

The SJC has forwarded its recommendations of removal of AJK deposed CJ to the prime minister of Pakistan and a nod of Gilani is still awaited which is binding on him. Sources say Gilani has been advised by three influential political gamers to violate the AJK constitution.

The AJK SC also mentioned that the writ petition admitted by AJK’s deposed CJ was based on presupposed, hypothetical and misconceived apprehended order to be passed by the SC of Pakistan. The court also went tough on Mujahid Naqvi, the lawyer who was first benefited by the AJK CJ while going out of the way and latter becoming the mouthpiece of the deposed CJ and referred his case to the AJK Bar Council.

The judgment of AJK SC says: “It is unheard in the judicial history of the world that the Court of one country or part of a country passes an order against the court of another country or another court of the same country. Azad Kashmir Supreme Court is final appellate court for Azad Kashmir territory, while the Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex court of the country, although it is not appellate court for Azad Jammu and Kashmir, but the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have binding effect upon Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

“As far as the ground that Azad Kashmir is a foreign territory for Pakistan or ‘another country’ is concerned, it is equally misconceived, malicious and seditious in nature. Azad Kashmir, of course, is not a province of Pakistan, nor a part of Federation of Pakistan under Article 1(2) & (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, but is a liberated part of the disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir; otherwise, in the control of Pakistan under the United Nations and UNCIP Resolutions. All the sovereign powers of a State in relation to AJK are directly vested in the Government of Pakistan.” http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28480

The writer is a former Pak ambassador
Trade relations with India have been a subject of contention and controversy for long. Popular opinion in Pakistan dictates that these relations be rejected until the Kashmir issue is settled. Others hold the view that trade and commerce have their own dynamics and may not be held hostage to political differences.

The controversy has been raging for decades. India, besides bilateral efforts, has also used the SAARC platform to secure bilateral trade and transit rights through Pakistan to have access to Afghanistan and the land-locked Central Asian states. The political situation in Afghanistan, involvement of US and other western powers has encouraged India to tie transit rights with the Afghan situation. The US has mounted intense pressure on Pakistan to provide over land route for Indian exports to Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton has openly canvassed hard, telling Pakistan that its “obsession” with India’s hostility is misplaced.

Pakistan has, however, rejected any such thesis. India’s role and policy in the region and its alleged involvement in sponsoring terrorism in Balochistan as well as FATA have created serious concerns regarding Pakistan’s security environment. Pakistan also has concerns about smuggling, massive flow of drugs and arms from Kabul into Pakistan. The prevailing hundi system could also lead financing terrorism in Pakistan.

A trilateral summit was held in May in Washington with presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan attending the event hosted by Clinton. The deliberations succeeded and a MoU was signed on May 6, committing the “two countries achieving a trade transit agreement by the end of this year.” This agreement had remained under discussion for 43 years without resolution. A euphoric Clinton declared the MoU as an “important milestone” and “historic event” for the countries in the region.

The real intentions and objectives behind this initiative of trilateral summit and signing of the MoU was to extend the transit right to India, surreptitiously. The MoU has certainly been a major triumph and will not only enhance Pakistan’s trade with Afghanistan but also provide its product the market of Central Asian states.

Pakistan has so far succeeded in resisting US pressure to extend India the transit facility. Afghanistan, acknowledging that such an agreement will not be feasible in near future, has accepted Pakistan’s offer for 60 trucks a month for transporting its goods up to Wagah. Both also agreed that in transit, goods would be checked through an electronic tracking mechanism mounted on the vehicles.

Concomitant with these diplomatic efforts by the US to seek concession for India, the bilateral trade between Indian and Pakistan has flourished. With the trade deficit exceeding one billion dollars, Pakistan exports to India have stagnated around $400 million, despite the fact that India has granted MFN status to Pakistan. To deflect diplomatic pressure and keeping in view its political and economic interest, Pakistan should gradually liberalise trade with India but not allow the derailing of the Kashmir issue with its transit route to India. Pakistan may, however, continue to encourage trade with India consistent with our economic and security concerns. Word is that Pakistan has invited three multi-billion Indian companies, TATA, Reliance and Essar, to a meeting of potential investors in the power sector for the development of the Thar Coal Power Project.

Pakistan must exploit its geo-political location by improving transit trade with the Central Asian states and should accelerate transit transport agreements with Central Asian republics to secure its hold in the region. www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=217235

The Dawn, Nov 3
( The author is Co-chairman, Pakistan-India Citizens Friendship Forum, Karachi)

IN the midst of the attacks in Pakistan by terrorists and militants, the offer of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to resume the peace process – dialogue — with Pakistan came as a pleasant response as we do need to have a sense of security and peace on our eastern border so that more emphasis may be given by security forces to deal with militants within and in our northern region.
The Indian prime minister is reported to have said: “I strongly believe that the majority of people in Pakistan seek good neighbourly and cooperative relations between India and Pakistan. They seek a permanent peace. This is our view as well.
“I call upon the people and government of Pakistan to show their sincerity and good faith. As I have said many times before, we will not be found wanting in our response.
“I appeal to the government of Pakistan that the hand of friendship that we have extended should be carried forward. This is in the interest of people of India and Pakistan.” There may be some conditions placed by India for political reasons but Pakistan’s response like India’s should be that all issues and differences are open for dialogue and discussions as this is the only way forward. The Indian prime minister is reported to have earlier said that we can choose our friends and partners but not our neighbours. This is a fact that applies to both sides so let us live with this in mind.
The recently-concluded ‘intraKashmir dialogue’ held in Srinagar from Oct 9 to Oct 11 organised by the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation (CDR), New Delhi, was evidently a success as working groups discussed and came up with recommendations and solutions on:
(i) Across Line of Control (LoC) trade, (ii) LoC cooperation in different fields and (iii) Dialogue process.
Sixty-four participants representing communities and regions of Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan participated in the dialogue over a period of three days.
The discussions included the dialogue process, confidence-building measures and expansion of economic cooperation across the LoC. The discussions were encouraging as they dealt with the following :
(i) Facilities for package tours including pilgrimage tourism.
(ii) Educational linkage between regions and reservations of seats in different educational institutions, particularly professional colleges, with free exchange of academicians and students for the purpose of study and research.
(iii) Exchange of artists and arti sans and holding of cultural shows and sport events on both sides.
(iv) Cooperation in the field of media, exchange of newspapers and entertainment channels.
(v) The need for a focused, sustained and uninterpreted dialogue process between India and Pakistan which should not only be result-oriented but time- oriented as well.
(vi) Promotion of trust and confidence between different civil society groups and non-governmental organisations.
(vii) Delinking of terrorism from the dialogue process.
(viii) Restoration of back -channel diplomacy (ix) Promotion of facilities for travel between the two countries.
(x) Condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
Sushobha Barve, the heart and soul of the ‘Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation, New Delhi, must be congratulated for her dedication over the years and the achievements at the present conference.
A link-up between the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation and similar organisations in Pakistan would indeed serve the hopes and aspirations of the people of India and Pakistan for a durable peace. The need of the present time is for a people-to-people contact, freedom of trade, travel, tourism, cultural exchanges, resumption of cricket and other sporting events, exchange of visits by academics, students, musicians, professionals, artists, artisans and exchange of information, books and technology.
We must inspire trust and confidence in each other and leave behind the era of suspicion and mistrust and get down to basics.

This piece appeared as letter to Editor

http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=03_11_2009_006_002

By Tariq Naqash in The Dawn, Nov 2
MUZAFFARABAD, Nov 1: Renowned Kashmiri human rights activist Dr Syed Nazir Gilani has asked Pakistan to stick to the right to self-determination instead of using the vague term of “aspirations” of the people of Kashmir.

“It would be wrong and unwise on the part of Pakistan to skip the urgent need to clarify between accession, self-determination and aspirations on the one hand and unfairly hope to manipulate ‘wishes and aspirations’ through an interchange of political culture on either side of the Line of Control on the other,” he said.

Dr Gilani who is secretary general of London-based Jammu Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) was talking to Dawn during his visit to Azad Kashmir.

According to him, ‘aspirations and wishes of Kashmiri people’ was a vague term and ran the risk of diluting and confusing the basic issue.

Kashmir, he said, was not a dispute as ordinarily understood but it was the question of a title of the Kashmiri people to self-determination, embedded in 132-year-old rights movement, charter obligation of 194-member nations of the UN and envisaged in the UN resolutions on the region.

Disputes could fluctuate with the change of political climate but self-determination could not be changed, he said.

He feared that India and Pakistan might not act in fairness and equity if Kashmir was treated as a dispute “because at the time of settlement of disputes, sovereign interests of both nations will reign supreme.”

“The two sides may continue to dispute with each other but they have no right to sandwich us and our inherent right to self-determination for their self-serving disputes,” he said.

He said it would be unwise and unhelpful if India continued to avoid its contractual obligations and international commitments due towards the Kashmiri people.

“The Kashmiri people are equal to any other people under the principle of self-determination and as members of the UN, India and Pakistan have Charter obligations to discharge towards self-determination and equality among people,” he said.

He said death of a generation in Kashmir had caused a serious number deficit in the process of self-determination. “In fact, we have killed the right of self-determination for some time. It is not realisable in the near future and we need to defend this principle at least,” he said.

The JKCHR secretary general pointed out that the position taken by Libya at the 64th session of UN General Assembly and by China to endorse visa to the citizens of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was in accordance with the Charter obligation of the two countries as envisaged in the UNCIP resolutions on Kashmir.

Dr Gilani who was elected at the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993 to represent the ‘Unrepresented peoples and nations of the world’ termed the Chinese interest in Kashmir as a ‘significant development.’

China which shared a border with Kashmir had played a lead role during the discussion of Kashmir at the UN and at the 241st meeting of the UN Security Council held on February 5, 1948, making a serious case for ‘pacification,’ he said, recalling that China had also come up with Articles of Settlement on 18 March, 1948 at the 269th meeting of the Security Council.

He said Pakistan should adopt a stand like that of China and also press the OIC nations to follow the suit. “The OIC should also accept Kashmiris as a separate nation,” he said. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/kashmiris-right-to-selfdetermination-should-be-supreme-119

NEW DELHI: When India’s central bank admitted discovering 400,000 fake notes in its currency reserves, many here woke up to the scale of the country’s counterfeit money problems.

Worse still, the embarrassing admission related to a survey from the last financial year to March 2009 and authorities say the problem has since got worse.

Police and the central bank have observed a tripling in the value of notes detected or seized in raids in recent years and authorities are convinced the source of the deluge is a familiar foe across the border: Pakistan.

“We have had some success in tracking the routes and will continue to counter it, but behind this racket is an organised effort in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir,” Home Minister P Chidambaram said recently. “It’s not just a cottage industry.”

Hardly a day passes without news of arrests of currency smugglers, but police say they are only catching the ‘smallfry’, while the ‘big fish’ act with impunity “over the border”.

Many locals here complain of withdrawing fake notes from bank machines and ever-vigilant shopkeepers routinely check the watermarks that are meant to protect the larger denomination 500 and 1,000-rupee notes.

A report this year by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), a state body that tracks money flows, said counterfeit currency was brought in by militants from abroad and then moved through criminal networks.

Smuggling: The DRI said that 130 million high-quality counterfeit notes were being smuggled into India every year and only a fraction were detected.

The security establishment is now clamouring for more scrutiny of India’s banking system and the central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has instructed nationalised banks to install sorting machines to weed out fakes.

“If the circulation of counterfeit notes was not checked then the economy could be running with over 25 percent fake notes making the rounds across the country,” said analyst Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Managment.

The RBI is also running awareness campaigns, even educating schoolchildren to detect fake notes, and plans to introduce a billion special plastic-coated notes that are tougher to counterfeit. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\11\02\story_2-11-2009_pg7_4