Commenting on the announcement by the Indian Foreign Minister that New Delhi was ready to hold negotiations with Islamabad to settle differences in the wake of the recent events in Kashmir, Mashallah Shakeri stated: “The issue of Kashmir is an old wound and a land disputed by India and Pakistan. In fact, all root causes of the dispute between the two countries which has even led to outbreak of war are related to Kashmir. In the meantime, this has become a matter of honor for Islamabad and New Delhi as they both raise claims over the territorial integrity of Kashmir. Today part of Kashmir run by India is described by the Pakistanis as India-administered Kashmir, and Pakistan-run Kashmir – called Azad Kashmir in Pakistan – is also claimed by India.

He emphasized that the Kashmir issue has a very broad dimension both historically and geographically, adding: “The fate and politics of the Kashmir issue are not decided by foreign policy apparatus at least in Pakistan where the military and security agencies maintain presence with special attention to Kashmir issue. Therefore, the Pakistani Foreign Minister’s Kashmir stance alone is not sufficient, and one should see what the army generals in Islamabad think about this issue.

The former diplomat also said: “The same is true about India. Political and security forces in India also take the military aspect into account when they talk about Kashmir. What we see in India today is a strong military presence in Kashmir so much so that India has deployed 900,000 troops in Kashmir.

Describing the historical roots of the Kashmir conflict, he said: “The dispute between India and Pakistan, especially over Kashmir, did not happen overnight, and therefore cannot be resolved quickly. When the issue of independence from British colonialism emerged, Pakistan was created by the struggles of the Muslim League of India led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and the independence of the two countries was realized through the split of Indian land.

“It was agreed that the Muslim-majority states become independent under Pakistan. Thus a part of the Indian land was separated under the titles of East and West Pakistan, and later with the independence of East Pakistan, Bangladesh was created. But at the time, although Kashmir was a Muslim majority, it did not comply with this rule because the Maharaja who ruled Kashmir was a Hindu practitioner, and he signed an agreement with India’s Jawaharlal Nehru to accede Kashmir to India. The collusion sparked a war between the two countries, which divided Kashmir into two parts, Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir and India-administered Jammu and Kashmir.”

He added: “Under these conditions, the Constitution of India had a special definition of land and government in Kashmir and according to Article 370 it was allowed to have a separate constitution, a state flag and autonomy over the internal administration of the state. Since 1947 to the present day, a radical nationalist wing has emerged within the Indian ruling community who believe that India should be for Hindus, and any concessions given to Muslim populated states such as Kashmir are contrary to the interests of Hinduism. They did not have much power until 1980, but gradually gained power over the last four decades until they announced in this spring’s election that if the BJP wins they will abolish Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Following their victory on August 5 they abolished the article through arrangements which, of course, had no legal basis, but they had prepared the grounds to let this happen since long time ago. This action has also sparked the protests of a considerable number of party leaders, scholars and legislators in India. Taking such a decision by the Indian government under such a mechanism is unacceptable.

The former diplomat, saying that it is natural for Pakistan to be the first country to oppose the move, noted: “Pakistan has declared that Kashmir is a disputed land and according to UN resolutions its fate must be determined by referendum. It says so far India’s actions have been contrary to UN resolutions, and under the Simla Agreement signed between the leaders of the two countries in 1972, any decision on the disputed issues should not be taken unilaterally but bilaterally. Therefore, according to the UN resolutions as well as the Indian constitution and Simla treaty, Pakistan claims that the Indian action on Kashmir is illegal and contrary to the Indian constitution and in violation of bilateral agreements.

Referring to the protests of the Kashmir people in recent weeks, he noted: “They have been protesting over the past thirty years against some of the creeping currents that have been taking place on behalf of the part of Indian rule within Kashmir. Their protests have been taken to the streets as well. It is a long story prompting occasional events in Kashmir that have widespread international coverage as well.

Shakeri added: “These issues have caused tensions in relations between the two countries to escalate. India and Pakistan have downgraded diplomatic ties to a large extent, have cut off economic and cultural links, and Pakistani flights over Indian airspace are restricted. They have minimized the scope of bilateral cooperation. However, India’s interior minister recently announced that if they were to negotiate with Pakistan it would be just over part of Kashmir administered by Pakistan! In other words, he said they not only consider this part of Indian Kashmir the Indian Territory but that the part under Pakistani rule must also join India to make Kashmir uniform. Of course, this issue will never be accepted by Pakistan.”

The former Iranian ambassador to Islamabad, referring to the escalation of tensions between the two countries over the possibility of military conflict, also said: “The history of hostilities between India and Pakistan shows that the two countries before acquiring nuclear technology and weapons have fought in three wars, and the issue of Kashmir has always been a central theme in these confrontations. Small scale border clashes, of course, occurred even more the latest of which was in 1999. This record confirms that there is the potential for hostilities to be dragged into the military field, but the global and economic conditions too will affect the situation.”

He explained: “India has started a period of strong economic growth and is basically unwilling to disrupt this process. Yet outbreak of a war will certainly have its impacts. India is attracting a great deal of technology and capital from around the world and has made remarkable economic, technological and scientific achievements.”

Shakeri also described Pakistani components effective in resolving the Kashmir conflict, saying Pakistan has its own problems, regardless of the economic challenges it is facing. Meantime, the Afghanistan issue too affects Islamabad’s policies and orientations. In addition, there has been support in the past from Islamic countries for Pakistan, which today has faded. In the recent incident only Iran and Turkey voiced concern over the fate of the Kashmir people and urged the government in New Delhi to treat its people fairly and justly. There are many implications in these positions, but countries Pakistan depended upon and boasted of them previously, such as Saudi Arabia, did not take appropriate action. The United Arab Emirates too honored Indian Prime Minister Marendra Mody with the UAE highest civilian award just as the bitter events were unfolding in the region and at a time the people of Kashmir were in extremely difficult social and political conditions!”

He added: “Imagine a land with a population of 14 million, with a Muslim majority, all its communications with the world have been cut off, its schools and hospitals are shut down, and the oppressed people have even been denied their religious services and many of their rights have been ignored. In such a situation, a Muslim country awards the Prime Minister of the country being responsible for all these problems! The point in this UAE action is significant both for Iran and for Pakistan. Islamabad expected more support but this did not happen. In these circumstances, there must be some assurances for Pakistan to go to war, and I believe today Islamabad does not have the necessary assurances.

Shakeri said about the future of relations between the two countries, given India’s readiness to negotiate: “It is still unclear what the reaction of the different political and social layers in Kashmir will be to this action. How they will react to this Indian move will change the equation. We do not know it yet, because they have completely closed the space. For the time being they do not allow the people’s voice being heard from behind a completely closed environment and barbed wire that is filled with military forces. So when they let the people’s voices be heard, one can understand how people will decide their own destiny, and part of this equation will become clearer.

“The other thing is how Pakistan will react,” the former diplomat added. He noted: “The governments of the region, including China, are also somewhat involved; China is in the neighborhood of Kashmir, and in fact a recent UN Security Council meeting seeking a resolution on Kashmir – which did not lead to a resolution – had been requested by China. So Beijing shows that it has interests in the issue of Kashmir, and of course Islamic countries will not be indifferent to the fate of the Muslim people of Kashmir.

He said he was skeptical of the short-term talks between India and Pakistan. “We have to wait to see when the human rights issues that Indians are ignoring today about their own people are gradually being opened up. The decision-making personalities in Kashmir will eventually talk about this. The indigenous parties who ruled in a region cannot now be overlooked. You cannot redefine sovereignty and geographical divisions through military presence and by disrupting the existing plans. This will not be accepted by the people and they will not cooperate on anything that is not acceptable to them. Under such a situation, conflict, antagonism and dichotomy will continue within the Kashmiri community, and the continuation of the situation would not be so easy.

Shakeri added: “Pakistan is taking advantage of these opportunities and wants to benefit from the dynamism in Kashmir society. India, of course, accuses Pakistan of some kind of intervention and this process is set to continue. I don’t think it will be an easy job for the two countries to normalize their relations.”

He also highlighted the role of the Zionist regime in the Kashmir issue and emphasized: “Another issue to be considered is the Israeli influence. The Zionist regime’s Prime Minister has said he will be visiting India in the next few weeks. The meeting at this point raises questions. Therefore, it is felt that strengthening the relationship between India and the Zionist regime is another factor that will play a part in this equation.”