KASHMIR IN FOCUS
Militants demand a voice
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

The United States has clearly stated that once it has dealt with Middle Eastern issues, helping resolve the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan would be at the top of its list. However, the 14-year intifada in the Indian-administered Kashmir section of Kashmir has hardened positions between the South Asian rivals and they are each bent on reaching a settlement only on their terms.

The recent goodwill gesture, though, expressed by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee while on a visit to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), which was cautiously received by the Pakistani government, has raised some hope that once again a new diplomatic initiative could be launched, and once this gains momentum, the US might be able to play a meaningful role, given its expressed desire to do so. Vajpayee said that he was ready to make a fresh start with Pakistan, but cautioned that Islamabad must reciprocate by cracking down on militants.

Clearly, past talks and negotiations have failed to break the stalemate that has existed ever since the partition of British India in 1947 sowed the seeds of the dispute that has claimed thousands of lives and on two occasions resulted in war between India and Pakistan. There is a growing consensus, therefore, that the two countries would be well advised to accept the mediation of the US as part of a new initiative.

In the early years after partition, Pakistan was particularly concerned over J&K because all of the water that flowed into Pakistan came from that Indian state. Had the issue remained within this perspective, dialogue over the future of Muslim-dominated J&K (independence, incorporation into Pakistan or status quo) might have been relatively easy. But in the 1980s the nature of the issue changed completely to one of "faith".

The catalyst was the Afghan resistance movement that began with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Within a few years, this movement assumed the characteristics of a full jihad and Muslims from all over the world joined in the fight against the Red Army.

A decade later, with the Soviet withdrawal, these fighters were left without a war to fight, and with a very changed outlook on life. Many took their struggle elsewhere - the Palestinian movement was virtually hijacked by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, as was the Kashmir issue.

Organizations like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, which had Marxist leanings, all but disappeared and the Jamaat-i-Islami of Indian Kashmir swiftly took over the liberation movement as a continuation of the Afghan jihad, with the sole aim of "liberating" J&K from Indian into Pakistani hands.

This has made any political progress extremely difficult as invariably militancy holds stronger sway than regular diplomacy.

Asia Times Online recently spoke to Mohammed Azeem Baloch, a top commander and general secretary of the Hizbul Mujahideen (Hizb), the largest militant outfit operating in J&K, with support from across the border in Pakistani (Azad) Kashmir.

ATol: The Hizbul Mujahideen is recognized as the largest Kashmiri militant organization. At the same time, it is also accepted, even by Indians, as an indigenous factor. Your organization was inspired by the Afghan resistance movement against the Soviets, and by the mid-1980s it had a foothold in all key Afghan cities. In Kashmir, what success have you achieved in your more than decade-old struggle?

Azeem: Capturing territory is not our goal. This is not our strategy. Although we did occupy parts of some districts in the past, this was symbolic and we just kept it [the territory] for few hours in our hands and then left it. Our strategy is a permanent guerrilla warfare. Because the Afghan resistance movement had some heavy weapons by the mid 1980s, they were able to capture some areas. The Kashmiri movement does not have heavy weapons. We still rely on light weapons. At the same time, the Afghan movement was getting huge supplies from all over the world. We simply do not have this. As a result, we just depend on a guerrilla strategy.

ATol: So how would one gauge the level of your success in this struggle?

Azeem: Our movement has taken on the Indian government for the last 14 years. A country like India is now compelled to [station] about 750,000 troops in Kashmir. This is our success.

ATol: After September 11, there has been a negative attitude towards Kashmiri militancy. Pakistan has also shut down training camps in Pakistani Kashmir, and there has been a lot more trouble in receiving material assistance from Pakistan. Has this hampered your struggle?

Azeem: No. Not at all. We were in fact never reliant on Pakistan. We have our own training camps in the valley and ammunition dumps. We have our own indigenous network which generates resources for the movement. The hub of this network is in India itself, and we manage our arms and other supplies from the same network.

ATol: What do you say about the recent killing of two top Hizbul Mujahideen commanders in Kashmir (Saif-ul Islam and Abdul Majid Dar)? It is widely reported that these killings were the result of internal rifts within the Hizb, and that different militant factions are providing information against each other to the Indian army.

Azeem: This is Indian propaganda. Field commanders and mujahideen, whatever organization they belong to, are united.

ATol: Some analysts say that the Hizb is being pulled in different directions by, for example, the Jamaat-i-Islami, Indian Kashmir, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and the al-Badr. How much damage have these proxy organizations caused Hizb?

Azeem: When the Kashmiri movement started in 1989, many militant organizations took up arms. Nowadays, the Hizb is the largest and these other organizations are nowhere to be seen. You can reckon for yourself what damage they have caused Hizb.

ATol: There is a general perception that militant groups do not believe in political processes. Whenever India and Pakistan do take an initiative, these groups sabotage the process and refuse to accept any reconciliatory moves ...

Azeem: This is absolutely wrong. In fact, it is other way around. Whenever we offer any peace deal, it is sabotaged by India. In 2000, Hizb unilaterally declared a ceasefire in the Valley. What response did the Indian government give us? Even their ministers accept that Hizbul Mujahideen is a local Kashmiri movement, but they did not come forward for talks. We were even that much flexible that, OK, if the Indian government has some problems in talking with militants, they can hold talks between India, Pakistan and the All Parties Hurriyat Conference [an umbrella organization], but the Indian government agreed to talk with Pakistan and refused to include Kashmiris in the talks, so what is the point of the argument? Everybody witnessed that when the Hizb offered a ceasefire, India refused to talk with them or the political leadership of the Kashmiris.

(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)