Our moral and diplomatic support to the Kashmiris is not based on any selfish motives; we do believe that Kashmiris are a part of our nation. The basis for this is to be found in the Two Nation Theory of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Whether the Kashmiris wish to be a part of Pakistan or not can only be assessed by holding an impartial plebiscite, as stipulated by the Security Council. Unfortunately, such a plebiscite has been denied to them for almost five decades now, thanks to New Delhi’s obdurate refusals to honour various resolutions of the United Nations, as well as the pledges of Hindustan’s founding father and first Prime Minister, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru. It must be mentioned here that throughout Pakistan’s relatively short history, it has taken principled stands wherever, and whenever, the basic human rights of some people are threatened. Be it Afghanistan, Palestine, Bosnia, Kuwait or Somalia, Pakistan has always been active on all possible fields in its war against oppression. Kashmir is no exception to us, our historic and fraternal ties notwithstanding.   

While Mr. Khan takes pains to point out the independent years of Kashmir’s existence, he forgets about Muslim renaissance in India. Pakistan was to encompass all the Muslim majority areas of the Indian Sub-Continent, and not just a selected few. The struggle for freedom was carried out by all the Muslim societies of the Sub-Continent, including the Kashmiris. Taking a holistic approach to the Indian Sub-Continent, the Two Nation Theory defines our nation by religion and not ethnicity. The grand edifice of our nationhood is structured on the golden principles of Islamic ideology, rather than lesser grounds of race, language or pure and simple originless history. That Kashmir, or even Punjab, remained independent at some point in history, does not separate them from the political mainstream of the Indian Sub-Continent. That Indian Sub-Continent was rarely a unified entity did little to hamper the creation of Pakistan, a land for the Muslims of the Sub-Continent, and that of Bharat. And the Kashmiris have always been part of this Muslim nation.   

Mr. Khan uses the terms, State of Jammu & Kashmir and Kashmir (the Valley), interchangeably. This is not correct and is potentially misleading. Mr. Khan gives the impression that Gilgit-Baltistan, a.k.a. the Northern Areas, are the integral part of Kashmir. He is forgetting that these areas have little to do with the Valley of Kashmir, except being its geographical neighbours. The illegal and immoral occupation of Kashmir by the Dogra Raja of Jammu was extended to Gilgit, Baltistan, Poonch, Ladakh and Aksai Chin only in the 19th century, thus forming the present State of Jammu & Kashmir. This forceful integration was resented by the local populations of these areas, which had little in common with the people of the Valley. For example Baltistan (Little Tibet) has a Muslim, but, ethnic Tibetan population. Poonch is cut-off from the Valley by Pir Panjhal Range and therefore its main contacts, both cultural and economical, still lie with the land across the Jhelum, that is the Punjab. These areas certainly do not come in the realm of the thousand years of Kashmiri history Mr. Khan talks about. He has conveniently ignored that the Gilgitis had revolted and won independence from the Dogra much before he invited the Indians to invade. For all practical purposes Gilgit had become independent by then and on 3 November 1947 it had opted for Pakistan on its own, without any outside prodding. Further, if the integration of these territories with the Valley of Kashmir is to be recognised or accepted, the annexation of the Valley by Dogra would also have to be accepted as legal. Nobody has any objections to a unified State of Jammu & Kashmir but associating the non-Kashmiri portions of the State with the Valley of Kashmir, in terms of their history, culture and political aspirations may lead to incorrect generalisations about the region.   

To resolve this dispute amicably and within the International Law, Pakistan has honoured, and still honours, the UN resolutions which have dealt with the State of Jammu & Kashmir in the light of partition agenda. In this respect, while the UN recognised the disputed state as the unfinished agenda of partition, and its right to accede either to India or Pakistan, it did not recognise any 

As for the mistakes made by the successive Pakistani governments handling Kashmir, this is a moot point. Mr. Khan might derive his strength from the fact that Pakistan has failed to have ideal leadership over the years. Yes India seems to have had relatively more stable leadership. Then why is he complaining against them? Many Pakistanis would like to agree that we could have had better leadership, but that is not an issue here. It is highly unfortunate that the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front have chosen to capitalise on the alleged failings of Pakistan to further their ends in the occupied Valley. Pakistan has withstood the test of times in its consistent and unfailing support to its Kashmiri kith and kin. It has fought two wars with India, directly over Kashmir and it had to face dismemberment in the third. Had it not been for the treacherous refusal of C-in-C Gracey to honour Quaid’s orders, Kashmiris would have been liberated right then. Because of the hostile relations with India over Kashmir, Pakistan has had to divert vital resources towards maintaining its defence posture v.v. India. Had our leaders dumped Kashmir right there in 1947, when it was obvious that Pakistan could do little to militarily dislodge a power like India from Kashmir, it would have paid huge dividends in economic development in terms of money reclaimed from our defence budget. Not only the increased spending on social and productive sectors of the economy would have ameliorated the improvished lot of Pakistani people, massive potential trade with India would have further brought peace and prosperity to the whole region. Much of the international censure which followed Pakistan’s development of a nuclear deterrence against India, simply would not have been there. Mr. Khan forgets this when he is castigating the Pakistani leaders and the rest of our nation for not having done enough for Kashmir. Or is he wilfully forgetting these innumerable sacrifices, which Pakistani nation has rendered in Kashmir’s cause, just because he wants to use Pakistan’s follies as the raison d’être for his independent Kashmir? It seems that he is falling prey to the trap, most political leaders fall for in our part of the world, just to see himself crowned as the paramount leader of an independent polity. In his blind quest for ultimate power he is causing considerable damage to Kashmir’s rightful cause, by not only negating Pakistani government’s stance, but the position taken by the international community in the United Nations in its numerous resolutions on the dispute of Kashmir. He is only serving India’s cause by showing the world that Kashmiris are not united in their struggle. The case so effectively expounded by Pakistan to the rest of the world is only but weakened by such short sighted and self-centred leaders as, the late, Sheikh Abdullah and Amanullah Khan.   

In spite of Pakistan’s many internal and external difficulties, it has never failed in its support to the Kashmiris in their struggle. Pakistanis realise the frustration and soured sentiments of their brethren in the Valley after nearly half a century of brutal subjugation. However the exploitation of these sentiments by the JKLF amounts to treachery to the Kashmiris, as it serves to divide them over, hitherto non-existent, differences. If the present policies of JKLF are continued unabated, they would only lead to the present scenario of Afghanistan being repeated in the State of Jammu & Kashmir where a people have lost sense of direction and objective, and are killing each other for ethereal destinies. Such a loss of direction can only lead to further chaos and an aimless civil war. Whatever the past follies of Pakistani and Kashmiri leaders, we should learn from our past mistakes, refrain from committing further follies, and remain united in our common struggle. The banner of independence only serves India’s interests. India has realised that it can no longer hold on to Kashmir. It would rather that Kashmir remained independent and weak, than accede to Pakistan and help bring about the second renaissance of Muslim power in the Sub-Continent.   

Omar Khalid,   

Lahore, 18 July, 1995.