by Anam Zakaria
I want to inquire more about these battalions but he tells me it is better not to touch the army, not to focus on it in my book. ‘It will get controversial otherwise,’ he warns. Just then a man walks into the room and tells me that the president is ready to see me. I say my goodbyes to the military secretary and walk into another office, far larger in size.
Five men are seated on black leather couches placed in a corner of the room. The president is sitting across from them. He nods at my arrival and continues to converse with the men about how much his government has invested in education in Kashmir. He seems to be unofficially campaigning for his party ahead of the elections. I look around the room and notice pictures of Benazir Bhutto and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Belonging to the Pakistan People’s Party, the president is certainly a fan of the Bhutto family, the founders of the party. Soon, Basharat walks in and introduces me to the president, telling him I’m here to interview him for my book. Three of the men leave the room while the other two, bearded and dressed in shalwar kameez, remain seated. The president invites me to sit on a couch besides him and tells me to start the interview.
Not having expected this meeting today, I am not carrying my recorder. I will have to try my luck with my phone instead and pray that it has good sound quality. I lean closer to the president and begin by asking him about the structure of the AJK government. He takes a deep breath, looks at me up and down, and instead of answering the question, tells me that to earn respect anywhere in the world, I must cover my head with a dupatta. I am dressed in an ordinary shalwar kameez and I am not carrying any dupatta. The bearded men on my side grunt in approval of the president’s sermon. I am not surprised, for I have been subjected to such counsel many times in Pakistan, but wonder why my question on governance in Kashmir inspired such a retort. I am on the verge of telling the president that my dress is none of his business and walking out when his two grandchildren enter the room. They jump up and down in his lap and he scolds them for eating too much candy, which is stuffed in their mouths, turning their tongues into shades of blue and green. Just then two more men enter the room. The president greets them and asks them to seat themselves comfortably. They come and plunge into the sofa I am sitting on, making my phone roll off my lap. The president rings for tea. It gives me a moment to cool down and I decide to ask the questions I had intended to put forward and leave as soon as possible. The president turns towards me and asks why I haven’t started the interview yet, forgetting that I had done just that over fifteen minutes ago, before his lecture on my modesty started.
I ask about the structure of the AJK government again but before he can answer, the cook walks in with a huge bowl of watermelon. He seems to have ignored the request for tea, probably assuming that watermelon was a better option for the hot April afternoon. The president takes a huge bite and pushes the bowl towards me, asking me to do the same. I tell him I had just had tea and try to steer the conversation back to the interview, which seems more and more impossible given the crowd that has accumulated in the room. The children are jumping up and down on the couches and two of the men seated next to me are speaking loudly into their phones. I push my mobile closer to the president and give it one more shot.
‘We have a parliamentary system,’ he finally begins, ‘which is much stronger than most other countries, Alhumdulliah (praise Almighty). We have elections and then the elected people come into the assembly and further elect the prime minister, the speaker (of the assembly), and the president.’ Interrupting him, Basharat speaks up from the corner. ‘From the 1980s onwards we have had continuous democracy in Azad Kashmir, despite the democratic process being halted many times in Pakistan,’ he says. ‘Yes, since the 1980s we’ve had democracy,’ the president reaffirms, and then becomes quiet, waiting for another question. I ask him about the relationship between the federal Ministry of Kashmir Affairs & Gilgit-Baltistan, as it is called, and the Kashmir Council. (The former functions as part of the Government of Pakistan, and is headed by a federal minster, while the latter serves as the upper house to the AJK legislative assembly. As discussed earlier in the book, the council consists of six elected members from ‘Azad’ Kashmir, five members nominated by the prime minister of Pakistan from the federal ministers and members of Parliament, three ex-officio members, including the president of AJK, the prime minister of AJK or his nominee, and the federal minister of Kashmir affairs. The president of AJK, with whom I am sitting today, serves as the vice chairperson while the prime minister of Pakistan is the chairperson. As mentioned in the previous chapter, in 2018, a decision was made to reduce the council’s powers and retain it as an advisory body, addressing a long-standing demand of Kashmiris.)
‘Between the two bodies, there is Act ’74… it is Act ’74 right?’ he confirms with Basharat, who nods and reminds me that the Act is the interim constitution of AJK. ‘But before Act ’74, you must understand that when the question of Pakistan was raised in Srinagar before Partition, the leaders there were visionaries,’ the president asserts. ‘At that time Pakistan was not azad, nor was Hindustan, but Kashmir was already an independent state. The leadership wondered that if Hindustan became independent, would it be possible to stay with them? These people were elderly, experienced, knowledgeable, practical… and at the end they decided they wanted to be with Pakistan. This was the thought process…’ Someone else walks into the room and the president welcomes him. I’m worried that we will go off-track again but fortunately this time he comes back straight to the point. ‘After Hindustan occupied Kashmir, it was decided that Pakistan would administer Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan until the Kashmiris decided their own fate, just like an older brother looks after the younger one. The Kashmir Council was formed under Act ’74 and was supposed to further the interests of the Kashmiris. But the bad luck is that democracy and the parliamentary system have not been respected in this country. Instead of taking Kashmir towards independence and sending a message of love and brotherhood, we have been kept behind. They have the budget to send writers, press, mediapersons all over the world to raise the Kashmir issue but I don’t think that ever in history, at least to my knowledge, they have sent a Kashmiri delegation abroad.’ (Other ‘Azad’ Kashmiris tell me that while Kashmiri delegations can go abroad [and do go, although infrequently], they need prior permission from Pakistan as all matters related to the foreign office are under Pakistan’s control.)
I ask him if by they he means the federal Government of Pakistan. He grunts in agreement but a moment later says he is only speaking about the Kashmir Council, not the Pakistani government, which he insists has their best interest at heart. Confused, I ask him, ‘But isn’t the Kashmir Council also chaired by the prime minister of Pakistan?’ Given that the council is headed by the prime minister and has federal ministers and members of the Parliament, in many ways it includes the Pakistan government. Instead of clarifying, he simply reasserts his position, ‘Yes, the prime minister is the chairman of the council and I’m the vice chairman.’
When I ask him if Kashmiris have any social, economic or political grievances with the Pakistan government, he tells me there are none whatsoever. (However, a reputable source from the incumbent AJK government had told me otherwise on condition of anonymity: ‘The Kashmir Council has the power to legislate on fifty-two important subjects,2 leaving relatively minor subjects like education, forests, etc., under the AJK government’s direct control. The federal government, through the Kashmir Council, controls tax collection, installation of hydropower plants and all other important projects. The 18th amendment and the resulting devolution in Pakistan from 2010 onwards has also affected us. Since powers were devolved to the provinces and AJK is not a province, it did not get additional powers. At the same time, some projects earlier being run by the centre were also stopped after the 18th amendment was passed, serving a blow to AJK. Since AJK is not a province, they just allot us a negligible budget for basic necessities, which is simply not enough. Other provinces are represented in all gover
nment committees; they come and discuss their issues and the federal divisible pool is allotted to them for the construction of universities, roads, hospitals, but we have no representation there either. Almost all the water reservoirs are in Kashmir but they don’t even give us enough drinking water from the very dams that have been constructed on our land and which have displaced our people.’ The gentleman was clearly irked by the official and unofficial policies of the Pakistan government.)
I realize that the president may not be able to speak as candidly for it might compromise his relationship with the Pakistani state but it is my hope that over the course of the interview, he touches upon some of these issues as well. For now, I can sense that he is not ready.
‘We have our own judiciary, chief justice, high court, supreme court,’ he continues to tell me, his tone full of pride. ‘We have all the requirements of a nation. We just share three things with Pakistan…’
‘Four,’ Basharat corrects him.
‘Yes, yes, four. Defence, foreign office, finance, and…,’ he looks towards Basharat for rescue and he quickly jumps in, ‘Communications.’
‘Yes, yes, communications. Apart from these, we are independent.’
‘And how about Gilgit-Baltistan? I understand that the federal Ministry of Kashmir Affairs also includes Gilgit-Baltistan? What is your government’s relationship like with them?’ I ask.
‘We have a very good relationship, in every way and form,’ he responds enthusiastically but before he can carry on, Basharat, who seems to be playing the role of editing and correcting the president’s responses, interrupts him once more. ‘But there is no constitutional relationship as per Act ’74…’
‘Jee (what)?’ says the president. He seems annoyed by Basharat’s interjection.
‘Sir, I’m saying that by law, as per our constitution, there is no relationship.’
Frustrated, the president says, ‘Bhai, kyunke woh humara apna hai (Brother, because Gilgit-Baltistan is our own)! It is one state, why would we need a constitutional relationship? Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are one. If there is no mention in the interim constitution then it means that it is envisioned as one state!’ His voice is raised and he is clearly exasperated. There is silence in the room for the first time this afternoon. Even the children are quiet, noticing that their grandfather is irritated. He takes another big bite of the watermelon and tells me to do the same. ‘Eat some, you’ll stay cool.’ I tell him I’m just fine but I’m glad to see that after a few more bites the watermelon indeed helps him cool down. In a more calm, collected voice, he starts to speak again.
‘If someone intelligent and visionary becomes a part of the Kashmir Council, love would be spread between the people of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan and our relationship would strengthen. But you know how elder siblings are? They think they know everything, that’s their attitude. It can’t be like this. Hindustan is sitting on our head and when Pakistan doesn’t deal with us with love and care, Hindustan makes an issue out of it and says, what Pakistan are you cheering for? They walk all over your rights, they eat your resources. But even in their (Indian-administered Kashmir) universities today, students raise the “Pakistan zindabad” (Long Live Pakistan) slogan.3 That is not because the agencies are feeding them and telling them what to say. It is because there is a lot of love for Pakistan. The Kashmir Council just doesn’t value this enough… they don’t give us our share of the budget, they don’t treat us well. Pakistan has our best interests at heart but a few ill-meaning politicians steer the policy against us.’ From our conversation, I extract that the president is stating his issues with Pakistan under the garb of the Kashmir Council. Budgetary issues, unequal status, sidelining Kashmiris, exploiting resources are some of the key issues the Kashmiris face in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Unable to challenge the government directly, the president may be twisting and turning his words, expressing his grievances while trying not to put off anyone.
I decide to ask the president about the country’s official stance on the Kashmir issue, that is, to seek a plebiscite under the auspices of the UN. One of the conditions of the UNCIP (United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan) resolution is that while Pakistan has to substantially withdraw its troops from J&K for a plebiscite to take place, India has to ‘withdraw the bulk of its forces’ from J&K in stages, as per the recommendations of the UN.4 Some Kashmiris wonder whether Pakistan would be willing to make the concessions required to carry out the much-demanded plebiscite. A source within the AJK government had told me: ‘Though Pakistan officially demands the plebiscite, it would never go ahead with it, since it would mean that Indian forces would come up to Kohala, which separates Punjab from Kashmir.’ The president, however, seems to be a firm believer in Pakistan’s pro-Kashmir policies.
‘Kuch log khatey Pakistan ka hain aur gatey Hindustan ka hain (some people live off Pakistan but work for India’s interests). They try to give a bad name to Pakistan but we won’t let that happen. Pakistan has always been ready, it has always raised the Kashmir issue internationally. It insists that Hindustan needs to consider Kashmir a core issue so that we can move towards a resolution, but Hindustan just isn’t ready. If Hindustan agrees to let the Kashmiris decide their fate, I can guarantee on behalf of Pakistan that they will not be an obstacle. We have told India that fine, let your military stay, ours is also not going anywhere, but first agree that Kashmir is a core issue. The day they accept that, then the second question will be who should withdraw the military. If I don’t let you into the gate, how will you take my interview? They first need to abide by their own leader, Nehru’s, offer for a plebiscite. He is the one who went to the UN, not us. But they don’t listen to their own leader!’ Losing his temper, he yells at his grandchildren, who are making a ruckus behind the couch. ‘Chup karo! Aaram se baitho!’ (Be quiet, and sit properly!), he scolds them.
For the second time that afternoon, there is silence in the room. Everyone is waiting for a response or another question from my end. I decide to ask him about former president Pervez Musharraf’s four-point formula. Now he gets even more annoyed. ‘Allah us bande ko poochey… humein jo maar parhi hai ussi ki wajah se parhi hai… agar koi insaan ka bachcha hota, to woh Hindustan ko kehta keh woh formula propose karein (God will ask him… he is responsible for our losses. If he had any sense, he would have asked Hindustan to propose the formula). Musharraf should have asked India how they wanted to solve the problem instead of putting his theory forward. Why are you here to take my interview? I’m certain you know everything about Kashmir already but you want to know something more… you want to know my opinion, right?’ I’m not quite sure how to answer this question so I simply nod and let him continue. ‘We already have the UN resolution to go to… by presenting this formula, we are essentially saying that we don’t see that as the solution. There are lots of options… I mean, there are parts of Kashmir that we could even consider leaving… am I right?’ This time, I am certain I do not have a response. I’m not sure he is looking for one either. I just stare back blankly and wait for him to continue. ‘But we don’t talk about them because we are waiting for Hindustan to first consider Kashmir an issue. We should tell Hindustan to put their formula first and then we can discuss. I mean… did Hindustan agree to the formula? No! So, what did we get out of it?’
‘Well, President Musharraf left soon after…’ I remind him.
‘That was all a drama,’ he declares, ‘Hindustan didn’t agree to the formula because they don’t consider Kashmir an issue. They think Kashmir is already a part of their country. Generals are very good for the army but they shouldn’t govern a country. Musharraf should have asked them to sit down and pose their solutions instead of giving his own.’
He begins to lecture me again. ‘In life, always remember that solutions are only accepted when they come from the powerful, not the weak. If the weaker party proposes a solution, they (the weaker party) lose their self-respect. You must always listen to the powerful person first.’
/> ‘So you’re suggesting that if India had proposed the same formula, it would work?’
‘Yes! Then we would have been successful. It would mean they have considered Kashmir a core issue.’
‘But under the formula, Kashmir won’t be one. You won’t get all of it…’
‘Na mile! Jahannum mein jaye… woh maana to hai ke Kashmir core issue hai!’ (Let us not get it. Let it go to hell. At least India would have agreed that Kashmir is a core issue!)
I am taken aback, uncertain if he just said Kashmir can go to hell as long as India considers it an issue. Other people in the background mutter in agreement, ‘Woh maanta hi nahi’ (India simply doesn’t accept it is a core issue). I am amazed at their fixation with India. In this moment of heated emotions, the president of ‘Azad’ Kashmir is willing to lose parts of Kashmir as long as he wins the ego battle with India. I certainly understand the utmost importance of making India address the Kashmir dispute, the first step of which is indeed to agree that it is an issue. However, to say that Kashmir can go to hell as long as India accepts it as a core issue seems like an oxymoron; to forget the real issue as long as it is considered a real issue. I am baffled by this logic but the president doesn’t give me time to chew over it for much longer. He continues to speak.
‘They are the ones who should have suggested the formula… be it one-point, two-point, three-point or seven points. People who support the formula in Pakistan or Azad Kashmir just do so to please the army… they just want to come into power. It doesn’t work like that. India should propose the solution and meanwhile we should just stick to one point and only one point… that India went to the UN and we didn’t; they promised to conduct the plebiscite and now they need to follow through on that promise.’
