Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Pak view: Why Pervez changed his speech

Pak view: Why Pervez changed his speech

Author: Hamid Mir
Publication: Mid Day
Date: June 4, 2002

Diplomats in Islamabad were expecting General Pervez Musharraf to announce a ceasefire in his speech on May 27. Government circles close to the general were also giving indications to the foreign media that a big story was about to break.

On the other hand, there was panic in Muzaffarabad where leaders of the Hurriyat Conference and commanders of many jihadi organisations were under the impression that Musharraf was being pressurised by America to desert Kashmiris if he wanted to save Pakistan from an Indian attack.

Jamaat-e-Islami Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmad, stationed in Islamabad for a week, was very worried over reports that the Pakistan Army had started stopping mujahideen from crossing the Line of Control into the valley in Azad Kashmir. He was planning to contact all other religious and political parties to launch a countrywide movement against Musharraf for selling Kashmir. A day before the speech, Qazi told this columnist that Musharraf was pressurising his party to support him on the ceasefire issue, but he added that he had refused to oblige.

Some close aides of Musharraf held an emergency meeting with the Hurriyat and jihadi leaders a few hours before the speech. It was proposed that Musharraf would announce a ceasefire on behalf of the Pakistan Army and after sometime the United Jihad Council would announce a ceasefire on behalf of the mujahideen in Kashmir. But the proposal annoyed the jihadi commanders. "We will not drink or eat anything in this meeting as protest," they declared. In this tense situation, only one leader from the Hurriyat, Mir Tahir Masood, supported the idea of ceasefire. Mir Tahir is the representative of Maulvi Abbas Ansari, a Shia leader from the Kashmir valley. But the Shia militant outfit, Hizbul Momenin, opposed the ceasefire.

The meeting organisers tried their best to convince the chairman of the United Jihad Council, Syed Salahuddin, who is also the chief commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen, but in vain. Salahuddin, in a state of sheer anger kept repeating: "You are pushing us into another Tora Bora and Kunduz. They will butcher our boys after the ceasefire." The organisers tried to pacify him saying that the international community would guarantee that India wouldn't persecute the mujahideen after the ceasefire, but they could not convince him. "What happened after we announced a ceasefire in July 2000? They tried to create differences among us and also killed two out of the five commanders who had announced the ceasefire," Salahuddin told them.

The organisers informed the jihadis that America was accusing Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism; therefore, the commanders had to take care of Pakistan also. But the argument infuriated all the Kashmiri leaders and commanders. "We are fighting for Pakistan. We love Pakistan. We know the people of Pakistan are not with you, they are with us. We will go to them. If they support the ceasefire, then it's okay, we will commit suicide at Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore," they responded furiously.

It was a revolt-like situation. Three years ago, when Nawaz Sharif announced a ceasefire in Kargil, the same commanders of the Jihad Council declared him a traitor and enemy of Kashmiris. They organised rallies and public meetings against him. Now they were being pressurised to announce a ceasefire in Kashmir without any homework.

This meeting lasted over six hours. In the end, Salahuddin asked three questions of his hosts. Was there any crossborder terrorism in 1983 when India invaded Siachen? Was there any crossborder terrorism in the Indian state of Gujarat? Why then did Hindus kill thousands of Muslims there? And why did Bush keep mum on this massacre? India is not ready to make things easier for us even in the presence of the UN resolutions. Even after the sacrifices of 80,000 Kashmiris, what is the guarantee that India will liberate us if we put down our guns?

The hosts were unable to answer any of these questions. Some commanders said they were ready to leave Azad Kashmir. They said they would continue their struggle even using stones as weapons. "But mind it, America and India will treat you like Palestinians and Musharraf will be no different from Yasser Arafat. One day, they will force you to give up your nuclear weapons." These hard-hitting remarks were enough to end the meeting. After the meeting, many Kashmiri commanders decided to leave Pakistani territory and reach Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. They are planning to organise disgruntled Muslim youth against India not with the help of Pakistan but with the help of Kashmiris living in the West.

After some hours, Musharraf was on television with some old commitments: "Our territory will not be used for terrorism in any part of the world." There was nothing new in his speech except for the election date and the confession that some irregularities were committed in the referendum and that he was sorry for that.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to arrange a one-to-one meeting between Musharraf and Vajpayee in Kazakhstan. Musharraf is not ready to come back with another 'Tashkent agreement'. Thirty-six years ago, a Pakistan military dictator General Ayub had signed an agreement with Indian prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in Tashkent.

Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto opposed the agreement because he was not ready to compromise on Kashmir. Bhutto was sacked after the Tashkent agreement was signed. A mass movement was launched against General Ayub. The Pakistan People's Party was the outcome of this movement, and after some time, the military dictator was asked by other army generals to step down in national interest. Another military dictator, General Yahya Khan, replaced the previous dictator in 1969, who lost the war against India in 1971.

One can hope that Musharraf will not provide any opportunity to his political opponents to launch another movement in the name of another Tashkent agreement. It is difficult for him to adopt a softer attitude towards India, as both Musharraf and Vajpayee are standing on the point of no return, and that's why the war threat still looms large.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements