JEDDAH, 27 August — Omar Abdullah, minister of state for external affairs, is the youngest minister as well as the secular face of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Indian government. The modern face of Kashmir has shown wisdom and flair in his slow but sure rise in the political hierarchy in Delhi. His switch from the Commerce Ministry to the External Affairs Ministry immediately after the Agra Summit, does not makes his job one-dimensional, he says, while rejecting claims that he’s a poster boy of desperate diplomacy. He is prepared to defend himself against outlandish media attacks, and their repeated emphasis on the Kashmir issue. This was very much evident in the confident manner in which he fielded questions from the press ranging from Kashmir to his personal agenda. Thirty-one-year-old Omar displayed clarity and pragmatism despite his youth. His views are clear on current issues — both national and international. Omar was in the Kingdom to sign a Haj accord with the Minister of Haj Iyad Madani. Arab News talked to this soft-spoken and new-age politician on wide-ranging issues. Here are the excerpts:
Q. Recently, Yasser Arafat was in Delhi to seek support for his cause, the very next day a high-level Israeli delegation arrived in Delhi. What does this mean?
A. As far as Palestine is concerned we support international efforts to bring about peace in Mideast but I’m not privy to the discussion which took place either with Yasser Arafat or the Israeli delegation in Delhi because I’m here. But I’m sure the same point would have been reiterated that we are against the violence that has flared up in the region. We want both sides to engage in dialogue. We support the Mitchell report and there is no change in India’s stand on Palestine.
Q. There has been considerable increase in the frequency of the Israeli visits to Delhi and reciprocal Indian visits to Israel recently. What is the reason?
A. Certainly, there is an increase in the frequency of such visits for the simple reason that we (India-Israeli ties) have started from scratch. But don’t assume that it’s any more frequent than with any other country. The fact of the matter is that we do have diplomatic relations with Israel, we do have trade and economic relations with Israel, what we don’t have with Israel is strategic partnership or strategic alliance. We have time and again reiterated that our relationship with Israel is not that of strategic partnership, we do not share nuclear technology with them nor assist them in their nuclear program. There is no change in our Palestine policy and we continue to be the friends of Palestinians and back their national aspirations.
Q. You have talked about a three-pronged strategy to resolve the Kashmir tangle. What exactly do you have in mind?
A. The Kashmir issue cannot be solved overnight. Pakistan in every possible way is supporting cross-border terrorism. But they have forgotten an English saying, “If you live by the gun you die by the gun.” If they assist in spreading terrorism in Kashmir, it’s but natural that at some stage the same guns will be turned on them. It’s unfortunate but it seems to be increasingly happening in Pakistan and the Pakistanis themselves are becoming targets of the militancy which was originally created to be directed toward India. In my scheme of things, the Kashmir solution is a three-legged table. Leg one is the military aspect which involves guarding our borders and fighting cross-border terrorism. Leg two is the economic development of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. And leg three is good governance. All are equally important, and we are making progress.
Q. Why are Kashmiris taking up arms in large numbers despite efforts to lure them back to the mainstream?
A. No doubt, there is disenchantment in some sections but I can tell you that only few Kashmiris believe that fighting will help attain their goals and resolve the issue. I cannot give you a figure, but it varies. The fact is that Pakistan has been able to cash in on this disenchantment and, as I have always maintained, that in other states, disenchantment with a popularly-elected government would only transfer into support for the opposition or other political party. Unfortunately, in Kashmir it is not so. The twist has always been either pro-India or pro-Pakistan.
Q. What about human rights violations in Kashmir? Don’t you think that the Home Ministry’s offer of amnesty to troops will further disenchant the people?
A. Human rights violations are human rights violations, you cannot treat them as otherwise. I don’t want to speak about the amnesty offer at the moment. Let me talk to the home minister first. Moreover, my party, National Conference, has already explained its views by opposing the amnesty for troops. I think it’s not workable.
Q. What about special powers to Kashmir announced by the home minister?
A. We favor greater autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. Our autonomy proposal is with the central government. But New Delhi has its own ideas and is ready to give some special powers to Jammu and Kashmir to carry out better administration. What those special powers are, and how far they will be helpful to us is anybody’s guess. Let Advani (home minister) announce these powers, then only will anybody be in a position to comment.
Q. Is the Hurriyat Conference the voice of Kashmiris?
A. If you say that the Hurriyat is the only voice of Kashmir — No. Yes, Hurriyat represents a section of opinion in Kashmir, a very small body of opinion, but everybody must be heard. But in no way are they justified to lay claim to the title that they are the sole representative of the people of Kashmir, and no one organization can claim that.
Q. What is the reason for the lowest per capita income in Kashmir?
A. Well the reason is obvious. It’s violence. Prior to the violence in the late eighties, if you look at Jammu and Kashmir, it was among the five best states in terms of growth. We had an economy which was heavily dependent on tourism. Once violence increased, tourism as an industry went bust.
Q. What was the outcome of Agra summit? Why did it fail?
A. The Agra summit, I don’t think, by any stretch of imagination can be called a failure. Yes, we were disappointed that we were unable to arrive at a consensus at the end of the summit. But I think one of the major results of the summit was the resumption of dialogue between the two countries. And that’s something which you cannot wish away. In a way this aspect of the summit was rewarding. But Pakistan’s unifocal emphasis on Kashmir is what led to the summit ending without a concrete result.
Q. It’s clear that Kashmir was the stumbling block; can you throw some light whether it’s a problem, an issue or a dispute?
A. It’s an area on which we disagree. That’s it. Kashmir is not a dispute; it’s not a disputed territory. Kashmir legally acceded to the Union of India in 1947 and that is that. The issue in Kashmir is cross-border terrorism, which has to be addressed by Pakistan. In this regard, don’t undermine the achievements of the Agra summit, and the summit has served a very important purpose. It allowed for an ambient stage where Prime Minister Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf got to know each other and that in itself is crucial for future dialogue. What should be understood is that Gen. Musharraf, for the present, is the leadership of Pakistan. It is important that we engage him in dialogue, because nobody else in Pakistan carries the same weight as he does. So the process of dialogue will continue and let us see how it goes. That in itself is a hopeful sign.
Q. It’s reported that Tehelka reporters provided women to army personnel in their bid to extract information. What do you think about the new turn of event in the Tehelka expose?
A. When you commit a crime yourself, then you are no better than the person you are exposing. If you just confine it to what they did; then it would have been fine. But to supply women is a crime in itself. There is no doubt that action will be taken if there is evidence to support what Tehelka has done. They must face the consequences. They cannot hide behind the fact that they were exposing a crime, and in exposing a crime they too committed a crime.
Q. But what about those who were shown by Tehelka seeking and accepting bribes to fix defense deals?
A. They too will be brought to book. Don’t forget, the whole episode is being investigated. A judicial commission has already been set up and is at present sifting through all the evidences. Meanwhile, the army has already taken action on the offending officials.
