Washington, February 21 (TNS): The Secretary General of World Kashmir Awareness Forum, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, has said that once again, Kashmir is living proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Aazadi (freedom) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering.
Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai in a statement issued in Washington said, compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process.
That is the most poignant truth. But even more bitterly ironical is the contrast between the complex and decades-long agony the Kashmir issue has caused to Kashmiris, to Pakistan and to India itself and the simple, rational measures that would be needed for its solution. No sleight of hand is required, no subtle concepts are to be deployed, and no ingenious deal needs to be struck between an Indian and a Pakistani leader with the endorsement of the more pliable Kashmiri figures. The time for deceptiveness is gone. All that is needed is going back – yes, going back – to the point of agreement which historically existed beyond doubt between India and Pakistan and jointly resolving to retrieve it with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time,” he said. He said, that point of agreement is the one India as well as Pakistan, each independently, brought to the United Nations Security Council when the Kashmir dispute was first internationalized.
In fact, the Council itself took that point as the basis of the resolutions it later formulated, he added. The point was one of inescapable principle – that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations,” he further stated. Dr Fai said, with propositions of such clarity and character accepted, what room was left for the dispute to arise? “This question is bound to evoke divergent answers and it entails the risk of reopening old recriminations.
