Q: What are your priorities as chairman of the newly formed Kashmir committee?
A. My priority is that the efforts towards a peaceful resolution of the problem should be co-ordinated to see if it can produce results. Also I would like to create an atmosphere which is
conducive for removing the misgivings and mistrust that exists. Unless there is a cordial atmosphere, there can be no progress. I find that because of this aggressive posture, it has led both the governments to subvert each other. The money which is being spent on subversion on both sides is perhaps more than the expenditure on defence. Either India and Pakistan go to war ultimately and destroy each other or they decide to co-exist and that means tolerating each other.

Q. What are the steps you plan to take to achieve these ends?
A. I have been insisting that an institutionalized system be created through which we could address the final shape of the problem. Unless there is a process available, there will be no
implementation. I believe the committee can act as that system. We have taken a decision to send a delegation to Delhi to discuss all this and we will soon approach the Indian Government. I am optimistic about the outcome.

Q. What do you want the Indian Government to do?
A. In the first instance, it should allow the recognised Kashmiri leadership of both sides to meet. And given the responsibility to find out in order of priority how to reduce tension and misgivings and create a conducive atmosphere. Also it should decide on the next stage as the Kashmir issue cannot be dealt with in one go.

Q. Do you think that after 9/11, there is still a place for militancy and the violence that has marked much of the Kashmir struggle?
A. I have never supported or promoted extremism. We have to co-exist and we cannot if we go on fighting all the time. That is why I am insisting on a process which, if made credible, will ensure that militant activity will come down automatically. The setting up of our committee is to bring things in line with the political requirements. But it now depends on the Indian approach.

Q. Has the Pakistan Government's clampdown on militant organisations been effective?
A. It has. The bulk of the extremist acvitity has been curbed. And the people have accepted it with no protest complaint. Militants too have sensed the trend that aggressive postures are not supported or felt palatable as they used to be. While the president of Pakistan has taken a great risk, it is unfortunate that India, instead of reciprocating, has instead added fuel to
the fire asking for this and that. India should lend support to President Pervez Musharraf so that he can make further progress. But hardliners seem to have overtaken Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee and he has not been able to deliver the goods.

Q. But the Indian Government feels that President Musharraf hasn't come down strongly on those groups which support jehad in Kashmir?
A. He has. The strongest elements of these groups were not from the indegenious ones but those that were based in Pakistan. The most difficult thing was to curb these elements because of their national and international ability to mobilise resources and collect funds. President Musharraf has done something spectacular by stopping them. And in the same action, people involved in Kashmir from these groups are reported to be falling back reducing
to a very great extent the participation of foreign elements. They maybe some individuals but there is no organised group as yet.

Q. What about those based in Pakistan Occupied or Azad Kashmir depending on which side of the border you ask the question?
A. The indegenious groups were there much before these groups started operating and were not a creation of a government or institution. They are formed by the situation itself. Their
involvement and commitment to the cause has become so great, it is not possible without an appropriate substitute to do anything to them. Even if the Government of Pakistan went ahead against them, it would find it difficult. If nearly eight lakh Indian troops cannot block the cease-fire line, how can 50,000 Pakistani troops stationed in Kashmir do it? Also If Pakistan went out of its way to do something it would be without any quid pro quo from India. What will they say to the people in Kashmir? It would be fighting the Indian battle on its own soil and that is not justified. Kashmir is a crucial issue for Pakistan. No government of Pakistan can bypass Kashmir and do anything good.

Q. So what would like the Indian Government to do?
A. India should accept what President Musharraf has done as a very credible step forward. The President is capable of going further if the Government of India reciprocatea. India and Pakistan could sit together and decide where to go from here. I would also recommend that the Indian Government permit the Kashmiri leadership on both sides under any arrangement whether in Delhi, Islamabad or abroad to meet and see what they have to suggest to both sides.

Q. Internationally, there is a consensus against extremism. Can't you as chairman of the Kashmir committee tell the groups that violence is out and a political solution is the only way?
A. I agree. But it cannot be said in an obscure manner. I can exercise my moral and political influence on them. But they are entitled to ask what next. This is exactly what has to be explored by the committee. What is the substitute that India can offer? India is concerned that your committee is a ploy to begin a tripartite dialogue, which it says it is against its interests. I think it is an unrealistic view. Because by bilateralism, Kashmir can never be resolved. It has failed for 50 years, so why should we rely solely on it? There is no need to doubt what the Kashmiris will do. They are quite amenable having suffered so much and want to think of the future. The first significant gesture for the peace process is to allow Kashmiris from both sides to meet whosover they are. I make no distinction.

Q. What do you think of Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah's statement to make the LOC an interantional border?
A. No two governments can have the authority to do it. See what happened in Germany which was divided and ultimately united. If this solution is forced through, it would not be accepted by the Kashmiris, whether Muslims or non-Muslims. They would keep struggling against it. If we stick to unrealistic positions, nothing will happen.

Q. What's your view on an Independent Kashmir?
A. It has to be carved out against the scheme of things like the UN resolution which closed that option. What is the mechanism to reopen all this? When we come to these brasstacks, it is not justified. It still lies with India if it can undertake that adventure. For me, it is not an answer. I would be asking for a repartition of India and asking for a reversal of the UN resolution. I would be left with no position at all. It is not feasible.
Also there is a Chinese factor. There is a Sino-Pak agreement that in case of another solution other than what was specified in the UN resolution, China has its own reservations. China has its own problems in Sianking.

Q. What is your opinion about the elections in Indian Kashmir?
A. The Kashmir elections have never been credibile. Because of the presence of a large chunk of Indian army and other repressive forces, apart from repressive laws. In the presence of those things, it will not have any credibility.

Q. So what is the best way out of the stalemate?
A. If we try to spell out the final shape, we would be destroying the whole process without any solution for centuries to come. If we have to find out a way out, the process is very important. If we sit together, the worst of positions can be compromised. But if we don't, the best of the positions could go abegging.