“The latest offer, if made without ensuring reciprocal measures by India, is regrettable and should be withdrawn,” Hizb’s commander Syed Salahuddin said.
He said that successive unilateral concessions to India would create a negative and demoralizing effect upon the Kashmiris.
The Hizb chief — who also holds the office of the chairman of the Mutahidda Jihad Council — reminded Pakistan that its role in Kashmir was determined by relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. “By sidelining the UN resolutions, Pakistan will cease to be a party to the dispute,” he warned.
Expressing his confidence and trust on the leadership and the people of Pakistan, he described Pakistan’s intentions as being good, he said he knew Islamabad was doing so to facilitate meaningful talks.
“But one must see if the other side is also sincere and reciprocates in the same manner. If there is no positive response, then I must say that one-sided peace overtures will damage the Kashmir cause,” he said. “I do not think there will be any positive effect by giving unilateral concessions to India.”
Asking Pakistan to evaluate the response it was likely to get from Indian before making unilateral offers.
Blaming India of taking what he termed undue advantage of the ceasefire, he said New Delhi was using it to move ahead with the fencing of the Line of Control. Similarly, it had increased its military concentration in the occupied territory, spurring the occupation forces’ repression to quell the freedom struggle.
Criticizing the international community, he accused it of not doing enough towards the settlement of the Kashmir issue, he said despite Islamabad’s sincere efforts, it was “showering superficial praises on Pakistan but practically backing and encouraging India.”
He was wary of the response showed by the United States and other Western countries, saying they welcomed President Pervez Musharraf’s offer because it served their interests.
“Their priority may be peace in this region but our priority is freedom from India. We do not need peace at the cost of our freedom,” he said.
“If they are also sincere for peace, they should press India to resolve the core issue.”
Former MJC chairman, Tanvirul Islam, said the main concern was settlement of the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris, adding that what mechanism was adopted in this regard was of little concern.
Mr Tanvir remained MJC chief between 1991 and 1993, but later switched over to the campaign for peaceful settlement of the dispute.
Kashmiris, he said, would be equally happy if the objective was achieved through any alternative route.