22.7.11

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! Kashmir’s American Counsel?

At the Kashmir border

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! 
Kashmir’s American Counsel? 
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, July 22-24


The fact that there is an element of surprise over Ghulam Nabi Fai’s arrest after the FBI exposed his connections to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) reveals that this was probably a sudden brainwave.

The allegation is that Mr. Fai’s Kashmir American Council (KAC) was illegally funded by the ISI to exert influence on the US Congress to swing the Kashmir debate in Pakistan’s favour.

Did the ISI do it? Possible. Did Mr. Fai use this money? Possible. Was the FBI unaware about it all these years? Not possible.

There are a few important aspects to this development:

1.       The FBI keeps track of all funds, so why was it quiet all along? KAC is not an underground movement. It puts up petitions; it has a Google groups forum; there is a Facebook page of its affiliates; its conferences are held in university halls and invitation is free. Often dinner is served.

The huge amount of money discovered should prompt the FBI to question the recipients and investigate as to how it has impacted on US policy. Instead, the focus is almost entirely on the Fai-ISI link. Is it possible to forget that the ISI virtually runs Pakistan and that Pakistan is also the beneficiary of American funds? Ergo, the ISI is by default propped up by the US financially and, given the strategic political dynamics, on the ground too. The ISI is nobody’s fool to depend on a Kashmiri organisation in the US to lobby for Pakistan’s interests in the Valley when it already has its people in the region with help from the Lashkar-e-Taiyba and other forces, including a faction of the local Hurriyat Conference.

This is not a simple case of getting the bad guy. It is about creating one more bad guy, and this is notwithstanding Fai’s role in the larger Kashmir issue and sponsorship.

2.       Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just visited India and set the tone for Indo-US relations. However, the dog-and-bone attitude continues with an emphasis on American interest and interests in Pakistan. There is most definitely an attempt to influence the talks between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan scheduled for July 27.

3.       The proposed US move out of Afghanistan would necessitate having some presence in the region. In fact, after the Clinton meeting, India’s Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna said, “We have impressed on the United States and other countries who have a major presence in Afghanistan that it is necessary for them to continue in Afghanistan.”

Pakistan is handy for some sado-masochism. Recently, there were video clips in the media of the Taliban killing Pakistani soldiers, in a reversed version of Gitmo.

4.        Osama Bin Laden’s killing is being regurgitated on a tangential topic by implying yet again that Pakistani intelligence agencies knew about his abode. There have been arrests that seem suspiciously like red herrings.

5.       David Headley is deposing before the courts in the US and providing details of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Headley’s departure from the US to India is a major goof-up by security forces in that country as well as the Indian embassy. His implicating the ISI would surprise no one except the US in its studied ‘naïve’ state. It is pertinent that Ms. Clinton mentioned these attacks (with only a cursory sympathetic reference to the recent Mumbai attacks only days before she arrived). This is much like Headley who wanted to fight for Kashmir, but ended up taking pictures of Mumbai’s landmarks to help his ‘handlers’.

6.       One is aware of the ISI’s crucial strategic role in Pakistan. But, how does the FBI function in the US? Does it push the agenda of the party in power? If so, then its bolt from the blue could be another means to assist the current government in the coming elections.

The major beneficiary of Mr. Fai’s political contributions seems to be Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana. This has been going on for 15 years. For 15 years the FBI has managed to trace the $23,500 contribution to US lawmakers that is legally available with the Federal Election Commission. What made the FBI now want to dig into the over $ 4 million that was illegally brought in?

If indeed it is true, then the onus ought to be on the security agencies and those who were expected to lobby for the Kashmir cause.  There are murmurs that Fai is only a front. This is a convenient ruse. You have some evidence, claim other evidence, arrest the man based on these and then leave a small opening for the bigger fish, well aware that the bigger fish are not born that way but plumped up artificially in diplomatic laboratories.

* * *

It is time to ask how exactly lobbying works and whether the United States can take an ethical stand when it is open to such influencing.

The political action committee (PAC) is a blatant forum to ensure that groups can help political candidates and parties, which in turn promise to assist them. Contributors range from real estate agencies, insurance companies, defense contractors and oil companies. There are also special interest groups based on race, gender, nationality, and religion too. In less developed societies this might be deemed as bribery. Legalising it makes the process transparent only to a small extent. If KAC has really managed to get in the millions of dollars illegally, then it suggests that there are loopholes in the system.

Fai in a soup

However, does this ensure that the lobbying group will truly benefit? Mr. Fai was a US citizen; he organised conferences as many do. There was one held on February 2011 and the list of speakers included Chairman of the Hurriyat Conference Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Norwegian Member of Parliament Peter S. Gitmark, author and South Asia Analyst Victoria Schofield, Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani. The others listed as “invited” were the Indian ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar, Chinese ambassador Zhang Yesui and US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert O. Blake, Jr.

Rather curiously, reports have made it sound ominous by stating, “Another group which has come under the lens is Indian liberals and so-called bleeding hearts who accepted Fai’s and KAC’s hospitality to attend conferences in US on the Kashmir issue…” The liberals go on junkets for several causes, including plane rides with ministers of the ruling party or the opposition depending on their agenda or that of the organisation they represent. This includes the media. Does their presence help the cause? What is their contribution in real terms?

A peripheral but telling aspect is how some Indians view the unfolding of this episode. A Hindutva group functionary sent an email with an article from the Times of India appended with his comments. He writes, “First, the author calls those who have exposed the Indians (either citizens or those who are of Indian origin) as 'Indian hypernationalists and right-wingers' and 'hardline nationalist'.  However, those Indians who attended the seminars organized by the Pakistan's ISI sponsored front as 'liberals', instead of traitors.  Clearly he wants to prejudice the minds of the readers.  But, you cannot hide the truth. The Indians who were invited to the various programmes were obviously those who would be taking an anti-India position, and not ones who would project a holistic picture.  It is absolutely necessary to expose those Indians who attended these programmes.  Actually, they themselves should come forward and identify themselves.”

There is nothing secret about this. As mentioned earlier, the KAC’s activities were open. While the person is quick to label those attending such conferences as traitors based on the implication of the ISI role in the council, he assumes they would take an anti-India stand. One must remember that there are several influential Hindutva groups too in the US. There are Jewish lobbies.

Since I was never invited, let me add that it is more important to first find out whether anyone has managed to score points for Pakistan on the Kashmir debate and how much it can change the ground realities. The US is interested in counter-terrorism that affects it directly. Has it ever spoken about lives lost in the state – civilian and military?

On what grounds can the US plan to question Kashmiri separatists when they were given visas to travel for seminars that were in the public domain? Should it not look into its own backyard and see how and why anyone can lobby for positions that it claims to be chary of?

Pakistan has, naturally, denied any role. What is the Indian position? If it cannot take a stand regarding a person of Indian origin only because he is Kashmiri, then it only reiterates the attitude of disenchantment that people in the Valley suffer from.

In November last year Ghulam Nabi Fai had written:

“Once again, Kashmir is giving proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (freedom) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering which has not been exacted from any other people of the South Asian subcontinent. Compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process. That is a 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 subterfuges 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.

“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.

“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.

“With propositions of such clarity and character accepted, what room was left for the dispute to arise?”

Is this not the position taken by many political groups within Kashmir, by separatists, by the people?

It would be a pity if due to the ISI angle, the real issues will be pushed aside. America has the arsenal to deal with the ISI, but does it have the will? If Mr. Fai is a front, then why only name the ISI people and not the Congressmen who knew what they were expected to lobby for? Culpability in this case lies across the board. It is utterly ridiculous to make this sound like a terrorist plot when the monies have been traced and people of some stature have been consistently raising the Kashmir issue, not just abroad but at home.

And Kashmiris are not pawns of the United States of America that some official can pocket the money and decide its fate. 

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents , July 24

15 comments:

  1. The site has updated my piece. Much appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aww...Looks like you are sad that this Fai fey fey has been exposed. Don't be heartbroken. There are other rascals carrying on Fai's dirty tasks. Who needs ISI when we have so many enemies within.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The FBI keeps track of all funds"

    Like all pakistanis, FV is deeply disappointed that the ISI stooge terrorist supporter Fai has been busted....in her despair, she's reduced to making up "facts"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can't believe that you are sympathetic to Fai? Can't believe that you can't see the role of the pakistani govt and ISI in encouraging Khalistan and kashmiri terrorists? Yes the ones who turned punjab and kashmir into a warzone in the 80s and 90s.

    It's easy to sit in mumbai and cry human rights violations.

    I am going to puke if I hear any more so called intellectuals of muslim faith trying to sympathize with other "muslim" people without understanding geo politics.

    Also so called muslim intellectuals should try to understand the difference between personal and political islam. (or any other religion)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The comments are along expected lines with not a single argument to contradict my theses.

    It is nice that we are looking at "enemies within". Many places. Ok?

    The ISI role has been mentioned in the piece. Wearing blinkers? Re khalistan, Jagjit Singh Chauhan had no mind and did not make a map sitting in the US or Canada?

    If 'making up facts' alludes that the FBI does not know what's happening, there is cause for concern about the FBI and not me. Does the FBI not snoop around? Give me a break and some facts of your own.

    Ah, there was hardly much weeping over human rights violations although in general there ought to be in any civilsed society.

    And, if we are demarcating between the political and personal in religion, then where do 'intellectuals' figure? Let us know after you are done with puking.

    Pity you cannot digest much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>>The allegation is that Mr. Fai’s Kashmir American Council (KAC) was illegally funded by the ISI to exert influence on the US Congress to swing the Kashmir debate in Pakistan’s favour

    There has to be something more than that. Tobaco, Wall Street all use money to influence Congress.

    There is much happening under the surface regarding US's relations in the sub-continent with China playing the wild card.

    ReplyDelete
  7. True, Hitesh. And with Afghanistan soon to be on the backburner, both the US and Pakistan will need other avenues to keep the aid coming in and other sorts of tactical aid provided to the 'aider' and abettor.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, completely agree one should weep over human rights violations in a civilized society.

    Khalistan movement, delhi-punjab-north india being turned into a lawless land and subsequent peace in north india due to armed and police action tells me that religious extremism (ideas of religious supremacy), foreign interference, domestic injustice, armed action are all powerful agents of change. I see parallels between khalistan and kashmir.

    Now coming to personal and political islam and the role of intellectuals.

    Islamic ideology has multiple facets. Muslim intellectuals need to come up with a version of Islam (islamic reform if you may call it) which is compatible with 21st century politics and human values.

    One way to start would be to isolate personal islam (praying, charity and good moral conduct) from social aspects (sacrifice of animals, wearing certain types of clothing) and then political islam ( rule of calph vs democratic values, male/female witnesses vs gender equality, blasphemy vs freedom of speech).

    Give up the political aspects, social is optional, and keep the personal and institutionalize (organize) it by calling it sufi, reformed islam or anything acceptable.

    For the intellectuals and islamic scholars, first step in this evolution would be to give up the idea that Quran literally is a word of God , incorruptible and infallible and islam is a "complete" way of life (personal, social, political). Admitting that some social/politcal aspects of quran are incompatible with modern values.

    Treat it like any other scripture like vedas, bible, ramayana etc subject to critical reflection and historical distortions and impermanence no matter what "some" verses of Quran claim.

    Such an "institutionalized" separation between multiple of facets of islam (as it exists) will help in treating political issues and human rights issues without raising emotional temperatures and bringing personal religious affiliations in the picture and be hence more effective in dealing with them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Meriam,

    The charge against KAC is not because of it's agenda, it is against the source of it's funding
    and perjury committed by Dr Fai.
    Please be clear about this distinction.

    Sure there are other PACs, whose sources of funding is questionable.
    Just like some crimes go unpunished and some crimes get punished.

    Now, why go after only KAC, the reasons could be the ongoing tussle between FBI and ISI.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Anon,

    I will clarify that I meant the agenda of the ISI and not necessarily the KAC because this is really about them. I will disagree with farzana and say that Kashmiris ARE pawns.

    This whole situation is hardly unique. Congress is run by vested interests - it's well established. It's not the ISI's problem that loopholes exist to be exploited. I Dont think Fai did anything particularly inventive here. He seems to be working off a precedent set by others in this filthy business.

    "Now, why go after only KAC, the reasons could be the ongoing tussle between FBI and ISI."

    You reinforced my point in the end. While the FBI, ISI and RAW continue to finger each other in a sadomasochistic menage a trois, the kashmiris will continue to suffer. Almost casually now. Had it been discovered that RAW was behind the funding of the KAC do you think this would've been a story?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Meriam,
    "Had it been discovered that RAW was behind the funding of the KAC do you think this would've been a story?"

    Of course, it would be a story but with different dimensions.

    Kashmiris are pawns in this game yes.

    I see parallels between khalistan issue and kashmir issue. My personal opinion is that if sikhs can integrate into india , so can the kashmiris. (hell, i believe that partition of india was a big mistake, however it probably had to happen to demonstrate the failure of religion(islam) as a political platform.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Anon,

    "Of course, it would be a story but with different dimensions."

    Thats quite a clever way of putting it :) Again, you're agreeing with me. The rules are not the same for everyone and even that can be forgiven because this is politics after all. It's the holier than thou attitude that makes me see red. NOBODY has a moral high ground here. The ISI is not ESPECIALLY bad.

    " My personal opinion is that if sikhs can integrate into india , so can the kashmiris."

    But what if the kashmiris dont WANT to? Is that ok with you or is there no choice in the matter? I believe they should be free from both india and pakistan. Neither of us is mature or magnanimous enough to treat kashmir fairly. They deserve azadi from both of us and I hope they get it.

    "(hell, i believe that partition of india was a big mistake, however it probably had to happen to demonstrate the failure of religion(islam) as a political platform.)"

    Partition was not a mistake. It was a necessity and now it's history. I'm not sure what you mean by failure of religion as a political platform...it achieved pakistan?! Anyway you look at it thats quite an accomplishment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon:

    Kashmir has a Constitutional basis; Khalistan does not.

    Regarding your theory about “Muslim intellectuals”:

    Islamic ideology has multiple facets. Muslim intellectuals need to come up with a version of Islam (islamic reform if you may call it) which is compatible with 21st century politics and human values.

    And what about the versions other religions need to? Heard about caste politics and child marriage and our own honour killings?

    One way to start would be to isolate personal islam (praying, charity and good moral conduct) from social aspects (sacrifice of animals, wearing certain types of clothing) and then political islam (rule of calph vs democratic values, male/female witnesses vs gender equality, blasphemy vs freedom of speech).

    See above.

    Give up the political aspects, social is optional, and keep the personal and institutionalize (organize) it by calling it sufi, reformed islam or anything acceptable.

    Hey, thanks. Say promise, Anything will be acceptable?

    Most democratic societies need to make these demarcations. Do they? What about maha-artis, wearing of sindoor-mangal-sutra (which also amounts to gender inequality in my opinion) and the politicisation through Hindutva? Go on, isolate them and keep the personal and call it the Bhakti movement, reformed Hinduism or anything you want because you are in charge of the ‘tolerance’ and the accepting, right?

    For the intellectuals and islamic scholars, first step in this evolution would be to give up the idea that Quran literally is a word of God , incorruptible and infallible and islam is a "complete" way of life (personal, social, political). Admitting that some social/politcal aspects of quran are incompatible with modern values.

    Treat it like any other scripture like vedas, bible, ramayana etc subject to critical reflection and historical distortions and impermanence no matter what "some" verses of Quran claim.


    There have been critical analyses and there are in fact a few versions of the hadiths. When was the last time you or believers read and agreed with a different version of the other scriptures? The majority of the faithful follow the ‘original’ ones. And no one has stopped people from interpreting things the way they do; in fact, many Islamic clerics misuse these interpretations. Just as the Advanis do.

    Btw, what is the problem if some people do believe that Islam is a “complete” way of life? Haven’t we heard so much about how Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life? So? Tumhara khoon khoon, hamara khoon paani? (In case you do not know Hindi, it means: your blood is blood and our blood is water?)

    Human rights violations are a result of “emotional temperatures” as well as power play. If you would care to check the records, this is not exclusive to one religion although they ought not to be there at all.

    Meriam:

    Agreed it is about who controls the narrative.

    In your response to anon you said:

    I will disagree with farzana and say that Kashmiris ARE pawns.

    You are talking about the last sentence in my piece, where the reference is the assumption that they can be used. It was a rhetorical assertion to underline the opposite on a larger scale. What I meant, given the whole article, was that the lobbyists in the US cannot just use them. It does not mean they don’t.

    Kashmiris are pawns between three powers – India, Pakistan and the separatists, and the several factions within these too. And I have always rooted for autonomy.

    But if you still want to disagree, go ahead. It is acceptable!

    PS: Interesting exhange you have with anon. I feel such a lightness of being :)

    Oh, and agree that Partition was not a mistake. The mistake was that India got Advani and Manmohan and Pakistan got Jinnah and Faiz.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The FBI keeps track of all funds"?

    really?

    The FBI snoops on all money transfers, not just when they have an investigation going?

    In your despair, you're just making stuff up....

    ReplyDelete
  15. Arjun:

    Why did the FBI decide to investigate? And this is not just any other fund. Is the US not concerned about separatist movements and was the KAC not open about its intentions?

    Forget about your delusions about my 'despair'. There are many links missing here. But you have already made up your mind.

    So, of course that anon post was by you re. funds. How do you know so much about the FBI?

    Anyhow, welcome back and advance wishes to you: Ramzan Mubarak :)

    - - -

    My reply prior to this to the other anon had gone in spam.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.