Mirwaiz Umar Farooq: Dialogue is the most hated word in Kashmir today

Umar Farooq had to give up his dream of an IT career to become the Mirwaiz (Chief cleric) of Kashmir at the tender age of 17 following his father’s assisnation in 1990. He quickly picked the nuances of the pro-freedom politics and became the first chairman of the Hurriyat Conference n 1993. Listed among the ‘top 20 Asian heroes’ by the TIME in 2002, Mirwaiz strongly advocates talks with New Delhi, arguing that Kashmiris have to leave the history behind, and look at creating more opportunities to address the 63-ear-old Kashmir dispute. Besides, he believes former Pakistan President parvez Musharraf’s four-point formula on Kashmir is still workable; but he makes it clear that he will never contest elections under the framework of Indian constitution because ‘India has always tried to use these as a substitute for self-determination and strengthening its designs and ambitions in Kashmir.” Mirwaiz Umar Farooq spoke to Conveyor correspondent M Farooq Shah before the fresh turmoil in the valley. Excerpts from the interview:

You were placed on the centre stage of the separatist politics at the tender age of 17 following the assassination of your father. How uneasy did you feel at the time of your coronation as Mirwaiz?

It was a difficult time. I had experienced a personal loss and I was very young, only 16 or 17. I had just completed high school and was looking forward to joining college. Nobody had ever thought that a situation like this would arise. It was a difficult time for me, my family and for the people of Kashmir as well because the situation was very unpredictable and nobody knew where we were going. But I’d say the support of the people and the family helped me a lot to learn things and progress. Being a Mirwaiz of course which was the primary responsibility and I was not in a position to give sermons or talk about Islam. It was a situation where I was basically in a process of learning religion and continuing my education. On the other hand, of course, I had the responsibility of holding the pulpit of Jama Masjid and talking about the Kashmir issue, its resolution and taking the political mantle forward. It was quite difficult but Alhamdu lillah the support of the people and the family gave me the strength to do whatever I could.

Your mother was very apprehensive about your entry into politics and that must have made your decision al the more difficult.How was the matter resolved?

That is true. She had lost her husband and she didn’t want her son to join a situation which was very unpredictable and difficult. She was worried because I had to talk not only about Islam as Mirwaiz but about the issues related to the people. My other family members—uncles from both father’s and mother’s side—played an important role. I also remember telling my mother that I’d very much like to take on this responsibility. Apart from the political initiatives my father and my party had taken, our effort had also covered religious, social, and educational levels. When you have a history of hundreds of years of being involved with preaching, teaching, and society, you have certain responsibilities towards your people. She understood that and I also assured her that this was a responsibility I wanted to take.

The initial years must have been pretty daunting and tumultuous for you. Can you describe your experience?

Honestly speaking, going to the mosque and addressing hundreds of thousands of people wasn’t easy at all. It was difficult, but I could see the people around me were very helpful and they’d often give me advice and guide me to the best of their capability. Although everybody around me used to be scared, I was pretty much ok in the sense that I could see the support, sympathy and affection of the people around me wherever I went. It was a new thing for me to experience the warmth when people who are in their seventies and eighties would come and kiss my hand and ask for blessings. At times, one would get confused because they’re so old and so experienced and probably more pious than me, but I could feel there was something they saw in me and connected with. It was very encouraging for me to see how people reacted, especially the womenfolk who used to shower love on me. That was something which I really cherish to this date. Moreover, it was easy because, being a member of a political family, one is always aware of what’s happening around. And then it was at a time when every Kashmiri was politically conscious, open and active. All this helped me to grasp things gradually. It was a healthy experience of learning and trying to implement whatever little ideas I had.

Inexperience and tender age apart, within a short period you were able to understand the nuances of the resistance movement and quickly established yourself as one of the stalwarts of the trade. You were also listed among the Asian heroes by the TIMEin 2002.

The advantage you have when you’re young is that people don’t have much expectation. Even if you do something minor, they appreciate you a lot. But then I got opportunities that helped me grow. I was 19 when I attended the OIC conference of the foreign ministers. Nobody expected anything substantial but it was a divine help that the OIC contact group was formed. I met all sorts of people—foreign leaders, dignitaries, presidents—and they’d be surprised to see a young boy without even a beard wearing an Achkan and a Karakuli cap. They were interested to know: who’s this boy and what does he represent. Everybody would come to you and show appreciation for your efforts. It was an advantage to be able to reach out to so many people, and definitely got a clearer picture of how to progress. It was quite encouraging for the TIME magazine to come up with the analysis, which was good, but it doesn’t stop there. When you talk about personalities, they’re related to a certain situation. It’s the sacrifices of the people, the situation around you and what you represent which is more important than the person. Wherever I went and whatever I tried to explain was in contrast with the things that had been happening in Kashmir. I was representing a cause, a sentiment, and the sacrifices of the people of Kashmir.

There’ve been many attacks on your life including a grenade attack on your house. Did this intimidate you?

In the initial years when I was just 19, it did. The family was concerned and everybody around me was concerned. It does hit you in some way. Obviously not everyone is a friend but I quickly realized that we have to live with this fact: that not everybody can always be in agreement with you. It was the idea more than the person which they wanted to target. We were genuinely of the view that keeping the sacrifices and the conviction of the people in view, the leadership must do something to address the issue. Probably the people who attacked us wanted to scare us and force us to change our thinking but it didn’t shake our resolve. Slowly when you analyze things, you come to a conclusion that if you believe in something which is right, you should pursue that.

Your father was assassinated. How did you come to terms with the loss?

To be honest, you can never come to terms with an incident like that. It does have a lasting impact on you for all your life if you are young. I had never thought I’d be the Mirwaiz or be in a political role. I was more interested in pursuing my career as an engineer in computers and working in IT or something. I had even chosen my career in that direction after my matric and then, I had to change my direction completely. It was a loss not only on a personal level but on a personality level as well. Then there were people who had associations with our family and had expectations because they’d always see my father in me. It was difficult in the sense that the amount of love and appreciation that they had for me forced me to try to fulfill these expectations.

You must have studied the causes that led to the death of your father. Have you arrived at any conclusion?

My father was very outright as far as his approach was concerned. He was less diplomatic in his approach in the sense that he always used to speak his mind. I remember when the militancy was at its peak, there was a kidnapping incident of the daughter of Mufti Sayeed and nobody was talking about it. My father was the only pro-freedom leader to condemn it when everybody chose to keep silent about it. He said it was wrong and Islam did not allow this. One great quality of my father was he was very open and whatever he thought, he’d say it. I guess not many people liked genuine criticism at that time. As far as history is concerned, my family and my party have traditionally been pro-Pakistan and pro-movement in their approach. My father was the first come up with the concept of the tripartite dialogue in 1975. He was always looking at options for how we could move forward politically and address the problem. He was assisted when different forces were around who wanted chaos and confusion among the people, since they would thrive in this confusion.

You have, time and time again, said that you know the assassins of your father. Why don’t come out in the open and declare it?

The general perception might be that a particular organization or thought was behind the assassination but the fact is even today the government has not given any concrete conclusion. After the incident, the government pursued it through the CBI but to date nobody has told us what happened to the investigation. I have not said I know the assassins, but I can say that a particular movement was behind it who wanted to take over certain positions of strength or importance at that time and they wanted to have hegemony over the movement. My party and family was of the view that the great sacrifices of the people should not be wasted and Kashmir should not plunge into a turmoil or civil war wherein people would kill each other in the name of parties and loyalties.

That means there is a deliberate reluctance on your part to disclose the truth. People have genuine questions with regard to the assassination of your father, do you not feel they deserve an answer?

I agree people have genuine questions and every time we commemorate the martyrdom of the late Mirwaiz, these questions are raised again. For the past 20 years we have been reiterating that my father stood for a cause and the cause is more important. We don’t want a situation where the sacrifices and our commitment to the cause should in any way be affected because it is not only my father but many people who have been killed. There’ve been so many killings where people probably know who the killers are but are silent because they don’t want a situation of anarchy and chaos. We took a conscious decision at that time that we’ll not sacrifice the movement for our personal interests. We will not fall silent on the issue forever though; a time will come when the perpetrators of this crime will be brought to justice.

Your father did not contest any elections. What do you think of that?

My father firmly believed that elections under the Indian constitution would benefit India’s interests because India has always tried to use these as a substitute for self-determination. That is why the Awami Action Committee, being at the forefront of the movement, did not participate in any election. We always believed that elections under the framework of Indian constitution are strengthening India’s own designs and ambitions in Kashmir. While some people believe that elections can be used as a means to pursue the agenda for Kashmir, I think if they have tried once and failed, they have no reason to try it again and again.

But your father joined hands with Morarji Desai and instructed his cadre to support Janta Party in the 1977 elections.

It was the time when the National Conference were trying to gain strength and it was a situation where my father was talking about the fact that we need to create an alternative leadership to Sheikh Abdullah because he was taking away that sentiment of freedom and self determination from the people. It was an attempt to outwit the National Conference which at that time had created an impression that they were the sole representatives of the people of Kashmir.

And then your father joined hands with National Conference in the famous Double-Farooq accord of 1985.

There were two aspects of the fact why father supported Farooq Abdullah. One was the long pending issue of this Sher-Bakra and my father believed the disunity among Muslims should come to an end. Secondly he was of the opinion that Muslims should forge a platform where we could counter New Delhi and I think that’s the reason why he supported Farooq Abdullah thinking if he could represent the Kashmiri thought, we’re willing to support him despite our differences over the decades. But he was quick enough to withdraw his support when Farooq Abdullah joined hands with Rajiv Gandhi and he said his support was to the extent that we should try to stand against the Congress and the Indian hegemony.

You’re being referred to as the most moderate and pragmatic voice for peace in Kashmir while Mr Geelani has the tags ‘Firebrand’ and ‘hardliner’. How do you view these comparisons?

I don’t see myself in the moderate camp or Geelani Sahab in the extremist camp. When you talk about the Kashmir problem and its solution you understand the fact that it is a gradual process. I’d be wrong if I kept on telling the people that our approach is only the right approach. The only difference with Mr Geelani is that we should never keep the options closed. We’re in a situation where things have changed, it is not 1947, and the realities are entirely different in 2010. We have to move beyond history now and look at options where we can create opportunities of addressing the problem. However, that doesn’t mean we should make compromises on our principles though the concept of self-determination has changed. In 1947, there was no concept of independent Kashmir, joint mechanism, buffer state or a confederation of states for that matter. Self determination should not be viewed as a limited or a closed thing as Mr. Geelani proposes. We have to look at the broader concept of things. I believe Kashmir is a dispute and the aspirations of the people have to be understood and that there’s no solution possible within the framework of Indian constitution. But at the same time, I believe if we’re to look for a solution, we’ve to look for a compromise. If the press and media put you in different compartments that’s their prerogative but I don’t see myself as any different from any other campaign which is there, as far as Kashmir is concerned.

It’s largely felt that pro-freedom leadership is too egotistical to withstand any criticism. As an example, supporters of your party have attacked and ransacked many newspaper offices in broad-day light, damaged the equipment and beat the staff there. Is this not hooliganism?

I totally agree with you. We should always welcome criticism which is positive and constructive. As a party and an individual, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, at times people get driven by emotions and if something has happened in the past, that was not done by my intention or the party’s.. We believe if something of that sort has happened in the past, we regret that. We condemn all those incidents.

Who do hold responsible for the 2003 split of Hurriyat Conference?

Hurriyat is a coalition of different parties and it’s always difficult to hold such a coalition together. In every political situation, you have alliances which break and this is not something unique to Kashmir. I don’t see the reason why people should be disturbed over its break up, though I wish we should try to unite. Even if we’ve disagreements on issues related to the future of Kashmir, we can come together on the issues such as the human rights situation. We can have a common minimum program. Moreover, it is not that bad to have people with different political ideologies. You’ve a right to disagree if you believe in democracy. Let’s not say who’s right and who’s wrong. We’re all right in our own sense.

Geelani says you’ve battered the constitution of the Hurriyat Conference to suit your tastes. He alleges all the members of your Hurriyat including yourself have submitted to New Delhi’s wishes.

That’s where the problem lies. Mr Geelani is looking at things through his own perspective, he doesn’t realize the fact that Hurriyat Constitution clearly suggests that there’re two ways to address the problem: one being the UN resolutions and the other is an alternative negotiated settlement. The latter suggests a process of engagement and dialogue with India and Pakistan. Hurriyat came up with the concept of a triangular dialogue which we believe is still workable. We believe Musharraf’s four-point formula is still workable though we never said it is the final settlement. This is the problem with certain leaders that the moment you disagree with certain things, they label you in the opposite camp and say that you’re in the lap of New Delhi. Such statements cause problems and hurt the cause.

Hurriyat says Kashmiris are the principal party to the Kashmir dispute. Does it behoove the principal party to beg for a dialogue with Delhi?

It’s wrong to say Hurriyat has ever begged for a dialogue. We talked to New Delhi in 2007 as a party to the conflict not as an integral part or under the auspices of the Indian constitution. At that time, Mr. Vajpayee said we’ll talk in terms of humanity. It was a huge step forward the first time the Hurriyat was accepted as a party to the conflict. We were talking to India and Pakistan as a party. Our critics have proven wrong that Hurriyat entered into the dialogue and discredited the movement. If we had subjected to the views of New Delhi, we would be sitting where the National Conference is sitting today. The fact that the dialogue did not work is an indication that Hurriyat stuck to its position and I think it was important at that time because whenever we go to the International community—OIC, the UN, US Congress, or the European Parliament—we go with a strong case telling them: look, India is not serious and sincere. It was also important at that time to counter India’s position that Kashmiris are all terrorists and they don’t want to talk. Now the Hurriyat stand is vindicated and pressure is on India that they’re not moving from the position of intransigence on Kashmir.

Many argue that the strength of Hurriyat and Kashmiris lay in their refusal to engage into dialogue with Delhi. They cite the outcome of more than 130 rounds of dialogue on Kashmir between India and Pakistan in the last 63 years, which has been a nought.

I don’t buy this. I think those who’re talking about this concept want only to prolong the conflict. As a political leader, my effort is to see the conflict end and I want to see my people in a better position and I’ll continue to strive for it. That however doesn’t mean that I’d beg for a dialogue and work against the interests of my own people. I believe Hurriyat is much better placed internationally and diplomatically than 2002 because today we can go with a certain concept that it’s the intransigence of India which is a difficulty. Pakistan’s proposals and the Hurriyat was there but India has not moved for the last four or five years. Saying 130 rounds have failed doesn’t mean the 131st could not be a success.

What have you achieved out of your parleys with Delhi in the last six years?

The biggest achievement is the acceptability by India that Hurriyat is a party to the conflict. They used to say they’d talk to the people who’d contest elections. If you remember Mr Advani made a statement accepting Hurriyat as the representatives of the Kashmiri people.

In a recent interview with The Guardian you said: ‘We have tried our best but we have not been able to do anything. We have been involved in dialogue with New Delhi since 2004 but none of our proposals have gone through.’

That’s true. I stand by the fact that New Delhi’s intransigence and a closed approach is something which is not working. Even the Indian press is talking about it now. Hindustan Times and Times of India have been writing in their editorials that the Prime Minister had nothing to offer during his recent visit here. We’re talking about basic issues such as AFSPA and the detention of prisoners and have given our suggestions. If India and Pakistan are unable to initiate some measures on ground, the talks will never be fruitful.

Time and time again Hurriyat and other pro-freedom groups have displayed reactionary politics fighting each other. They have failed even to produce a vision document for instance. The pro-India groups, like the NC and the PDP, have at least something to present in the form of their autonomy and self-rule documents.

Why the Hurriyat has not come with a vision document is something we should avoid. We already have UN resolutions which give strength to the Kashmiri movement. Why would I come up with something which will be a reference point tomorrow. I’m able to refer to UN resolutions and the agreements between Indian and Pakistan right now. Being a weaker party we should not come up with something in writing in which we’ll have to scale down.

You met with the Supreme Court lawyer and New Delhi's mediator on Kashmir, Ashok Bhan in Srinagar. What was the agenda of the meeting?

We’ve known Mr. Bhan for a long time but I don’t think he has any agenda for New Delhi or is any official or non-official interlocutor on Kashmir. It doesn’t matter, people come and meet us and we keep on telling them that no dialogue can work unless and until the government of India creates a conducive atmosphere on the ground. Hurriyat is ready for dialogue but not a dialogue for the sake of dialogue. Dialogue and killings can’t go hand in hand. New Delhi has to stop its policy of intimidation and terror, killing innocents and putting juveniles in jails. If they’re serious about dialogue, they have to start with one or two of the four-point proposal given by the Hurriyat.

Conspiracy theories abound about the arrest of senior Hurriyat (M) leaders, Shabir Shah and Nayeem Khan. It's alleged that at least two senior leaders of your Hurriyat don't like their presence because of Shah's and Khan's unity efforts with Geelani group.

These are all misplaced conceptions. Differences of opinion exist but I don’t think their arrest is linked in any way with the Hurriyat Conference. Hurriyat has a legal cell which is working on their release. We raised the issue with Amnesty International the other day when they were here. When I was in Geneva I made a representation for the case of Shabir Shah and others but we’re not going to beg before New Delhi to release them. Arrests and detentions are a part of any movement. They can put me in jail tomorrow and that doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy going on. It may be the government of India which wants to create a confusion, to create an internal crisis within the Hurriyat.

Is Geelani adamant on the ouster of Professor Bhat, Abbas Ansari and Bilal Lone from the Hurriyat (M) before a possible unification of the two Hurriyats?

When we met last, it was the concept of engagement with New Delhi and Islamabad that came up for discussion not the personalities. I don’t remember him saying these people should be thrown out from the Hurriyat.

There was another mysterious killing, that of Abdul Gani Lone. Does it have any connection with your father’s assassination? Can you see a pattern in this?

There are certain elements which have worked against the interests of Kashmiris and the Kashmiri nation and have damaged the movement. Maybe the hands in the assassination of Abdul Gani Lone were different but the approach, mindset and the thinking was the same: they want to increase their own dominance by eliminating the leadership.

Sajjad Lone holds you responsible for his father's murder. He keeps on saying ‘you had prior information about the plot’. He also accuses you of glorifying Al-Umar militant Rafiq Lediri as a martyr, who he says killed his father.

He should come to me if he has any evidence in this regard. If I had any prior information about this, I’d have not told Mr. Lone to come to the martyr’s graveyard. I remember he was out of the country at that time and was keen to attend the function of my father. He was like a fatherly figure to me, ever ready to guide me. It would be the last thing for me to glorify any person whom Mr. Sajaad says is involved in his father’s killing.

Fazal Haque Qureshi was shot at and critically wounded in the attack.Whom do you hold responsible for the assault? It’s believed the Indian Home Ministry provided leaks of the quiet dialogue to the Indian media in order to sabotage the talks and a sitting duck like Fazal Haque was attacked.

It’s difficult to say who the people were but, as I said, it was an attempt to counter the Hurriyat strategy. There was some exchange of ideas taking place at track-II or track III and we were conveying our points of view to New Delhi. Maybe whatever you say is right who knows, anything is possible when it comes to Kashmir.

What happened to the mass agitation of 2008 following the Amarnath Land transfer row? What went wrong and who failed the agitation?

Nothing went wrong as far the mass agitation went. India came down heavily in response; the entire leadership was put in jail. Indian troops are not here to fight militants but the people, the concept, the thought (of self determination), and the peaceful agitation. There was a time when the leadership could have come together and a dialogue initiated with India and Pakistan on a position of strength but that didn’t happen because some personal egos got in the way and leaders gave one program or the other. I’d not call it a total failure. People were on the streets and you can’t expect them to be on the roads forever. It happens once in a while. It could happen tomorrow. If they don’t stop this process of intimidation and terror policy, Hurriyat has the power to bring millions of people on the roads again but we need direction and we need to use incidents such as these as opportunities of strength. There’s a fear looming large in the Indian mindset and that’s why you see the restrictions, unannounced curfews and arrests whenever we handout our programs. They fear people will come out in large numbers and it’d be difficult to contain them.

What’re your views on stone pelting?

We’ve said it repeatedly that we don’t approve of any activity weakens the concept of our movement. We’re a peaceful movement and that’s where our strength lies. There’s another aspect of stone pelting which is getting completely ignored. It is not happening because people want to pelt stones; it’s a reaction to India’s suppression of the voice of the people through brute force. What do people do when they’re not allowed to have peaceful demonstrations, rallies and raise their voice against innocent killings? It’s mostly anger and frustration but we have to give a proper direction to this and I think leaders have to come together and formulate the mechanism which would make it clear we are not involved in violence. Having said that if the government doesn’t allow people to adopt democratic means they’ll have to face the music.

Would Mirwaiz ever contest elections under the present setup?

No. My party or person will never contest elections unless and until we’re in a position to decide our future.

The interview has appeared in the August issue of the Conveyor magazinewww.conveyormagazine.com being published for Srinagar, Kashmir.

Exile is Death: Kashmiri Pandits dilemma over homecoming

Caelainn Hogan and Farooq Shah
Entering the Sindh Forest Department on the road to Tullamulla, with the verdant and peaceful expanse of countryside rolling forth from the base of the majestic Pir Panjal range, Kashmiri Pandits travelling to the annual Khir Bhawani festival must feel a pang of nostalgia for the beautiful land they no longer call home after their exodus following the raging militancy of 1989. With thousands of pilgrims making the journey to the sacred spring and the equally enthusiastic attendance of many locals, the new generation visiting Kashmir, some for the first time, are presented with a positive atmosphere of tolerance and unity. However, the maxim “Home is where the heart is” still remains a divided predicament for Kashmiri Pandits; for many the longing to return to a place they see as their true homeland is stronger than ever before, but there still remains a lingering doubt over the security of the region, social acceptance and who should facilitate their return. The fact that the younger generations have forgotten much of their cultural heritage, with the numbers of those speaking Kashmiri dwindling and some having almost no knowledge of the history of the region, there is an emphasis on both the current distancing of Kashmiri Pandits from their homeland and the urgent necessity for them to embrace their origins before they are forgotten. Political banners bustled for space above the moving throng entering the grounds of the shrine, all welcoming the pilgrims. A Muslim man pours water for one of the pilgrims and his young daughter. There is absolutely no sense of enmity whatsoever, rather a harmonious celebration of two communities which in reality are one. There seems to be no reason why the Kashmiri Pandits should not return, since many of them to claim they want to, and it is obvious that the Kashmiri Muslims consider them as brethren, and feel they belong. 
Kashmiri Pandits at the festival spoke with enthusiasm about the positive atmosphere they experienced here and the sense accord, discussing with conviction and hope about returning. Bansi Matto, originally from Rainawari, now residing with his family in Talab Tillo Jammu, makes a point of coming to Kashmir every year. He poignantly states that “Kashmir is our nation and the kind of closeness the two communities have experienced doesn’t exist anywhere else. No one can separate us.” He worries however that the new generation of Kashmiri Pandits, due to living outside of Kashmir, are losing the culture that is their birthright: “Our younger generation is fast drifting away from the language, ethos, culture and civilization they belong to. We couldn’t teach Kashmiri to our kids. About 99% of the new generation cannot speak Kashmiri. I don’t think you’ll find a Kashmiri after 50 years or so, except in a zoo perhaps!” People like Matto have a positive sense of unity between Kashmiri Pandits and Muslims, and see no reason not to return here.
Ashok Kumar from Jammu also visits every year, having left in 1990. He similarly comments on a sense of kinship, appreciating that “Muslims participating in our rituals is a great example of how we used to live here and it has not undergone a slightest change. We’re positive about our return and long for the day the dream turns into a reality.” He stands with his young son in his arms, the shrine draped in flowers and incense smoke behind him, and says proudly: “We don’t feel threatened at all.” He is anxious to return to a place he sees as his home. Shreshta Bhat, a 21 year old, who speaks good Kashmiri, shares this yearning to return to the Valley. Taken from Kashmir by her family when she was only nine months old and was only told when she was older of her origins. Travelling here has increased the desire to return and settle here, she says: “I feel like when I finish 10 years of my job or something, I wish I get a house here and stay here. It’s beautiful and I love it. “It seems an absolute enigma as to why Kashmiri Pandits, who have such a longing to return, are still living outside Kashmir, only visiting on special occasions such as the festival.
The most common reason given for not returning by Kashmiri Pandits who dismiss the possibility coming back to live here is that there remains the danger of militancy and terrorism. 14 year old Vidhi Tickoo encapsulates in one sentence the conflict in the hearts of many Kashmiri Pandits, between a natural yearning to return and paranoia over the threat of violence in the Valley: “It is ok to travel here, but return to live, I don’t think so, there’s a lot of terror here.” When asked about this terrorist threat most have only vague references to Pakistan and arms training, and no real knowledge of militancy in the Valley. Almost all agree that it is in no way the Muslim community that it feels threatened by or sees Kashmiri Muslims as a source of terrorism and an isolated case. Most emphasize that terrorism is a problem all over India and not just in the Valley. Shreshta deconstructs this myth, ardently stating “When we talk about terrorism, it is everywhere – Jammu, Mumbai, Bangalore – people say there’s terrorism in Kashmir, there’s nothing like that here. I’m fine and I don’t feel scared in Kashmir.”
Vibudh Matoo, 13, shows a thoughtful perspective for one so young, refusing to buy into the concept which has since 9/11 has become worryingly accepted, that all Muslims are terrorists: 
“I’ve been hearing a lot that Muslims are terrorists but I feel Muslims have greater faith in their religion for which they can even sacrifice their life. I think Muslims are better than some people. It’s the indoctrination that is something to worry about. They’re being taught if you kill somebody God will give place you in heaven which is not a good thing. I like Kashmir, its climate and more importantly the people are polite. I’d like to come here and live. “
Unfortunately there are still some who regard Kashmir as a hostile and dangerous place, whose Muslim community is in support of terrorism and violence. Pawan Bhat, a young man from Jammu whose parents were born in Srinagar, who finds the Valley a beautiful place to visit, refuses to consider the idea of returning and is adamant that the army’s presence here is positive and necessary. When asked why he thinks the army should be posted in Kashmir, keeping people in an environment of occupation, his answer is simply: “I know they should because I’m educated. Any educated person knows – educated people understand.” When asked did he consider all Kashmiris as uneducated people who do not know what’s best for them, he quickly changed his verdict to “misguided”. Unfortunately this sort of prejudice and mistrust still exists between the two communities. 
A common opinion is that the government should facilitate the return of the Kashmiri Pandits. Minu Kaul, originally from Vicharnag and now living in Jammu also believes that it is the responsibility of the government of India as well as the international community to encourage and assist religious reconciliation, stating that “Unless there’s an effort by the international community to bridge the gap between Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits so that the hatred is no more there, the return seems difficult.” Virender Matto lives in Jammu and feels that in the Valley there are no job opportunities in the government sector and with most young people working in the private sector, it is difficult for them to return. However, he bears no grudge against the Muslim community, saying that “The hatred that Kashmiri Pandits have in their hearts is uncalled for. I know if we return today, we’ll be treated nicely. It’s completely wrong to think Kashmiri Muslims drove us out.” He believes that the demand for a ‘separate homeland’ which has been made by organizations such as Panun Kashmir is genuine, and the best solution, stating: “It’d be nice if we’re rehabilitated in some areas because it’s difficult for us to return to our respective places. Once a feeling of confidence develops, other can think of a return and live elsewhere as well.” If such a separate homeland was realized, he believes the return of Kashmiri Pandits would be inevitable. “We could not adapt to the Indian culture in terms of our language, way of life, eating habits. Whenever we have a chance to come here, we feel everything—air, water, fragrance, mountains—talking to us.” Kashmir for him and for many Kashmiri Pandits is a place they feel intimately and innately connected to and a part of. Neelam Kaul believes there will be inevitable hostility between Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits, due to the conflict in the past, and agrees that only if the Kashmiri Pandits’ demand for a separate homeland is met will there be any chance of constructive coexistence. 
“Kashmiri Muslims drove us out of Kashmir and we’ll return triumphantly. I wouldn't say Muslims were responsible but the outsiders changed their mindset to such an extent that they started killing us. We can’t have the same kind of camaraderie that existed between the two communities. We’d return only is the demand of separate homeland is met. Our demand for a separate homeland is pretty genuine; we would not like to live in the neighborhood of Muslims.” 
This concept of “a struggle to reconquer that Kashmir which is almost lost”, as Panun (“my own”) Kashmir words it on their website is positive in the sense of encouraging return, but is in many ways highly divisive and almost contradictory in its mentality. Rather than focusing on reconciliation and integration it seems to focus on maintaining an emphasized distance between the two communities. Its December 1991 convention ‘Margdarshan’ staged in Jammu called for the creation of a separate homeland East and North of the Jhelum for the estimated 700,000 Kashmiri Pandits who migrated to return and settle. This endeavor seems to seek to reappropriate land in Kashmir exclusively for Pandits with no thought to reconciliation between communities, or the idea of a shared homeland.
Like Kashmir itself, the idea of a return for Kashmiri Pandits to their place of origin is fraught with conflict. Although there is a growing enthusiasm among Pandits to return from exodus and take their place once again in what is rightfully their homeland, to complete Kashmiri society which has been missing for too long an integral aspect of its identity, there are still many who feel that this return will not be realized in the near future due to a continued sense of hostility and violence that stems from a past they have not been able to move on from. Kashmir is still a place most will only visit on holiday, not a land they will call their home. There is hope however in such festivals where both communities are brought together, where experiences are shared, a platform for dialogue and reconciliation can perhaps be formed. As Bansi Matto states simply: “It’s the place where I would like to breathe my last.” The desire to return prevails, the journey back is already being plotted in many hearts and as at Khir Bhawani, constituents of the Muslim community have shown that they are there to provide their full support.

The storyhas appeared in the August issue of the Conveyor magazinewww.conveyormagazine.com being published for Srinagar, Kashmir.

Accession is a fact of life for PDP: Muzaffar Hussain Baig

Muzaffar Hussain Baig, former J&K Deputy Chief Minister and senior leader of the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP), spoke to Conveyor correspondent M Farooq Shah. 


Excerpts from the interview: 





You are a lawyer with a degree from the Harvard Law School, and you’ve worked with top law firms in the US and New Delhi. Your plunge into politics is a little surprising, isn’t it? 

I grew up in a remote backward village and suffered the humiliation of poverty. When I was in college, I suffered the pain of being arrested. In 1964, I became the district president of Student Youth League. After the unfortunate and painful incident of the removal of the holy relic from Hazratbal, a mass movement followed and I became a part of it. We demanded independence. I was arrested in 1965 and again in 1966. I was detained under Defence of India Rules, similar to today’s Public Safety Act. I was tortured, and I still have the wound marks on various parts of my body from torture and physical brutality. I was released in December 1965, but I was again arrested in 1971 when the Indian plane was hijacked. So I had experienced the humiliation of poverty and the brutality of political suppression. To cut a long story short, when I was in the United States—very comfortably placed—I used to be haunted by the memories of the Kashmiri nation which was deprived of both economic development and a genuine political freedom. But by interacting with people from all over the world especially those from the conflict zones—Middle East, Europe, South America etc—my understanding of the Kashmir problem had evolved. With this renewed understanding I thought I should come back to Kashmir, join politics, and try to find a solution by rendering the LoC a bridge rather than a wall of separation between India and Pakistan. I participated in the 1979 parliamentary elections. I wrote the constitution of the Peoples’ Conference (led by Abdul Gani Lone). 

It’s said you were closely associated with the pro-freedom camp, particularly with the Al-Fatah, an underground militant group of early ‘70s. Would you agree? 

I was not associated with the Al-Fatah, though I was in favour of independence for Kashmir. But as I said my understanding of Kashmir had undergone a change on my return in 1979. 

You were to fight the case of the JKLF co-founder Maqbool Bhat who was eventually hanged in New Delhi’s Tihar jail in February 1984. What was your experience of the case? 

When I returned from the USA, there was a request from Amnesty International that Maqbool Bhat be treated as a political prisoner, arguing that nobody was providing him with any legal services. This was in 1982 or 83. Before he was hanged, late Pyare Lal Handoo had filed his Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against his death sentence. The SC had said if the mercy petition filed by Maqbool Bhat’s family which was under the consideration of the President of India was rejected, it would entertain the SLP. Meanwhile, Amnesty International requested that I visit Tihar Jail and investigate the conditions Maqbool Bhat was in, since he had been denied the facilities a prisoner was entitled to. 
During my visit to Tihar, I found that Maqbool Bhat had been put in a death cell in subhuman conditions, a claustrophobic space where he had to eat, sleep and defecate. With the help of another lawyer, Raja Tufail, and R C Pathak who was associated with the Communist Party, I filed an application in the Delhi High Court and got an order that Maqbool Bhat be removed from the death cell and treated as a common prisoner. Later on, when Mr Mahatre was kidnapped and killed by JKLF in London, in order to calm the public outrage, the government of India led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi decided to hang Maqbool Bhat. I think the President rejected the mercy petition on the recommendation of the government of India. 
I was in Srinagar when journalist Zafar Mehraj called me up from Jammu and informed me that the session judge who had passed the death sentence against Maqbool Bhat had signed the black warrant. I went to Delhi and prepared the SLP. I requested Kapil Sibal to present the case before the SC because I thought, being a Hindu, he might get a better hearing than a Muslim lawyer from Kashmir. He obliged me and appeared before the High Court with the SLP, but the SC would not be swayed. We even presented a certificate given by the registrar of the J&K High Court that they had not confirmed the death sentence of Maqbool Bhat, which was required by law. You cannot hang a person unless the death sentence is confirmed. 

Do you mean Maqbool Bhat did not receive a fair trial? 

No, he did not receive a fair hearing by the Supreme Court. 

It’s alleged you had asked for a hefty sum from the London-based JKLF leadership against your services which you denied at the last minute even after accepting the money. How true is the allegation? 

(Loses his cool). This is rubbish. With this kind of defamatory statement, if you give me the name of the person, I’ll follow him all the way to his grave. I’ll file a defamatory suit against this villain. 

Many believe Indian intelligence agencies created PDP in order to cut the National Conference to size, because it is argued that it goes against the interests of New Delhi if Kashmir is ruled by a single regional party. 

All I can say is that it would offend my dignity to respond to such a stupid and vicious campaign against PDP. 

Your former colleague Ghulam Hassan Mir on his ouster from the party said the PDP was undemocratic, humorously calling it ‘Papa-Daughter Party’. 

For as long as he was a minister, he enjoyed the privileges of the party. He made this statement when he was expelled from the party. 

Former J&K Chief Minister Mir Qasim in his book, My Life and Times, says whenever New Delhi felt that a leader in Kashmir got too big for his boots ‘it employed Machiavellian means to cut him to size.’ 

Well, there’s some truth in it, and there are historical events which show when Sheikh Abdullah had been projected as the leader in 1935 by the Congress, at that time he wasn’t the leader of the majority. The majority, comprised of more than 70 per cent Muslims, was obviously with the Muslim Conference. But the Congress decided to project Sheikh Abdullah as the leader of Jammu and Kashmir leading to the formation of National Conference. The Congress decided that Sheikh Abdullah should become the head of the administration after the independence and on their request Maharaja released Sheikh Abdullah and made him head of the Emergency Administration. He was made Prime Minister without any election; however when he began to become a larger than life, they got him arrested and put forth Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. When Bakshi began to gain similar strength, they preferred Sadiq Sahab. When he also became too ambitious, they presented Mir Qasim, and when Mir Qasim too began to attract the spotlight, they brought back Sheikh Abdullah. Again they withdrew support from him. When Farooq Abdullah became a little unyielding, they brought his brother-in-law Ghulam Mohammad Shah; in turn when he became a little strong, they brought back Farooq Abdullah. Ah! How many examples should one give? < 

When PDP withdrew its support to the Congress-led coalition government in 2008, former RAW chief A S Dullat forcefully advocated for Omar Abdullah to be the CM and at the same time the ex-IB head Ajit Doval publicly backed Mufti Mohammad Syed. Is it Indian intelligence agencies that decide who should occupy the CM’s chair in Kashmir? 

One day when we were still in the government, I met Farooq Abdullah at the Srinagar airport, and in the presence of three more people he said the Indian army would never let us come back to power. When I asked the reason, he said we had asked for demilitarization and the Indian establishment will never let you come back to power. I don’t know, maybe he was right. 

PDP says self-rule is its political bible, but many say it is as vague as separatists’ call for azadi. What actually is the concept of self-rule? 

It’s not possible for me to talk about the issue at length here, but the self rule lays down a practical roadmap for a final and stable solution to the problem of Kashmir acceptable to Pakistan, Pakistan administered Kashmir, India and this Kashmir with its three regions. It differs from the NC’s autonomy formula which talks only about the relationship of this Kashmir with the Union of India. 

Is PDP’s stand on accession of Kashmir to India any different from the NC which says it is full and final? 

We accept accession as a fact of life. 

Last year, in the Assembly you said Omar Abdullah “had lost moral authority to rule the state because he features in the sex scandal accused list.” What was the point you were trying to make when you presented a so-called CBI list of the sex scandal accused before the House? 

During the investigation process, the J&K Police had prepared a list which the High Court referred to as the ‘shame list’ and it was handed over to the CBI. The court maintained that when it came to the less important people, the CBI carried on with their investigation but stopped short when it zeroed in on the high profile police officials, bureaucrats and politicians who decide the fates of millions of people. One judge said the investigation should continue under the directions of the High Court while the other said the process should continue under the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The matter is now before a full bench. The government and the CBI, instead of obeying the orders of the High Court, are contesting it. I have said that since the names of politicians are appearing in this, they must cooperate with it, and if the Chief Minister’s name appears in the list, he can’t sit in the chair. It’s an old principle of law that Caesar’s wife should not only be chaste she should appear to be chaste. 

Nazir Gurezi, the legislator from Gurez, submitted his collection of allegations against you claiming that you had been consorting with different women in New Delhi, Jammu and Srinagar. Allegations, counter-allegations or what? 

I was only referring to the judgment of the High Court. Regarding the MLA in question, any person can level any sort of allegations against anyone. It was a reaction. After what I had stated in the Assembly, what should I expect—praises, garlands, flowers or what? I had anticipated much worse, like they would come and burn my house, plot a bomb or kill members of my family. It was but natural that they would counter with something. They associated my name with a lady who is my rakhi sister. 

Have you supported Omar Abdullah’s proposal of rehabilitating those who crossed over to other side of the LoC for arms training? 

Yes, I’ve supported his proposal though I believe this can happen only when there’s an understanding between the governments of India and Pakistan. It’s not like you just bring people across the LoC; there have to be proper safeguards put in place. 

But when Communist leader, M Y Tarigami proposed the same thing before the House in PDP rule, your government summarily rejected it. Why these double standards? 

Certain things are to be left with governments only. If you table the bill in the Assembly and pass it, you’re putting an enormous pressure on the Central government. What happened to the NC’s autonomy resolution? Did the Central government not trash it? The Central government threw it in the dustbin. Tarigami tabled a resolution when Mufti Sahab was talking on the same issue with New Delhi. We supported the resolutions in the Working Groups constituted by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Moreover, you can’t pass bills on the Centre-State subjects. 

You’ve been criticizing NC for human rights violations, but during the PDP’s 3-year tenure, at least 175 people, according to the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons, were subjected to enforced disappearance, not to mention the ones killed by the troops. 

We never justified it; rather we were ashamed of it. When two people were killed by the army in my constituency when they were coming out of a mosque late in the evening, I took the Corps Commander to their house and he touched the feet of their father. He apologized for the killings. He even touched their feet in front of the villagers. It doesn’t happen today. The Chief Minister, I and others tendered an apology in the Assembly. 

You criticized the government’s failure to respond to the rape and murder of two young women in Shopian last year. But the PDP during its rule showed similar indifference to incidents such as these. For instance, when a woman and her daughter were allegedly raped by an Army Major, then Chief Minister Mufti Syed had said: ‘Beti ka rape nahin hua, maa ka hum dekh rahe hain’. 

I’m not aware of this statement at all. I don’t even know if this is a correct statement. 

PDP strongly criticized the nomination of Ghulam Mohammad Mir alias Momma Kanna’s nomination to Padma Shree, with your party spokesperson Naeem Akhtar taking a moral high ground. Writing in an article in Greater Kashmir, Akhtar said that New Delhi have had encouraged criminal elements in Kashmir. Kanna in an interview with this magazine said, “Mufti Syed is like my brother.” Kanna’s daughter contested municipal elections on a PDP ticket on the insistence of Mehbooba Mufti. 

I don’t think Mufti Syed had anything to do with Momma Kanna or that Mehbooba Mufti would be involved in encouraging such elements. I can’t say anything about his daughter contesting elections on Mehbooba Mufti’s insistence. You better ask Mehbooba about this. 

Why did PDP fail to gain support in Srinagar? It was Srinagar that proved a decisive factor in the government formation. 

There was rigging in Srinagar, though we didn’t make any noise about it. We won the Sonwar seat twice. It was announced that our candidate had won the seat. After the announcement was made even in the media, they brought some 5o votes or so saying they had received migrant votes. Secondly there was a campaign against us on the urban-rural lines. Another issue that the NC Conference raked up was electricity. Farooq Sahab said it repeatedly: Metre Toudo, Heater Lagao (Break the meter and enjoy heater), and it was a popular slogan. 
Apart from that we had some problems with the selection of candidates. By then, I think some agencies also had turned against us because we had made a statement after the Mumbai incident suggesting New Delhi was preparing some anti-terrorism law, and our leaders had said that Kashmir already had such laws in place. We had said if they made such a law, we would not apply it in Kashmir. This statement did not go well with the Central government. So I think some people were angry with us. 

You had proposed shifting of the capital to a non-descript place, Parihaspora. What was the rationale behind such move? 

How could the capital be shifted? We only said that downtown Srinagar should be saved, and in order to achieve this, it had to be depopulated. I have seen even five families living in a single house. There’s no toilet facility. It’s a shame that in the 21st century dogs and humans drink from the same water source. I had an occasion to discuss this with the Prime Minister. We wanted to turn this city into something like Venice or Paris where tourists would come and spend time in the city as well. So the idea was to offer opportunities to people to voluntarily move to colonies with all the facilities—schools, hospitals, parks, offices, courts etc—in just one place. Once it was done, we could construct big roads in the city. There was no question of shifting the capital to any other place. The media-hype destroyed all this. The Prime Minister had promised us 10,000 crores as an initial installment. It would have changed our fortune for good.

You’re talking about these lofty plans—Venice and Paris—but your commitment to environmental issues was non-existent. You could have, for instance, taken up the Amarnath Land row as an environmental issue. 

Amarnath pilgrims have been coming here for the last 150 years and encamping at several places along the cave route. Whatever the consequences, I would rather speak openly that the order which has been passed now after 5 lakh people agitated is not as good as the earlier order passed by our government. We passed a simple license—to use arrangement order only, for which an amount of two crore and thirty lakh rupees had to be received from the Shrine Board for cleaning the area. The NC and Hurriyat misconstrued it as transfer order. It was Sheikh Abdullah who had allowed the construction of concrete structures there which Farooq Abdullah continued when he was the chief minister. 

Why didn’t you have them demolished? 

I was not the minister in question; I don’t know how it would be done. The concerned minister should have sent a demolition notice. May be it was not done because it would provoke communal tension in India. In February 2001 (I can show you the documents) Farooq Abdullah according to a written communication of the Governor S K Sinha agreed to transfer 3432 kanals of forestland to the Amarnath Shrine Board. The governor wrote to then Tourism Minister, Ghulam Hassan Mir to transfer the land. He did not reply. Sinha wrote to me to act on the transfer agreement. Since a Chief Minister had agreed to the land transfer, the matter would go to the cabinet. I didn’t take it to the cabinet and cancelled it then and there. I had the courage to reverse the decision of a Chief Minister. The concrete structures in question came to my attention after I sought information on the land transfer row. At most occasions, the concerned Deputy Commissioners during the NC rule had allowed the constructions to take place. 

What about the hotels being constructed in green belt areas, such as the one at Kral Sangri close to your residence? It’s alleged that even your own house is built on prohibited land. 

In the Master Plan, this area had been reserved for a hotel to be constructed. As for my house, if this falls in the green belt area, I’ll burn it myself. 


The interview has appeared in the Mayissue of the Conveyor magazinewww.conveyormagazine.com being published for Srinagar, Kashmir.