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.

Indians didn't agree to any of our proposals: Prof Abdul Gani Bhat

Former Hurriyat Conference chairman Professor Abdul Gani Bhat, it is said, once made a strange will. After his death, he had said, his body should be buried in Pakistan if Kashmir wouldn’t become its part. But today, the former professor of Persian who calls Pakistan founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah his political ideologue, says it’s difficult to find a solution to Kashmir with the UN resolutions in the mind, something contrary to Pakistan’s traditional stand on Kashmir. No wonder Prof Bhat has run out of Islamabad’s favour—for the first time he has been left out of the upcoming visit of the Hurriyat leaders to Pakistan—and he doesn’t want to discuss his will, either. He says the “weak and divided” pro-freedom leadership of Kashmir could not capitalize on the enormous sacrifices the people paid in material, blood and honour. Prof Bhat says there’re many controversies including the split of Hurriyat that he would like to talk about but in the form a book he plans to write. Excerpts of the interview with Conveyor Correspondent M. FAROOQ SHAH:

The peace process received a jolt after 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Where do you see the talks going now?

I agree with you, the Mumbai terror attacks literally derailed the peace process between India and Pakistan that could not only ensure peace in South Asian region but could result in a meaningful solution to the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. Any act of terror, be it in India, Pakistan or in Kashmir for that matter, is abhorrent and more abhorrent, I believe, is an act of terror sponsored by a state anywhere in the world. However, Kashmir’s movement is not a terrorist movement but a movement that involves people’s inalienable right to determine their future in accordance with their wishes. You’ve to draw lines, and that’s why I’ve been saying, for God’s sake, don’t link Kashmir problem with terrorism. That is being unjust to us. 

It’s claimed both the countries were close to achieving a solution with regard to Kashmir. How far is it true?

Absolutely. I don’t have to mince words to say that. Even the then (Pakistan) President General Pervez Musharraf and the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh said they were close to achieving a solution to their problems including Jammu and Kashmir. Everybody knows Indians and Pakistanis were talking, not weather but discussing problems constituting a potential threat to peace in the South Asian region. Not only this, they were talking about the economic issues as well which in today’s era determine the relationships of nation states with the rest of the world. I have every reason to believe that Kashmir constitutes a stumbling block between India and Pakistan unless they talk sensibly with open heartedness.

Has pro-freedom leadership any role in the talks?

India and Pakistan as such are not the masters or the arbitrators to the fate of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. I refuse to submit to hegemony of whatever kind. Hurriyat represents not only the sentiment rooted deep into the soul of Kashmiris’ but the dynamics of the change sweeping across the globe. That’s where I say the Hurriyat has a role, and if I represent Kashmir I should be talking to India and Pakistan and as a matter of principle I should offer talks to them which have to be Kashmir-centric and more importantly result-oriented.

Which Hurriyat are you talking about? There’re two Hurriyats on ground.

I wouldn’t like to get involved in any controversy, it yields nothing. I feel the faction I belong to is the real Hurriyat. The original headquarter lies with Hurriyat (M), so does the constitution. Hurriyat as Hurriyat has to be pragmatic, moderate and supportive of talks. If you’re not, I don’t know what you are and wouldn’t comment on that. 

But you, Bilal Gani Lone and Moulana Abbas Ansari have been left out of the upcoming visit of the Hurriyat leaders to Islamabad. 

There’s a habit with some friends, not only in Kashmir but elsewhere as well, that they concoct stories. The Pakistanis have invited the chairman Hurriyat (M) and it’s for him to decide whether he goes alone or with a team. If the invitation is to be discussed at the executive council level, we’ll take a decision, and I for one would love to see Mirwaiz Umar Farooq going alone to Pakistan because the team may create problems. Let him go alone what if I don’t go, he’ll be representing me there at the meeting. Wherever he goes—Geneva, America, Britain, India or Pakistan—he goes with my mandate and I’m being represented through him.

Hurriyat (M) says it has been working hard to rally people around the four-point proposal of General Musharraf, but Pakistan’s raising a renewed pitch for the self-determination has put your grouping in a difficult situation. Isn’t it? 

I don’t know what Pakistan is up to. They asked Mirwaiz Umar Farooq to go ahead with the talks with India keeping in view General Pervez Musharraf’s four-point formula on Kashmir. Later they changed their stand. How could we, for God’s sake, return to our people to tell them ‘look since Pakistan has changed its mood, we would not be talking anymore’? It sure makes a dent in the credibility of leaders. We did not take the turnaround very conveniently. Musharraf’s four-point formula is a pragmatic approach to Kashmir problem.

You’ve said recently in an interview with Indian Express that neither the right to self-determination nor the UN resolutions can solve the Kashmir issue. That’s exactly the Indian stand on Kashmir.

Absolutely right. The United Nations resolutions on Kashmir and the call for right to self-determination are contradictory to each other. It’s practically difficult to find any solution with such concepts in the mind. Therefore, we have to look towards the global changes vis-à-vis two nuclear-countries engaged in a confrontation over Kashmir. I don’t want to be bracketed with Indian or Pakistani stand. The dispute has to go. Moreover, the UN has been insensitive towards Kashmir. It could administer a referendum in East Timor which didn’t figure in its agenda, and here you’ve Kashmir very much there but they’ve not been doing anything at all. I can’t beat my breast, why not accept the reality? I can’t mount pressure on them because I’m not a sovereign state. Pakistan has its own problems; Indians seek a berth in the UN. Besides, India’s a huge market, and commercial diplomacy works in its favour. You may do whatever you want, but given the international scenario, you can’t turn the tide in your favour.

Then you must have prepared your own vision document on which you’d go to the table and tell India and Pakistan: here we’re with our case, come on and solve Kashmir?

We’ve prepared our vision document and I may not take it up with you here. I propose to meet people who matter where I would give the outline of my position on Kashmir for India and Pakistan to consider. We’ll seek peoples’ mandate and if they ask us to go ahead with them, we’ll proceed. Should they disagree, we’ll go back home and deceive neither ourselves nor the people.

You’ve said many a time that Mohammad Ali Jinnah is your political ideologue and you believed in his doctrine of freedom struggle. Then why this sudden change? 

Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was my ideologue and he will remain my ideologue but in a wider sense and implication. I’ve not changed. I stand for people’s right to determine their future in accordance with their wishes. But if you can’t come to the terms with the realities confronting us, you’ll reach nowhere. You’ve to understand the dynamics of the change. There’s a war going on against terrorism and extremism and you can’t move forward with terrorist or extremist ideas. Disputes are solved through dialogue, not by guns. You’ve to be pragmatic, imaginative and accommodating. If I put blinkers on my eyes, I may not be able to move at all.

Globalisation at the expanse of the aspirations of the people of Kashmir?

Kashmir is not Kashmir alone; it has Jammu and Ladakh with it. Jammu is a different world, so is Ladakh. Where do these three different worlds converge on with different ethnicity, geography and more importantly political aspirations? If this part of Kashmir which India has occupied has to be free, it has to take Jammu and Ladakh along. 

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah recently said the quiet diplomacy initiated by New Delhi in the state is on, and ‘its results will be made public at an appropriate time.’ Is the government of India in touch with you on quiet talks?

We did a couple of rounds in the quiet dialogue and it was preceded with a change in Pakistan that it wouldn’t be result-oriented. We don’t want to come between the relationship of India and Pakistan on which hinges any possible solution to Kashmir. Right now, we’re not talking at all.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has told Guardian: ‘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 not one of our proposals has gone through.’

What Omar Sahab has said is right. I don’t have to dispute his statement...Indians didn’t agree to any of the five points we put forth. We proposed to them that the routes should be opened between two Kashmirs without cumbersome procedures...that the gradual withdrawal of troops should start, the release of prisoners be given a priority. We said the draconian laws be annulled, this also did not happen. Indians did not do it. Why they did not do it is for the Indians to say.

Are you then not banging your head against a wall?

It’s not like that if you can’t achieve a thing today it can’t be achieved in future. It would be a negative approach if we don’t tread the path of dialogue. We’re not banging a head against a wall; we’ll repeatedly tell India to accept our proposals until it agrees to them. Indians understand that we’ve highlighted our issues before the international community as effectively as we probably could.

Hurriyat split is shrouded in mystery, with many alleging that you engineered it and your like-minded colleagues fielded proxy candidates in the 2002 state elections. 

India couldn’t break the conglomerate that Hurriyat Conference was composed of. Unfortunately, we couldn’t preserve it as a single piece. All I say let Allah break the bones of the person(s) who broke it. This is not the right time to divulge into the reasons, may be I do it some other time if I live. I don’t know whether I will be spared or not, but if I’m, I will write a book and I’ll address this issue. 

You are said to have patronized an armed group, Muslim Mujahideen headed by a surrendered militant Nabi Azad who reportedly killed many Jama’at-e-Islami activists and Hizbul Mujahideen militants. Many believe this was a move to avenge your brother’s murder allegedly by the Hizbul Mujahideen.

I will have to do the explanations on many issues. I assure you I’ll be doing it. I will go the press and take up these issues including our sponsorship of the Muslim Mujahideen as to who supported them and why.

Many have alleged that the Hurriyat delegation which met Atal Bihari Vajpayee raised personal issues, with one of your senior colleagues asking for allocation of a petrol pump for his kin.

I tell you in all humility that I did most of the talking, but I didn’t ask for anything. I’ve no knowledge of any member of my delegation asking for a petrol pump.

In her book, Zamrooda Habib of Muslim Khwateen-e-Markaz has alleged that you had connived with the Delhi Police to get her arrested in 2003.

I have said it before as well that I don’t pick up arguments with women. I head neither the police forces nor the intelligent agencies of India. I don’t accept the money from Indian agencies. Her statement that I had fixed her carries no weight. If I had to do it, I could have done here why in Delhi? She had to proceed to New Zealand for a conference or something but was caught by the Delhi Police. Where does Prof Gani feature in this all?

The Hindu reported recently that upon your meeting with the Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir in New Delhi, you asked Pakistan to unveil the attackers of Fazal Haque Qureshi.

Fazal Haque was not shot at by any Indian agency. The question is who did it and why. It means a lot to see leaders being shot at, and Pakistan should realize this. When you don’t spare a simple and a truthful leader such as him, who would you spare then? I raised this question and said this was unacceptable to us. Fazal Haque is not a fly that you would squash him like this. If he’s attacked as my colleague, I would go all the way to his defence.

Hurriyat (M) abstained from launching an anti-election campaign in 2004 and then again in 2008. Why?

Poll boycott in Ladakh, Jammu and some border areas of Kashmir would mean nothing. Whether people vote or not, it doesn’t affect the nature of the dispute of Kashmir at all. UN resolutions on Kashmir also say that any electoral activity in Kashmir will not affect the future dispensation of Kashmir. When I say elections are a non-issue, whatever the turnout, 65% or what, it doesn’t affect my standpoint on Kashmir. If we give a boycott call and people don’t pay any heed to it, that would be catastrophic for the Kashmir cause because the Indians would bloat over it and say ‘look, people have rejected you’. India is the second largest country of the world, and when you’re dealing with it, you’ve to be wise and tactical.

You seem to be overawed by the might of India and disheartened by the indifference of the UN towards Kashmir. Does it not project a weak image of the pro-freedom leadership?

Unfortunately, yes. I admit we couldn’t capitalize on the sacrifices of the Kashmiri people who gave everything—material, life and a more importantly their honour—without perhaps asking. We could have, for instance, exploited the mass agitation following the Amarnath land transfer row, but we could not. We are all what we’re—weak, divided and unaware of the changes happening around us.

Don’t you think the leadership took the people for a ride and toyed with their sentiments?

To a large extent, it’s true. When you ride a blind horse, it stumbles. It may not die but it can kill the rider for sure. Gone are the times when people would shout Aele kaeri wangan kaeri bab kaeri (Let Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah do whatever he wishes to do to Kashmiris). People have every right to grab me by my throat and demand what we did to their money, the blood of their sons and the honour of their daughters. People have to identify which horse to ride on. Riding a wrong horse will lead them to nowhere. 

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