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.
Posts
