FAROOQ SHAH

The Last Picture Show

2011-05-30T01:26:00.000+05:30

M Farooq Shah and David Lepeska

Srinagar: Beyond coils of shiny razor-wire and an eight-foot-high fence of tin sheeting along Neelam Chowk, two policeman peer over rotting nose-high sandbags and into the street from inside chicken wire-wrapped towers. Some twenty yards behind them an aging, windowless stone building appears empty and derelict, its curvilinear chlorine blue façade faded by sunlight.

Beyond coils of shiny razor-wire and an eight-foot-high fence of tin sheeting along Neelam Chowk, two policeman peer over rotting nose-high sandbags and into the street from inside chicken wire-wrapped towers. Some twenty yards behind them an aging, windowless stone building appears empty and derelict, its curvilinear chlorine blue façade faded by sunlight.

What sort of space-age, tumbledown edifice could require such protection – government offices? Top secret scientific labs, or the headquarters of a hard-line separatist party, perhaps? Not quite. A prominent, unlit neon sign and a trickle of young men passing through a swinging tin door as 1 p.m. looms provide subtle clues.
”I couldn’t live without watching movies in theatres,” said an entrant named Rakesh, a perfume seller from Utter Pradesh who braved the security for the respite of a breezy viewing experience about once a week.
This is the Neelam, Srinagar’s last working cinema, and exhibit A in Kashmir’s culture wars. Apart from its long-sought autonomy, little in Kashmir is as fiercely protected and oft-embattled as culture, particularly entertainment and leisure activities. The predominantly Muslim population of the Kashmir valley might not have the domineering clerics of neighboring Pakistan or Afghanistan to keep them in line, but they maintain an upright Muslim sensibility of their own – witness the dearth of alcohol and music – and with extremist elements ready to crack the whip and a pervasive anxiety on the streets, urban amusements are almost nil.
After a decade and a half of protests and occupation, bombings and burnings, cinema is poised to become the next casualty of this almost 60-year conflict.
[Because of the constant danger, residents of Srinagar are loathe to go out at night. Entertaining is therefore often done in the home. Additionally, a wealth of outdoor activities and leisure options await the more active local, with high-end trekking and health resorts less than 100 kms away in Gulmarg, Pahalagam, and Sonmarg. This article will consider more rural and domestic pursuits only as they relate to the cinema house.]
Prior to the renewed insurgency in 1989, Kashmir had many well-attended movie houses. The Palladium, centrally located and then one of Srinagar’s most popular theatres, was in 1991 destroyed by arson, widely believed to be the work of Muslim extremists. Seen through the prism of the proceeding decade’s flared religious passions, increasingly risqué Bollywood fare suddenly seemed overtly vulgar. Many theatres were closed while several others – including the Firdaus, Shiraz, and Naaz – were taken over by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Indeed the Neelam itself was shuttered for over a decade until the state government helped reopen it in 2002. The Regal Cinema was opened to much fanfare that same year, but on the first day of screenings a bomb blast killed one audience member and injured several others, and the theatre has been shuttered ever since. The Broadway, the Neelam’s last competitor, succumbed to the pressures last year, shutting down and selling its lot to a mobile phone company.
All of which explains the machine-gun wielding policeman at Neelam, as well as the thorough bag searches and full-body pat downs. In a region where traditionalist passions can lead to explosive violence, a bastion of modern pop culture requires great security.
Kashmir University’s Director of Kashmir Studies, M.H. Zaffar, for one, will not be shedding any tears.
“It doesn’t matter whether one or more movie theatres are functional in Kashmir,” he said. “With new state-of-the art TVs, DVDs, and cable television, people in Kashmir have managed to stay entertained, knowing that going to the movie theatres involves a fair amount of risk.”
A few locals were willing to take that risk.
“I usually come once a week with my friends, at times alone as well,” said Pattan resident Zaeeshan Haider, moments after the Neelam security check turned up a small box of matches, which were confiscated. “We don’t have cable TV in our village and watching movies is the only means of entertainment to us, despite the fact that it could be dangerous.”
Indeed, the theatre was near empty on Wednesday despite scorching heat. Although the picture was slightly out of focus, the overall theatre experience at the Neelam was quite pleasant at Rs 40: a ceiling fan kept the auditorium cool, the sound was good, seating comfortable, and refreshments cold. And most of the score of attendees enjoyed Shaadi se Pehle (“Before Marriage”), a two-year-old sex comedy.
“It’s not the best form of entertainment in town, but it’s still good,” said Narbul resident Taureef, 24, who comes about once a month and is very excited about an upcoming film starring Shahukh Khan.
“I’d rather play cricket or football, but there are no facilities,” continued Tuareef, a recent college graduate looking for a teaching position. “There were barren fields where we could play, but those were taken over because of the insurgency.”
That insurgency is the very reason many locals had little interest in going out to watch movies.
“I have a big-screen television, DVD player, and a great sound system,” said Srinagar resident, Javed. “I have total control over the viewing environment. Why should I leave the house and take the risk?”
Yet there were several for whom the gathering clouds were a reason to mourn, including the Neelam’s house manager, who was initially reluctant to talk but opened up on condition of anonymity. Along with other local cinema managers, he had several times in the last decade approached the government to request alternative sources of income, and even filed a writ in court – to no avail.
“Some associated with the cinema have installed shops or run auto-rickshaws,” he said. “Others have died.”
Today the exposed and cracked concrete walls of the Palladium’s open-faced avocado-colored shell offer eloquent testimony to those lost lives. Sycamore trees jut out from where the seating area had been and sunflowers sway in a net-covered courtyard next to a heavily-manned red brick guardhouse. Nearby, a CRPF poster reads, “We are the guardians of the wishes of Kashmiri people.”
Apparently the Kashmiri people wished the Palladium to become an arboretum.
“With the priority attached to life and property given the current circumstances, entertainment in Kashmir has taken a back seat,” said Zaffar, placing the demise of Kashmiri cinema within the broader context of living in the conflict-ridden valley. “It is the society that determines whether a facility should be in place or not: If people at some stage rejected cinemas, there’s should be no qualms with it; if the society thinks that it needs them, they will automatically return.”
The Neelam’s manager reluctantly agreed with Zaffar about the uncertain future of movie houses, yet felt cinema could exist in the Valley, partially because of the popularity of films about the ongoing clash, such as Fanaa.
“We had almost a full-house every day,” he said of that film’s run last month, “and we ran the movie for four weeks.”
Arshad Mushtaq, director of the first ever Kashmiri-made feature film, Akh Daleel Loulech (“A Tale of Love”), which premiered earlier this month, believed the real problem was a lack of a local film industry.
“Indian cinema has been pretty biased as far as portraying Kashmir and making films that have distorted its cultural ethos,” he said, urging the involvement of Kashmiris in film production. “The need is not a great number of cinema theatres but to establish film institutions where we could train local people to make movies that give a correct interpretation of the facts.”
One local resident had more personal concerns.
“We live in a constant state of fear but we brave all odds for the livelihood and the sustenance of life,” the manager of the Kashmir Valley’s sole movie house said proudly. “Cinema is the only means to earn a living for my family and I can’t think of doing anything else.”
----
Cinema Halls in Srinagar:-
Firdaus, Hawal Occupied by CRPF
Shiraz, Khanyar Occupied by CRPF
Shah, Qamerwari Occupied by CRPF
Naaz, Maharaj Bazar Occupied by CRPF
Regal, Residency Road, Now a store house
Khayam, Khyam Chowk Converted into Hospital
Palladium, Lal Chowk destroyed by arson in 1991
Broadway, Badami Bagh Cantt
Opened in 1997 (1st film screened was Titanic). Shuttered in 2005, premises sold to Hutch, a mobile phone company.
Neelam Cinema, Suthrashahi Operational.

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

2010-09-08T01:16:00.000+05:30

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

2010-09-08T01:03:00.001+05:30

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

2010-07-01T10:53:00.005+05:30

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

2010-07-01T10:50:00.000+05:30

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.

I deserve Bharat Ratna: Padma Shree Momma Kanna

2010-03-16T09:01:00.001+05:30

“In the name of Allah and Bhagwan, O Muslims and Hindus, ensure my safety.” This is how Ghulam Mohammad Mir alias Momma Kanna, the notorious counterinsurgent lets out his pain and fear. Kanna’s name was synonymous with extortion, rape, torture and extra-judicial killings across the Valley in the ‘90s. He has brushed shoulders with several prominent politicians, government officials and army and police top brass. Now in his sixties, he’s bedridden, plagued with ailments and “waiting for the inevitable death”. It will be a death which, he himself admits, will not bother the rulers who once placed all their faith in him. “Let them get me killed,” he says and hesitantly admits, “I’ve been used.”
Recalling his heydays, he says he would carry an assault rifle, don army fatigues, lest he was singled out in civvies. He admits a direct hand in neutralising over 5000 militants, but out rightly denies that he killed any militant or civilian.
Kanna lives the life of a recluse at his Magam residence which is guarded by a company (100 personnel) of the paramilitary CRPF. After remaining dormant for many years, he suddenly shot into prominence after the government of India decided to confer upon him the Padma Shri, one of India’s highest civilian honours, evoking strong reaction in the Valley.
Kanna was active at a time when the law and order in Kashmir was in absolute shambles, as the former Divisional Commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah has reflected in his book, ‘My Kashmir: Conflict and the Prospects for Enduring Peace’ in which he discusses how civilian authority was often bypassed by the army and police in what he describes as the ‘privileging of the national security interest’ in maintaining law and order. Interestingly, Wajahat is one of the panellists who recommended Kanna for the prestigious award. Wajahat is remembered as “the only human face of the Indian State” who believed in dialogue and accommodation at a time when there was a total breakdown of contact and trust between New Delhi and the Kashmiris.
Kanna was a junior employee in the Forest Department earning a meagre Rs 300 a month but soon after he started working for the forces, he enjoyed official patronage and had direct access to governors, top politicians, army and police officers. He flaunts his high connections and proudly shows photographs taken with the movers and shakers of politics during the peak of militancy, which among others include Farooq Abdullah, Ghulam Hassan Mir and Mir Magami. Kanna opened up with M FAROOQ SHAH and SHOWKAT A MOTTA at his Magam residence.
Before agreeing for an interview with Conveyor, he subtly threatened us with death if he was misquoted.
Excerpts from an interview with Kanna:

You’ve been nominated for Padma Shri. How do you feel about it?

It was the prerogative of the government of India to honour me like this. They believed I had done a great service to the nation and hence chose me for the award. They scanned over my track record—they’ve every little detail of a person before them, you know—and found me a suitable contender for the Padma Shri. As a counterinsurgent, I had no inkling I would be chosen for such an honour. All I knew was that mujahideen were still trying to kill me. I have been placed under a sort of house arrest, like a prisoner. I had joined the counterinsurgency only to save my skin, but I believe that I’ve comforted Muslims a great deal through my work. Contrary to what is being spread through media, I have not killed people. I was no militant but a simple chowkidar in the Forest Department earning a mere Rs 300.

What motivated you to take on the militants when there was almost no support for the Indian rule in the Valley?

In 1990, militants kidnapped my close friend, Ghulam Hassan Mir, who had Rs 19000 in his pocket. Next morning his body was thrown in the Wusan area of Kunzar village, and when his three brothers went to identify him, they couldn’t recognize the body because he was so severely tortured. A rosary and sajdagah (a small round clay tablet used by Shia Muslims during prayers upon which they place their forehead in prostration) in his pocket led to his identification. I got wind that I too would be killed, and so I immediately met then senior minister of India, George Fernandes, at Bakhshi Stadium and decided to work for my country. I joined the counterinsurgency with an open heart; nobody coerced me into it. It was a completely voluntary decision.
Militants in Kashmir received an overwhelming support from the masses. Did you ever think you’d be the subject of condemnation and would be hated for your activities?

I knew it beforehand. We have been through a real ordeal. Terrorists attacked my house several times; they killed my brother and nephew, and my son has also been fired upon. Even if I was a sinner, what was the fault of my son?
Whom did you contact first about carrying out your ambitions—Kashmir police, paramilitary forces or the army?

It so happened that militants had planted a landmine near Magam to attack a contingent of CRPF. I had given prior information to the CRPF which they ignored, and in the ensuing attack 10 of their personnel received severe injuries. They retrieved the injured—half dead—after one hour. They searched for me afterwards and took me to their IG, some Mr Gupta, DIG Mr N K Tiwari and one commandant M A Misra who had headquarters at Humhama, Budgam. From there, they took me to Mr Fernandes and introduced me as their own man. He told me that as long as India was there, they would defend me to the hilt.
Did they train you in using firearms?

No, they did not. We would carry guns though. It’s not difficult to handle firearms; even you could fire them. I would usually carry a gun during operations, donning combat fatigues to avoid being targeted, but I never concealed my face.
You must remember your first operation; can you describe it?

There was this militant group that included Ghulam Ahmad Yatoo, alias Amma Kanna, Qasim Khar, Mohammad Shafi Bhat and Gulzar Ahmad and some more people that laid down their weapons before the security forces. It was the first surrender of its kind. The surrender took place in front of a team that had rushed in from outside and the entire scene was filmed. I facilitated the surrender process.
You have said you helped in neutralising over 5000 militants in Kashmir. It’s a huge number.

Yes, it’s a huge number, but I don’t think anyone was ever killed. It was a total surrender in each case. There was no mobile network at that time and people used to give specific information about the presence of militants in person. They would normally accompany us all the way to the militant hideouts.
Were you after a particular organization?

Militants used to provide information about each other and get their own men apprehended...I would not like to name anyone though because it might jeopardize somebody’s life.
What was your peculiar mode of operation after you received a tipoff about the presence of militants in a particular house or area?

I would say the people would call us back if any militant hiding in some area had escaped our eyes, and inform us of his whereabouts. I remember a place where we had laid our cordon and it so happened that a militant hiding in the attic of a house escaped detection. A woman informed about the presence of the militant in her house, requesting that we take him away. After his arrest the militant took us to a mosque where he had hidden two guns. The woman began to beat her chest, and it baffled me. I asked her why she wailed like. She said if she didn’t cry, she would be doubted and killed. ‘Let the man go to hell,’ she said.
Among those you neutralised during the operations, many might have been top commanders. Do you remember their names?

It wouldn’t be reasonable for me to name them all, otherwise I may face problems. There’s one Abdul Gani Dar, chief of Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen whom I apprehended along with 16 of his men. He’s alive; you may ask him if I did not wipe his beard with my own coat after water was splashed on his face during interrogation. Then there’s General Moosa whom I also captured. I could have killed him easily but I attended to him with courtesy. Slain Hizbul Mujahideen chief commander Shams-ul-Haque’s son, Mushtaq Moulvi who is a Pakistan-trained militant lives in HMT area these days. I got him arrested. I shared a good rapport with people. I remember we laid a siege on a village named Rachhun. I told the villagers that since you complain of night sieges, tell the militants we’ll be coming in daylight and will apprehend them all. We came one morning and about 43 militants were trapped including Shams-ul-Haque and Abdul Waheed Sheikh, who is now in Muzaffarabad. The arrangement was such that each house sheltered one militant. We could have easily torched the entire village but I made an announcement that Shams-ul-Haque was a very good man and he should not be harmed. We decided to call off the operation and let them go. Shams-ul-Haque, who was later killed in an encounter, was a noble man; he surely wouldn’t have gone on killing people.
Almost all the militants you claim to have neutralized carried a cash reward. Were you paid for your services? Did you receive rewards after each operation?

I used to get payments on a monthly basis but it was not like rewards. They— then Governor Girish Chander Saxena and DG Police, B S Bedi— used to pay me a little though, whenever I needed money. I had special access to their offices. I would meet the Governor anytime I wished. The DGP wouldn’t move an inch without my approval.
You said in a recent interview that you played a key role in securing the release of Rubiya Syed, daughter of the former Indian Home Minister, Mufti Mohammad Syed, who had been kidnapped by the JKLF militants in December 1989. How true is it?

We played our part but it’s not to be discussed openly. It was not only her but also two Swedish engineers, former minister Khem Lata Wakhloo and her husband, and many others as well. Mufti Syed knew my connections well. When the Swedish engineers were abducted, the government of India approached me and begged before me to save the honour of India.
Was it after Rubiya’s release that Mufti’s ministerial colleague George Fernandes, Governor Saxena, then Divisional Commissioner Kashmir Wajahat Habibullah and others realized your importance in the war against militants?

It’s only natural: whenever you do something extraordinary, you assume importance. It raised my profile and they all thought I could be employed to work for them.
How close were you to the Mufti family?

Very close indeed. Mufti Syed is like my elder brother. There’re many reasons for it: I got Rubiya Syed released, and helped PDP in several elections also. PDP President Mehbooba Mufti sent her aide Bilal Lodhi, who was a militant-turned-MLC, during the municipal elections of 2005 to me. They wanted my daughter Ateeqa Banoo to contest as a PDP candidate in Magam. I would prefer not to divulge on how I helped the party because it could land me in trouble.
Mehbooba Mufti has criticised your nomination for the Padma Shri award and has said the award has been given to a person against whom there are allegations of murder and rape. She even mentioned some FIRs registered against you in various police stations across the district of Budgam.

This is nothing but politics, an attempt to entice voters. No one should talk about something that’s up in the air unless one has proof. If she’s levelling allegations against me, let her come out in the open and declare it. There’s only one FIR against me, and it is regarding the beating of some journalists in Magam nine years ago.
Moreover, Mehbooba Mufti does not know the level of closeness between me and her father. Her statement has hurt me, and anyway, the world’s full of deceit. I may die tomorrow, who cares. Ask her does no law apply against those Ikhwanis who were trained militants and joined her party after killing several innocent people? I’m a civilian, a simple man, why harass me? Her statement has put me in a lot of trouble. It pains me when journalists ask me if I have raped women or killed people. I’m no more than a security forces’ informer.
Interestingly, I got a phone call from the PDP saying Mehbooba Mufti’s statement about the Padma award to me is part of a political strategy to win the people’s sympathy; I should not take it seriously.
It’s often alleged that many top commanders of Hizbul Mujahideen were killed on the tipoff provided by some senior PDP leaders. Have you any knowledge on the issue?

The poet says: Aeti nau naeri saase manz akh (Out of thousands not even a single man would emerge clean.) If I speak the truth, not even one single person would be spared. Men of wisdom have said: Render unheard what you hear, unseen what you see. I’m not going to open my mouth.
What were the reasons you shifted your loyalties to the National Conference in 2008?

The reason’s simple: Dr Farooq Abdullah is a close friend, a brother. I’m ready to lay down my life for him, I don’t know the rest. Mehbooba Mufti should not have opposed my nomination (for Padma Shri) based on false grounds.
Did you meet the NC leadership, Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah etc, after you decided to work for NC?

Omer Abdullah’s a kid at the moment. I had several meetings with Dr Farooq Abdullah but you’ll kindly excuse me for not disclosing what passed between us. I voted for his party and recommended everyone to do so. I would not say it to you but I sent some top people to Farooq Abdullah to his home in Srinagar, in his own vehicle, with an assurance of our support in blood. Even Omar Abdullah doesn’t know about this. In all, 5000 votes were cast in favour of NC, all due to my efforts.
You’ve said in an interview to a Jammu-based daily that you’re privy to ‘anti-national’ activities of many political leaders and police officers and that you’ve recovered AK-47 rifles, rocket launchers and grenades from the residences of political leaders and even deputy commissioners. Why are you afraid of disclosing their names?

I didn’t say anything about political leaders, or police officers. Whatever appeared in the press is false. However, there’s one case where the government knows full well from whose house in Rajbagh three AK-47 rifles had been recovered. There’s an FIR registered in this regard.
You’ve also said that several police officers having a sound counterinsurgent profile have killed civilians and militants in custody, in fake encounters.

I don’t know anything about this. Such reports are totally false.
Is your informer network still active?

What network, I’m a bed-ridden man eaten away by many ailments and battling with death.
Many counterinsurgents like Kuka Parray and Javed Shah finally ended up in politics. Have you any such ambition?

I don’t have any such ambitions. I’m an Indian, have lived as an Indian and will die as an Indian. I yell out: Hindustan Zindabad, Azad Hindustan Zindabad. I am an Indian mujahid who lived his life as a lion and would die as a lion.
You’re a national hero for India now. Who do you give the credit to for recommending your name for the award?

Former Indian President A P J Abdul Kalam, whose documents are with me, recommended my name for the award. I would rather not show them to you. He’s the one who took me and my wife for the treatment. He has not only assured me of the Padma Shri but of the Gallantry Award as well. The army and the police are working against their salaries. I’ve selflessly worked for my country. They opposed my selection to the award saying I’m a civilian and therefore can’t receive a Gallantry Award. I tell you if I survive, I’ll take that award as well. I’ll meet the President in this regard.
Others who recommended my name include Dr Farooq Abdullah, Minister for Agriculture Ghulam Hassan Mir, MLA Beerwah Mohammad Sarfaraz Khan, former Divisional Commissioner Kashmir Wajahat Habibullah and many others. Hasan Mir’s my close friend. Wajahat is like my brother, and he knows me from the time he was Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir. I often used to visit his Delhi home in Khan Market, especially after he met with an accident in Srinagar. I still remember he had wires tied up all around his jaw to the ear, and I talked to him for three hours. He told his wife to get tea for me. My prayers were answered, he was alright the next morning, and we talked freely. Later on I had lunch there.
You seem to have had close associations with many Indian politicians. You have also said that you had special access to the Governor’s office, the DGP’s office and many other politicians and leaders.

I have had cordial relations with many BJP leaders as well. I had several meetings with the former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his deputy L K Advani. Vajpayee Jee held me in high esteem. I’ve had tea with him in his home. Former BJP president, Dr Harish Vardhan helped me a lot. Former Governor of Goa, Kedar Nath Sahni, called on me when he visited Kashmir. I also share a very amiable rapport with the State BJP president, Chaman Lal Gupta from the time he was MoS Defence. I was very close to the former J&K Governor, G C Saxena and I’ve a letter he wrote to me personally. Former DG Police, J N Saxena who was injured in a bomb blast was close to me. I had a close association with the late Congress leader Rajesh Pilot. He was a top friend, but he’s no more, unfortunately. George Fernandes too was a close friend but he has fallen ill. I’ve enjoyed a great support from a cross section of leadership; however, the response degenerated as conditions improved here.

Don’t you think you have been used against militants?

(Reluctantly opens up). There was a time when they’d not eat without me, but nobody gives a damn now. Given the changed scenario, now I must admit that yes, I was used. I’m at their mercy now, they’ve achieved whatever they wanted to achieve through me. What’s a Padma Shri compared to the services I’ve rendered for my country? I know I’ve to die, and I’m waiting for my death now. There’s a sense of deliberate negligence with regard to my security. For God’s sake, take my voice to the concerned...Take it as the mercy plea of one oppressed.
Are you still on their payroll?

The state government has totally ignored me. I get a regular salary from the Home Ministry.
Now that you say you’ve been used, where does your nomination to Padma Shri place you?

It has put me to a greater risk now. I want to convey it to the Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah and the DG police that there’s a great danger to my life. I’d request them to increase my security or else if they want to leave me to be killed, fine, let them.
The interview has appeared in the March issue of the Conveyor magazinewww.conveyormagazine.com being published for Srinagar, Kashmir.

'Instrument of accession is a flawed document'

2010-02-19T10:08:00.008+05:30

Dr. Abdul Majid Siraj was, in his youth, a soldier for the National Civil Defence in Kashmir and a witness to the events of 1947, including Indian Prime Minister Nehru’s famous and controversial speech. A retired consultant of general surgery with a postgraduate degree in Peace Studies, he has lived in the UK for the last 35 years but has never forgotten the conflicts and injustices that continue to trouble his homeland. He has published three books on the Kashmir dispute, his most recent work being ‘Kashmir Case Law’. The book is an investigation into the universal right to self-determination and the laws that are supposed to uphold it. Dr. Siraj was recently in Srinagar where he shared his views with Conveyor correspondent M Farooq Shah. Excerpts:

You’ve spent three and a half decades in England practicing medicine and yet you decide to write your books about Kashmir. Seems strange, doesn’t it?

There’s nothing strange about it. Every year, I came back to my home country—Kashmir. There was a lot of disillusionment and dismay and I had to come back each time carrying the burden of the travesty of justice there and the injustices that were perpetrated against my countrymen. So I returned with a heavy heart to the United Kingdom and was compelled to try and do something individually. That’s why I started writing.

A great deal has been written on Kashmir over the years as you know. How is your work any different from the information already available on the subject?

I think it’s completely different from what has been written on the subject before. I went through a lot of literature on Kashmir and saw libraries full of books on the history of Kashmir, ancient and present and also on the governance of Kashmir from 1947 to the present. I saw books on travel; on the beauty and scenery of Kashmir. But no book focused on the causes of injustices or the legal basis, due to which calamities have continually befallen the people of Kashmir. No other book I’d come across discussed these vital questions.

What are the areas in your book that you feel are unique and never previously touched on by other writers?

If you collate international law with the genesis of accession of Kashmir to India and the subsequent events, I think no legal basis has been touched upon yet by any book that I’ve come across. I wanted to put the two together: compare international law on inter-state relations and relations of the state with its people, and then see if they fit in with the scenario of Kashmir and explain why Kashmir is suffering.

Your book suggests that the instrument of accession signed by Maharaja, with the dominion of India and its ratification by the Constituent Assembly in 1951, holds no water.

It’s contentious. There are genuine questions asked about the accession deed and as a ploy, the government of India had to constitute a way of validating it by getting the local assembly to ratify it or to reinforce their weak claims. The message of my book is that the instrument of accession is a legally flawed document.

During the tumultuous times of 1947, as a young man you were brandishing a .303 rifle, a soldier for the national civil defence in Kashmir, and on duty while the late prime minister of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru, was addressing Kashmiris in Lal Chowk, promising them the right to self-determination What, for you, was the motivation?

We were only small children at the time, 10 at the most, but we were given training to form a militia so that we could create a civil defence force to guard ourselves and our homes against any potential attack. We had volunteered for it because our family was an ardent supporter of the National Conference and of Sheikh Abdullah.

So you were part of the group whose slogan was, “Hamla Awar Hoshiyar, Hum Kashmiri Hain Tayyar.” [Beware invaders (Pakistani tribesmen), Kashmiris are ready to fight you.]?

That’s right. We were on duty when pandit Nehru was making his speech in a very ambiguous way.

Many believe conspiracies were being hatched even before the British were to leave India. Before the partition of India, Gandhi and some other Hindu leaders mysteriously came here and held secret discussions with the Dogra rulers and the National Conference leaders to chalk out their designs for Kashmir. What are your views on this?

I agree. There have been speculations on that, but you can’t find them in archives because if there is a conspiracy it would never be officially documented. If you put all the facts together it raises many suspicious questions: Gandhi’s presence here; Pandit Nehru’s instructions to Mountbatten to arrest Ram Chand Kak and to release Abdullah, asking red cliff to give the Zera district to India so that they could have a way in; Gandhi instructing people to make certain changes to bridges and roads to Kashmir—all these suggest a conspiracy. Alistair Lamb has further evidence on the matter.

In his book ‘My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir’, former governor Jagmohan states: “Gandhi’s visit to Kashmir in July–August 1947, his meeting with the Maharaja on August 1, dismissal of R C Kak from the office of prime minster on August 10 , release of Sheikh Abdullah on September 29, after tendering ‘unqualified apology’ in his letter of September 26, strengthening of the road link between Pathankot and Jammu, and the scheme to construct a boat bridge over the river Ravi--all would seem to suggest that ground was being prepared for accession of the state to India; at least the possibility was not being ruled out…..” Do you agree with his evaluation?

I’m in complete agreement with what Mr Jagmohan has said about Gandhi and his suspicious visit, though I may not fully agree with everything he has claimed in his book.

Dr. Mustafa Kamal, whom you’ve called ‘Abdullah's beloved son’ in a recent write-up, would have us believe that his father had no role in the signing of accession. What is your personal opinion, being a family friend of Abdullah’s, and possibly knowing better than the most?

I personally feel that Sheikh Abdullah was more or less driven into a position that was perfidious. He was attracted to the idea of a free Kashmir, and even after partition he was still working towards an autonomous Jammu and Kashmir. He’s also supported peoples’ verdict on where they’d like to go after all the dust has settled. He was not an out and out advocate for accession to India and was reluctant on the issue, but because he was under the influence of the congress and government of India, he had no choice but to go along with what was said at that time. The history is evident and it’s on record that India didn’t start with Kashmir as its integral part. That was never claimed even by the government of India.

Given the conversion of the Muslim Conference into the National Conference, his change of attitude after being released and the November 13, 1974 Indira-Abdullah accord—does history not portray Sheikh Abdullah as a villain?

Absolutely. History would portray Sheikh Abdullah in a very negative light. Whatever happened after his release from prison, he was compromised, and that compromise represents a dark area in his political career.

In 2006, Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Anan, described the UN resolutions on Kashmir as irrelevant stressing that until India and Pakistan reached a mutual understanding, they can’t be implemented. Where does this put Kashmir?

Kofi Anan was apparently referring to the absence of agreement between India and Pakistan on the resolutions in question. Under Chapter 7, the United Nations cannot help countries arrive at a decision unless there’s a body of Security Council members who unanimously pass a resolution authorising the UN to act. You’ve to build a consensus among the UN members, motivate countries, preach your case, take my book for example and tell them we’re suffering and there’s a case for us and therefore prove the UN should support us. The cause might then ascend into the Security Council’s resolutions and, if it is not vetoed by Russia or somebody else, and is implemented, might indeed put pressure on India to administer justice here. I’m hopeful someday the people of Kashmir will be motivated to work on a single track. Once that happens they could come out and prove to the world that they have a very valid case.

The 1987 elections—rigging or no rigging— are largely considered as a watershed point which made the uprising against the Indian rule in Kashmir inevitable. Would you agree?

I wouldn’t put it down to the elections at that time. The local politics has not played any role and elections to me are like dead drift wood as I have mentioned in my book. The insurrection took place when the people realised their demands had not been met since 1947. Due to this the uprising was indeed, as you say, inevitable.

Since the mass uprising of the Kashmiris post-1989, developments morphed into a full-scale armed resistance. Many believe it highlighted the ordinary Kashmiris’ standpoint on the very issue. Do you believe it was an incorrect or an uncalled for intervention?

Armed resistance or guerrilla warfare is not seen as an illegal act before the international community. You’ll find all countries that achieved nationhood—Namibia, Algeria, Swapo, Kosovo etc—had armed guerrilla groups fighting for independence. Armed resistance, therefore, is quite legal.

The armed resistance quickly disintegrated into a confusing discord with each group claiming its share in the polity. What’s your evaluation of this outcome?

Very unfortunate, I should say. That’s where it fizzled out but that may have been the design by the administration. They provoked discord in the ranks and got them to fight with each other.

The emergence of the Hurriyat Conference was an entirely new development after the pro-Indian politicians disappeared from the scene during this period. How do you view their credibility as a representation of the public sentiment?

It was a good attempt. In the absence of a single leader spearheading the popular movement, Hurriyat’s the point of salvage for the people of Kashmir; imagine there was no Hurriyat, what would be the state of the resistance movement? You’d have a vacuum.

The Hurriyat Conference split into as many fragments as it was composed of, leaving Kashmiris without any true representation. Is there any hope?

Very true. If there was a single leader who was able to motivate them all in one direction, that would be ideal and would lead to a situation like that of Cuba. One leader takes a nation all the way—to success. At the moment, we’re living in a vacuum, but whatever we have; we’ve to catch hold of it like a drowning man would a straw.

Many believe Indian intelligence agencies engineered the split in the Hurriyat Conference. Could the Kashmiri Diaspora living abroad not take the reins into their hands?

The Kashmiri Diaspora living abroad is doing its bit but can’t lead a country while living in different parts of the world. You need a leader at the epicentre of the conflict.

Individuals and groups have emerged in large numbers in the US and Europe, claiming to champion the cause of Kashmir. Do they serve the Kashmiris’ cause?

Honestly, I’ve never investigated that aspect because it doesn’t bother me. I don’t point fingers at people if I see them going in what I see to be the right direction. Even if they speak before the British Parliamentarians or before the Congress people in America, whatever they do in their affiliations with India, Pakistan or Indian intelligence doesn’t bother me as long as they don’t cross a limit: as long as they remain fully dedicated to their work. These people—Tramboo, Fayaz Shawl, and Fai—spend a lot of money attracting influential people to lobby the cause. They’re fully dedicated to their political work. The Congressmen in America will say, ‘Come on, we speak for you, how much do you pay?’ The more you pay, the more they speak for you. They treat the other parties they speak for the same. Obviously, I don’t know who pays them; it’s not an open secret. But nobody pays me, I can tell you that. (Breaks into laughter)

On the contrary, are Kashmiri Pandits not seemingly more organised and at times creating a mountain out of a molehill?

There’s a discord within the Kashmiri Pandit community as well. There’s a camp whose aims are close to the Kashmiri political movement, while the others are acting for the Indian administration and trying to play their part. It’s a minority, you see, and it’s relatively easy to a forge a unity between them.

The European Union which was also supportive of Kashmir’s cause in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people seems to have taken a U-turn on its earlier policies. Is Kashmir’s a diplomatic failure?

There was one person, Emma Nicholson, who came here from the EU and took a U-turn on Kashmir, but we’ve unqualified support from the majority of the members of the European Union. I must tell you, they’re in support of the people of Kashmir rather than the Indian claim, though more lobbying and work in that direction is needed.

The buzzword for the government of India right now is ‘quiet diplomacy’, without actually reviewing its arbitrary constitutional position on Kashmir. How do you view it?

I think ‘quiet diplomacy’ or ‘quiet dialogue’ sound to me a kind of warning for the people not to expect too much from this process. If there are issues about Kashmir, they’re open to the world. The negotiations should not be held in a furtive manner, there’s no need for that. Whether Hurriyat should go for it or not, I’d suggest not leaving any avenue untouched, try to not commit to anything. Let them go and hear what the Indian government have to say, and obviously then they should come back and tell the people that they tried quiet diplomacy and all the government did was order them to sign on a piece of blank paper, which on behalf of the people they refused to do.

In a recent presentation you remarked that Kashmir has not had peaceful governance which makes the Kashmiri case for plebiscite stronger. Conversely, do you believe that good governance can be an alternative to plebiscite?

I was only trying to explain an avenue of International Law which says if you’ve a record of good governance for a long period of time wherein people are happy and enjoying their full rights, there’s no cause for self-determination because people wouldn’t ask for it in the first place.

Assuming the government of India accedes to your terms—good governance, return of assets and the right to a dignified life—would you desist from asking for your right to self determination?

I’d be happy to say that I could live contently if my life’s secure, if my career’s secure, if my children’s careers are secure, if I’m not repressed, if all my assets have been restored to me, all the forests have been restored to me, all the energy, water and everything in Jammu and Kashmir are restored to me. If I’ve been given back my historic entitlement to all my territories, and all these parts put together, and then there’s the like of India or Pakistan or anybody else to have an affliction with, I would not request self-determination. That affiliation will be on the basis of equity, complete respect for each other as two partners, and under those circumstances I could say: all right India, you’re one person and I’m another, and we can shake hands.

The interview appeared in the February issue of the Conveyor magazine,www.conveyormagazine.com, being published from Srinagar Kashmir

Probe Sex scandal to the last decimal: Justice B A Kirmani

2009-12-21T23:52:00.003+05:30

Justice retired Bashir Ahmad Kirmani, who passed a landmark judgement in the infamous 2006 sex scandal involving the forced prostitution of Kashmiri girls by some pro-India politicians, bureaucrats, top brass of the police and paramilitary troops, says that the ground for conviction for those figuring in the list is already prepared to the last man involved in the crime. “Those who take salutes in parades, rub shoulders with the dignitaries and swear by the constitution during day time, “ he says, “can’t be expected or allowed to go otherwise during darkness of the night.” He spoke to the Conveyor correspondent, M Farooq Shah. Excerpts:

Many view the judicial system of Kashmir a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and the judiciary.
In institutional sense, no, though individual instances cannot be ruled out. Personally, I’ve never experienced anything of this sort. One aspect of course is that ours is a closely-knit society and people happen to know each other so there’s is this ‘sifarish’ part-- a salient feature of our society. That sort of thing can happen but it invariably depends upon the judge who has to ensure that he’s not influenced.

It is believed that you were very keen to have the sex accused exposed before the public.
The whole story of the case is in the judgement. Somewhere in 2006, I noticed certain news items appearing in a section of the press, which were quite frightening. It had been very clearly reported that minor girls were being exploited by some people in power. Concerned about the gravity of the matter, I took cognizance and initiated so motto proceedings. Simultaneously, the High Court Bar Association filed a writ petition in the matter, which was treated a Public Interest Litigation and referred to a division bench. We asked the government to give us a status report as to what has been done and what was happening. The police also had conducted an inquiry into the matter and my impression is that had that inquiry reached its logical end, the case might not have attained that proportion which it later appeared to have.
But somehow that investigation did not conclude and we had to ask the CBI to step in. Government also passed an order. They referred the matter to the CBI and it took over. Then for around one year, we monitored the proceedings. In between a Special Leave Petition was preferred in the Supreme Court also but the order under challenge was kept intact, though they interpret it a little differently. Ultimately when CBI said they’ve concluded, we passed judgements in the matter. As per my judgement, those who were talked about against whom evidence came in the matter could be divided into three categories: First against whom there was enough material on record to direct taking of cognizance by a magistrate. Second against whom evidence or material on record was not enough to justify a direction for taking cognizance—but since there was material against them on record, they were named with a direction for further investigation against them. Third those whose names had been mentioned but material against them was not enough to name them in the judgement, so naming them would have not been apt. However, a fresh investigation was ordered against them. I mentioned the names of victims and victims who had to be re-examined for further investigation also.

The judgement copy of 8/10/2007 reads: The traders of flesh trade have to be brought to account, irrespective of their placement and position for which the Court cannot avoid indulgence. No body has been brought to book?
Perhaps the reason is the matter is pending before full bench of the court, unless they say something, it would not be possible for the agencies to follow up, though I personally feel that for settled parts of the judgement and un-assailed directions, there was no reason not to act, technically or otherwise.

At a recent meeting in University of Kashmir, you were quoted as saying: “For its own survival, the government hushed up the sex scandal.”
Perhaps the words used have not been reflected correctly, I said it involved people in and outside government, wanted the matter to be hushed up for their survival. It is my clear impression about the matter.

Why was the case handed over to the CBI?
As I said, local police had conducted investigation up to a particular level but somehow that could not reach its logical conclusion. There was a general public cry in the entire valley, so the government in order to measure up to situation referred the matter to CBI and that they wanted a comprehensive investigation into the matter.

Within the first three months of its investigation, the CBI had arrested two sitting legislators who had been former ministers, a DIG of the BSF, an IAS officer, a former additional Advocate General of the state and two Dy. SPs of the JKP. It was right on course, wasn’t it?
During first part, the speed of investigation was definitely better than later. When magnitude of the case expanded, the speed slowed down.

Many Kashmiris believe that the CBI quickly lost interest in the case because of its implications on the larger politics as culprits represented the Indian State in Kashmir?
I can’t comment on that. My impression is that the CBI did take off perfectly well but as I said, when the area that the case covered started expanding, the investigation automatically got diluted. Still then, I was not, as per my judgement, fully satisfied with the pace and the quality of CBI investigation.

The final report of the CBI had 18 persons though a 3rd list of the accused containing names from outside the state also, was never processed and as such scores of bigwigs involved in the scandal may have been let off.
I think that part of the story should be left with the full bench to deal with where the matter is pending.

The Court named the then Transport Minister Hakeem Yaseen, MLAs Ghulam Hassan Khan and Yogesh Sawnhey, DGP-rank officer Rajinder Tikoo, senior IPS officers Ashkoor Wani, Niyaz Mahmood and Shiekh Mahmood, former J&K Bank chairman Muhammad Yousuf Khan and owner of Hotel Broadway, Amit Amla. It is regarding these persons only that the CBI’s opinion of deficiency of evidence for letting them off had to be securitized. That never happened though?
That part of the case, I think, would be looked into by the full bench because this is one of the important aspects of the judgement I have delivered. I’ve also tried to suggest what shortcomings the investigations suffered in that behalf. The judgement is before the full bench and things may proceed from there on wards.

Why could you not arrive at a single judgement with your colleague, Justice Hakim Imtiyaz? It was sort of a split judgement, wasn’t it?
It was not a spilt judgement at all as there was no disagreement with the opinions expressed. Approach towards the use of case diaries and direction part differed. While I asked the CJM to take cognizance against the first category, directed further investigation into the second and reinvestigation into the third, the other honourable judge said that the entire material should be placed before the CJM to examine the material and then take an opinion on that.

How do you view the ruckus that the sex scandal created in the assembly after the former Deputy CM Muzaff Hussain Beigh’s levelled allegations against the chief minister Omar Abdullah and the patron of the National Conference Dr Farooq Abdullah?
Proceedings in the Legislative Assembly depend on how the worthy members view and react to various matters. It is not within my province to comment upon that. Legislative Assembly is their arena and there are rules by which they’re required to go. Whether they did or did not follow the rules, is for the speaker to decide. That part needs to be left to them.

The PDP has been demanding a fresh investigation into the sex scandal. How do view it’s role in dealing with the scandal when it was in power?
That was not my subject at all. I had nothing to do with who played what role. My knowledge about the case is based on the case diaries maintained by local police and the CBI. Local police diary has around 600 pages and that of CBI, 7000 pages comprising about 19 volumes. After going through all these case diaries, I arrived at certain conclusions. Who acted how, was relevant to me only in order to come to right conclusions in so far as the questions or circumstances under investigation were concerned. Performance of the government or any body from the government was not my concern at all. Demanding fresh investigation may be a view of the matter.

The Court observed that the occurrences reported are so horrifying that even a fraction only thereof would be a complete horror in itself. Under such circumstances, do you deem it proper that the case should be unearthed to the last man involved in the scandal? What would be its social implications?
I’d say an unqualified yes to that because the people, who ultimately surfaced as mentioned in my judgement, all happen to be high positions, enjoying all the amenities and conveniences of power. The matter has to be and must be probed to the last decimal. You see, you may tolerate a criminal committing a crime but you cannot tolerate a policeman committing a crime in uniform. You can tolerate an outlaw trying to subvert the system from outside but you cannot tolerate an insider subverting it from within by his commissions and omissions. Take the case of an officer of police or civil servant or a cabinet minister-- they’re keepers of the whole system and hold positions on which the whole edifice rests. In day time, they take salutes in parades, rub shoulders with the dignitaries and swear by the constitution, they can’t be expected or allowed to go otherwise during darkness of the night. If that happens, then society must stand up, take a strong note and act. On behalf of the society, the judiciary, the investigation authorities and the administration, must satisfy demands of the situation and if they do not, they will be failing themselves.
Moreover, if the society we’re living in is a healthy one, the implications would definitely be self-search and attempt to see what the reasons are, how did things come to that pass and attempt to initiate remedial measures. On the other hand, if it is diseased, then the entire social system suffers.

What legal significance does the case hold now? Should Kashmir forget about it altogether?
Legally the case is alive in all aspects. Forgetting it is anti-social. People can’t forget it, I’d rather say they should rather remember it, draw lessons and try to assess the rot that has stemmed into the social fibre and then take necessary measures to prevent it.

How far was it justified to hand over the Shopian rape and murder case to the CBI, knowing that their role was lackadaisical in handling the sex scandal?
At the stage and in circumstances it was done, it appeared to be right. The problem with Shopian is that it was mishandled at almost all levels by all concerned. Whenever a criminal offence takes place, it exclusively belongs to the realm of investigation and not to or political shadowboxing. In given scenario, the government was left with no option but to call in the CBI, especially when local police had reportedly denied to even registering an FIR. Something wrong with samples taken was also reported. I feel Shopian has become a difficult matter.

The interview was published in the December issue of the Conveyor magazine. Log on to www.conveyormagazine.com

'Taliban make only one per cent of Pak population’

2009-11-04T20:46:00.004+05:30

London-based artist of Pakistani origin, Mushaal Hussain Mullick stunned one and all by her decision to marry former militant leader Yasin Malik who heads a faction of JKLF, an organisation campaigning for the independence of Kashmir from

India

. An artist of international repute and a prestigious London School of Economics student, Mushaal has temporarily moved to Kashmir after her marriage. She is currently putting up with her in-laws at Maisuma, a congested locality in the heart of the Srinagar city known only for anti-India protests and clashes. Mushaal says she has given up her lifestyle to adjust “with my brave and fearless husband.” She says her art has been widely appreciated and accepted both in and outside

Pakistan

though she calls some areas in

Pakistan

as ‘black’ where Taliban have a presence. Not interested in politics, Mushaal plans to work for orphans through her art and wishes to put up permanently in Kashmir after finishing her studies, should she get a visa of a longer duration. She talked to Conveyor correspondent M Farooq Shah at her husband’s residence in Maisuma. Excerpts:

You’re being described as ‘girl with a golden brush’. Tell us something about the girl behind the brush?

I come from an intellectual family, my dad was a professor of Economics and my mom was in politics. I learnt a lot from my dad because he always encouraged us to debate on the issues of social and political importance and he wanted our suggestions even at the age of nine or ten. He’d ask us how you’d solve a problem if you’re given a chance and he’d explain the whole situation and then he’d leave it to us. He’d throw different magazines at us like Fortune, Economist and Time and ask us to review some articles on them and give summery on them. So it’s like I come from a background that’s like highly educated. When I was born, my dad took me to the library because he wanted that I should get the germs of a professor’s daughter and I should be absorbed in the library. My mom was very vocal and independent woman and she did a lot of social work. I got that instinct in me through my mom.

I was always fascinated by greenery, scenery and beautiful and stylish women, and I wanted to capture it in some way. I don’t know when I started to paint but I think I was just three or four when I started scribbling on the paper. It is my fascination for everything that is beautiful and that has inspired me to draw.

When did you pick up the first brush? What did you paint and when did it appear to you that you’re beginning to make a mark in this field of art?

I think that was the age of five or six. I was crazy about painting. I’d lock myself in the art room when I was a small kindergarten class one student. I’d just not get out of the room and my other classes used to start so my teachers used to push me out of the art room because I was so much into it and I’d start crying. I don’t know what exactly I painted for the first time, may be I just scribbled the first time over but I remember I drew a house and that was like when I was four and a half. I started drawing faces and portraits when I was six.

You’re a B.Sc. Honours student from the prestigious London School of Economics and a painter as well. Who should you like to be identified with?

Both. Art is a passion and so is Economics. Economics I think I got in my genes through my dad because he was an economist and I grew up listening about economics, budget sessions, recessions, booms and everything, so by the time I got into economics, I knew lot about it.

You’ve said that your inspiration stems from the ‘raw beauty of the feminine mystique’ and the ‘horrors of abject poverty’. How did it occur to you?

It was during my O-level exams that I had decided my theme. We were given a free choice to decide if we wanted to concentrate on Leonardo, Rafael or any big artist like Picasso and study them and what kind of impact do they have on our life. I was like why just you need it to an artist when the biggest artist is God. I’m inspired by the creations of God. I think the greatest artist is God. I just left it that way and that is when I started studying human nature through my paintings and I started making animals. I was more into figure drawing and portraits more than landscapes.

Your works such as a ‘rose that left a thorn behind’ and ‘forgotten love’ have widely been hailed in the West. What do such works explain?

Such works simply explain the hidden beauty of a woman. Women should not be ashamed of being women that the way they’re suppressed in the world. There’s no harm in a woman being free. So it has to with their freedom also, their freedom of expression. This is may be a way of expressing freedom. My art is not like a dictation to anyone. You’re free to understand it in your way. You can perceive it in a different way and I can perceive my paintings in a different way. In my paintings all woman are beautiful, they’ve all kinds of fears in them and they should get rid of those fears and that’s the kind of opinion I had because they’re the most beautiful creation of God on this earth. Moreover, the works such as the ‘rose that left a thorn behind’ are a subtle reflection of my brother’s poetry. I’m greatly influenced by the Sufi saints like Rumi and artists like Picaso, besides the poetry of Oscar Wilde and the works of Khalil Jibran.

You’ve held several exhibitions all over the world including

Pakistan

. What has been the response towards your art especially in a conservative society as that of

Pakistan

The response has been overwhelming, my teachers etc, they were always encouraging me to go ahead in this. I had my first exhibition when I was seven and I won an award then. When you go to see a painting, you go with an open mind. Art is an expression of freedom and if you dictate someone’s art, that’s not art. I don’t do it for commercial purposes though I’ve sold a few of them. The rest I’ve done for social work.

Your works may not seem controversial in the West, but in

Pakistan

where militants have bombed girls' schools, murdered dancing girls, and destroyed music and video shops, they are simply explosive. Do you think about that while you paint?

I’m completely liberated when I’m painting and that’s just one percent of the population of

Pakistan

. Talibanisation is something which has been in some areas of Swat, Balochistan or NWFP but in a very little percent. The people don’t support them. I come from a society which is not that narrow and there’re certain black areas of the society as well but they’ve never harmed me. I don’t like taking dictation from anyone and that’s not the kind of Islam I believe in. I believe in a liberal Islam. I’m not a Taliban or anything else. The Mughuls brought murals and figure drawing to the subcontinent. We brought art to the subcontinent. They were also Muslims, if they were not Talibans. You can’t just limit it to them that that’s what

Pakistan

is. There’re a lot of good artists there and we’ve a lot of freedom of expression there.

Your decision to marry the Kashmiri militant leader Yasin Malik stunned one and all. How did it happen?

Shaudhary Shujaat who was heading the PML (Q) had invited Kashmir leaders on lunch at Punjab House where I heard his speech. I was there with my mom. I couldn’t see his face at that time because it was crowded, so I could just hear him talk. When he was expressing his views on Kashmir, he said some poetry. That had an impact on me because our politicians there don’t use poetry when they’re talking to public or in a gathering and I felt that this man is emotional and I wanted to meet him after the function. My mom introduced me to him. Because she’s in politics, she invited him to a forum and asked him to discuss his point of view on Kashmir. But he said that he was on an official tour and instead invited us to his signature campaign exhibition the following week.

The exhibition happened and my mom had a chit-chat with him about Kashmir there and before he was leaving for Kashmir he called up and proposed his intentions on telephone. We chatted on internet and got to know each other. Then my mom saw his mother during the Hajj that year. It took around three years for this whole to happen. Then he met my brother twice in

America

. So it had to become a family kind of thing because everyone had to be satisfied.

You’re 23 and Mr Yasin Malik, 43 and on top of it he’s a former militant leader.

Yes I studied about his life and he explained to me that he has a mud house and lives a very simple life. We talked about it because I come from a different background. He said that I’m not going to lie to you and it is not going to be a bed of roses for you. He said it is always going to be full of challenges, I can be arrested and all. So I took my time and I studied. Then I was like his goal is so big that these materialistic things become small and minor. I was like one should go beyond this, so take the challenge.

Was it a difficult choice?

Yes naturally, it was. I was hesitant in the beginning. It was difficult in the sense that when a man has such a huge challenge, then he has huge enemies as well. It is a controversial life. But there’s a high to it that you’re marrying a very brave man who’s not scared and who’s completely fearless.

While making a decision about Yasin Malik, did it ever occur to you that he would be jailed for ever?

This is like one day before our engagement he got arrested and he said that he would be arrested for two years. I was aware of everything. I’d been reading about him and I just left it total to God because I respected him and I believed in him that he has a name and I prayed for him. I thought that I could be a good life partner to him.

Government of

India

can lay hands on him any time, reopen the cases against him and he could even face a death sentence for his involvement in militancy related incidents?

Then you pay a price for falling in love. You’ve prove that you’re in love.

Many believe that your marriage with Yasin is politically motivated and that Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies are behind it.

Totally rubbish. It was a completely personal affair between two families, getting to know each other and then finally deciding of tying the knot. It had no involvement of any political or intelligence agency whatsoever.

You’ve been in the valley for more than a month now. What has been your experience so far? Do you plan to stay put here permanently?

Overwhelming I should say. It’s like countless love, complete awe of the people and the beauty of this place. I’m awestruck. I’ve been going to different places here. I’m a spiritual person as well and I want to go to such spiritual shrines because it gives me inner satisfaction. He’s (Yasin Malik) the same and we’ve lot in common. We’re like we’d go on a spiritual tour as well. As for staying put here, I’m studying at the moment. When I’m done with my studies then I’ll decide on this. It’ll also depend on the visa probability. In case I get a longer visa, I’d very much like to stay here.

You belong to a sophisticated family in

Pakistan

. How have you adjusted in the small, noisy and congested house of Mr Malik?

I don’t know, even I’m surprised. I’ve adjusted here even more than I’ve adjusted in my own home. I’m so comfortable here. I came with an open mind without any expectations that I’m going to adjust here and I’m going to prove it everyone. I like this guy and it’s my family’s honour and his family’s very loving. I’ve given up my lifestyle to adjust with him. Lot of people had this problem that I won’t be able to adjust here but I’ve. I’m comfortable with their food, their dressing. I wear Phirans all the time; I’m in love with them. I like the noise in the streets, the people crying all over, kissing my hand and feet. They’re literally happy because they’ve not seen happiness in years. That really moved me.

Notwithstanding the rousing welcome that you received here on your arrival, many argue that separatists in Kashmir have chosen to live a lavish lifestyle and your husband, in particular, has been in the eye of a storm since your marriage. The criticism isn’t all together uncalled for, is it?

He’s living in a mud house and he doesn’t own a small car even. Can anyone explain what kind of a lavish lifestyle he’s leading? I know him; he’s like a gypsy, a jogi kind of person.

Pakistan

's stand on Kashmir is that the Indian administered side too should ultimately accede to

Pakistan

. How do you view that stand?

I think Kashmiris should be involved in the peace process and then they should decide on the table what to do.

Do you plan to contribute to the Kashmir cause in any way say through your art etc?

I’m already contributing, doing my social work. I’ve contribute during the earthquake in Azad Kashmir. I’d like to work here, donate my paintings, and work for the orphans here. I’m, however, not inclined to politics and I’d not like to get involved in any such kind of thing.

The interview appeared in the November issue of the Conveyor magazine. www.conveyormagazine.com

Jeene Ki Tamana Say Marne Ke Iraade Tak

2009-09-06T10:45:00.006+05:30

A personification of grace and talent, Waheeda Rehman, reigned supreme over Indian filmdom for three long decades. She was the quintessence of classic Muslim beauty with a truly transcendental appeal. Age has not dimmed her aura: the brilliance in her eyes and the attractive smile she wears across her lips have survived the ravages of time. Born on May 14, 1936, in Hyderabad, Waheeda Rehman made her debut in a Telugu film when she was just 13. During her stardom she used to frequent Kashmir on her filming assignments, and today she is here after a gap of 26 years. Kashmir has always been on her mind since her last visit, the versatile actress says in an exclusive conversation with Kashmir Observer chief correspondent M Farooq Shah.

FAROOQ SHAH: You've said that you've visited Kashmir around 26 years before. Do you feel any difference between 'the Kashmir then' and 'the Kashmir now'?

WAHEEDA REHMAN: Kashmir used to be the favorite shooting spot for all Indian filmmakers in 50's, 60's and 70's and we've always loved to be here. I'm a little disheartened to see the condition of the Dal Lake, whose waters used to be crystal clear. Encroachments all along Dal, too many people and lack of hygiene among the people have spoiled my mood. The silver lining, however, is that normalcy is returning to Kashmir, which could be a harbinger of a new era for the people of the valley.

FS: How would you compare your times with the present, given the fact that a lot of indecency, vulgarity and obscenity have crept in to the Indian movies?

WR: Ours was the golden period of Indian cinema. There has been a strange change the world over with a sharp decline in morality. Indian cinema, too, has been overwhelmed by this change. I particularly get cheesed off on remixes wherein something else plays in the background and something else is being shown. I personally don't like that at all. Whatever's is happening in the film industry today can never be regarded as good film making.

FS: Have you ever been invited to hold some position on the censor board to have some real scissoring done on the tape?

WR: I've never held any position on the censor board.

FS: In your times, films were replete with good lyrics, good music and good themes. That seems to have vanished into thin air.

WR: In our times, love stories were being made abundantly which had good lyrics. The new trend, with the emphasis on violence, has marred the poetry as well. Moreover, Urdu speaking people have dwindled over a period of time, therefore the decay and decline in the lyrics.

FS: If you were to rank three of your films, which would you name as first, second and third?

WR: Guide is the crowning glory, followed by Mujhe Jeenay Do and Khamoshi.

FS: Have you said adieu to films?

WR: I wish I could. I get occasional offers to work, and having spent so much time in the industry, I can't muster the courage to say 'No' to them. I've recently worked in a film Om Jai Jagdish directed by Mr. Anupam Kher. Right now, I'm busy with another film with Girish Karnad.

FS: Apart from films, which you've said you do occasionally now, what're your other engagements that keep you busy?

WR: I'm working with a charity by the name Pratham. It looks after the underprivileged and less fortunate, especially to cater to their educational needs. Pratham means the first thing and education should be the first thing on one's mind.

FS: Tell us something about your family. Are your children too working in films?

WR: I've a son, Suhail who's done his MBA and works for a private company and a daughter Kashvi who is a jewelry designer.

FS: If you were to wish for one single thing , what would you ask for?

WR: I would definitely wish that peace returned to Kashmir as soon as it can. I'd like Kashmir to thrive the way it used to a long time ago.

FS: You've worked with a number of stars of the yesteryears, such as Guru Dutt, Raj Kapoor, Rehman, Mehmood and several others, who've left us for good. Do you miss them?

WR: It tears me apart to see people I have worked with leaving one after the other. You see, Mr. Sunil Dutt passed away recently. Sometimes a strange silence takes over whenever I think about them, and then it all appears to have been a dream. I think it's my turn now.

(The interview appeared in Kashmir Observer)

‘I want pride of Kashmir to be restored’

2009-07-13T08:53:00.001+05:30

Prof Rahman Rahi is the only Kashmiri writer to be awarded Jnanpith,

India

’s highest literary award. He describes the honour as recognition to the identity of the people of Kashmir and their language, but says a cruel treatment is being meted out to the Kashmiris, blaming

India

Pakistan

and

China

for the confusion. Urging to fight against those who plot against the history of Kashmir, the 84-year-old Rahi says it is the language that should determine the course, for he believes if the language is taken away, the political independence would mean nothing. He says Kashmir wasn’t a state as one sees it today but a sovereign country which has been destroyed and enslaved since the invasion of Mughals. He spoke to M Farooq Shah at his Vichar Nag residence. Excerpts:

●You took a lofty plunge from a lowly clerical job in the Public Works Department into the field of literature and poetry. How did it come to you that you could make a mark in the field?

The plunge you’re referring to was not sudden. I had developed the passion for writing much before I took the clerical job in the PWD which I think lasted for 3 or 4 months only. However, I developed interest in the poetry during my childhood days while attending to various musical functions held at marriages and other auspicious occasions. Moreover, I used to borrow books from a bookseller in our neighborhood and gradually became a serious reader. This gave me the opportunity to lay my hands on as many books as I could and that broadened my horizon in more way than one.

●Why did you choose Kashmiri as medium of expression?

Amid the Urdu language dominating the cultural aspect of Kashmir, I initially began to write in my mother tongue only to realize that there were a few takers for it and I quickly switched over to the Urdu medium. It happened after I wrote a letter to Maulana Muhammad Syed Masaudi, patron of the Urdu newspaper, Khidmat which was the official mouthpiece of the congress party, about my interest in literature and poetry. He responded with an offer of the position of subeditor in the newspaper. I left the clerical job and grabbed his offer with both hands. Apart from the subbing job, I began to write on various issues with striking regularity. It was after the publication of the article, ‘Criticizing Marxism’, when a group of young men from the Progressive Writers Association, a party influenced by Communism, approached me. They said to me that you belonged to us and I joined the Association. However, I would find it awkward that my poetry was ignored while my colleagues like Dina Nath Nadim would get huge appreciation. This forced me to write in Kashmiri language.

●This was around the time when the political temperatures in the subcontinent were running exceedingly high. You’re a living witness to that bloodshed and massacre that followed the fall of British colonialism and

India

’s partition. Do your writings reflect that suffering?

Whatever happened after

India

’s independence, especially with reference to Kashmir, is conspicuously visible in my earlier writings which appeared in the form of the booklets, San’woun Saaz, Subhuk Sou’da, Kalaame Rahi and most importantly, Nau’roze Sabah.

●In case of Kashmir, many attribute the change as ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’. In the new political order, Kashmir lost its sovereign character pushing Kashmiris into a deep blind well without a vent.

Indians were fighting against the British rule but Kashmiris were striving for freedom from the autocratic rule imposed by the maharaja. Sardar Ja’afri, Faiz Ahmad Faiz and many other poets had questioned the freedom of India saying, Yeh Dag Dag Ujala, Yeh Shab Guzeda Sehar, Jiska Intizar Tha Hamei, Yeh Woh Sehar Tau Nahin (This blemished brightness, this dawn torn apart by the night, this is not the dawn we had been waiting for). Similarly, we felt that while some form of internal autonomy was given to Kashmir after the maharaja’s departure, it was not the freedom we had been yearning for. It is abundantly visible in the Kashmiri poetry. Dina Nath Nadim, Noor Muhammad Roshan, Abdul Ahad Azad, Mirza Arif, Mehjoor and several other poets have written about the changes that occurred during the various phases of Kashmir struggle and reflected the pain and suffering of the masses.

●Why did Kashmiris take to arms in 1989 against their reputation of being docile and nonviolent?

There’re several reasons to it and I think the persons actively engaged in it on daily basis are in a much better position to answer it. But I would say, whenever anyone used to write against the autocratic rule of the Dogras, he was well informed that Kashmir had a rich history of 5000 years at its back. Mehjoor wrote: “I was not the same before-- frail and enslaved-- but I wielded authority. Din Ga’weahi Mae’ne Kaene Yem Prae’ne Kaene Dae’waar Mea’ne (The remnants of the stone walls would speak for me.)”

By 1989, a common man had come to understand that he continued to be enslaved and was denied the freedom he was looking for. It occurred to him that he should put his word across a more vociferously.

●In a meeting at the State Cultural Academy, you read a poem: Yea’m Gayyea Ahensaye Avtaar, Te’a Aes Gayye Dah’shat Gard…Nishat Mou’rukh, Shal’maer Mou’rukh…Imam Mou’rukh, Hasaam Mou’rukh, Yea’me As’weane Shahrukh Subuho Shaam Mourukh… (They call themselves as nonviolent gods and call us terrorists… They killed the Nishat and the Shalimar; the Imam, the Hasaam; the morning and the evening of this smiling city…)

[Doesn’t answer the question and requests to switch off the device.]

●Tell us something about the book, Siyah Roude Jaren Manz (Under the dark downpour).

It begins with a poem on Kashmiri language apart from several others I have written over a period of time. I should say the freedom of Kashmir we’re talking about is meaningless unless it rested on the language of the masses here. Kashmiri is a compelling language and has a great potential. Unfortunately, the power that this language wields has not been discovered. Language holds the key if Kashmiris want to regain their lost glory and ascertain their existence.

●What does Jnanpith award mean to you?

This award is given away in recognition to the contribution made to the Indian literature. I was immensely delighted to see my name chosen for the award. It is not only the recognition to me as a poet but to the Kashmiri language also which was being looked down upon.

●You’re talking about pride of Kashmiris. The great Indian author, Arundhati Roy, denied the Sahatiya Academy Award in 2005 in protest against what she described as ‘undemocratic policies of the Indian government in controlling and administering Kashmir.’ Did it occur to you as well?

No, it did not. On the contrary, the ward gave recognition to me and my language and to my countrymen as well who speak this language. It gave them their national pride with which they can move forward and can tell everyone that they’re no ordinary folks. It was an admission by

India

that Kashmiris are a great nation with a rich literature.

●You’re known for the poem, Zinde Rouze Baapat Chhe Maraan Loukh, Tse Marakh na…Loute Paeth Cheakha Peyaale Ke’ho Uff Te Karakh Na…(People prefer to die to live …would you silently drink this potion and not say a word…)

I’m of the opinion that Kashmiris are not well acquainted with their patriotic sense and when I say that, I don’t count the days from Badshah alone. Once that sense awakens within them, their struggle would get a direction. We’re being meted out a cruel treatment and our identity is being denied. It is not only

India

, but

Pakistan

and

China

as well which have given rise to this confusion. The poem addresses that issue.

●Would you attribute the 1989 outburst to this poem?

Certainly, could very well be. Apart from many other things, people thought this poem aptly described their predicament because it carried their sentiment.

●You’re a strong advocate of the restitution of historical position to Kashmir.

Kashmir wasn’t a state as you see it today but a sovereign country which has been destroyed and enslaved since the invasion of Mughals. I’m not talking about the country of an ordinary Kashmiri but of the Kashmir of the great Mehjoor. Resultantly, movements of liberation from the slavery gained momentum from time to time. I’m of the opinion that the rich history of Kashmir spanning 5000 years be accepted and the pride of Kashmir be restored by whatever means.

●But that history is being distorted, misrepresented.

It is the duty of Kashmiris to fight against any such plot aimed at distorting his history. A common Kashmiri is continuing his fight on various levels, be it poetry, intellectual or practical. However, in his fight, he should bear in mind that his language is paramount to him. If the language is taken away from him, he will cease to exist even if he is politically independent.

●Over these years of conflict, people from outside came here and began to teach Kashmiris different versions of Kashmiriyat.

We’ve been taken for a ride while being called as people of the land of Reshis like Sheikh-ul-Alam and Lalladed. In the process, we’re asked to abandon the world and resign ourselves to God. The objective was to exploit this nation, de-link Kashmiris from their struggle of survival and push them into a den. In my essays, I have written that Kashmriyat has been abused and turned into a political slogan.

[The interview appeared in the July issue of Conveyor, www.conveyormagazine.com]

Kashmir Issue should not be distorted by party political vote: Emma Nicholson

2008-12-23T21:38:00.003+05:30

Baroness Emma Nicholson, the EU special rapporteur on Kashmir, says that her report, "Kashmir—present status and its future prospectus," fully supports the peace process between India and Pakistan. After coming under heavy fire during a debate at the EP's Foreign Affairs Committee in January, the report was adopted with an overwhelming sixty to one vote on March 21, however, many European parliamentarians have vowed that they would seek more changes to report before it is presented to the plenary of the European Parliament in May this year.
In a wide ranging interview with Kashmir Observer's M. Farooq Shah, Emma reflected on the success of her report, refuted the accusations levelled against her, and commented on the role of the European Union in resolving the fifty-nine-year-old conflict she describes a tragedy.

Excerpts of the Interview:

Farooq Shah: Sixty in favour, one against—you must be extremely happy about this outcome. Did you expect that the amended report would be adopted with such a huge margin?

Emma Nicholson: I am delighted and satisfied by the massive majority in favour of my report on Kashmir of sixty colleagues in favour and only one against. I am very grateful to all my colleagues from all sides of the House who supported and helped me in the very difficult subject of the present status of Kashmir and its future prospects. I had confidence that my draft report would gain a large majority, but I did not quite realise the strength of feeling which made it overwhelming.

FS: There are some sections in the draft report that have been strengthened; similarly 28 compromise amendments have been accepted. Could you outline those?

EN: I am delighted that the draft report has been strengthened by the addition of twenty eight compromise amendments that I and the shadow rapporteurs carefully worked out in accordance with Foreign Affairs Committee colleagues' requested amendments. I should add that the European Parliament system differs completely from other parliamentary systems in that it is cooperative and based on compromise rather than adversarial and winner takes all. A fully successful final report (and we have not yet reached that stage with the Kashmir report) will contain thoughts and ideas from the widest possible variety of European parliament colleagues from the twenty seven Member States of the European Union. The word "compromise" is therefore an indicator of success since in the EU as a whole we have built our system upon voluntary agreement bringing together the widest possible selection of views to create what we call a "common position". In contrast, the adversarial system as I experience in the British House of Lords of which I am a member, and earlier experienced in the British House of Commons, relies on an absolute majority where even one vote will swing so that the winning side takes and defeats the loser. In the European Parliament we work hard so that everyone can win to a certain extent. The mechanisms through which we do this are consultation, dialogue and compromise.
A second point is that every rapporteur is wishful of their report stimulating the parliamentary debate so that the topic in hand becomes one of greater familiarity and understanding in Parliament. The underlying concept is that the more we understand the better we can help other nations to enhance their prosperity and to find, where necessary, peaceful solutions to any points of conflict as we have done successfully during the EU's fifty year lifespan. The EU is now a huge potential trading partner for all nations and other trading blocs and our work is based on our common values which are expressed through democracy, the rule of law and the fundamental freedoms of movement, thought, worship, and expression that we enjoy. We are the world's second biggest democracy with a citizenship of nearly half a billion people and wish to share that prosperity and the values that we have created over successive eras of peace and growth with others who invite us to do so. The European Parliament is the directly elected institution of the EU and I return therefore to my earlier comment that the more we understand and issue or a part of the world the better we are able to respond to requests for partnership, trade and association. I attach a copy of all of the amendments that the committee accepted which have enlarged the report and strengthened it.

FS:The most contentious line in the draft report – "calls for plebiscite in Kashmir are wholly out of step" – appears to have been dropped from the amended report. Is it true?

EN: The report has changed the wording on the issue of the plebiscite. Colleagues wished to state more on the UN and I therefore put forward an amendment which was accepted that refers to all the UN resolutions relating to Kashmir. I added a six-page amendment explaining each of the UN Resolutions, but colleagues felt that this took up too much space for the main report and have asked me to add it as an attachment in the explanatory memorandum which I will now therefore redraft. Our comment on the plebiscite is that the conditions have not been met until now, therefore the implication is similar to the original wording.

FS:It's believed that your report goes contrary to the aspirations of Kashmiri people as it is alleged that you didn't go for collecting data from original sources but instead put into writing the views of a group of retired Indian army officials. What've you to say to that?

EN: The report on Kashmir has drawn very firm support from many people in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, in Gilgit and Baltistan and in Jammu & Kashmir, who tell me that they are grateful and delighted that so many of their concerns have been highlighted. I met with and received full briefings from the Pakistani and the Indian armies. I had requested these briefings since the military are so heavily engaged along the line of control and I was grateful to both the Pakistani and the Indian Governments for enabling both the visits and the briefings to take place. However, it is incorrect to say that either current or retired members of either military supplied either the wording or the thoughts for the draft report. The wording, the reasoning and the conclusions were my own and were derived from my earlier work and experiences in south Asia and supplemented by the helpful sequence of meetings in Islamabad and AJK, New Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir, which were mirror images of each other in terms of the politicians, institutions and groups of people with whom I met.

FS:Your report is considered to be in contrast to the European Parliament's Ad hoc Delegation report by the committee on foreign affairs in November 2004 which had accepted Kashmiris as a party to the dispute. That part is deleted in your report, correct?

EN: You claim that my report differs from the ad hoc delegation report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of November 2004 with regard to the people of Kashmir being a party to the dispute. That is not so; this point was made in the UN resolutions from 1948 – 1971 and as such was fully accepted by the Member States of the UN but particularly the Security Council of the day, which included the UK and others who are now members of the EU. It would be improper for the European Parliament to move away from such a position, not only because it was adopted by the UN but because involvement of local people is the foundation stone of the EU's own success. My draft report, the Foreign Affairs Committee current final draft report on Kashmir and the report of the Parliament's ad hoc delegation of November 2004 all embrace that as a given and not a debatable point.

FS: Mr. Richard Howitt on his recent visit to Kashmir had said that his movements had been restricted; obviously hype around your trip with regard to your security must have been made by the Indian government officials, thus limiting your access to people here. Under these circumstances are you still able to gain an accurate picture of the ground realities?

EN: I am sorry to learn that Mr Howitt's movements were apparently restricted on his recent visit. I am happy to confirm that my own movements were unrestricted on both sides of the LoC and I am grateful to all concerned in Pakistan and India for this.

FS: You've criticized Pakistan over its human rights record particularly in the Northern Areas, while Amnesty International and other human rights watchdogs have time and time again criticized India over its human rights record in Kashmir. This seems to reflect a bias on your part.

EN: The report does indeed draw attention to Human Rights abuses in AJK and Gilgit & Baltistan, but it also draws attention to reports flowing from Amnesty International, Freedom House and Human Rights Watch of other abuses in Jammu & Kashmir. We therefore recommend that both Governments allow those three human rights organisations and perhaps others like them free access so that a realistic assessment of the situation can be established and monitored.

FS: Fifty eight years to the conflict—Italian Ambassador describes the conflict as longest standing dispute since the end of WWII—Your colleague Richard Howitt says European Union wants to come clean on Kashmir. It is a real pity that European Union is still debating over Kashmir when the International Community knows that there's something terribly wrong going on in Kashmir. Fifty eight years is a hell of a long time, isn't it?

EN: In my view the continuing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir is a tragedy, and I am pleased that the EU is wishful of helping in a region that is well outside our geographical boundaries. I am grateful to the European Parliament for giving me the opportunity for something that I hope will be constructive despite the fact that the EU has not been invited to mediate by either side and is highly unlikely to be called upon to do so.

FS: It is alleged that you've betrayed your position and mandate as EU rapporteur on Kashmir by falling in line with the Indian government because it had bribed you. How do you react to these allegations?

EN: The huge majority in favour of my report has proven that remarks such as these have not stood up to scrutiny in the European Parliament. I would be delighted to examine any evidence that gives credibility to these allegations.

FS:Mr. Richard Howitt has rejected your report saying liberal democrats should be ashamed of publishing what he calls it 'an appallingly prejudiced report'. He had said of the report if passed would be counter productive in holding back the peace process between India and Pakistan. How would those suspicions be laid to rest?

EN: Mr Richard Howitt's comments that the draft report would prejudice the peace process between India and Pakistan gives an unwarranted status to the European Parliament to which we can lay no claim. The report firmly and squarely supports the peace process as its basic premise; why would we say otherwise in the same report? That would be self contradictory which is not the case.

FS: On February 26, the debate on the draft report led to an acrimonious exchange between you and some Pakistani members of the European Parliament, with Mr. Sajjad Karim shouting that the report was an insulting piece of work. Why was the reaction of Pakistan so outrageous in the first place?

EN: There was no acrimonious exchange between myself and other members of the parliament on 26 February. Several British members used highly emotional terminology but I responded in the normal European Parliament way which is more harmonious.

FS: When James Elles, co-founder of the All Party Group on Kashmir, described the report as unbalanced and biased, calling for its amendment, you were quoted as saying: "It is a pity that the British are washing their dirty linen in public." What did you refer the dirty linen to?

EN: I responded to James Elles, Sajjad Karim and Richard Howitt as well as to Philip Bushill Matthews, who all used British style House of Commons language on the 26 February by commenting that the British should not wash their dirty linen in public. I was referring to the fact that their reaction was heavily linked into a drive for Pakistani British votes in certain constituencies for which they were campaigning for the local elections due to be held in early May. I did not and do not believe that the issue of Kashmir should be distorted by party political vote grabbing in the UK. It is too important for that.

FS: Your credentials in child health and development, as former Director of Save the Children speak very of high of your concern for the children. How did you miss to make a mention of some hundred thousand orphans of Kashmir in your report?

EN: I have a large and continuing concern for children and families in distress. I have tried hard to put as much as possible in the report on Kashmir on the many thousands of Kashmiri children orphaned by the earthquakes and on the hundreds of thousands of families deprived of basic needs provision in terms of health and education. I have been dismayed by those same British colleagues who voted to delete parts of the report that highlighted the plight of hundreds of thousands of orphans, women and earthquake victims. Their thinking on the whole report has simply not been rational and for them to vote as they did on these human rights issues prove my point beyond doubt. Now that the voting storm has passed and we have a clear and powerful report from the Committee very much along the lines I have recommended, I very much hope that these colleagues will assume a more balanced position.

FS: How do you view the situation of Kashmir say ten years from now? Is there a hope of a lasting solution to the problem? Are there any guarantees from the international community, particularly the EU?

EN: I hope and believe that in ten years time, the issue of Kashmir will be resolved and families can cross the border peacefully. Trade can be resumed and the people once again can be prosperous and well cared for.

I think the time is right for a permanent Kashmir solution: Italian Ambassador

2008-12-23T21:28:00.001+05:30

Antonio Armellini, the Italian Ambassador to India, who's on a 5-day official visit to Kashmir to assess the situation in the backdrop of the recent developments that have generated some hope of a lasting settlement to what he described as the longest standing conflict since the end of the World War II. In an interview with Kashmir Observer, the ambassador says that there's a misperception that the west has launched a war on Islam and terms the theory of 'clash of civilizations' as an intelligent- intellectual construction, which does not automatically apply to the reality. The interview was conducted by M Farooq Shah.

● Is this your first visit to Kashmir? What's your first impression?

Yes, I've never been here before. My first impression is that of a beautiful city and what I've seen a beautiful land. It is a very very pleasant place indeed. I can now understand why so many people in India and elsewhere in the world see it as a prime tourist destination.

● The people of Kashmir who've suffered immensely during the past 15 years or so, obviously for no fault of theirs, have a grudge that the Western world has remained a mute spectator to their ordeal. What do you say to that?

I don't think that the Western world or the world in general has remained a mute spectator. The Western world, EU in particular, has always promoted the peace process in Kashmir. The settlement to the issue is something that pertains to the parties directly involved and we certainly don't wish to interfere in this process but we follow and pay attention and we encourage any positive steps such as the ones which have been taken recently.

● Not long ago, Kashmir was referred to as a nuclear flash point. Given the semblance of normalcy in Kashmir, the people are sceptical whether this could lead to a lasting peace. Are there any guarantees from the International community?

Again this is something for the people of Kashmir to act upon or decide upon and see to the ways that could turn into a permanent solution. What strikes me is that the situation in Kashmir's difficulty as a dispute is the longest standing disputes since the end of the IInd world war. Looking at the time frame, I think the time is more than right for positive developments and for a permanent solution.

● What role do you think the International Community, particularly the EU, play to dispel those fears?

Antonio Armellini: The International community should on the one hand not interfere in the process which has to be left with its direct actors because it's only them who'll be able to solve the problem and on the other should encourage any positive development and be ready to provide whatever assistance is required and may be necessary at the time. I believe this is the position which the Eropean Union has taken constantly. We've welcomed regularly all the positive steps that have been taken. We've always expressed our willingness to be of help whenever required or needed.

● Your itinerary includes a visit to UNMOGIP office here, which is headed by an Italian Major General. Given the present scenario, do you not think that this force has lost its relevance?

I think this is the matter for the Security Council to decide upon.

● There's a so-called theory, 'the clash of civilisations' being floated in the West, especially after 9/11 and a widespread belief in the Muslim world that West has launched some kind of a war on Islam. How do you react to that?

I think that's a basic misperception. I'm not aware of the fact that there's such a widespread belief in the Muslim world. What I'm aware of is the fact that there're some people in the West who feel that the Muslim world and Islam has launched a war on the West and this I think proves that both sides are wrong in their perceptions. Clash of civilisations is a very intelligent-intellectual construction, which does not automatically apply to the reality. It's a key to interpret phenomena. It's not an explanation of the phenomena itself.

● Again there're accusations that the West is deliberately indifferent to the issues pertaining to the Muslim world, which fans the extremist tendencies there and eventually deepens the East-West gulf. Are these accusations true in the first place?

I think not. Let me just give you a very small example as far as my country is concerned. Italy for a number of reasons is a predominantly catholic country but Islam has become the second largest religion and has been growing very fast. This has happened without any problem whatsoever. We believe that anyone's entitled to his beliefs and understandings and within the framework of the laws of the land in which he lives. I think that extremists on all sides can lead to warped interpretations. If you look at the western societies on the whole, you'll see that they're the most inclusive societies which civilisations have produced so far and that I think would tend to disprove the idea of automatic exclusions of anyone particular group. Extremists, terrorists— that's something else but that's not Islamic terrorism. It's an international phenomenon, which has all sorts of connotations.

● Besides the denial of political rights the lack of economic opportunities is believed to be a major cause of extremism and terrorism from which now no country is immune. What can your country do to help build the shattered economy of Kashmir that is being considered a breeding ground of extremism and terrorism?

We are certainly looking forward to the developing co-operation with India and all its components. On the Kashmiri side in particular, some work needs to be done to develop an economic community which can interact with foreign players as well. Lot of trade is going on already in handicrafts and a number of areas between Kashmiri traders and Italian traders, but I think we could do much more. I feel that perhaps a little more work should be done on this.

● How the Kashmir conflict is included in the EU agenda? Are you optimistic that a lasting solution to the problem can be worked out in some time to come?

We're all following very closely the recent developments and the peace process and composite dialogue has been moving ahead at a very swift pace and we very much hope that this will be a forebearer to permanent solution.

● The leverage of power in the World today rests with the United States, ever since USSR collapsed. Has the European Union consolidated itself as a counterpart to the US?

Antonio Armellini: The European Union was formed in 1952 way before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the purpose was entirely different; that of bringing together the countries of Europe that had fought with each other for over a thousand years and turn that age long conflict into a period of cooperation and friendship. That's what EU is all about.

H E Italian High Commissioner, Antonio Armellini visited Kashmir in 2005.

Kashmir belongs more to Central Asia: Prof Gregory Gleason

2008-12-23T21:15:00.001+05:30

Professor Gregory Gleason, visiting Kashmir as part of the International Conference on Central Asia currently underway at Kashmir University, says that Kashmir belongs more to Central Asia than to South Asia, owing to its glorious ties with the region in terms of culture, traditions, religion, etc. Professor Gleason, who teaches political science at the University of New Mexico in the U.S., describes the efforts made by India and Pakistan on Kashmir as insufficient as he discusses the pros and cons of Kashmir being the venue of an International Conference on Central Asia with Kashmir Observer Chief Correspondent M Farooq Shah.

Excerpts of the Interview:

• You've been one of the special invitees to the International Conference on Central Asia. What does this conference mean to you?

The Conference is an important turning point, I believe, for the studies on Central Asia, in the United States but also in other countries around the world, particularly the European Countries and the countries of Central Asia. Previously, we thought of Central Asia primarily as the countries of the former Soviet Union. Increasingly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we began to think more broadly about Central Asia. And then, of course, after the events of September 11, American involvement in the coalition for operation "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan, we began to realise that there are cultural, linguistic and close potential trade relations among all the countries of the region. So most of the scholars have now begun to think of Central Asia in terms of an historical and broader definition.

• Why wasn't this conference, which has been described as of 'Unprecedented significance', held somewhere else, Delhi for instance?

Well, I think the important aspect of the venue in Kashmir is that Kashmir is very clearly a Central Asian region. It is a region that has close associations with other cultures in Central Asia, in particular Uzbek culture, culture of Tajikistan, culture in Turkmenistan. The idea of holding the conference in Kashmir is the idea of bringing to the attention of scholars and policy makers and journalists and hopefully eventually the general public that there are close connections in the region.

• Could you say a little more on that when you say Kashmir is very clearly a Central Asian region?

To be honest with you, when I arrived in Kashmir, I immediately recognised the kind of kindred relationship with the Central Asian Countries. There are cultural features and characteristics in Kashmir that remind me very much of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and other countries we've traditionally regarded as the central Asian countries. I have to say that is not the same feeling that one feels when one arrives for instance in Delhi.

• Could you outline the significance of holding a conference of this scale in Kashmir a little more explicitly?

I think one of the important aspects of holding the Conference in Kashmir is that many of the scholars in the outside world who've worked on issues of economics, politics, government, international relations, history and cultural studies in the region have not themselves focussed on the regions around Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, this is an important re-orientation of the work in the interests of many scholars around the world. I think it is important because it highlights the connectedness of Kashmir with other countries of the region. It's not enough, I would say because very little is known about Kashmir and its relationship with other countries in the neighbouring Central Asia. It is the first major effort to bring to attention of the International scholarly community and the professional organisations in the outside world such as the Central Eurasian Studies Society based in Harvard University that Kashmir belongs more to Central Asia.

• Kashmir, you know is a landlocked territory where a conflict is raging and with an uncertain political future. How are ordinary Kashmiris going to benefit from this conference?

I think scholarship is always to the benefit of ordinary citizens in all the regions of the world. Scholarship in the long run will have an influence but scholarship is not politics and policy making itself. It does not have the direct impact. It rather is a way of accumulating knowledge and understanding that can lend the policy makers more wisdom to do decisions about policies. Its immediate effect is, I think, to be understood in terms of the long-term affect of increasing human understanding of that region.

• As far the human understanding you're talking about, Kashmiris are unable to move freely between its own divided parts. How do you view that?

That's certainly a human tragedy. But it is not a unique situation, there're similar situations in many regions of the world. These kinds of issues certainly have to be resolved in a way that is equitable for all the interested and involved parties.

• India and Pakistan have embarked on certain measures with regard to the connectedness of the divided parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Do you think that suffices the requirement given the level of sentiment involved among the peoples of the divided parts?

I don't think that those particular steps themselves suffice the requirement but I do think the confidence building measures are an important sequence that would be necessary for any kind of unification of the divided groups of people. In this particular case, it seems to me that what we can hope for is a more extensive set of measures taken to improve relationships between the countries to reduce the amount of tension that has been created by disagreements in the past.

• How does Kashmir figure in what you've described as 'The idea of Greater Central Asia'?

Kashmir is a natural corridor between India and other parts of the Asia, Europe and other parts of the Eurasian landmass. I think it can play a very important role in the idea of Greater Central Asia. Most important aspect of that idea is it is not just a concept or a geographical description rather it is an idea of the importance of maintaining close ties between people who've kindred interests and more pragmatically people who've economic mutual interests in trade and greater economic development.

• You've said that there's a greater need for inter-state co-operation without changing of borders or reorganising institutions. What exactly do you mean by that?

We live in a globalized world today. It is a powerful force today and is primarily driven by technology not by the intentions of the people in Berlin or Moscow or Washington. In this globalized world however, the unsettling aspect is of changes in the existing border situations. That however, does not mean that there can't be mobility of capital, movement of people, or movement of ideas across those borders. I'm very much in favour of the idea of trans-border or cross border communication between the countries.

• As an expert, do you think there's a need for a third party mediation on Kashmir?

To be honest with you, I'm still at the point of gathering information on the subject. It is not clear to me how a third party mediation on Kashmir would differ from present circumstances but what I can promise with you is to reflect on the question, think about the question and gather more information to get an idea what would be the international theory given the interests of the various actors involved.

• But both India and Pakistan have failed to resolve their differences on Kashmir for well over five decades now. Do you, as a political science teacher not think that it is the right time for the international community to tell them that enough is enough?

I certainly think that this is the right time for India and Pakistan to think seriously about their differences on Kashmir and hammer out an equitable solution acceptable to the all actors involved in the region. The International community certainly has a role to play but the responsibility ultimately lies with the actors directly involved in the conflict.

• As an expert from outside, how do you visualise Kashmir 10 years from now?

I see a prosperous Kashmir 10 years from now where human rights are protected; where people are free to speak their minds; where people are tolerant; where businesses are protected through legal a regulatory system that allows for open businesses but not frequented by monopolies or economic dominations.

Prof Gregor Gleason visited Kashmir in 2005 and I interviewed him for Kashmir Observer.

Beslan Tragedy 2004

2008-12-11T22:16:00.001+05:30

People holding extreme views need to understand that terrorism is a shortsighted approach that triggers an unending chain of actions and reactions. Attackers who take innocent people hostage must learn that violence against civilians only undermines their credibility, even when world opinion supports their cause. International organizations such as the U.N. and the European Union have condemned Russia, India and Israel for their actions. Tragedies like the Beslan killings should bring all nations together to root out terrorism. No country should be allowed to harbor terrorists.

M. Farooq Shah
Srinagar, Kashmir

The letter appeared in TIME megazine in October, 2004
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,702214,00.html)

"Liberal Democrats should be ashamed to have published such prejudiced report"

2008-12-04T21:45:00.001+05:30

European Union parliamentarian Richard Howitt visited Kashmir this week to investigate the findings of EU rapporteur Emma Nicholson's report "Kashmir: present situation and future prospects," which had been released in December. Raising questions about the democratic credentials of the Pakistani government and its commitment to the people and institutions in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the report generated considerable heat both here in Kashmir as well as across the border. In a wide-ranging interview with Kashmir Observer correspondent M Farooq Shah at the Grand Palace Hotel, Mr. Howitt reflected on the failures of colonial powers, considered the effectiveness of Europe's liberal democrats, and commented on the progress of the Indo-Pak peace process.

Farooq Shah: How concerned is the European Union about the problem of Kashmir?

Richard Howitt: The European Union is very much concerned about the problem of Kashmir and it's resolution. The EU has over a period of time been actively engaged in trying to work out what exactly is happening on the ground in Kashmir, which is why I'm here on a fact-finding mission: so that we're able to frame a Kashmir policy.

Farooq Shah: A few years ago in an interview with a British Magazine, the former British Foreign Secretary said, I quote: "The British Government had been complacent about Kashmir at the time of Indian independence, when it quickly became the most contentious issue between India and Pakistan." Do you also believe that Kashmir problem has its genesis rooted in the British Colonial Rule?

Richard Howitt: I've no problems in confessing that a lot of the problems we have to deal with now are a consequence of our colonial past and due to some serious mistakes especially during the last decades of the British Empire. Many territorial disputes that exist today are on the illogical borders created by colonial powers. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 - in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine - and the contradictory assurances given to Palestinians were not entirely moral.

Farooq Shah: Kashmiri families have been divided by a ceasefire line for 57 years, one of the longest standing disputes since the end of the WWII. How do you view this situation from a human angle that loved ones cannot meet freely amongst themselves?

Richard Howitt:I've been trying to meet a maximum number of people directly or indirectly affected by the conflict. From individuals, lawyers, victims of violence and statistics gathered from different sources - including different human-rights bodies such as Amnesty International, etc. - suggest quite an appalling human tragedy as far as the LoC is concerned. Behind these statistics are people with thousands of stories to tell of the tragedy that has come to symbolize the line of control that runs over hundreds of kilometres of forested hill and inhospitable terrain, defying logic in some places as it splits families and divides villages. From any angle, not to talk of a human one, the LoC is some thing that touches my heart.

Farooq Shah: Of late, the EU has been having a proactive role in international affairs, specifically in conflict areas. However, Kashmiris feel let down that EU could have played a more meaningful role in having the conflict resolved. How do you react to that?

Richard Howitt: Traditionally any suggestions with regard to Kashmir dispute is not accepted by the two sides and so the important thing for the international community is that any problem that we undertake - that includes my own visit to Kashmir - is undertaken with a due humility, with a respect to the sovereignty of the countries involved and with a motivation of friendship and working constructively to bring positive influence to the problem. However, it is right that we are all subject to international law, to international human rights standards and humanitarian laws and it is essential that international visitors to Kashmir and to any conflict in the world ask hard questions about the observance of human rights and advocate for the strongest compliance with international law. I want to express my profound concerns about the consequences of the conflict. I met victims of violence who've told me heartfelt stories about how they have lost their loved ones and it is important that each of them is given justice. There can be no compromise ever in complying with international standards of human rights.

Farooq Shah: Emma Nicholson's report on Kashmir is in sharp contrast to the European Parliament's Adhoc Delegation Report adopted by the committee on foreign affairs in November 2004 which accepted Kashmiris were a party to the dispute. That seems nowhere in the Emma's report?

Richard Howitt: I'm here because of the European Parliament to debate about the future policy of Kashmir. The report that has been drafted is the work of one person that has never been subject to any vote of European parliament. I understand and I know that that report does not reflect the ground realities in Kashmir. I know from very many consultations that have taken place with international organisations and with governmental sources, but I felt that this issue is so important that I did not want to rely on second-hand sources before we undertake our debate and that is why I'm here and although my own movements have been restricted, I've met with victims, lawyers, NGOs, government and the army and I'll be meeting with politicians across the political spectrum and I believe that I would be able to go back to the European Parliament and to engage in debate and help shape the European Parliament policy that does reflect the ground realities and the proper aspirations of the Kashmiri people. We want to come clean on the Kashmir issue and address what is actually happening on ground.

Farooq Shah: You've rejected Emma's report, saying: "The Liberal Democrats should be ashamed to have published such an appallingly prejudiced report that, if passed by the European Parliament, would actually be counterproductive in holding back the peace process currently underway between the governments of India and Pakistan."

Richard Howitt: I stand by all of those words. I'm on an international visit here not to criticise another political party or politician individually during this visit. I can do that in European Parliament and it would not be appropriate for me to do that here in Kashmir but I do not believe that the draft report produced is fair or accurate or unbiased and that is one of the reasons that I'm here to make sure that I understand the ground reality.

Farooq Shah: It's believed that her report goes contrary to the aspirations of Kashmiri people as it is alleged that she didn't go for collecting her data from original sources and put into words whatever was told to her by a group of retired officials of Indian Army. What've you to say to that?

Richard Howitt: I can't comment on what her sources are but I've met representatives today from civil society and members of the legal community who wanted to see her but did not.

Farooq Shah: Europe is emerging as a super-market which has its stakes in India as far as trade goes. How do you think this should affect EU's intervention in Kashmir vis-à-vis Indian standpoint considering Emma's report which is believed more in favour of India than Pakistan?

Richard Howitt: Of course, we want trade to flourish between Europe and the rest of the world. We want tourism, environmental changes but having said that Europe is foremost in the world holding principles of democracy and justice but we would never compromise on the principles of human rights and the international law.

Farooq Shah: As a result of the conflict, the collateral damage to the environment, ecology, wildlife, education, healthcare in Kashmir etc has been phenomenal. Do you take up these issues with Indian officials at any level?

Richard Howitt: Our concern at Europe about environmental issues is very much real. We've not talked about it as yet with the local or the Delhi government. We're very passionately concerned about the humanitarian aspect of the conflict. First of all my concern is motivated by promotion of peace and conflict resolution. Nevertheless, this morning I'll be looking at the Dal Lake project and I think it'll give us the idea about the environmental destruction here.

Farooq Shah: India has time and time again shown its unwillingness to engage international mediation on Kashmir. Do you think that international intervention could have facilitated a speedy resolution to the conflict?

Richard Howitt: I believe that international engagement is one of the confidence building measures that should take place that people like me visiting out of friendship and supporting the principles of peace, a conflict resolution and human rights that can only be a positive influence in the Kashmir dispute. We are not seeking to preach or to determine or to interfere. We're seeking to foster friendship and reflect our own experiences, including my own country experiences of Northern Ireland, where we had a deep and difficult dispute over many years, and I hope in the next period it would be possible for European and international NGOs to work more freely across Jammu and Kashmir and for international visitors like myself to be able to travel and work more freely. We respect the security threats locally. We respect the challenges that exist for the state and I believe the international engagement can help be a part of the solution.

Farooq Shah There're several options being discussed with regard to the Kashmir conflict. As you've mentioned your experiences of Northern Ireland, do you think some thing close to that could be worked out here?

Richard Howitt: Each conflict is individual and there's no readymade solution and I certainly don't suggest that Northern Ireland nor any other conflict in the world can provide an intermit answer to the problems in Kashmir. But I do believe that our experiences in Northern Ireland can assist people here in moving towards conflict resolution. In that arena the border has been made less significant. There's been significant joint working between two sovereign governments. We've seen a process of demilitarisation take place slowly, reduced terrorist violence, reduced army presence step by step and we've seen former terrorists ultimately disarm and join the democratic process and if any of those things were to take place here then I think Northern Ireland can be one example that can help find a solution.

Farooq Shah: Isn't it possible for the European Union to get people holding different views on Kashmir on board to work for a lasting solution to the problem?

Richard Howitt: I've discussed ways as how to get people on board representing different thoughts on Kashmir. I'm not suggesting in any sense that there'll be any formal European mediation in this regard but what I do know as far as my work on Israeli- Palestinian conflict is that the European Parliament, European research bodies and non-governmental organisations have been instrumental in getting people on both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian divide to gather in private--sometimes unofficially, sometimes with people who've recently retired but still have good links and contacts with their respective governments and just as that the back channel or the track-II diplomacy in the Indo-Pak peace process and dialogue, and may be these sort of informal gatherings can take place in Europe or facilitated by Europe which will then play a more formal role that can perhaps increase the mutual understanding in the dialogue process.

Farooq Shah: European Union is well aware of the unprecedented build-up of armies on both sides of the line of control. Among several confidence building measures being discussed and implemented, demilitarisation is one tricky issue. How does European Union understand demilitarization?

Richard Howitt: First of all I don't believe to the best of knowledge that there's any official position of the European Union on that. India is a sovereign country, whatever grievances and aspirations people have in Kashmir, India has a right to protect itself as all sovereign countries. However, I'm going to discus all these issues in private, not least with the army but with the Indian government through the course of my visit. Some of these questions are best addressed in private. There're are large armies on both sides of the line of control and I'm not saying that their activities are the same or the numbers are the same either absolutely or relatively, but clearly having and maintaining large military forces on both sides of the line of control is a big drain economically to the government of both sides and most of the people have told me while I've been here that the very presence of the military itself produces all sorts of problems. So clearly, if it is possible to create an atmosphere of peace, trust and confidence to enable troops to be withdrawn from both sides, that is some thing that I'd be discussing with the Indian government.

Farooq Shah: Are you aware of the human rights situation in Kashmir? How do you see it?

Richard Howitt: I want to express that I'm profoundly concerned by what I've heard about the human rights record here based on meeting victims of violence here. As vice-president of the European parliament human rights sub-committee, I've gathered a lot of valuable data and statistics, individual stories and testimonies that I'll be taking back with me to Brussels to ensure that all of this is heard in the highest echelons of the European decision making bodies.

Farooq Shah: There's a travel advisory against visiting Kashmir. The government of Jammu and Kashmir has been trying hard to have the advisory lifted, though without success. What role can you play as an important member of the EU in this regard?

Richard Howitt: Well the travel advisory is a statute order by individual governments including my own government in United Kingdom for some one who informally came to Srinagar as tourist. What I've experienced is that Kashmir is a very beautiful place in the whole world as I took a walk around without anybody with me. If you're successful - which I really hope you are - in restoring peace to your society, I'm sure that European visitors would come and that would definitely help in the economic reconstruction of Kashmir after years of conflict.

The interview appeared in Kashmir Observer