'Instrument of accession is a flawed document'

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

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’

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