Umar Farooq, 37 aspired to be software engineer but took over as ‘Mirwaiz’ after insurgents assassinated his father Mirwaiz Molvi Mohammad Farooq in 1990. Considered a peacenik, he was once amongst Time magazine’s 25 ‘young achievers’. The founding chairman of Hurriyat Conference earned his doctorate this week from University of Kashmir for his annotation and translation of the works of Mir Sayed Ali Hamdani (RA). Mirwaiz spared some time for Kashmir Life to respond to the pressing issues facing him and the people he leads. Excerpts:

Kashmir Life: American President is visiting India. You opt to appeal him. What are your expectations?

Mirwaiz Umar: As far as international scenario is concerned, we believe America has a role in the region. They have been saying for a long time that Kashmir issue will have to be resolved for a peaceful Asia. Hurriyat has been saying that America can play a role of facilitator between India and Pakistan. We are not seeking a direct American involvement. We want US to bring India and Pakistan closer. When president Obama was campaigning he did gave many statements saying he would like to use his influence to seek a solution to Kashmir. We have started a signature campaign in which we want US should appoint a special rapporteur for south Asia specifically on Kashmir and they should also raise their concern over the human rights violations. What we are basically seeking is a sort of assistance, an indirect US involvement in bringing India and Pakistan closer so that a process of resolution of Kashmir can be started.

KL: Every time an American president comes to India, you make appeals. Has it helped your cause?

MU: We have to understand in terms of the position that India has at the global level. One can not disagree with the fact that India is growing in terms of military power, economy and political clout. We understand the fact that US has an interest in the entire region and in that context it is important that Kashmiri people, the pro-freedom parties should demonstrate for American involvement. We should be realistic enough in terms of what are our expectations. We understand that US will neither mediate nor would get involved in the conflict.

That is why we want US should go for facilitation. This is because there is a trust deficit between India and Pakistan which is the main reason why they have not come closer. Kashmir can not be resolved unless India and Pakistan come closer. Our expectations are realistic. We are not expecting any dramatic announcements or initiatives (during the visit).

We know what US interest are, and specially now in last three years, because of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That dimension has added to the Kashmir issue although there is no direct link between Kashmir and Afghanistan. But as far as peace in the region is concerned there is a link and US’s Af-Pak policy acknowledges it. China is another dimension.

All these factors are being considered for the peace and politics in the region. So that way US has an interest and they should pursue a process of reconciliation between India and Pakistan.

KL: US envoy for Af-Pak was rumoured to have a mandate for Kashmir as well. But finally it was not?

MU: India gets agitated over third party direct involvement or internationalizing of (K) issue. But we know it for sure that US is in the picture. Officially (Richard) Holbrooke is not working on Kashmir but unofficially he has been coming to India and talking to Pakistan. So the interest is already there. US is clear that they can not foresee a peaceful South Asia unless Kashmir is resolved. In that context although we are seeking a special rapporteour on Kashmir but what I believe is that Holbrooke’s area of domain will involve this region also.

KL: Imagine America’s own interests will prevent it from doing anything. In that case what will be your course of action?

MU: American policy in the last eight years during president Bush’s regime was predominantly seen as pro-India. With Democrats under Obama, he (Obama) has shifted his attention towards this region after two years (in office). So I have all reasons to believe that US policy on Kashmir has not changed. They always talk of the solution of Kashmir while keeping in view the aspirations of the people of Kashmir. That line has not changed in last many years. What we are going to see is a strong diplomatic, may be a covert initiative by America to push India and Pakistan towards a settlement on Kashmir.

KL: Is there an option that instead of relying on third party especially USA, you should engage with the civil society of India?

MU: You know third party assistance becomes a necessity when you have a complete trust deficit between the parties concerned. It is a fact that before or after Mumbai (26/11) India and Pakistan have never come closer in terms of a process or an initiative which is of a composite in nature.

As far as Indian civil society is concerned, we believe it is very important to engage with them. Not much has been done on that front. Yes, we need to reach out to the Indian public. The perception, unfortunately, from a common Indian point of view is that they see Kashmir through Pakistani prism or have been made to see like that. That has to change. A common Indian has to understand that whatever is happening in Kashmir, is not because it is a Pakistan proxy and. There is a genuine, home grown anger in Kashmir that needs to be recognized by the civil society and the Indian mainstream. In last five months there were some initiatives by civil society in India. After the Eid, I am planning to visit different cities especially Kolkotta, Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chandigarh as a series of programmes has been laid across. We need to tell the commoner in India that you have to look at it from, primarily a humanitarian point of view, and then a political and historic point of view.

When we address the word Kashmir they (commoners in India) try to connect Kashmir with all the anti-India movements which are still going on like Assam, Maoists which is not correct because ours is a dispute recognized world over.
But at the same time I think the international support or assistance is important. Disputes like Kosovo, Ireland, Palestine, East Timor could be resolved only when there was the element of international involvement. Same has to be with the case of Kashmir.

We are of the view that when India has some economic problems, they are more than willing to go to IMF and World Bank to sort them out. So when India has a political problem in hand, it skips a third party assistance or mediation. So our emphasis would remain that there has to be some third party assistance in resolving the Kashmir issue.

KL: In recent past there were two major developments. One, the Muslims living in Indian plains started talking about Kashmir. Second, a number of people who are in different states of conflict within India shared dice with Kashmiris in Delhi.

MU:
As far as the meetings in Delhi and Deoband are concerned, these could be approached from two perspectives. One that Muslims in India are concerned over Kashmir. We understand their limitations. My suggestion to them would be that they should not get involved with Kashmir issue. They have shown their concern over the human rights, black laws, that is fine. As far as political issue of Kashmir is concerned, they should not try to view it through a Hind Muslim prism. It is a political problem that needs to be addressed politically.

The second part is that the Indian Muslims should not see solution to the Kashmir problem as a threat to their identity. Indian Muslims are a part of India and belong to the mainstream India. We have a relation with them as a part of the Millat like we have with the Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran. But as a problem Kashmir is an undecided issue, a dispute well recognized world over. Muslims in India should not feel threatened.

I do not understand the need that why at a particular juncture the Muslims in India had to come out when in last twenty years they choose not to speak. Why are they speaking today, it is a question mark. Are they active on their own or it is a well thought out strategy to relate Kashmir in terms of Hindu Muslim issue or in terms of giving an impression of a second partition. I believe if Kashmir issue has to be resolved, we cannot ignore the historical perspective of the problem. That is to which Indian Muslims will have to agree. Kashmir cannot be a hostage to the Muslim Hindu relationship in the rest of India. It can not be accepted that Kashmir has to linger on because it will impact the relationship of Hindus and Muslims in India.

As far as the other part is concerned involving Maoists and others, we may empathise with many movements going around in India, but we should not identify ourselves with any of them. We have an international issue and a dispute. The issue of Kashmir should not be viewed from anti-India point of view. They all are part of an ideological war but Kashmir is a political problem. When we are connecting these two things together we are doing injustice to the Kashmir cause. Our leaders have to be very cautious about when they chose to speak. We should not be viewed as anti-India.

We are not against the state of India or the idea of India, we are against India’s policies vis-a-viz Kashmir. Our leadership has to be very cautious, we need to reach out to the people of India but they will keep their distance if they see us part of Maoists, Khalistanis, and all the anti-India forces coming together and take it as a conspiracy against the state of India. So we are losing whatever little support we can garner from the people.

KL: How the situation emerged to a level this summer that Kashmir lost 111 civilians?

MU: It is outcome of Delhi’s lack of political will and concern towards Kashmir. We want a solution. They want peace (in which) nobody talks about the problem. They had an election and thought it has brought the normalcy with economic and political activity. We believe glorification of an election will not make it an alternative to self determination.

Now we have a situation in which the youth is totally defiant, fearless of death. It is an indication to India that their policy of procrastination and the policy of lingering on is not going to help. They think people will forget what has happened in last many years, slowly and gradually the mainstream Indian thought will take over Kashmir. (Instead) we see a more defiant generation than earlier generations. There is a complete breakdown of India Kashmir affairs; people view India’s approach (as) totally military. People have spoken clearly that they want a solution based on justice and their aspirations. India can not suppress this voice simply on basis of its military power.

KL: You are seeking right to protest but you face allegations of fomenting trouble?

MU: It is a baseless (allegation). For the last four months I have been invariably under house arrest and Jamia Masjid was closed down. But whenever we got a chance, we were with the people, part of the protests or dharnas. There was not a single incidence (of violence) before Eid. Strength of the protests especially after 2008 has been non-violence.

Stone pelting or the violence is a reaction to the high handedness of the government and police aggression. The state has been converted into a police state, it is a jail. I am sorry to say but there is no government. Police is running the state, they take executive decisions because they have been given all the powers. And you find a reaction to it. When you do not allow political activities and your answer to everything is a curfew, restrictions and house arrest, it adds to the political frustration.

KL: Militancy in Kashmir has already completed a cycle. Do you foresee its rise again?

MU: There has been a transition from violence to non-violence, especially after 2008. Youth have started experiencing the power of non-violent struggle. The voices are clearer and louder, and much more acceptable today. When there was gun in Kashmir it did not represent the entire spectrum of Kashmir society, it was just one thought. But more and more people in Kashmir are identifying themselves with the peaceful, non-violent struggle. We see youth active on internet, and even the children of those people who would are with the pro-India mainstream thought, they have all spoken, spoken in favour of Kashmiri nationalistic ideas and ideals. This all has grown in last three four years in a very strong way.

To be very honest, for the last 63 years, Kashmiris were either looking towards Islamabad or New Delhi. Now for the first time they are looking towards themselves. They feel it is their struggle which they have to take to the conclusion.  The non-violent struggle has given them strength, their voices are heard and they can no longer be labelled, as secessionists, communal, or terrorists.

It is ironic that on one hand they say they will reach out to the people and on the other hand you see it a farce, they are cracking down on the people who are using internet, on bloggers and on facebook. They create an impression that they are releasing the students but actually they are persecuting them. If the government continues to push the people to the wall by arrests, raids, crackdowns, if this voice is again scuttled by force, then the reaction is going to be very aggressive, radical and harder than 1990s.

KL: You met the all party parliamentary delegation but refused to interact with the interlocutors?

MU: We are not against dialogue. We took the lead in 2004, 2005 and 2006, at back channel, and track-II and we always tried to walk that extra step in terms of trying to reach out to Delhi. But the fact is that they were never serious. We tried with all sincerity and we paid a lot of price but did not backtrack from the commitments we had to the institution of dialogue. But it was a one sided commitment. We did see absolutely no policy in India. We made four five suggestions and now Geelani sahib is saying the same thing.

We did not go to the step of saying that New Delhi should say it is a dispute. By talking to Pakistan they are actually recognizing the problem. But on the remaining four issues there is absolutely no response in last five years. We have reached to the conclusion that there has to be a consensus within India.

We had suggested them let there be a parliamentary committee having representation from all the parties so that tomorrow if the government changes, the policies remain. They accuse us of lacking a consensus but it is a problem that is there. When you are talking to Kashmir you have to talk of big concessions. But even on issues like AFSPA which is small there is no consensus. So if initiative has to be started it has to start at a political level.

When we want to talk to India we want engagement at highest level. Why should we talk to the interlocutors when we have talked to the prime ministers? But let an impression get created on ground that they are serious. We are not closing doors on dialogue but it can not start in a situation where the agenda and terms of engagement are unclear. Statements have changed. While one prime minister talked about talking within ‘insaniyat kay daieray mein’, another prime minister said it has to be within the Indian constitution. India is not only backtracking from its commitments but lacks seriousness to talk.

KL: But separatists have also remained a divided lot. Has the division impacted your efficacy as a force to reckon with?

MU: We have differences in approach with Geelani Sahib but there is no difference on the goal. Off late, it is encouraging that Geelani sahib is also talking in terms of the same issues that we identified and is willing to engage with India and Pakistan. It is not anybody’s win or loss but an understanding is emerging and everybody is on the same wavelength. We are willing to get engaged and talk but before that conducive atmosphere is required.

We hope there is clarity from India also. The main reason for India’s non political approach is that she wants to remain as status quo power. They want to make some cosmetic changes and not to address the issue. They want to beat around the bush. It is not a problem about governance or packages but about the political future of the state. This (interlocutor) committee business is required where there is lot of confusion, varied views. But in Kashmir it is in black and white – either you are pro-India or pro-movement, there is no third thought. Why a committee needs one year for recommendations. It is simple, they are buying time. Let Delhi tomorrow announce a positive initiative we will react positively and we will say we will talk at the highest level.

KL: Media reports you (separatists) as hawks and doves, and you are being referred to as a moderate. What makes you a moderate?

MU:  I myself do not understand where the lines can be drawn and where the hardliners can be separated from moderates because we all believe in the same cause and believe the solution has to be negotiated. But yes, in terms to reaching out to a solution, it is a gradual process. We have a slight difference with Geelani sahib. Kashmir issue is not of last five months and we can not expect a solution within months. It is an issue of 63 years so whatever our plans, the solution has to be gradual process. We cannot expect a solution overnight.

The strength of the movement lies with the people. We should not at any juncture try to create a situation where the people would feel alienated or feel disheartened or disgruntled. The leadership has to keep the hope alive and people deserve the credit for starting the movement. Political leadership has to move in such a way that we have to make sure that the movement carries on. And at the same time the issues concerning people are also addressed.

KL: So is there a possibility of exploring alternative mode of protest because Kashmir is closed for last five months?

MU: This is need of the hour. I have tried in the past to reach out to Geelani sahib and I am trying to seek a consensus on issues. If we have differences, let us start from a common minimum programme. Everybody is ready to come to common minimum programme so that we give this movement sustainability. Our efforts are still on and we have not given up hope.

He (Geelani) has to have a second look at the programmes which he gives. We have to make sure that we do not take any such path which might lead to some sort of confrontation with the people. That is very important. To be honest, Hurriyat (M) and JKLF are in a position to give counter programmes but we do not want to do that because this should not be seen as a fight for supremacy, political upmanship. People have suffered and we did support him but it should not be seen that we are going on a path blindfolded. That is a very risky affair.

KL: Jamia Masjid continues to be your main seat of influence. But for a long time you are not in a position to lead the Friday prayers. Government says there are deliberate efforts to disrupt the peace. What is your take?

MU: As Mirwaiz I have never tried to ruffle Hindu Muslim issue because Kashmir is a political problem. But the government is functioning in such a way that they are totally pushing the people to the wall and radicalizing the society. Now people are trying to draw parallels between a successful Amarnath yatra and a Jamia Masjid that is closed for weeks. At the end of the day Kashmir is a Muslim majority state and if Muslim interests are completely jeopardised and ignored, this is a challenge to the clergy and the scholars.

But if it continues (this Friday as well) the scholars will sit to decide over the interference in the religious affairs. We can think of a war in that case and it could lead to bloodshed. It is completely unacceptable that people are prevented from going to the mosque because the government fears. It is taking us to the course of a Muslim Kashmir versus a communal and biased state, a path we do not want to take.

KL: Do you foresee politics ever getting de-linked from religion in Kashmir?

MU: You can not. Even Islam does not distinguish between religion and politics. We believe in the politics of justice. Kashmir is a political problem but we can completely ignore the religious undertones that the issue has.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here