http://arabnews.com/world/article105258.ece
There can be no dialogue with India, says Syed Ali Shah Geelani
By SIRAJ WAHAB
Published: Aug 17, 2010 23:27 Updated: Aug 17, 2010 23:27
A key leader of Kashmir's growing anti-India movement says New Delhi's offer of talks is meaningless. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the octogenarian leader whose call for unarmed protests has galvanized thousands of activists to take to the streets in Indian-administered Kashmir, said he had heard of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's offer of talks during his speech at Delhi's historic Red Fort on Aug. 15.
"Yes, Singh did say that New Delhi is ready for talks but in the same breath he insisted that Kashmir was an integral part of India," said Geelani in an interview with Arab News by telephone from Srinagar on Tuesday. "There lies the whole problem ... If India refuses to consider Kashmir a disputed territory, then what is the point of holding talks?"
Geelani heads his own faction of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. He was written off as a spent force by India after the recent assembly elections that saw a huge turnout of Kashmiris. The result was seen as a vote for India. It was seen as a vote against separatists. Geelani says that was never the case. People took part in the election to put into place a local administration to take care of their day-to-day civic needs.
Today, Geelani is the one who commands complete respect from the Kashmiris. He is the undisputed leader of the insurgency at the moment. India has consistently tried to court him but he has refused to take the bait and insists that a plebiscite as demanded by UN resolutions is the only answer to the problem. It is interesting to note that Geelani has not always been a separatist leader. He was a member of the Kashmir Assembly for 15 years. "We adopted the democratic process but India paid no attention to solving this dispute. It continued to indulge in political machinations. It bought some people; it suppressed some and killed others. That is when I lost faith in India. India is still resorting to the same methods."
Following are excerpts from the interview:
Q: What is the situation in Kashmir?
A: We have called for a complete strike in the valley and everybody is paying heed to our call. Everything has come to a standstill. The state government has imposed curfew in many areas. I just came back home after spending two days in hospital. (He coughs intermittently during the talk; his son tells us that he was complaining of breathlessness and therefore had to be hospitalized and put on oxygen.) The whole city is deserted. In every nook and cranny there are Indian troops. The Central Reserve Police Forces are everywhere. Nobody is being allowed to come out onto the streets.
Q: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has extended what is being described as an olive branch to the separatists. He has offered to hold talks with you. Are you ready for talks?
A: Yes, he did say that New Delhi was ready for talks but in the same breath he insisted that Kashmir was an integral part of India. There lies the whole problem ... If India refuses to consider Kashmir a disputed territory then what is the point of holding talks? We agree that meaningful dialogue is one way of settling this issue but the most important requirement is for India to agree that Kashmir is indeed a disputed territory as accepted by the United Nations. Our case is very well documented in the world body. Kashmiris are asking for self determination. They are asking for freedom. They are asking India to honor its promise of holding a plebiscite. Naked military force will not extinguish the flame of freedom. Dialogue at the point of a gun has not resulted in anything, either in the past nor will it result in anything in the future.
Q: During the recent assembly elections, which were held a few months ago, there was an unprecedented and spontaneous turnout of Kashmiris. This led everyone to believe that Kashmiris have full faith in Indian democracy. The peaceful elections were seen as a blow to pro-independence people such as yourself. What led to the turning of the tide against Indian rule?
A: I am an eyewitness to the campaigning that took place in the run-up to the last assembly elections in which the Indian federal minister's Farooq Abdullah's National Conference party emerged victorious. Those who took part in the election process and those who cast their votes told us unambiguously and in public that they favored independence. "We are taking part in the electoral process to put in place the local administration. This has got to be set up in order to meet our day-to-day needs. We need roads, we need water, we need electricity," that is what the people told us. "Our votes should in no way mean that we are endorsing India's military rule over Kashmir. We were and we are with the pro-independence movement." However, India interpreted the writing on the wall in a different way. They thought the huge participation of Kashmiris in the assembly elections had driven a last nail in our coffin. Now you see and hear the people's voice in the streets of Kashmir. "Go back India," that is what they are shouting.
Q: How is this pro-independence movement different from the one in the late 1980s? That led to heavy bloodshed on both sides and ultimately resulted in nothing but misery for the Kashmiris.
A: In 1988, our youngsters were sick and tired of Indian atrocities. They were forced to take up the gun. They had no other choice. Delhi had closed the doors on all possible democratic and peaceful ways to solve the dispute. That was an armed struggle and the goal was to achieve freedom and a life of dignity. Since India believed only in showing off its military strength, our youngsters thought Delhi would only understand the same language. We supported the armed struggle because it was for a just cause. This time, however, they have not taken up the gun. This movement for freedom is completely peaceful from our side. This is a mass movement which is being led by our youngsters. They are not ordinary youngsters. They are educated young people. They are not asking for jobs. They are not asking for roads or water or electricity. They are just demanding one thing: Go, India, Go Back. They reject Indian rule. They are simply demanding freedom. They want to throw off the yoke of Indian rule. In return they are facing the full might of the Indian military state. I call this the worst example of state terrorism. The Indian troops create havoc during night raids. They break into homes at will. Pick up anybody they like. Rape our women. Our unarmed people are conducting peaceful demonstrations but they are being met with live bullets pumped straight into their chests. So far nearly 60 of our youngsters have attained martyrdom. Nobody has a stick in his hand. Nobody is carrying a gun. Nobody has got tear-gas shells. This is a completely peaceful struggle for freedom and independence. So this is the basic difference between the movement of 1988 and 2010. It was an armed struggle then, now it is totally peaceful. We have vowed not to pick up a gun against India.
Q: What led to this rethinking? Was it because the separatists paid a heavy price in blood in the late 1980s and early 1990s?
A: Sept. 11, 2001, changed everything. All armed struggles, whether they were just or otherwise were linked to terrorism. Our struggle too was bracketed with terrorism. Pakistan, which supported us, too, possibly at the instructions of the United States, clubbed our struggle with terrorism. That led to a rethinking in our ranks. In the initial days of this pro-independence movement, we took a conscious decision not to take up arms because we were afraid that our pious struggle would again be dubbed as terrorism by India and the outside world. So we opted for the path of peaceful struggle, which is what we are leading now. We want to run India out of excuses. Because the struggle in 1988 was armed, India justified the disproportionate use of military force. Now nobody can dare call us terrorists. This struggle has been on for the last two months. You will appreciate the fact that not one man in uniform has been killed at the hands of our men. We lost 60 people. They include women, children and the elderly. This is carnage and the world's so-called largest democracy is committing this carnage.
Q: There were reports in the Kashmiri media that you were not happy with the Organization of the Islamic Countries (OIC)?
A: They only pass resolutions. They are a group of 57 mostly Muslim countries. They should have some weight on the world stage. Some of these countries are economic heavyweights and oil producing countries. We expect them to pay special attention to what is happening in Kashmir. We are bound to them because of our common religion. They should exert pressure on India to stop the killing of Kashmiris. Can they not tell Delhi to stop violating the dignity of our women and children? Are we not their Islamic brothers? Just because these countries have huge economic interests with India, should that mean a carte blanche for India to do what it likes with Kashmiri Muslims? They should have the courage to ask this question of India. The OIC should play its role. It should immediately convene an extraordinary summit to discuss Kashmir. It is clearly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an to come to the aid of oppressed people. The sad reality is nobody is paying attention to our miseries. The world is silent.
Q: Pakistan was your greatest supporter. Are you in touch with the pro-freedom groups in Pakistan or the Pakistani leadership itself?
A: Pakistan is neck deep in trouble. The devastating floods have wreaked havoc in that country. And you know what happened in Karachi a few days ago. A member of the state legislature was killed and then in revenge killings, 80 people lost their lives. It seems the Dark Ages (jahaliya) have come back to haunt us. Pakistan is caught up in its own domestic problems. We are not in touch with them nor do we have any communication with them.
Q: Going back to India's offer of dialogue. You have rejected it. How do you think this deadlock can be broken?
A: There can be a way out only if India accepts publicly that Kashmir is a disputed territory. India should withdraw the occupation forces. The draconian laws that are in force should be declared null and void. These black laws are being used to stifle our voice. They have filled their jails with our people using brute force. My colleagues are all locked up. I am under house arrest most of the time. They don't allow me to meet my own people, to interact with them.
Q: State Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has appealed to the separatists to call off their protests. Will you heed his call?
A: The police and military apparatus are under his command. They take orders from him. He should ask them to stop firing on unarmed civilians. He should ask them to stop killing innocent people. Stop arresting the people. Stop caning peaceful demonstrators. We are not the ones indulging in violence. It is his men. Why is he requesting us to do something that is not is our hands? The Indian prime minister said the same things. "Abjure violence," he told us. These are plain lies. Not a single policeman or military man has lost his life because of our protests. It is the Indian state that is using brute force to suppress the spontaneous reaction of our people. India and its leaders are too well known for indulging in the politics of lies and deceit.
Q: It was the general belief that with the Congress party in power, Kashmiris would feel comfortable. Manmohan Singh is described as a respectable and reasonable man and a good prime minister.
A: This is just wishful thinking. They are all the followers of the politics of Chanakya. To expect politics of principle and reason from them is to live in a fool's paradise. India believes in the policy of expansionism. They are drunk on power, and they are doing exactly what Ghenghis Khan and Hulagu did in their times and what Hitler and Mussolini did in theirs.
