'There can be no dialogue with India, says Syed Ali Shah Geelani' - Interview by Siraj Wahab, Arab Times

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.

(Indian Prime Minister Manmohan) Singh allays Arab concern - Arab Times

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article23074.ece

Singh allays Arab concern

By ARAB NEWS

Published: Feb 27, 2010 12:45 AM Updated: Feb 27, 2010 4:57 PM

JEDDAH: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that Arab concern about growing Indo-Israeli defense cooperation is "misplaced."

Last year it was reported that Israel had replaced Russia as India's top supplier of defense equipment. The Indian premier was speaking in a special interview prior to his visit to the Kingdom. He arrives Saturday at the head of one of the most important Indian delegations to visit the Kingdom in years.

"Our relationship with no single country is at the expense of our relations with any other country," he said.

As to India's support for Palestine, it was "an article of faith for us," he added.

"Our solidarity with the people of Palestine predates our independence," he said. "India supports a peaceful solution that would result in a sovereign, independent, viable and united state of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, side by side at peace with Israel."

The Arab Peace Plan, the Quartet road map and the various UN Security Council resolutions on the issue were firmly supported by India. He recently confirmed this to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during the latter's visit to Delhi a fortnight ago.

The relationship with Saudi Arabia was of prime importance for India, the premier said. Trade was of particular importance. Following the visit of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah in January 2006 — a visit the Indian premier called a "landmark event" — the two countries have made "considerable" progress in strengthening their relationship, he said. "There have been regular high-level ministerial exchanges as well as intensified interaction among the business community, academia and other sections of society," he explained.

The India-Saudi Arabia Joint Commission that met in November drew up "ambitious" plans, he said, pointing out that trade between the two countries is worth over SR95 billion and that Saudi Arabia is India's fourth largest trading partner. He also pointed to the number of joint ventures involving Indian investors in the Kingdom. This stood at over 500 and was worth over SR7.5 billion. India was equally looking hopefully to greater Saudi investment in the opposite direction, he added.

He hoped his visit would provide ample opportunity for "interacting with the members of the business community in Saudi Arabia and inviting them to be a partner in India's rapid socioeconomic transformation through major infrastructure, energy, industry and services related projects."

The visit would, he revealed, result in several cooperation agreements in economic, cultural, scientific, technological and information technology fields. "I am confident these will further enrich our close relations," he said.

As both countries rapidly modernize, greater cooperation makes sense, he declared.  Both have a "huge stake" in each other's success, and to that extent the relationship is of "strategic importance".

"I would like to see a much greater integration of our economies, higher flow of trade and investment, better connectivity and freer flow of ideas and people," Singh declared.

An important aspect of his visit would be political cooperation, particularly regional security, he said. India and Saudi Arabia "belong to the same extended neighborhood," he explained. "In the Delhi Declaration, we had pledged to work together not just for our bilateral benefit, but also to promote peace, stability and security in the region and the world."

He believed that India and Saudi Arabia had a particular responsibility to ensure peace in the area. "We are witnessing significant geopolitical developments, which will directly impact on the peace and stability in the region," he said. "All these issues need to be addressed through sustained efforts."

Singh said he would talk about regional issues with King Abdullah, and "discuss how we can work together to address the complex issues at hand."

For him terrorism remains "the single biggest threat to peace, stability and to our progress." He indicated a need for closer cooperation to confront it at regional level. All GCC countries, he said, shared India's concerns on extremism and terrorism. In particular, India rejected the idea that "any religion or cause" could be used to justify violence against innocent people.

"We have institutionalized our cooperation with the Gulf countries by putting in place various security cooperation agreements, including extradition treaties," Singh said.

But much more needs to be done, he added. "Given the fact that today extremist and terrorist activities straddle South Asia and West Asia and constitute a grave threat to our peoples, I agree that the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) and GCC anti-terrorism efforts should be more effectively coordinated."

Sounding a somber but encouraging note on relations with Pakistan, the Indian prime minister said that terrorism was the "primary" issue. "We seek a peaceful and normal relationship with Pakistan," he said. "In that quest we have consistently sought to engage those in Pakistan who are ready to work with us. There is no alternative to dialogue to resolve the issues that divide us."

Taking a conciliatory view, he made it clear that he saw Pakistan as a victim of terrorism too. "As a neighbor, we cannot remain immune to the rise of extremism and terrorism in Pakistan, or on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Extremism and terrorism are major threats not only to India, but also to Pakistan, and all its other neighbors," he said.

It was in the region's collective interest that "we resolutely oppose, resist and overcome terrorism and all those who nurture, sustain and give sanctuary to terrorists and extremist elements."

On the Kashmir issue in particular, he said that India was ready to discuss "all issues" with Islamabad "in an atmosphere free from terrorism" — a statement that could be seen as a precondition. 

The Indian prime minister welcomed King Abdullah's inter-faith initiative and indicated he saw a role for India, which valued "the principles of peaceful coexistence and harmony among nations".  India would, he said, work with all like-minded countries to create a "just and equitable international order that is conducive to meeting the challenges of poverty, illiteracy and hunger."

Indians, he said, well understood and supported the concept of inter-faith dialogue. "The knowledge of religious beliefs and practices of other people is important in itself and can foster greater understanding and tolerance," he said. "We have experience of this in our own country."

Islam is, he said, "an integral part of India's democratic and secular fabric.  Muslims in India are part of our national mosaic and have enriched our society."

Speaking about the welfare of the 1.7 million Indians living and working in the Kingdom, he said it was a matter of "high priority" for his government. The Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs had, he said,  "worked tirelessly" for the welfare of the Indian community in hand with governments in the Gulf. Arrangements had been put in place to help Indians facing problems, including a 24-hour helpline, temporary shelters, counseling centers and improved community welfare offices at the embassy in Riyadh and the consulate-general in Jeddah.

He indicated, however, that more would have to be done. "We are in the process of reforming our own procedures, including better regulation of the recruitment process."

There are reports of a new Indian initiative planned on this in the next few weeks.