Seeking a win-win-win solution: An interview with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq

When Mirwaiz Muhammad Farooq, chief cleric of Kashmir, was assassinated in 1990 by unidentified gunmen, his 14-year-old son Umar was anointed his successor. Later, as a college student in Srinagar, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq became the chairman of the largest coalition of secessionist parties, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC). Following hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani's split from the APHC in 2003, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has been heading the moderate faction of the Hurriyat. Riyaz Masroor interviewed the Mirwaiz, who is also currently working on a PhD thesis on Sufism.

Islamabad and your faction of the Hurriyat Conference seem quite optimistic about a Kashmir solution.

We have enough reasons to be optimistic. The Line of Control is locally known as Khooni Lakeer [Bleeding Line]. India and Pakistan have fought battles over it, and many thousand Kashmiris have died in crossfire and while fighting for freedom. Now, the Indian and Pakistani armies have been honouring a ceasefire on this line for nearly four years. Not only this, but a bus service has also been launched. There are meeting points on the LoC. We don't say we have achieved everything, but these confidence-building measures [CBMs] have reinforced the perception that a purely political problem cannot have military solutions. We do have apprehensions about the slow pace of the peace process and the lack of impact on the ground of these CBMs, yet we do hope that India and Pakistan would respond to the aspirations of the people of J & K in such a manner as would appear a victory for everyone. There is much talk of a win-win solution. I daresay it's not only win-win, but win-win-win: for all the three players, India, Pakistan and Kashmir.

Recently, you told a public meeting outside Srinagar that a solution would appear within three months. Are India and Pakistan ready to move ahead?

President General Pervez Musharraf has personally confided to me that his government has shared papers about the solution with India. As far as my information goes, New Delhi has moved a bit, yet it wants to move slowly and is providing the pretext of democracy. But the Indian prime minister has taken the opposition into confidence. Right now, you may not be able to gauge how much India has moved forward, for it is facing elections in key states, including Uttar Pradesh. The Congress party has already lost Punjab. This is politics, and whatever bitterness seems to emanate from New Delhi, is nothing but posturing.

Has General Musharraf formally presented his latest four-point proposal to India?

There is a lot of progress in the peace process as far as the two countries are concerned. The only thing is how to make this solution useful and acceptable to the people in J & K. Papers have been exchanged. Musharraf might not have personally handed them over to Manmohan Singh, yet it has happened at top government levels.

Does your present mass-contact programme aim at canvassing for General Musharraf's four-point proposal?

Of course we are reaching out to the people with the new concept. There is a tremendous response. The struggle of Kashmir has been transformed. Yesterday, people were drawn towards emotional and rhetorical slogans. Now, they want free space to live, to speak and to move around. That's why we are demanding demilitarisation. People in Kashmir, Rajouri, Poonch, Doda, and other places have been trapped; I believe 70 percent of the land is under the army's occupation. When the earthquake razed hundreds of houses in the Northern Uri area, I personally visited there, and had a tiff with an army officer. He tried to stop us from offering prayers in an open ground. This is unwarranted intervention. We want the army out of our social and political lives.

Does your concept of demilitarisation include the disarming of militants?

Absolutely. When the army is out, militants will lose the logical argument. Militants will automatically leave after the lands are returned to the rightful owners, and the fenced and trapped villages begin to breathe free air. We have already offered to broker the ceasefire once Indian troops leave the populated areas.

Did you try to persuade militants to call a ceasefire during your visit to Pakistan?

This chicken-and-egg story should be discouraged: this is not a question of who should withdraw first. We are facing an enormous army presence in J & K, and it's a hurdle in the peace process. There are more than 800,000 troops in the state. Buildings, orchards, sports grounds, schools and colleges are under army occupation. The Indian Army higher-ups have said many times that the number of active militants in the state is less than 1200. The army's sustained presence among the population has ruined our socio-economic set up.

What about New Delhi's decision to set up review panels for recommending troop cuts in J & K?

The Indian prime minister and his defence minister have several times dismissed the possibility of troop withdrawal. If they want to relocate them as a matter of operational requirement, the people are not foolish enough to take it as some kind of concession. Some politicians who are closer to Delhi want to take credit for what is mere hype. They try to mislead people, and we are making people aware of such machinations.

Why didn't you participate in the prime minister's roundtable conference in April?

We were not invited.

But the media reported that you were invited.

The local deputy commissioner had delivered a written invitation on behalf of the Indian Home Ministry. The way we were invited did not reflect seriousness. It was as if everything was normal in Kashmir, and the Home Ministry wanted to discuss some administrative matters with politicians of a state, just as routinely as it would do in the case of a Maharashtra or Gujarat. The prime minister should have personally invited us for an exclusive meeting. In such a meeting, what is the role of a politician who has no problem with the accession pact, which Maharaja had signed under duress with the government of India in 1947?

Do you want Prime Minister Singh to invite you for an exclusive roundtable conference?

Yes. We have conceived the idea of three-way talks. Indo-Pakistani dialogue forms one track, while the talks between New Delhi-Hurriyat and Islamabad-Hurriyat are the other two tracks. We have been talking to Islamabad quite clearly, yet India, in its eagerness to rehabilitate its proxies in Kashmir, has of late confused the process by involving pro-India parties in the sensitive dialogue process. We have made it clear that we will not shy away from talks because we have a strong case. We had announced that the Hurriyat Conference would discuss the invite in its executive body but there was no official invitation. We could take a decision on the merit of this Conference. We do have certain reservations about the form of this process. New Delhi wants to shift focus from the main issue of resolution to peripheral matters. We are not opposed to the administrative reforms or steps taken to strengthen the governance, but it becomes objectionable when New Delhi propagates the idea that these conferences and working groups will solve the Kashmir problem.

Do the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party have a role to play in the resolution process?

We are happy to see them championing the same cause as we have long been espousing. But their integrity is doubtful, and people think that they are doing image-building exercises in favour of Delhi – and in the process, garnering support for the forthcoming elections. I challenge them to seek votes on what they believe in politically. Let them tell people in rallies that they want J & K to be an integral part of India and you will see them lose their deposit.

General Musharraf has termed the UN resolutions on Kashmir irrelevant. Nonetheless, you still speak of people's right of self-determination.

Flexibility should not be misunderstood. We are saying that there could never be a military solution. Pakistan and Kashmiris have shown their willingness for a non-military solution. It is India that is still keeping her forces in Kashmir. UN resolutions provide a legal input to the dispute, though they are not relevant in their entirety. We are for a negotiated settlement, but all three players should actively participate in that negotiation. That is why we had introduced the idea of three-way talks between the APHC, India and Pakistan. We have met the Indian leadership a couple of times and they have gone on the record recognising the need for such a process. We have assured New Delhi that, once they create the impact of the peace process on the ground, we would persuade armed groups for a ceasefire.

Many believe that the APHC would contest the next elections.

I don't mind saying yes, because that is a genuine democratic exercise to ascertain popular acceptance of a particular viewpoint. But J&K is a disputed territory hence it is not possible for the elections to deliver the true verdict within either the Indian or Pakistani constitution. Still, we believe that people need governance and if for the sake of governance – and I stress this, for governance alone – some politicians are fighting, we won't be a hurdle. However we have the right to make people aware of certain political machinations.

What is your model for resolving the Kashmir issue?

The process has to be understood. We are not proposing a tailor-made solution to be pushed on the Kashmiri population. Finding an alternative solution to what people had believed as an ultimate destination for six long decades is an uphill task and I should tell you that we are halfway through. The process is evolutionary. Various confidence-building measures have helped us to at least identify the contours of that solution. And India and Pakistan during recent meetings have sketched out a rough drawing. People in India, Pakistan and Kashmir have to be rallied behind that sketch.

Can you share some of the outlines of that 'rough drawing'?

This sketch would be clearer if the government of India were to take a realistic, pragmatic and fair view of our demand for demilitarisation in J & K. Once the region is demilitarised, people in different parts would be given the opportunity to elect their regional assemblies in Pakistani and Indian parts of Kashmir.

Would that lead to your 'United States of Kashmir' model?

Well, that is how we put it.

Would you aspire to become the president of that United States of Kashmir?

(Laughs) Once things are settled and the society is cleared of military intervention, people would get a chance to elect their leaders. At that time we would go to the people with the achievement and seek their mandate.